Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

[ringo]

They only way to restrict the aero spending is to establish a spec body shape. Anything less that that and the teams continue to do aero development.

I though this discussion was about an over dependance on aero vs mechanical design. Cost or performance was not a concern.

Brian

Yes and it is being side tracked. Ferrari's concern isn't so much the downforce. It's really how much the aero is contributing to the outcome of lap time.

Restricting aero wont solve anthing. it will still leave us in the same problem.

What needs to be done is to make aero less significant. All the fancy shmancy methods i see being introduced here wont change the fact that aero will have a 90% stake in lap time.
Reducing downforce ins't the way to go either. As we have to look on the spectacle.

Making it so that each team has the same body for the car like a spec series still doesn't solve the problem and it's un F1 like.

So I'll say again; increasing the power by 30% is a viable solution. And it's less dream like than some of the solutions being posted.

Couple this with reduced wing size and increased ground effect (maybe start the diffuser 200mm in front of the rear wheel center line, instead of at it, and add 25 mm of skirting on the edges of the floor) and we have less drag but same levels of downforce, with the overwhelming power of the engine.

Ferrari would smile if this was presented to them on a clip board.

[WhiteBlue]

So I'll say again; increasing the power by 30% is a viable solution.

No, it isn't. You are not going to do this with the fuel formula that is coming into effect in two years time. It is physically not possible particularly not with a fuel wasting V6. And if you think that the owner of F1 (the FiA) will step away from their fuel efficiency requirement you are simply dreaming. We are living in F1 reality. So your dream isn't viable.

Even if you argue from a purely theoretical point of view it makes no sense. More power doesn't automatically decrease the dependency from aerodynamics all other things being equal. You still have to find restrictions by resources or rules or the aerodynamicists will simply utilize the higher power to generate more downforce. This will make the current tracks less safe and your dream formula goes out of the window again.

So if we examine the nature of your proposal we simply find it motivated by petrol head gut feeling. In a nut shell it says: "More VROOOOMMMM is better" But in reality it will not work.

[ringo]

Even if you argue from a purely theoretical point of view it makes no sense. More power doesn't automatically decrease the dependency from aerodynamics all other things being equal. You still have to find restrictions by resources or rules or the aerodynamicists will simply utilize the higher power to generate more downforce. .

You simply fail to look at what is really happening. Does a go Kart have aerodynamics?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eck8QpTRFY0[/youtube]

does a super kart have aero dynamics?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6H2HvsiTjo[/youtube]

One has much more power and has made an aerodynamic improvement to match the aero with the power.

What if this aero improvement wasn't made. What do you think would be the dominant factor?

I know you have an agenda for fuel saving. I am not looking at that and i am not looking at what the FIA claims to do in the coming years. I am simply looking at a viable solution to reduce the influence aero has on the racing.
I couldn't care less if the F1 can do 300km on 10 grams of soy bean oil. That doesn't equate to entertainment or specatacle or racing it self. That is not racing; that is simply using a sport to make political statements.

You are not going to do this with the fuel formula that is coming into effect in two years time. It is physically not possible particularly not with a fuel wasting V6.

Well you haven't looked at it correctly. Reduce the minimum weight of the car, which is in keeping with advances in the auto sector, and also to reintroduce refueling. Anyone who truly claims to be a supporter of fuel saving would agree that refueling is more cost effecting than any other solution.
250 hp more that's all i want.

the aerodynamicists will simply utilize the higher power to generate more downforce.

They cannot do that. The regulations determine how much aero parts can go on a car and their angle of attack, surface area etc.

This will make the current tracks less safe and your dream formula goes out of the window again.

The downforce wont be increased like you think. The levels will be similar to what we have now.
Current tracks are safe enough to contain a 1000 hp formula. You are probably too used to seeing overly controlled cars with little in the way of edge of your seat excitement on track.
1000 hp F1 can never be more dangerous than any MotoGP race, and many F1 tracks can host a moto GP race.
The drivers have a brake pedal too, they can figure out the safety.

So if we examine the nature of your proposal we simply find it motivated by petrol head gut feeling. .

Yes, guilty as charged!!
It's guys like me who would only pay to watch something that stimulates the senses. Not sure what reasons you watch F1 for.

In a nut shell it says: "More VROOOOMMMM is better" But in reality it will not work

We will see when the veiwership drops and the participation of manufacturers.

[WhiteBlue]

I still say that you are kidding yourself. In effect your proposal relies on containing aerodynamic influence by regulations. That is nothing new compared to the failed attempts of the past to do just that.

The other point is having cars that are totally over powered for their tyre grip like we had in the pre aero era. That is also not going to work. You cannot have ultimate performance on the current level and over powered cars. At the moment the car starts to slide it looses performance. And the motor heads will not like it either if performance goes down.

Your pet idea is simply unrealistic and as I said before it comes from thinking with the nuts.

[wesley123]

Ringo, you state that by increasing hp you will reduce aerodynamic dependence. Great that you think that but at least search a fitting example that strenghtens your point, not one that weakens. It seems quite clear that the superkart with more power has better aerodynamics.

I dont see how it would change anything. As you increase hp for everyone, so there still will be the same proportions, only with more hp. Excuse me but that you want to see more hp makes you blind of the rest, you got an idea that you think is good, but because of that you seem to not think anything around it.

Like said, increasing hp will be the same for everyone so the proportions on track will still be the same. Apart from that, there still is nothing more allowed on the mechanical side which is the reason aerodynamics dominate formula 1.

For example, people rate McLaren to have one of the worst gearboxes on the grid, this is going on for years, yet they still battle in the top. If there was more mechanical development and less dependence on aerodynamics McLaren would never battle with the top teams.

I will say it before but why, when being the 'pinnacle of motorsport' arent teams allowed to run a 4 cylinder turbo, or a large v12 engine? why does this has to be limited to a 2.4l v8? Oh and why are teams forced to run 7-speed gearboxes, why not allow them to run 25 gears for example? Why cant they run as much electronics as they want? Allow teams to do this and set a fuel cap for the race and i am 100% sure this will reduce aerodynamic dependence. Why you ask? Fuel consumption is a factor, so to crank df(and in turn sometimes drag) they first have to reduce fuel consumption. Teams will look much more to find techniques to reduce fuel consumption to in turn let their engines make more power or to bolt on more downforce. I do not know why they dont they take this into consideration, it worked great in the Group C's, Aero development wasnt super fast and teams constantly have to take fuel consumption into consideration. And when in the group C the consumption limit was removed and the teams had to run f1 engines, leading the way to what would be the current formula style regulations, the aero development went through the roof, actually showing us all how much the consumption limit had reduced aero development

[ringo]

I still say that you are kidding yourself. In effect your proposal relies on containing aerodynamic influence by regulations. That is nothing new compared to the failed attempts of the past to do just that.

.

Well that leaves room for innovation. But at the end of the day, the surface areas and control volumes can only generate so much down force.

The other point is having cars that are totally over powered for their tyre grip like we had in the pre aero era.

Ahh!! you are starting to see where i am going with this. It's only over powered if the driver steps on the throttle too much.

That is also not going to work. You cannot have ultimate performance on the current level and over powered cars. At the moment the car starts to slide it looses performance. And the motor heads will not like it either if performance goes down.

Performance wont go down. What you will have is a perception of loss of grip and some body movement in the turns, maybe more lock ups. But reality is the car is still going through the corners just as fast (the current downforce level permits this). It's the entry and exit that i want to make a little more dramatic.
We simply need more braking distance, and more driver skill in entry and exit.
More use of the engines power band, than a simple on and off switch like we are seeing today.

Your pet idea is simply unrealistic and as I said before it comes from thinking with the nuts

It's not unrealistic. I have made a clear proposal, show what changes i would make to current regs, which don't involve unknown costs like your proposals.

These are the main things:

engine wise:

Turbo engine, 1.8lt , 1000 bhp
rev limit 15000rpm.
boost limit 1.5 bar

fuel flow limit 44.2 g/s


Hmmm, lets use the 1.6lt engine. We would have 936 hp and 38 g/s of fuel.



Let's look at the aero:

Rear wing regulated volume reduced to monza type levels.
Front wing width now reduced to inboard of front wheels.

25mm skirts on the outer edges of the floor. Skirts to be flexible Kevlar, not prone to breakage over curbs or bumps.

Diffuser now starts 200mm ahead of rear wheel center line, instead of on the center line.



Now where is the unrealistic costs in all of this?

It's not as dreamy and floor level sensors regulated by the fia.
Then there is spending restrictions. That is too difficult to regulate.

Then with this:

twin scroll and multi stage exhaust turbines
- front and rear MGUKs
- active suspension
- variable valves
- variable turbo vanes
- energy storage research

You expect all this to happen within the space of 1 year with a reduced budget and reduce team size?
This is nuts.
Whitblue i think your ideas a less realistic. In fact they aren't possible to execute by 1 team. And in no way is this cheaper than my proposal.
Finally, how does all this affect the spectacle of racing. Why am i paying to watch something which i cannot see?

[wesley123]

And now you suddenly add rules like reducing wings and such? You havent said that before...

[ringo]

Ringo, you state that by increasing hp you will reduce aerodynamic dependence. Great that you think that but at least search a fitting example that strenghtens your point, not one that weakens. It seems quite clear that the superkart with more power has better aerodynamics.

No you are missing my point. I am showing that the super kart's power is overwhelming to the point that aero has to be improved drastically from the basic kart to be of influence to the racing. Proving there is a struggle between engine power and aero. They are not independent.
A racing series can decide how it wants to bias that balance. In F1 it is too much on the aero side.

This is contrary to what white blue thinks. Engine power makes a world of difference. Imagine if the F1 car only had 450 hp?
Wouldn't you say aero research would play an even bigger factor?

I dont see how it would change anything. As you increase hp for everyone, so there still will be the same proportions, only with more hp.

Correct. But horse power will have a bigger stake in lap time. WHy do you think Force India 2009 had a better chance at a podium at Monza or Spa?

Like said, increasing hp will be the same for everyone so the proportions on track will still be the same. Apart from that, there still is nothing more allowed on the mechanical side which is the reason aerodynamics dominate formula 1.

It will be the same for all, but all will have a better footing with the engine and mechanical side, than with aero dominating performance.

I will say it before but why, when being the 'pinnacle of motorsport' arent teams allowed to run a 4 cylinder turbo, or a large v12 engine? why does this has to be limited to a 2.4l v8? Oh and why are teams forced to run 7-speed gearboxes, why not allow them to run 25 gears for example? Why cant they run as much electronics as they want? Allow teams to do this and set a fuel cap for the race and i am 100% sure this will reduce aerodynamic dependence.

Not IMO. If aero gives the lap time then that will be what all will focus on.

Why you ask? Fuel consumption is a factor, so to crank df(and in turn sometimes drag) they first have to reduce fuel consumption. Teams will look much more to find techniques to reduce fuel consumption to in turn let their engines make more power or to bolt on more downforce.

I think any team will rather all out performance with a little more fuel weight.
It's something they can work out with their simulator.

[ringo]

And now you suddenly add rules like reducing wings and such? You havent said that before...

Yes i did. It's in this very same thread.

[wesley123]

And now you suddenly add rules like reducing wings and such? You havent said that before...

Yes i did. It's in this very same thread.

Seen it, quite late to mention it in the discussion, when you came with the idea to raise it this wasnt coupled to this.

This is contrary to what white blue thinks. Engine power makes a world of difference. Imagine if the F1 car only had 450 hp?
Wouldn't you say aero research would play an even bigger factor?

Only engine power simply isnt the way to go. 200hp or 2000hp neither of them alone would make racing more fun, but couple it to more freedom around it it would suddenly become interesting to use. When the new engine will be released aero will become even more dominant, since then engine manufacturers cant even make their own mounting points anymore.

Correct. But horse power will have a bigger stake in lap time. WHy do you think Force India 2009 had a better chance at a podium at Monza or Spa?

lower drag and an incredible amount of development.

Not IMO. If aero gives the lap time then that will be what all will focus on.

But give the teams the room to come with something great on the mechanical side and thus they'll shift more to the mechanical side. Currently I honestly doubt teams even seek for something new mechanical side, they'd rather wait for other series or road cars to come up with the idea. To start thinking about your own new damper is jus not worth the time, it might give a 0.01 second gain, where a new front wing can mean a second. And that is wrong.

I think any team will rather all out performance with a little more fuel weight.
It's something they can work out with their simulator.

They'll work it out in the simulator anyways so that's not the problem. But give them a challenge by limiting the available fuel to 100litre per race, that is around half they use now. Then they seriously need to think about how to reduce fuel consumption to increase horsepower/downforce, it worked great in Group C, and be fair those were probably the best series we've ever had.

We dont need to think only about on track action, but also how to diferentiate the cars, for exaple it would be great if we could name the teams based on the sound they make. I also love when a team comes up with a great idea and we are all here to understand it. Is that really possible now? Now we have things like how is red bull so fast, not how an innovative front damper makes red bull so fast.

[ringo]

I was trying to quanitfy the difference with skirts and no skirts.
Slapping on skirts to the current floors, is actually a draw back. The car needs tunnels. Flow by the rear wheel is an issue with the current flat floor with skirts.

Tunneled floor cars looks like where F1 should be heading; to take off some wing.

[wesley123]

And with that I agree. I would definately want to see tunnels again, and let these tunnels end before the rear wheels start.

[ringo]

funny enough i have repeated the tests. Skirts on the current car dont work.
Floor needs tunnels indeed.
The thing with a tunneled car though is the car may need to be wider than it is, due to the nature of keeping the wheels out of the way and having a resonably side tunnel.
Interesting. Should be able to have some concepts of what we could expect to see with a less aero dependent formula.

[wesley123]

I already had such idea of tunnels before as an 'concept' for the new rules. The idea was to have a central flat section from where the floor starts now until all the way to the back of the car. Then have a tunnel on each side of the crashbox with a height limit around the center of the wheel.

I could model a quick concept on the car I already have ready to show. But definetely the f1 needs tunnels with a much smaller rear wing. With the give them freedom on engines and gearboxes as well as other technology.

[strad]

The Karts are a good example...If the former had the aero of the latter it would literally slow the kart down. The aero has to match the NEEDS of the power.