Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

[FW17]

OWG never...

I agree that overtaking was curiously neglected by the Overtaking Working Group. It seems they erroneously skipped the question and dove straight into what they thought was the answer.

That said, I don't think it's fair to say anyone claimed to "...not understand the interaction of rear wing and diffuser..." I'm sure everyone had a excellent understanding of how those components work together on the same car. But the idea was to understand the effect on trailing cars, which no one had seriously investigated until that point, because it was never a design priority.

How much would the 3 of them understood with a budget of $500K


I think we should stop all this wing and floor talk and move straight to the fan solution

[bhall II]

How much would the 3 of them understood with a budget of $500K

What does that even mean?

[FW17]

How much would the 3 of them understood with a budget of $500K

What does that even mean?

That is the amount the OWG spent over a few months of 2007 for their model study using the Fondtech Windtunnel

[bhall II]

They finally used those flaps for balance corrections mainly, wich proves DF can be adjusted with active aero. They only needed to go a bit further (to be able to increase DF more), and also limit the use of those active flaps when they´re within one second to the car in front

What about the adjustable ride height idea? What´s the reason they didn´t use it?

With the understanding that relatively small changes to AoA are far easier to manage on the fly than relatively large changes to AoA, what does it suggest that a system intended to combat wake turbulence was instead used to balance the car?

And I don't know anything about why there are differences between the regulatory framework and the final regulations. I didn't know framework even existed until yesterday.

Could that improve DF on the FW enough when in dirty air to make any noticeable difference?

I'll put it like this: any solution that involves standardizing components is potentially viable when it comes to reducing sensitivity to wake turbulence. But, the only permanent solution is to standardize everything, and no aero solution is guaranteed to promote closer racing or increase overtaking - too many variables.

That is the amount the OWG spent over a few months of 2007 for their model study using the Fondtech Windtunnel

But, why is that relevant?

[Cold Fussion]

That is the amount the OWG spent over a few months of 2007 for their model study using the Fondtech Windtunnel

But, why is that relevant?

He is saying that 500k doesn't get you a lot of testing time (not sure how true that is) and thus implying that the work the OWG did couldn't be overly comprehensive.

[Andres125sx]

They finally used those flaps for balance corrections mainly, wich proves DF can be adjusted with active aero. They only needed to go a bit further (to be able to increase DF more), and also limit the use of those active flaps when they´re within one second to the car in front

What about the adjustable ride height idea? What´s the reason they didn´t use it?

With the understanding that relatively small changes to AoA are far easier to manage on the fly than relatively large changes to AoA, what does it suggest that a system intended to combat wake turbulence was instead used to balance the car?

It suggest the flaps should be much bigger to be really effective in wake turbulence maybe?

Could that improve DF on the FW enough when in dirty air to make any noticeable difference?

I'll put it like this: any solution that involves standardizing components....

Who said anything about standarizing?

I´m talking about removing some ban to permit active aero. Far from standarizing, actually the opposite


I know what you mean about standarizing as the only solution to avoid aero becoming too complicated, and too wake sensitive, but....

What´s the reason for you to think this would be any different to current situation? What you say is obviously a problem, but it is already a problem today, so I don´t see any reason the same shouldn´t be better if active aero is allowed when in dirty air. We´d have same problem than today, but with cars wich can (more or less) compensate the decrease in DF when in dirty air

and no aero solution is guaranteed to promote closer racing or increase overtaking - too many variables.

No action actually guarantee closer racing will never happen

I know this would be difficult, with many problems, many variables to figure out.... but that´s what any development implies. Ask Honda . But I can´t see it as an unsolvable problem.... at least if there´s will to solve the problem


Even when there would be many variables, one of them we already know wich is harming overtaking is F1 cars loose DF and balance when in dirty air because of the wake turbulence reducing aero efficiency. So if you cannot improve efficiency enough (dirty air will always be there), then increase DF potential so even when working on same poor efficiency, total DF will be higher, minimizing the drop in DF when in dirty air

There´s no guarantee for anything, but improving DF on the trailing car will always help drivers to attack the car in front as they could run closer

Then we will still suffer from many other variables like tight tracks, one line races due to marbles, conservative rules wich demotivate drivers to be aggressive.... agree, but the only way to solve complicated problems with many variables is discarding (solving) variables one by one

[bhall II]

1. Bigger flaps would give the leading car more downforce, thus a larger turbulent wake to overcome. It would also make aeromapping exponentially more difficult. (It's also unlikely to solve anything.)

2. What I meant is that any idea can be put to a litmus test of sorts by asking a few questions. Does the idea standardize any part of the car? If not, it's unlikely to be effective, because development will inevitably negate it. If so, how much of the car will be standardized?

Limited standardization will tend to have a limited, relatively short-lived impact on sensitivity, but it won't compromise performance as much in other areas. More liberal standardization will have a greater, longer-lasting impact on sensitivity, but it's also more likely to compromise performance elsewhere.

Factors like that are every bit as important as the actual physics of the idea.

3. Personally, I'd like to see the findings of a legitimate Overtaking Working Group before any other changes are made with regard to overtaking. As Pat Symonds said, no one has a truly holistic understanding of the subject, and I think that's because no one has looked for it anywhere outside a wind tunnel. Someone needs to look through lap charts, comb through historical data to analyze design trends, interview people who've been involved with the sport across different eras, etc. That would seem to be the best way to find guidance about how to interpret relevant technical data.

Until that happens, any decisions made will be like that of a doctor who treats every cough with chemotherapy as if it's cancer, and that's one hell of a way to address the common cold.

That is the amount the OWG spent over a few months of 2007 for their model study using the Fondtech Windtunnel

But, why is that relevant?

He is saying that 500k doesn't get you a lot of testing time (not sure how true that is) and thus implying that the work the OWG did couldn't be overly comprehensive.

Thanks.

The complete failure of the OWG to achieve its stated goals is enough evidence for me. And if the whole thing was politically motivated by hidden agendas, they did it all sorts of wrong, because not one of the teams represented has been as successful afterward as it was before. Ferrari and McLaren fell particularly hard.

[Andres125sx]

2. What I meant is that any idea can be put to a litmus test of sorts by asking a few questions. Does the idea standardize any part of the car? If not, it's unlikely to be effective, because development will inevitably negate it.

Based on what?

I don´t see how development could negate at any point a system creating more DF moving the car/wing down, or using a fan...

I´m afraid you´re considering the subject from the traditional point of view, wich was modifying the cars equally for everybody at any time. In that case yes, I agree, development will inevitably negate that, but if the solution is not constant (same for all cars), but only applied when necessary (fan connected when in dirty air), then development will never negate that, because it´s not posible for a car without a fan to create same DF than a car identical to the first, but with a fan. No development will negate this not even in a century

As Pat Symonds said, no one yet has a truly holistic understanding of the subject, and I think that's because no one has looked for it anywhere outside a wind tunnel. Someone needs to look through lap charts, comb through historical data, interview people who've been involved with the sport across different eras, etc. That's the only way to find guidance about how to use the relevant technical data.

Until that happens, any decisions made will be like that of a doctor who treats every cough with chemotherapy as if it's cancer. That's a hell of a way to recover from a cold.

But that didn´t stop you before claimming the only solution wich could be effective is standarizing cars.... How´s that Bhall? We can´t know the solution because nobody studied the subject deep enough? Or the only solution is standarizing cars?


IMHO you get lost at some point. I agree there are many factors affecting overtaking and probably we don´t know many of them. But that does not mean we know nothing at the respect. We know for a fact dirty air reduce aero efficiency, so DF is reduced too, and that obviously is a big handicap for drivers when trying to overtake. We don´t need any more knownledge at the respect, we know this problem, so we should solve it, as simple as that.

After that we will see what´s next, but problems must be solved one by one

[bhall II]

...but if the solution is not constant (same for all cars), but only applied when necessary (fan connected when in dirty air), then development will never negate that, because it´s not posible for a car without a fan to create same DF than a car identical to the first, but with a fan. No development will negate this not even in a century.

Then explain the precipitous decline in overtaking from 2011 to 2015 - the sharpest in 30 years - despite the ubiquity of selectively-applied DRS.

But that didn´t stop you before claimming the only solution wich could be effective is standarizing cars.... How´s that Bhall? We can´t know the solution because nobody studied the subject deep enough? Or the only solution is standarizing cars?

Without a broad understanding of the factors involved, blindly implementing changes can easily make the problem worse...

"Almost all of the attempts to reduce downforce in the recent past have been retrograde in terms of overtaking possibilities and wake behaviour," one member of the OWG said. "If we had wanted to make overtaking chances worse, that was what we would have come up with."

I'm still of the mind that this whole thing is a futile waste of time and resources. But, it seems not everyone shares my reluctance to continue pissing in the wind.

[turbof1]

After that we will see what´s next, but problems must be solved one by one

That's going into symantics. The first step is identifying there is a problem, the second one analysing, understanding it. The problem has been identified long ango, but what seems the issue now is that nobody really understands it.

But that didn´t stop you before claimming the only solution wich could be effective is standarizing cars.... How´s that Bhall? We can´t know the solution because nobody studied the subject deep enough? Or the only solution is standarizing cars?

Standarizing the cars means you control the environment in which the problem manifests itself, meaning you can simplify the issue by removing environment factors you do not understand related to the problem. Secondly, by standarizing you will ensure no unforeseen developments will take place which make the problem worse again. You are basically solving the problem without trying to understand it completely.

(Note I am completely against standarizing)

[miqi23]

After that we will see what´s next, but problems must be solved one by one

That's going into symantics. The first step is identifying there is a problem, the second one analysing, understanding it. The problem has been identified long ango, but what seems the issue now is that nobody really understands it.

But that didn´t stop you before claimming the only solution wich could be effective is standarizing cars.... How´s that Bhall? We can´t know the solution because nobody studied the subject deep enough? Or the only solution is standarizing cars?

Standarizing the cars means you control the environment in which the problem manifests itself, meaning you can simplify the issue by removing environment factors you do not understand related to the problem. Secondly, by standarizing you will ensure no unforeseen developments will take place which make the problem worse again. You are basically solving the problem without trying to understand it completely.

(Note I am completely against standarizing)

Why do you think no body understands the problem?

[bhall II]

Why do you think no body understands the problem?

"I think that's one of the concerns that people have, because none of us really fully understand overtaking," [Former OWG member, Pat] Symonds told ESPN. "We can apply some truisms to it, roughly it's a truism that if you've got more downforce then it's harder to overtake, but that's not completely true because there are certain aerodynamics that are more harmful than others. I don't think any of us really understand enough about it and it would be nice if we did."

[turbof1]

After that we will see what´s next, but problems must be solved one by one

That's going into symantics. The first step is identifying there is a problem, the second one analysing, understanding it. The problem has been identified long ango, but what seems the issue now is that nobody really understands it.

But that didn´t stop you before claimming the only solution wich could be effective is standarizing cars.... How´s that Bhall? We can´t know the solution because nobody studied the subject deep enough? Or the only solution is standarizing cars?

Standarizing the cars means you control the environment in which the problem manifests itself, meaning you can simplify the issue by removing environment factors you do not understand related to the problem. Secondly, by standarizing you will ensure no unforeseen developments will take place which make the problem worse again. You are basically solving the problem without trying to understand it completely.

(Note I am completely against standarizing)

Why do you think no body understands the problem?

Mind the subtle word "really". Most who shown an interest in the subject have a basic sense what's going on: turbulent airflow hampering the trailling car's downforce production. But that's where most knowledge ends, even for aero chiefs apparently. Most solutions, aimed or not aimed at reducing the interaction, until now have worked against solving the issue. Meaning in the 90's and 2000's most solutions reduced downforce yet made overtaking worse. The solutions applied in 2009 specifically aimed to reduce the effects of turbulent airflow in the trailling car, failed (we now know because of aero development being that unrelenting). Further reduction of downforce in 2014 led to another drop in overtaking, even with teams being atleast aware of the issue.

It's not a stretch to state then "nobody really understands it". Edit: and of course Bhall's quote.

[miqi23]

Why do you think no body understands the problem?

"I think that's one of the concerns that people have, because none of us really fully understand overtaking," [Former OWG member, Pat] Symonds told ESPN. "We can apply some truisms to it, roughly it's a truism that if you've got more downforce then it's harder to overtake, but that's not completely true because there are certain aerodynamics that are more harmful than others. I don't think any of us really understand enough about it and it would be nice if we did."

Yes, I read that earlier. I know what Mr Symonds said! He says that 'they' don't understand it BUT why do you think that is?

[turbof1]

Why do you think no body understands the problem?

"I think that's one of the concerns that people have, because none of us really fully understand overtaking," [Former OWG member, Pat] Symonds told ESPN. "We can apply some truisms to it, roughly it's a truism that if you've got more downforce then it's harder to overtake, but that's not completely true because there are certain aerodynamics that are more harmful than others. I don't think any of us really understand enough about it and it would be nice if we did."

Yes, I read that earlier. I know what Mr Symonds said! He says that 'they' don't understand it BUT why do you think that is?

Because it is simply not their job. Their function has concerning the car one and only one goal: increasing it's performance. It's why experienced aero chiefs got surprising results the previous time when they specifically focussed on the subject.

In order to understand the problem truly, you'd have to put a group of experienced aerodynamicists currently none related to a team, and give them enough resources and time to do the science. Under resources I do mean on track testing with current grade F1 tech, as one of those resources. Not just windtunnel testing.

For the record and for the sake of avoiding hypocrity: I have some of my own opinions which could be solutions. I believe I stated them before a few pages back. Just mind that having an opinion, does not mean I really understand the issue any better.