Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

Post

It is quite obvious that the teams play a silly game. The aerodynamic config is changed ever other year in order to introduce some artificial progress. None of the shifting of downforce between wings and diffusor makes any sense to me.

The recipe for change is simple. Make sure that all resources including drive train are restricted at the current level and cut the aero resources in terms of CFD and tunnel time. Keep aero rules and configuration simple with very little restrictions but limit downforce. Re allocate resources from aero to drive train, suspension and such issues.

Unfortunately it is not likely that they will do the sensible things. Too many different agendas.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

Post

I think simply removing the wings or reducing their size would be a step in the right direction. ie if we are to maintain current power levels.
Having the F1 car like a road car, where all the tunnel work would be creating downforce from the body, and reducing drag. This would be very relevant to road cars, as the wind tunnel work would be the same. Downforce from the body and drag reduction from the body.

Aero needs to be present on the cars, but it shouldn't be cut to a point where the car can't corner like an F1 car.

For current cars with wings, I think the power needs to be increased as well. To the point it overcomes aero on the performance scale.
The cars need to have at least one thousand horse power, to cancel out the aero dominance, while at the same time still allow them to fly through corners at 5g's.

One thousand horsepower would change the racing drastically.
For Sure!!

User avatar
MIKEY_!
7
Joined: 10 Jul 2011, 03:07

Re: Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

Post

It would certainly make the racing more interesting!

wesley123
wesley123
204
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 17:55

Re: Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

Post

ringo wrote:I think simply removing the wings or reducing their size would be a step in the right direction. ie if we are to maintain current power levels.
Having the F1 car like a road car, where all the tunnel work would be creating downforce from the body, and reducing drag. This would be very relevant to road cars, as the wind tunnel work would be the same. Downforce from the body and drag reduction from the body.

Aero needs to be present on the cars, but it shouldn't be cut to a point where the car can't corner like an F1 car.
I am 100% sure that when you remove it's wings it will not be able to corner like an f1 anymore.
For current cars with wings, I think the power needs to be increased as well. To the point it overcomes aero on the performance scale.
The cars need to have at least one thousand horse power, to cancel out the aero dominance, while at the same time still allow them to fly through corners at 5g's.
I do not see how increasing hp cancels out aero dominance. There are more ristrictions on mechanical parts than on aerodynamics.
One thousand horsepower would change the racing drastically.
That is just not feasable. Not saying I would like it, it just doesnt fit the environment. You yourself said that F1 has to be more relevant to road cars. Road cars are all around reducing fuel consumption and you are not going to achieve the relevance by increasing the hp by another 250.

What I personally think is best is just to set an consumption limit, and then mainly on mechanical parts let them figure out themselves what is best.

Limit the amount of fuel to 100 litres for a race, by this they are forced to come up with technologies that reduce consumption and reduce drag to make it to the end of the race.

F1 should allow 20 speed gearboxes(well you get the point), F1 should allow diesel or whatever other fuel available, F1 should allow electronics, Afterall it is the pinacle of motorsport, and how can you be that in an era that is all about reduction and everything is done by computers and run a car that is limited on what they can develop as well has barely any electronics in it.

The problem is that every group want it their way. The political guys want F1 to go greener, Bernie wants to earn more cash. The teams want to reduce costs(which they don't so they are shooting themselves in the face), TV viewers want action on track, we want more technical freedom and then there are other guys who wants other things. Guess what is going on when you put this all together? This is something you cannot fit for everyone, so guess what happens, it goes the way the big guys want.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

Post

A road car isn't about fuel consumption.
If it were, all cars would be like smart cars, or bmw isetas. They would be small.

There is a trend since the inception of the car to increase horsepower. Even when fuel consumption is improving, the power of the engine is increasing.

Racing is about performance first and foremost. The aspect of road cars that should be adressed in racing is the performance aspect; not fuel crisis, or interior design, or colours, or trunk room.

And if F1 was serious about fuel consumption, there would be refueling and reduced car weight.
I am 100% sure that when you remove it's wings it will not be able to corner like an f1 anymore.
Depends on the regulations.
I do not see how increasing hp cancels out aero dominance. There are more ristrictions on mechanical parts than on aerodynamics.
It does. Notice how important aerodynamics is on a soap box car?
The more power you have the less impact the drag has on the car, The higher the end of straight speeds, the higher the braking distance, the higher the demand on the tyres, more oversteer/understeer correction.
Basically increasing the engine power, will make the car behave as if some of the aero was taken away. Just look on the above points underlined and tell me if these symptoms aren't one and the same for reducing aero.
The most important thing is that the cornering speeds are maintained.

In fact forget 1000hp, the cars should have about 1200hp. Put that in a 2011 car and you have a spectacle in your hands. It would bring Luca to tears of joy.
Close your eyes and take 5 seconds to imagine what 1200hp looks like from the driver's helmet in a current f1 car.
For Sure!!

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

Post

As wesley123 points out there are many agendas and this will not favour extreme solutions that are contrary to powerful interest groups.

This 1000 hp proposal is a red herring. F1 simply does not need this much power with the sophistication of tyre and chassis development we have seen in the last two decades. And why should the cars generate more power than they can sensibly need to reach a performance level that is appropriate. The only answer is: To waste it.

And then we have to look at what are the consequences. If we limit the performance then the higher power just means that the whole drive train will be build 20% heavier than it needs to be for 800 hp. That would be nonsense for a top level racing car.

If we say lets increase the performance by allowing even higher aerodynamic forces we increase the G-loads and the cornering speeds. This means the crash zones have to increase again to provide the same safety or we reduce the safety of the drivers. It would also not be a sensible way forward.

The FiA commissions which looked at the new engine formula have carefully studied those things and have decided to limit performance on the current level. I agree with that. The easiest way to nail the performance is limiting downforce. The other sensible thing to do is re introducing tunnels without skirts and diffusors. It would be a highly effective way of generating downforce with a better force bias between front and rear. It would also help to make the front wings smaller. The current wings cause a lot of accidents because the drivers cannot see them and they are so wide.

We would go back to a clean looking car which generates most of the downforce by the car's body and smaller wings. Basically cars would look more like the early eighties which would be cool.


Image
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

User avatar
MIKEY_!
7
Joined: 10 Jul 2011, 03:07

Re: Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

Post

wesley123 wrote:F1 should allow 20 speed gearboxes(well you get the point), F1 should allow diesel or whatever other fuel available, F1 should allow electronics, Afterall it is the pinacle of motorsport, and how can you be that in an era that is all about reduction and everything is done by computers and run a car that is limited on what they can develop as well has barely any electronics in it.
We need to be careful about fuels: they could use a diluted nitromethane mix couldn't they!

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

Post

WhiteBlue wrote: F1 simply does not need this much power with the sophistication of tyre and chassis development we have seen in the last two decades. And why should the cars generate more power than they can sensibly need to reach a performance level that is appropriate. The only answer is: To waste it.
Appropriate is relative. Remember this is entertainment first and foremost. F1 needs to be superfluous. If it isn't then people wont pay hundreds of dollars to watch it. Braking at 5 G or doing 200mph is not needed for 20 guys to go around a track. It's simply there because it has a degree of excessiveness and it boggles the mind. The car needs to be 1000hp. Many road cars out there have over 600, and many of them can do 0-60 in under 3 seconds. We need to move the bar to keep the sport at the pinnacle without cutting off to much meat engine and aero wise to make the cars mundane.
And then we have to look at what are the consequences. If we limit the performance then the higher power just means that the whole drive train will be build 20% heavier than it needs to be for 800 hp. That would be nonsense for a top level racing car.
No the gear box wont neccesarilly be 2o% heavier, and even it is so what? How heavy is a current gearbox?
If we say lets increase the performance by allowing even higher aerodynamic forces we increase the G-loads and the cornering speeds. This means the crash zones have to increase again to provide the same safety or we reduce the safety of the drivers. It would also not be a sensible way forward.
I don't want that. I want what Ferrari wants. Lesss aero influence, but by way of power increase.
The FiA commissions which looked at the new engine formula have carefully studied those things and have decided to limit performance on the current level. I agree with that. The easiest way to nail the performance is limiting downforce.

Nailing it where? As i said, this is subjective. There is no performance sweet spot. And where the FIA is setting it now they are going to regret it. F1 simply wont be a spectacle.
The other sensible thing to do is re introducing tunnels without skirts and diffusors. It would be a highly effective way of generating downforce with a better force bias between front and rear. It would also help to make the front wings smaller.
No problem. This was my other alternative; however the racing may not improve much.
Following will still be difficult.
For Sure!!

wesley123
wesley123
204
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 17:55

Re: Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

Post

ringo wrote:A road car isn't about fuel consumption.
If it were, all cars would be like smart cars, or bmw isetas. They would be small.

There is a trend since the inception of the car to increase horsepower. Even when fuel consumption is improving, the power of the engine is increasing.
Excuse me but then you have been under a rock for the past 10 years. Road car manufacturers more and more go for less consumption and research/use alternate fuels. Together with the f1 itself and most other autosports going green making a 1000hp engine just doesnt make sense.
Racing is about performance first and foremost. The aspect of road cars that should be adressed in racing is the performance aspect; not fuel crisis, or interior design, or colours, or trunk room.
And in what aspect has the F1 ever been relevant to road cars? I cannot think of any technology that was pioneered in F1 that was later used in road cars.

I don't see any reason to change that, the LMP is a much better way to use road car technology.

Apart from that, how can F1 ever be relevant to road cars if anything relevant is disallowed?
And if F1 was serious about fuel consumption, there would be refueling and reduced car weight.
Everything F1 does is incredibly half-arsed, take a look at KERS and sudden rule changes. It is rather they seem to want it to make themselves look good while filling their pockets even more, much like the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, although that is a whole different thing.
I am 100% sure that when you remove it's wings it will not be able to corner like an f1 anymore.
Depends on the regulations.
No it does not, you are taking around 60% of their aerodynamical grip, and that cannot be regained by mechanical grip. 60% is a large number and is there anything extra that these teams can use to gain mechanical grip that they dont use now? Sure there are a few things possible, but to what is known and what is allowed in f1 there isnt really a lot more to gain. That is when we dont go to 6 wheelers.
I do not see how increasing hp cancels out aero dominance. There are more ristrictions on mechanical parts than on aerodynamics.
It does. Notice how important aerodynamics is on a soap box car?
The more power you have the less impact the drag has on the car, The higher the end of straight speeds, the higher the braking distance, the higher the demand on the tyres, more oversteer/understeer correction.
Basically increasing the engine power, will make the car behave as if some of the aero was taken away. Just look on the above points underlined and tell me if these symptoms aren't one and the same for reducing aero.
The most important thing is that the cornering speeds are maintained.
Excuse me but that is just rubbish. The only thing that is going to happen is that the cars will go 30kph faster and can add a ton of more downforce because the horsepower is there, simply will cause the teams to go even more into aerodynamics simply because the room is there to do so. They can simply say 'we are going to add a sh*tload of wings everywhere because we have the power to do so'
In fact forget 1000hp, the cars should have about 1200hp. Put that in a 2011 car and you have a spectacle in your hands. It would bring Luca to tears of joy.
Close your eyes and take 5 seconds to imagine what 1200hp looks like from the driver's helmet in a current f1 car.
Wow great now we have 1200hp that will sure fix the f1. Apart from that drivers will reach speeds of around 400kph down the straight. Simply increasing the hp is jsut a rubbish idea and doesnt help anything. Wow they got 1200hp, now they can bolt on any wing they got and still the aerodynamic dependance stays the same since out oft hat still nothing is allowed.

I do not see how you can neglect the reduction in CO2 output. It is an simple fact that everyone 'wants' to reduce the CO2 output of their cars. You seriously need to open your eyes, here in every car commercial it's fuel consumption is mentioned as well as CO2 output, and in other countries it is the same. Sure that people want to reduce fuel consumption isn't the case. When you think about road cars you don't think right, you think about Ferrari's and other high performance road cars only going fast. And that is where you go wrong, you need to think the cars everyone got, even these expensive Mercedes' and BMWs go greener and Porsches go greener too.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

Post

ringo wrote:
And then we have to look at what are the consequences. If we limit the performance then the higher power just means that the whole drive train will be build 20% heavier than it needs to be for 800 hp. That would be nonsense for a top level racing car.
No the gear box wont necesarilly be 2o% heavier, and even it is so what? How heavy is a current gearbox?
You are not addressing the problem. An optimized complete drive train with engine, gearbox, energy recovery and storage system that will operate at 20% higher power at the same longevity will have a much higher weight. I don't know if the increase is linear and with the same rate as the power but it is certainly not very far away from that figure. If it weren't the designers were not worth the money they are being paid. I know a thing or two about mechanical engineering. The drivers will not have much fun to drive a heavier car that cannot put the power down due to lack of additional downforce.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

User avatar
Javert
5
Joined: 10 Feb 2011, 14:14

Re: Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

Post

Actually I don't think

The right downforce level for spectacle was 2010-without-EBD one(+ slicks) or 2008(without slicks)

Too much? No spectacle, no errors
Too low? Not enough selection between good drivers and bad ones ... Corner speed is a good discriminant

2012 single deck without EBD? Don't know if it will good :mrgreen: I started thinking it's too low

hardingfv32
hardingfv32
35
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

Post

What do you think is holding the teams back from applying much simpler and more restrictive set of aero rules? Could it not be cheaper and better for the "show"?

Too much tradition or investment in the current aero system?

Brian

User avatar
strad
117
Joined: 02 Jan 2010, 01:57

Re: Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

Post

What did Enzo say? Aero is for those without a strong engine?
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

Jersey Tom
Jersey Tom
166
Joined: 29 May 2006, 20:49
Location: Huntersville, NC

Re: Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

Post

Is the aero dependence high? Yes, very, certainly. Is it too high? I don't necessarily think so. Too high for what?.

Even in NASCAR the aero dependence is quite high, though to be fair with many tracks having a minimum corner speed in the 150 mph / 240 kph range... pretty much any shape of body is going to have a noticeable effect!

I think the biggest challenge for F1 at the moment is how spread out the field is in terms of competitiveness. For all intents and purposes, after the first race or two you know who the championship contenders are, and who hasn't got a shot.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

Post

strad wrote:What did Enzo say? Aero is for those without a strong engine?
That's the sort of thing a guy who couldn't do aero would say. The car he was talking about was slow on the Mulsanne Straight at LeMans.

Enzo also said something like "I don't sell cars, I sell engines. The rest I give you for free to hold the engine"
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.