More downforce or less for more overtaking?

[FoxHound]

@ lycoming

I'm not going to quote your text..... but please....do explain your contradictory post. Is it tyres, downforce or .... just plain uncertainty.

[Just_a_fan]

Eliminate a reliance on downforce.
Simply eliminate it.
[...]
Hererin lies the rub my fellow plebians, does one over emphasise one discipline over the over for so long that it becomes "acceptable formula" or do you redress the balance to accomadate the other disciplines?

Big ass question.

So how does totally removing one thing (downforce) "redress the balance"?

All you'd end up with would be modern versions of cars from the 60s. If you want to watch 60s cars, go watch some historic series.

Having said that, watching 60s cars with 2014 powertrains would be fun for a few minutes - soon get bored of watching cars spin in to the gravel the first time the driver got even slightly enthusiastic with the throttle...

[ringo]

The downforce can be left at this level, but maybe the cars need 1000hp to force mistakes from drivers.

I'm not so much a fan of easy overtaking, i like seeing when two cars are sprinting and one is eating into the time of the other. And when they meet on track there are repeated attempts to get past.
Nowadays we don't see the attempts. we just see a car get a bit close and can't do anything. No lunging or intimidating or any side by side action. You only get that when the cars drive fear into the drivers with the amount of power.

[bhall]

All they'd have to do is ban diffusors and replace them with venturi tunnels.
But i guess that's too difficult for the morons of FIA

A diffuser and a Venturi tunnel are so close to being the same thing that they might as well be the same thing. Teams have recently been reluctant to implement the latter due to its increased sensitivity to ride-height changes. Take too much of a curb (or "kerb" for those of you who drive on the wrong side of the road), and the sudden increase in ride-height results in a sudden, massive reduction in downforce. The driver then loses control of the car.

So, there's that.

On a similar note, I wonder if the neutral center section of the wing has actually done more harm than good. The whole reason for its being is that the Overtaking Working Group determined the center of the wing is the part most sensitive to "dirty air." If left neutral, I guess the logic is a car can't lose downforce it never had in the first place.

But, teams have since exploited that mandate by raising the nose in order to send more air flow under the car to increase ground-effect downforce (thanks, me). So, where once "dirty air" primarily affected the efficiency of the front wing, now it affects the efficiency of the whole car. Sound about right?

[acosmichippo]

More downforce or less?

My thought has always been why not supplement DRS with a switchable "Additional Downforce System" on the front wing for racing in dirty air. The standard configuration would be for clean air and slip streaming (could also be used in conjunction with existing DRS on straights), and another configuration for dirty air (more downforce). The other key difference would be that it's available to use any time at the driver's discretion.

I suppose the downsides would be that it would cost more to develop unless it's a more or less standard feature for all cars like DRS is, and it could also be considered yet another toggle cluttering the steering wheels...

[Cold Fussion]

Who's to say there will be more overtaking with less downforce anyway? There isn't a huge amount of overtaking in V8 supercars, despite very limited aero, and a lot of the overtakes that do happen come down tyres anyway. Overtaking will always be somewhat rare with similarly matched drivers in similarly matched cars.

[Tim.Wright]

My thought has always been why not supplement DRS with a switchable "Additional Downforce System" on the front wing for racing in dirty air.

They tried this a few years ago and it didn't work. Possibly because the dirty air is causing a loss of downforce from the undertray rather than the front wing.

[Godius]

From the articles that I've read about the additional downforce FW-flap in 2010 was that the drivers quite liked this function. But the use of the function was not noticeable for the tv-viewers, it was more of a drivability feature for the drivers.

[FoxHound]

So how does totally removing one thing (downforce) "redress the balance"?

All you'd end up with would be modern versions of cars from the 60s. If you want to watch 60s cars, go watch some historic series.

Having said that, watching 60s cars with 2014 powertrains would be fun for a few minutes - soon get bored of watching cars spin in to the gravel the first time the driver got even slightly enthusiastic with the throttle...

Read the post again. At no point did I say "totally removing" "one thing"(DF). Of course some DF is required.

What I did say is removing the reliance on DF, to bring on other technical disciplines which.... you know, make up a car?

[mzso]

For some time now it was believed that reducing the downforce of the cars will increase overtaking by allowing the cars to follow much closer.
Now We see that the 2014 cars have less downforce, but things have actually gotten worse. Because of the low grip, drivers are finding it harder to follow another car because they tyres are degrading faster, and the cars grip is being affected even more than before.

So what is the real solution..do they increase downforce even more where there is so much grip that losing some by following does not affect the total much?
Or do they reduce downforce to a point where there is little and following in dirty air doesn't affect it much because there isnt much to begin with?

What's the solution to the following and overtaking debacle?

There was already a (probably) perfect solution proposed. Of course the teams voted it down reflexively.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsp ... 307861.stm
It would have brought back the wing-car concept. It wouldn't have been real ground effect because sideskirts would be disallowed.
Instead you got the very expensive and ugly aero garbage you got...

[mzso]

Don't blame the aero for something that's caused by tires made from a wet paper bag.

False. This year's tires are better than last year's. Tires can only hurt the race if you need to protect it constantly. Which sucked last year, not as much now. The aero prevent car from closely following each other. (Plus the huge differences in overall performance)

[mzso]

have you ever attempted to overtake a car with similar Performance envelope by following closely ? this does not work at all .Overtaking is either a matter of the Driver in front in Trouble ( mechanical ,fuel consumption temps whatever) or making a mistake .
you can try to pressure the Opponent into making a mistake -but guys like Hulk or Schumacher do not make mistakes when defending .They have it pretty much under control due to peripheral awareness anticipation and strategy (they act ,they do not react as this is not allowed within the rules)
So brings us back to square one overtaking is not a matter of cf Brakes aero or weight -or power it is a matter of Deltas in Performance envelopes -does your car Nurse the tyres without compromising lap times , could you use traffic and clever tactics to save some kers or ERSH energy when your Counterpart could not add to this DRS and you got an overtake Situation.

would one want artificial overtaking ? I think it makes sense if there is no way past even if you are 2 seconds quicker than the guy in front.

Nonsense. Not true. You can overtake in a slipstream without the one in front making a mistake. Also at breaking if you manage to get to it's side. But you need to be able to follow close enough.

You want more overtaking? Make better tyres.

Nope. Tires are least of the issue.

i.e. if you can follow within <0.5s you only need a small power advantage to get past,

You don't. Just the decreased wind resistance in the slipstream should be enough.

[mzso]

All they'd have to do is ban diffusors and replace them with venturi tunnels.
But i guess that's too difficult for the morons of FIA

+ smaller front wings and big rear ones.

But no one will touch the diffuser, I don't get it.

The problem with passing has been for a while the loss of front DF from the wake of the car ahead on the following one's front wings. They even tried a lift producing center section and moving flaps to counter it.

While in the back the diffuser is working all the time.

Bigger rear wings are counter intuitive. The generate the most turbulance. More like no front wings and very little rear wings. In my opinion.

(Huh the forum swallowed one of my comment after an edit.)

Having said that, watching 60s cars with 2014 powertrains would be fun for a few minutes - soon get bored of watching cars spin in to the gravel the first time the driver got even slightly enthusiastic with the throttle...

One would assume that the drivers wouldn't be all incompetent... Much like in the sixties. Simply they would only use full power in really long straights. I can imagine it as a B formula so I could watch two drastically different style races instead of one.

All they'd have to do is ban diffusors and replace them with venturi tunnels.
But i guess that's too difficult for the morons of FIA

A diffuser and a Venturi tunnel are so close to being the same thing that they might as well be the same thing. Teams have recently been reluctant to implement the latter due to its increased sensitivity to ride-height changes. Take too much of a curb (or "kerb" for those of you who drive on the wrong side of the road), and the sudden increase in ride-height results in a sudden, massive reduction in downforce. The driver then loses control of the car.

That's only the issue if you have sideskirts that touch the ground, right?

[Bazza]

Guys you're all making this out to be a lot harder than it actually is.

You want more overtaking? You need to make it less bad to be near another car. That means the current setup of:

"Following car has a minor decrease in drag and a significant decrease in downforce"

needs to change to

"Following car has a significant decrease in drag and a minor decrease in downforce"

Two parts to this; lets start with drag. All those suggesting small front and rear wings, you're wrong. Compared to the floor of the car, these are less efficient, have higher drag, and can be regulated to be useful (please, please read the summary/result of the OWG). Also, this is the one and only time open wheels can be considered a good thing (because they're a bad thing). Basically, we want high drag cars that shed a lot (above 15%) of drag when following another car.

The second part is downforce. Underbody and ground effect work is a good thing here; it CAN be used to produce downforce that is largely (but not totally) immune from turbulent air. Also, the outer tips of the front wing are especially good at this (or were, rip 2013 front wings) due to decent air being dragged in from the sides by a proceeding car. Diffusers, and double diffusers, don't actually seem to hurt the airflow for the following car, provided the angle isn't very high (see OWG).

[flyboy2160]

The downforce can be left at this level, but maybe the cars need 1000hp to force mistakes from drivers...

I agree: leave the downforce as is, but increase the power if the driver wants it.

I'm in favor of doing away with the fuel rate restriction. Someone posted that this would lead to drivers turning up the wick when somebody got close and would create big speed differentials. So what? Whether you spend extra fuel to overtake or to defend would just be a part of race strategy. At some point one of the drivers would just have to stop burning extra fuel and give up the chase/defend.

I think it would actually make for better, not worst, racing. I can see two hotheads/machomen racing with the fuel rate turned up, not wanting to give in, and the pit radios screaming at them "Stop! Stop! You won't make it to the end of the race!!" I'd love it.

You'd also get some of the sound back, since I assume they'd rev the engines higher were it not for the fuel rate requirement.

I can't see fixing it with aero. They won't give up the wings because of advertising and the now "traditional" F1 look.