Are CDG wings useless?

[theSuit]

I guess what UI was trying to say (I was a bit tired by that point is that in motorsport the car is an avenue of competition. Most sports the idea is that the equipment should make no difference - motorsport is one of the few types of sport where it does, and deliberately so.

I'm not knocking one make series btw, they have there place. The simple truth is that something like GP2 could not survive except as a one make series - to deliver a car capable of being vaguely comparable to an F1 car would need a budget vaguely comparable to F1.

There's a balance to be struck between technology and other aspects; steering, braking, fitness, etc. But technology is not a 'necessary evil', and I'm a bit tired of the attitude (I'm not accusing anyone here of anything) that NASCAR is better for being basic and that F1 needs to be more like American racing.

[NickT]

We have got to kill the aero

I was reading yesterday that 2 years ago they were generating 750+ kilos from the front wing thats 3/4 of a ton in down force the weight of 8 to 10 men

Ban all the appendedges, make the diffusser flat and low like the sports cars, reduce wing area to 1/3 of what it is now, ban barge boards, flow conditioners and vortex generators. In fact lets just have standard wings and diffusers.

Formula 1 is supposed to be a drivers championship, not an aerodynamic championship, thank goodness standard ECUs are coming. Lets give them slicks, let them make the cars wider and more dependant on mechanical grip.

If you are always going to loose 25% of your aero grip coming up behind another car, then having all the cars with significantly less downforce means it is less of a problem which acheives exactly the same as those silly wings

[Saribro]

Go watch GP2 or Champ Car or whatever? :p
I like F1 because the tech is more important than in other series. I -wan't- to see different approaches and different ideas to the same problems. That is what F1 is for! Sure, you need to keep in some limitation to keep it sane, but it sure as hell shouldn't turn into GP2bis or Formula 1dentical, because -that- would make F1 boring.

[Guest]

Formula 1 is supposed to be a drivers championship, not an aerodynamic championship, thank goodness standard ECUs are coming. Lets give them slicks, let them make the cars wider and more dependant on mechanical grip.

If that is so why do they have the constructor championship?

The wings will accomplish what they are set out to do as far as decreasing DF, however I suspect the air flow behind the wings will be crazy turbulant. You have a tire moving the opposite direction of the air flow under the wing, I'd expect the wake off the tire to be more turbulant with the CDG wing than it is now. However the flow of air center of the car will be better. My question is how does improving the flow directly behind the car, but not on either side of the rear of the car help passing. Cars will be able to follow more closely in line, but when they get out of line won't they be getting into even more turblant air than they are now?

[Ciro Pabón]

@theSuit: you are my kind of guy! I was feeling lonely. I thought I was the only one capable of posting TWO full pages in one reply...

I should have mentioned the list of ideas that have sprung in this forum, because they are basically what you say:

- The "track-not-modernized-while-cars-are" issue has been over commented by some people in this forum: me. Now they can make jokes on both of us.

- The qualy... well, what can I say. I won't touch it with a 3 feet pole. We had several nightmarish years about it. It is like your mother-in-law: you better do not disturb her. I loved one lap qualy. Montoya almost broke records then... sigh.

- I have a particular ability to find NASCAR interesting. Most of you have seen me recommending Social Science at 190 MPH on NASCAR's Biggest Superspeedways: they argue that NASCAR shows you how life was before the computer arrived... pure nostalgia. However, yes, it is a left turn monstrosity. I love it, ugly and all. You know, F1 is not the only sport where the equipment matters: I have raced horses (twice!). I would say NASCAR is like having only mules to race: equipment matters less. The problem in F1 is that money is singing loud right now. Some of the horses have eight legs... A money cap on the sport would be hard to implement now, but, hey, Williams is going to disappear at this rate.

There are other ideas posted elsewhere: fuel restriction, harder tires and maybe more teams. Oh, and don't forget the push-to-pass button.

Anyway, now that car-makers have a strong saying in F1, I am afraid cars will be more "normalized". If you do not do it, we all we had left in a few years will be Toyota, Honda, BMW, Mercedes, Ferrari/FIAT and, maybe, McLaren (english automakers seem destroyed or buyed out, maybe McLaren can be bought by Mercedes?).

Finally, the truth is that you do not need F1 budget to get F1 speeds: at the last French GP, the last F1 car only had an 8 seconds advantage over the best GP2 car.

[joseff]

Finally, the truth is that you do not need F1 budget to get F1 speeds: at the last French GP, the last F1 car only had an 8 seconds advantage over the best GP2 car.

Well, a Le Mans GT1 car is also within 10secs of an F1 car. Quite good looking, too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/powerlaps.shtml

[mini696]

[quote="Ciro Pabón]Finally, the truth is that you do not need F1 budget to get F1 speeds: at the last French GP, the last F1 car only had an 8 seconds advantage over the best GP2 car.[/quote] 8 seconds is a massive amount.

Just imagine how quick an F1 would be if the "true spirit" of GP racing was upheld and all rule restrictions were removed!!

[zac510]

Just imagine how quick an F1 would be if the "true spirit" of GP racing was upheld and all rule restrictions were removed!!

Since when is that the 'true spirit'? There has always been rules!

[captainmorgan]

Finally, the truth is that you do not need F1 budget to get F1 speeds: at the last French GP, the last F1 car only had an 8 seconds advantage over the best GP2 car.

I can't agree with this. In a sport where milliseconds count, 8 seconds per lap is probably worth at least exactly the difference between F1 and GP2 budgets, probably much more.

Also, as much as I would like to see a rule-less GP, it's been long since the point where the technology has outstripped the driver. This goes for safety just as much as it does speed.

That said, these days I actually can find some respect for JPM's move to NASCAR. I mean, talk about rules stability. It's also hard to imagine that these guys would ever think that racing happens on the weekdays, and not on the track.

This is not tongue-in-cheek.

I agree most with NickT and Ciro on passing improvement... Fuel restrictions, hard tires, push to pass, zero wing . Any one or combination of these minus current rules (except safety regs) will still allow for a wide latitude of development potential.

[NickT]

Go watch GP2 or Champ Car or whatever? :p
I like F1 because the tech is more important than in other series. I -wan't- to see different approaches and different ideas to the same problems. That is what F1 is for! Sure, you need to keep in some limitation to keep it sane, but it sure as hell shouldn't turn into GP2bis or Formula 1dentical, because -that- would make F1 boring.

I agree with you about the technical side of F1, but there has to be limits, some in the interests of safety others to ensure close racing. I grew up with F1 in the late 70s, 80s and early 90s - arguably the most innovative eara of F1 - but the racing was best when it is close and cars could follow one another and overtake, it was really exciting to watch. Throughout this period limits were imposed. I am not looking for a single make series, far from it. Overtaking is rare in F1 at the moment and the drivers championship is decided more by the car you drive than the driver you are. All I want to do is make some serious aero limits to close up the grid and enable overtaking.

Formula 1 is supposed to be a drivers championship, not an aerodynamic championship, thank goodness standard ECUs are coming. Lets give them slicks, let them make the cars wider and more dependant on mechanical grip.

If that is so why do they have the constructor championship?

Any chanpionship series is about balance between driver and manufacturer, both championships are equally important. The problem at the moment is simple, F1 has become heavily biased towards the manufacturer, particularly the aerodynamic side. So lets restrict the aerodynamics to bring it back into balance.

As a final note Moto GP, Super Bikes, GP2, Touring Cars and DTM are all in much better balance and the racing is not boring, far from it, its very exciting and they have lots of overtaking

[Autumnpuma]

My first post after being a 'lurker' for some time...I have a question.

If the CDG wing works as advertised, and sends air down onto the front wing of the pursuing car, then what effect would that air have on the pursuing car's front wing?

If you set your car up with alot of front downforce in clean air, to negate any understeer, would you then get increased airflow when nose-to-a$$ with another car? In effect, would you get too much air pushing your nose down too far?

Also, that diagram of air pressure from the FIA would seem to suggest that airflow goes upwards after leaving the back of a conventional rear wing configuration...however the CDG diagram shows the air going downwards from the smaller CDG wing above the rear tyres. If the shape of both sized wing elements were the same, I would expect the airflow behind those shapes to be the same, i.e flowing upwards...

[kilcoo316]

Also, that diagram of air pressure from the FIA would seem to suggest that airflow goes upwards after leaving the back of a conventional rear wing configuration...however the CDG diagram shows the air going downwards from the smaller CDG wing above the rear tyres. If the shape of both sized wing elements were the same, I would expect the airflow behind those shapes to be the same, i.e flowing upwards...

That diagram [I'll refrain from using the word plot as I have my doubts] is along the car centreline.

[Autumnpuma]

Thanks for the reply.

Does a 'diagram' exist showing the complete airflow (i.e. both winglets and the centerwash)? I would think the winglets would disrupt the relatively clean-looking centerwash but I'm not sure to what extent.

Also, do my thoughts on front-wing set-up have any merit?

[kilcoo316]

Thanks for the reply.

Does a 'diagram' exist showing the complete airflow (i.e. both winglets and the centerwash)? I would think the winglets would disrupt the relatively clean-looking centerwash but I'm not sure to what extent.

Also, do my thoughts on front-wing set-up have any merit?

- not that I know of, and yes, the two wings will cause disruption, however, the wheel wakes will cause problems themselves anyway.

- Yes... and no. If (with emphasis on if) the CDG wing does work, the inner section of your front wing would increase loading, however the two outer sections won't - by dint of the wheel wakes and the 2 wings.


I'm still very skeptical over whether two [relatively small diameter] vortices induced 0.5 m or so above the diffuser will have any appreciable impact on the diffuser wake.

[Tom]

So are they still going for CFG? A friend suggested it had been rejected but I don't remember hearing that.