F1Technical Overtaking Working Group

[Washngo]

1) Front Wing: I much preferred the 2008 spec front wing, so id like to see them brought back, but closer to the ground, almost 2009 low, but not as low as that.

3) Diffuser: Allow DDD, but these should be less steep than a conventional Single Diffuser creating less downforce. Which would be allow SDD cars to have a steeper angle to try and get teams to use them.

Nice thread, but I think you misunderstand a couple of things. The 2008 front wing and the DDD are two of the very things that prevent cars from following each other closely!

On the 2008 front wing, the big scoop they all had created a lot of downforce, however, in turbulent air its performance dramatically dropped off. Hence the 2009 front wing regs, where instead of a scoop, there is basically a plain wing section which cannot be changed.

The DDD is evil and the enemy of close racing. It dramatically increases the amount of turbulent air the following car has to deal with, which in turn means the cars can't follow each other through the corners. A steeper angle on a SDD would create a similar effect - more turbulence.


So, surely if you want to improve F1, two things you don't want are 2008 front wings and DDD's.

[mike]

-shorter front and rear over hang so that drivers feel more confident on attack, with less fear of losing a front/rear wing
-strength suspension arms and steering, remove fear
-variable length intake so the car behind can have the same power compared to the car in front or under turbulence
-introduce marbleless tyres(thats really hard and need alot of testing)
-conduct overtaking testing, select drivers with different styles and test out all the possible working ideas
-CDG wing with less length, same drag less downforce. cut down on the endplate of the wings
-narrower than 2008 spec wing, without scoops, and make sure that the bottom of the front wing is higher than the top of the diffuser, effectively remove front ground affect, make the front wing work like the rear.
-less downforce in general

"-i got a feeling that shorter wheelbase can improve overtaking, but its not proven yet"

[modbaraban]

Please no rear active aero. That can cost some lives.

IMO, the point is to reduce rear downforce A LOT. Then there will be no point in that much front DF, thus less wake sensitive aero and mode overtaking.

[WhiteBlue]

The OWG used a rolling road wind tunnel with two models (60% scale ?) to verify their theories. I would have my doubts that one can improve on their proposal without simillar technical resources.

[xpensive]

So, if you just ban the complicated and xtremely costly front wing, then what?

The car could follow another without losing front end grip, while the team has to balance the car with reduced rear downforce, reducing the wake and thus further improve ability to follow perhaps?

Too simple that?

[WhiteBlue]

Honestly speaking, yes. Without front wing you have no front down force. This would put F1 cars outside the performance bracket they have lived in for several decades.

[Scotracer]

So you would basically be turning cars into those from the mid 60s?

[Ogami musashi]

Since you're here to rip downforce, rip it entirely. The proposals have no sense with "much lowered downforce"; As said, and proved by different studies, the level of downforce is not linear with perturbations, and lower downforce cars proved to be very wake sensitive. So since we're to use the "no DF, no Loss" : ban it.

But then i won't watch it... I want the cars to sweep corners fast, no this is not because it looks cool, this is because it requires hell of a technic simply because of the speed.

And hopefully even in the masses, when they did their survey 9 out of ten want it too.

so we're stuck with long studies to have a good wake.

[kilcoo316]

So, if you just ban the complicated and xtremely costly front wing, then what?

Hmmm....

They then have to move the sidepods forward to lengthen the floor area, much like the old cars.

Sure, you'll still have the diffuser of the car in front, but the small gap between floor and ground (coupled with its length) quickly damps any turbulence out....


Might be on to something there... A more radical approach than most would consider, but not unreasonable.

[dave kumar]

Banning the front wing.... wouldn't you have to widen the track width to allow the cars to still be what we call F1 - that is to have that great speed round the corners?

Wouldn't it be less radical to standardise the nose of the car - everything forward of the front wheels. Would it still be possible for designers to come up with alternative downstream aero designs if they were all working from the same nose?

I wouldn't want this if it meant that there was only one clear optimal design for the rest of the car! Standardisation by another name. Boo hiss, lets call the whole thing off.

[ESPImperium]

Standarise the front aero, take away the wings, but allow massive slotted noses may just work.

I was thinking if turbulance is the issue with DDDs, whay not make the rules have a steeper angle for SDDs allowing for more downforce from them, negating the diffrencial of performance disparity in them. get the SDDs closer to the DDDs. But with that, get the rear wing slightly wider, maybes only 200mm wider as well for teams running SDDs.

May be controvercial one with that one.

[WhiteBlue]

The whole concept of eternal competition on creating downforce by aerodynamic means is fundamemtally flawed. It is nothing but a big waste of money particularly when you have the rules evolve in an arbitrary and unpredictable way that we have seen this year. The clear strategy for the diffusor was a restriction to one rectangular zone in a relatively low position to create a less tubulent zone between the diffusor exit and the rear wing. This was meant to help cars to follow each other and help overtaking. The FIA for tactical reasons did not follow through with the concept as they should have. The other inconsistency is the restriction to use the adjustable front as often as you like. It is making the adjustable front wing almost useless. That rule should be abolished and the DDD banned from next year on. I'm afraid they will not do this.

[kilcoo316]

Facts (from OWG or Tech Director quotes)
* Diffusers are less sensitive to running in wake, they create downforce centred between the axles and if set at a low expansion ratio are not contributing to wake.

* Double diffusers do not contribute significantly to wake, but do add considerable downforce.

Reading the two, does that means a double diffuser does not contribute significantly to the wake if its expansion ratio is consistent with a single deck?


Change the expansion ratio (like we have now with the DDD exploiting loopholes) and the wake will change as the effective expansion ratio has risen.

[ced ampo]

GROUND EFFECT SHOULD BE ALLOWED. And also ban front wings and rear wings. That should decrease turbulence and still make cars grippy. Also put a single groove in the front tire. That should balance the car.(As a side note, they can put the stripe back in the front wheels. The green line in the tire sidewall doesn't really work if you are using aerial view.)

[Steven]

I have seen a couple of strange approaches here, but I'll throw in my 2 cents what should be done (most points have already been mentioned in one or the other combination):

- No refuelling is fine by me, but I don't think it will improve overtaking, actually rather the contrary as all will be on the same load.
- Change the nose regulations by also setting a minimum radius like in the sidepod area, but allow nosed to be as low as the reference plane (noses are visually striking, and different solutions would also attract public interest)
- Reduce the maximum height of the diffuser with a further 2.5cm. Not much, but should help for overtaking.
- It would also be possible to reduce the allowed height of the upper rear wing elements, but I'm not sure if sponsors will be too happy with that (a small reduction though, maybe also 2.5cm would already make a huge difference I think).

I'm not sure how far teams are willing to go with that. I was at Viry-Chatillon yesterday, Renault F1's engine headquarters, and I sensed that much of the aggravation with the FIA in recent years has been the late regulation decisions, putting a lot of stress on the team and requiring them to hire more people to be able to quickly adapt to these changes.