Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

[flynfrog]

I'm not going to continue to argue the case further. It appears that the opposition simply hangs on to opinions regardless of the points I make.

One example is the believe that it is impossible to measure inertial forces - or acceleration - precisely in x,y,z-vectors. This opinion is so far from reality that every additional word on the issue is a waste of time and space.

I suggest we agree to disagree on the issue and perhaps continue at a later time if opinions become less entrenched.

dear pot meet kettle


I never said it was impossible it is not as cut an dry as you make it.

Typical white blue post cant convert the non believers so your taking your ball and going home.

[bhall]

I've never doubted the possibility of such an idea; I simply don't see the point of implementing it.

[Pingguest]

In case the downforce is to be limited explicitly to a comparatively low amount - e.g. 750 kg - any fuel consumption limit becomes unnecessary, as cars would lack the required amount of grip for a constant increase of engine power. Particularly if Formula 1 would adopt all-weather tyres which last the entire race distance as well.
It would allow a massive deregulation in areas such as engines (any design to be allowed), weight, bodywork (ground effects, fans, active aero, active suspension), transmission (four-wheel drive, maybe even CVT) and tyres (no longer standardized). I doubt any regulation stipulating a minimum longevity - e.g. post-qualifying parc fermé, five-race gearboxes and the maximum of eight engines per season - would be necessary either. As creating a winning car will become a matter of creativity, intelligence and human instincts instead of using an increasing amount of resources, costs may well go down.

All one has to do is look back at the turbo era to see that low grip did absolutely nothing at all to thwart increases in engine power. Cars during that period featured extremely powerful engines, often well over 1,000 bhp, and aerodynamics that were still in the nascent stages of development. There's no reason to doubt that this would happen again if a downforce cap was introduced in concert with a loosening of other regulations.

Although the aerodynamics were in a nascent stage of development in the Nineteen Eighties, already the cars produced a huge amount of downforce - more than the current generation GP2-cars. Those cars were, by today's standards, indeed very inefficient and thus generated an enormous amount of aerodynamic drag, but due to the also enormous amount of engine power teams could simply afford the penalty.

If the overall goal is to encourage developments in other areas of the car, a downforce cap is unnecessary. All that's needed to accomplish that goal is for the pertinent regulations to be relaxed. Aero or no aero, I can assure you that engineers would not need to be told where to look for performance gains.

As long as the regulations provide an absolute point of perfection, all engineers will focus on the same area and thus working towards a de facto standardized car.
I would prefer regulations that do not provide an absolute point of perfection, allow divergence and embrace creativity and intelligence. Not only is a downforce cap required to allow the desired divergence and technical diversity, but also to keep the performances and costs in control.

[bhall]

Well, now I'm just confused.

You want to avoid an "absolute point of perfection" in the regulations by effectively having the regulations define the perfect level of downforce?

(Are you under the illusion that specified downforce will halt aero development?)

And exactly how will engine, gearbox, electronics, suspension, etc., development, in addition to ever-present aero development, contain costs?

[PhillipM]

You will never contain costs via regulation on parts, you increase costs if anything because the best way to develop then is via iteration which requires lots of time and manpower compared to innovation..

[WhiteBlue]

Typical white blue post cant convert the non believers so your taking your ball and going home.

I don't have enough time to waste it with people who are unlikely to acknowledge a properly made point. So why should I repeat myself. My purpose here is to learn something and discuss with people who can develop ideas by positive criticism. People who simply defend an opinion no matter what is posted and have no interest to adapt and expand their views will not help me to improve a concept. I can spend my time with better activities but pointless bickering.

[WhiteBlue]

As long as the regulations provide an absolute point of perfection, all engineers will focus on the same area and thus working towards a de facto standardized car.
I would prefer regulations that do not provide an absolute point of perfection, allow divergence and embrace creativity and intelligence. Not only is a downforce cap required to allow the desired divergence and technical diversity, but also to keep the performances and costs in control.

Amen! Exactly my view. =D> =D> =D>

You just have to watch the effect of the 2012 nose regulations. I bet you that at least 50% of the noses will look like they come from a common mould. You can only avoid this if you allow radically different design approaches and have a lot less geometric regulations.

For instance by easier exploitation of the ground effect engineers may not have such a strong need to run high noses. Some may simply decide to use tunnels and a low nose.

If the downforce is fixed and geometries liberated engineers will almost certainly return to ground effect due to less drag.

[flynfrog]

As long as the regulations provide an absolute point of perfection, all engineers will focus on the same area and thus working towards a de facto standardized car.
I would prefer regulations that do not provide an absolute point of perfection, allow divergence and embrace creativity and intelligence. Not only is a downforce cap required to allow the desired divergence and technical diversity, but also to keep the performances and costs in control.

Amen! Exactly my view. =D> =D> =D>

You just have to watch the effect of the 2012 nose regulations. I bet you that at least 50% of the noses will look like they come from a common mould. You can only avoid this if you allow radically different design approaches and have a lot less geometric regulations.

For instance by easier exploitation of the ground effect engineers may not have such a strong need to run high noses. Some may simply decide to use tunnels and a low nose.

If the downforce is fixed and geometries liberated engineers will almost certainly return to ground effect due to less drag.

the only point i disagree with is that by limiting down force you some how change any thing F1 is currently doing. As of now they are drag limited the only way to gain more down force is to lower drag therefore allowing them to run more wing and making the car faster.

with your proposal the only way to go faster is to lower drag.

Your plan is simply trading corner speed for strait line speed. It also adds an almost unenforceable rule. IT will result in teams spending there money to try to beat the rule of the sensors and who ever determines the equation to determine the downforce level.

what do you think is more cost effective to find 30 hp or lose 30 hp of drag.

I am all for opening up the rules I think we need to change. But trying to put the genie back in the bottle by limiting downforce is short sighted and logically false

[WhiteBlue]

the only point i disagree with is that by limiting down force you some how change any thing F1 is currently doing. As of now they are drag limited the only way to gain more down force is to lower drag therefore allowing them to run more wing and making the car faster.

Naturally you change something. You do not curb excessive downforce by geometric restrictions any more. You curb it directly. If one accepts the point that F1 needs a certain amount of downforce then it follows that the downforce also must be curbed in order to limit cornering speed and provide safety with the current crash zones. It is a paradigm shift that people need to get used to. That may not be so easy but it is logical.

Your plan is simply trading corner speed for strait line speed. It also adds an almost unenforceable rule. IT will result in teams spending there money to try to beat the rule of the sensors and who ever determines the equation to determine the downforce level.

Not true. I just want the cornering speed frozen at a level that is suitable for the safety of the tracks. That is probably the level we had in 2011. The sensors will be part of the standardized ECU package and there is nothing for the teams to tamper with. Cost and downforce will be the same for all.

[flynfrog]

the only point i disagree with is that by limiting down force you some how change any thing F1 is currently doing. As of now they are drag limited the only way to gain more down force is to lower drag therefore allowing them to run more wing and making the car faster.

Naturally you change something. You do not curb excessive downforce by geometric restrictions any more. You curb it directly. If one accepts the point that F1 needs a certain amount of downforce then it follows that the downforce also must be curbed in order to limit cornering speed and provide safety with the current crash zones. It is a paradigm shift that people need to get used to. That may not be so easy but it is logical.

Your plan is simply trading corner speed for strait line speed. It also adds an almost unenforceable rule. IT will result in teams spending there money to try to beat the rule of the sensors and who ever determines the equation to determine the downforce level.

Not true. I just want the cornering speed frozen at a level that is suitable for the safety of the tracks. That is probably the level we had in 2011. The sensors will be part of the standardized ECU package and there is nothing for the teams to tamper with. Cost and downforce will be the same for all.

why not put a speed limit in corner then skip right to your end goal. teams could use a pit road speed limiter set for each corner.


Let me use the example of Eau Rouge how you plan to separate the vectors out for down force in that corner? You have a massive G spike do to the rise an fall of the track that to the sensors on the wheel hub is going to look like a spike in DF. You could do a reference back to an accelerometer on the chassis run it through a filter in the code of some kind but its still just a shot in the dark as to what your are measuring.

Also DF is highest at the end of the strait not the corner so setting a max level for the track might not directly affect corner speed. Your rule fails to take into account the root cause of the "problem" you think F1 has. I think breaking bumps of a poorly maintained track would go farther in limiting corning speeds then your proposed rule.


your rule will have no affect on cost and it sure as hell wont be equal for all. Even setting strict cost rules wouldn't do that.

[WhiteBlue]

why not put a speed limit in corner then skip right to your end goal. teams could use a pit road speed limiter set for each corner.

You are not being serious, are you?

Let me use the example of Eau Rouge how you plan to separate the vectors out for down force in that corner? You have a massive G spike do to the rise an fall of the track that to the sensors on the wheel hub is going to look like a spike in DF. You could do a reference back to an accelerometer on the chassis run it through a filter in the code of some kind but its still just a shot in the dark as to what your are measuring.

I don't understand why you come back to that point. There is no secrete to digital data processing. Let's assume the values of the vertical wheel force component and the vertical acceleration are measured every 100 micro seconds. The mass of the car and the driver is also evaluated from an algorithm, from start values and integration of fuel consumption at the same time interval. The weight, the inertial forces (even in extreme spike conditions) and the sum of all vertical wheel forces are determined again within the loop interval in real time. Another algorithm detracts the resulting vertical inertial force and the weight from the all wheel force again in real time. What you get in the end is the downforce 10.000 times per second as a physical value. This computer program would run on every car's SECU in exactly the same way. You can run a car through a roller coaster upside down and you would still get several exact downforce figures for every foot of the track.

Also DF is highest at the end of the strait not the corner so setting a max level for the track might not directly affect corner speed. Your rule fails to take into account the root cause of the "problem" you think F1 has. I think breaking bumps of a poorly maintained track would go farther in limiting corning speeds then your proposed rule.

No, sorry but you are wrong on both counts. I don't mind that max downforce could happen on forward and backward acceleration and not lateral. First, you can analyse the direction of acceleration and disregard peaks that go rearward. Those data could be used to regulate breaks if there ever are issues of safety which require addressing those. Second, a poorly maintained track with bumps would result to inertial force peaks. Those would be eliminated automatically from the wheel forces and would not show up in the downforce trace.

your rule will have no affect on cost and it sure as hell wont be equal for all. Even setting strict cost rules wouldn't do that.

Of course it would be equal for all. I have already explained that above, because the ECU would run the same program for all cars with the same sensors. I don't quite understand why you still think that keeping very wide and stable geometric rules would not save cost. Of course it would! Every time you change the geometric rules you have to run through an optimization phase which costs a billion dollars. This would be prevented by my rule proposal. Teams would continue to optimize drag reduction and they may even try occasionally to change the total approach and try a different configuration. But every one of the possible configurations leads to the same downforce. Only the drag changes over different tracks. Some teams may focus on a config for middle downforce, some for low downforce and some for high downforce. But all those configs would be known after a short time and only incremental improvements in drag reduction will be possible. The law of diminishing returns would discourage teams at one stage to continue very high aero budgets and the limited money would be spend on other research areas increasingly.

[flynfrog]

You are not being serious, are you?

Makes as much sense as a set DF level for each track.

I don't understand why you come back to that point. There is no secrete to digital data processing. Let's assume the values of the vertical wheel force component and the vertical acceleration are measured every 100 micro seconds. The mass of the car and the driver is also evaluated from an algorithm, from start values and integration of fuel consumption at the same time interval. The weight, the inertial forces (even in extreme spike conditions) and the sum of all vertical wheel forces are determined again within the loop interval in real time. Another algorithm detracts the resulting vertical inertial force and the weight from the all wheel force again in real time. What you get in the end is the downforce 10.000 times per second as a physical value. This computer program would run on every car's SECU in exactly the same way. You can run a car through a roller coaster upside down and you would still get several exact downforce figures for every foot of the track.

Whos algrithm? If you write it and I write it we get a much differnt value. You do not get an absolute value you get an approximation based on a ton of assumptions.

No, sorry but you are wrong on both counts. I don't mind that max downforce could happen on forward and backward acceleration and not lateral. First, you can analyse the direction of acceleration and disregard peaks that go rearward. Those data could be used to regulate breaks if there ever are issues of safety which require addressing those. Second, a poorly maintained track with bumps would result to inertial force peaks. Those would be eliminated automatically from the wheel forces and would not show up in the downforce trace.

so max lift is not at Vmax? news to me

Of course it would be equal for all. I have already explained that above, because the ECU would run the same program for all cars with the same sensors. I don't quite understand why you still think that keeping very wide and stable geometric rules would not save cost. Of course it would! Every time you change the geometric rules you have to run through an optimization phase which costs a billion dollars. This would be prevented by my rule proposal. Teams would continue to optimize drag reduction and they may even try occasionally to change the total approach and try a different configuration. But every one of the possible configurations leads to the same downforce. Only the drag changes over different tracks. Some teams may focus on a config for middle downforce, some for low downforce and some for high downforce. But all those configs would be known after a short time and only incremental improvements in drag reduction will be possible. The law of diminishing returns would discourage teams at one stage to continue very high aero budgets and the limited money would be spend on other research areas increasingly.

I'm am not sure how your rules is supposed to shift the focus from aero research back to anything else when drag reduction still trumps all just like it does now. at the speeds F1 travels aero is the lowest hanging fruit even with a DF limit. Its much easier to find a little gain in drag then it is to get it back through the engine in the form of more power. Yes its the same sensors it has nothing to do with the cost and development per team also there are many ways you could cheat the sensors. Flexy wheel hubs any one?

[bhall]

[...] The law of diminishing returns would discourage teams at one stage to continue very high aero budgets and the limited money would be spend on other research areas increasingly.

And then what have you done other than stage a very expensive reenactment of Formula 1's history from its origin to the present?

Are ultra-lightweight titanium and beryllium turbo engines that produce 1,500 bhp and last around an hour any more relevant now than when they were systematically banned?

What about active suspensions? Brake-assisted turning? Ground effect downforce? Exhaust-blown quadruple-deck diffusers?

Everything you talk about happening as a result of your downforce limit has already happened over the years, albeit under different guises, and present day Formula 1 is the result of that as well as the decisions made along the way to benefit safety and cost containment. Why do you want to do it all again?

Or do you just want F1 to have an agenda unrelated to racing?

[WhiteBlue]

I see that you are still arguing for argument's sake. My proposal is simple and there is no agenda beyond stopping the waste of ever new useless aerodynamic configurations. Performance has to be curbed and it is better done by limiting the fuel use and the downforce. Teams then will compete to make the drive train and the chassis more efficient. Most of the technologies that will be applied to that end will benefit the automotive real world. I just point to high pressure direct injection, electric turbo compounding, high temperature turbines and compressors, electric energy storage systems that will benefit from the work that will be done on the 2014 drive train. This is the proper direction for F1 to pursue and more automotive manufacturers will participate as a result if the trend continues. There is no reason at all that it should affect the racing negatively. Quite contrary. With more automotive countries like the USA, Korea, Japan, Germany and China on board there would be more investment from those countries and probably teams who would increase competition. This can only be good for the sport, the drivers and the fans.

[bhall]

So you have no agenda except for the part where you have an agenda? I'm not trying to be a smartass. I just think it's funny that you said you don't have an agenda, and then you listed your agenda.

I'm also not arguing for the sake of arguing. I just don't understand why you want F1 to be something that it's not or why you think a downforce limit will induce the changes you predict.