Is F1 getting boring?

[autogyro]

Just to make it absolutely clear for the non aero people reading this thread.
Reducing down force also reduces drag, which in turn reduces wake turbulance.
This is a fact and no counter argument from those with jobs in aerodynamics is at all possible.
Of course there is more to increasing the chances of overtaking than just reducing downforce but doing so is the first and essential requirement.
To all the wind tunnel gurus, go build an airplane.

[Ogami musashi]

Just to make it absolutely clear for the non aero people reading this thread.
Reducing down force also reduces drag, which in turn reduces wake turbulance.

That is totally wrong.

Drag in F1 is mainly of two form, induced and profile drag.

Induced is for a given amount of downforce, dependent on aspect ratio while profile drag is dependent on effective profile (AOA, stall conditions etc..).
What you mix with is low downforce setups that have lower TOTAL drag, but do not reduce wake at all for they to have less finess than high downforce settings.


Hopefully for us...we can create planes/cars with more lift/downforce without adding or even reducing drag...if not then we wouldn't have all those different designs.


This thread brings nothing more than conjectures from people that do not know the topic they're discussing...

I too do not master the complex topic of overtaking in F1 and if you read my posts you'll see nowhere i've offered one solution to cure the problem but only correct people when pretending things wrong scientifically.

You may not like downforce, that doesn't make you right.

[autogyro]

Let us get this right then.
Confirm this please.
You are saying that reducing downforce does not reduce drag.
Is this scientificaly right?

[Pandamasque]

We have a few members here that created their virtual F1 cars to the current regs. Why not create F1T future F1 car designed in attempt to solve the overtaking problem (and test it using CFD)?

[Just_a_fan]

Surely if mechanical grip is increased it will affect all cars, and therefore a leading car will have more confidence to brake later just as much as the chasing car and therefore the same situation occurs -stalemate.

=D> At last, someone has seen the flaw in the "we must limit downforce" ideas. The car in front will always benefit from both clean downforce and the extra grip of whatever tyres are used.

If you want to reduce downforce then you'd need to reduce it to...zero! And that is called Formula Ford not Formula One.

If you want cars that can overtake then you need to be able to run cars around a corner in such a way that the following car can get out of the aero influence of the car in front. That means they have to be able to drive a totally different line around the corner. And that needs tyres that don't marble the off line area of the track.

Do that and the cars could be running with Group C levels of downforce and still have a chance of overtaking.

[Ogami musashi]

Let us get this right then.
Confirm this please.
You are saying that reducing downforce does not reduce drag.
Is this scientificaly right?

Drag in F1 is mainly of two form, induced and profile drag.

Induced is for a given amount of downforce, dependent on aspect ratio while profile drag is dependent on effective profile (AOA, stall conditions etc..).

Aspect ratio, profile=> design variables; I.E: If you vary them, the level of downforce is irrelevant to drag.

AOA => Specific car setting; I.E: If you vary it, the level of downforce is relevant to drag.

The latter one applies for the different set ups (low, medium and high downforce) as indeed the low set ups offer less total drag than the high downforce one.


The error is to think it will apply for every car; that is not correct; We can design cars with lot's of downforce and wake intensity in the same values as a low downforce car.

The finess of high trim set ups is far higher than low downforce set ups in F1 (it was around 4,5:1 in monaco trim in 2008 vs 3:1 for monza ) so the induced drag linked with wake turbulence can't be correlated to downforce levels.

[Pandamasque]

Does any of the aero guys here watch sportscars? Le Mans prototypes have lots of DF but somehow able to follow each other very closely through the corners. What's the trick? The tyres are quite different, but what about the aero? Overtaking isn't supposed to be easy, it just supposed to possible and worth trying (which usually doesn't happen in F1).

and just to remind everyone how powerful high downforce cars can battle and overtake

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MZURmQK04g[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30mQkTYD_9w[/youtube]

[Ogami musashi]

Probably because they have totally different flow fields:

-Front downforce is achieved by a front diffuser relying on mass flow
-Wheels are covered
-Rear downforce is achieved by a high aspect ration rear wing (low induced drag) and a large, vanes restricted diffuser.
-The cars are wide enabling slipstream
-For a given downforce level, the finess is higher on prototypes and sports car.


Thies combination+ a myriad of outer factors (different classes racing, endurance racing etc..) gives the possibility to overtake without too much problem.

[autogyro]

So the answer must be to let F1 die the death it has been gauranteed by the aerodynamacists and change our interests over to sports car racing.
Now why did it take me so long to work that one out?!!!!
I believe that in sports car racing they have also kicked out anything remotely like FOTA and they actualy run diesel and alternate energy powertrains and KERS systems. A proper modern technology form of racing and not a silly club for the old boys network never open to proper change.

[autogyro]

Let us get this right then.
Confirm this please.
You are saying that reducing downforce does not reduce drag.
Is this scientificaly right?

Drag in F1 is mainly of two form, induced and profile drag.

Induced is for a given amount of downforce, dependent on aspect ratio while profile drag is dependent on effective profile (AOA, stall conditions etc..).

Aspect ratio, profile=> design variables; I.E: If you vary them, the level of downforce is irrelevant to drag.

AOA => Specific car setting; I.E: If you vary it, the level of downforce is relevant to drag.

The latter one applies for the different set ups (low, medium and high downforce) as indeed the low set ups offer less total drag than the high downforce one.


The error is to think it will apply for every car; that is not correct; We can design cars with lot's of downforce and wake intensity in the same values as a low downforce car.

The finess of high trim set ups is far higher than low downforce set ups in F1 (it was around 4,5:1 in monaco trim in 2008 vs 3:1 for monza ) so the induced drag linked with wake turbulence can't be correlated to downforce levels.

Ah yes but you are still not confirming that reducing DF does not reduce drag.
It does reduce drag and keeping the high DF levels in F1 just to suit the aero lobby prevents any other work to rectify the other factors effecting wake turbulance that you are explaining.
All you are doing by countering arguments to reduce DF levels is keeping the extreem and not needed expense of countless aero people being paid to quote the very figures you are quoting, to baffle everyone else and by doing so you are killing any future for F1.

[kilcoo316]

Just to make it absolutely clear for the non aero people reading this thread.
Reducing down force also reduces drag, which in turn reduces wake turbulance.

Absolute pish.


If I removed the rear wing endplates, and replaced them with a central strut, I would dramatically decrease the car's downforce, and at the same time increase its drag, and also the turbulent kinetic energy levels in the wake.

This is a fact and no counter argument from those with jobs in aerodynamics is at all possible.

Maybe leave such statements of facts to the professionals?

To all the wind tunnel gurus, go build an airplane.

To amateur aerodynamicists, don't make definite statements about subjects you do not understand.

[kilcoo316]

Probably because they have totally different flow fields:

-Front downforce is achieved by a front diffuser relying on mass flow
-Wheels are covered
-Rear downforce is achieved by a high aspect ration rear wing (low induced drag) and a large, vanes restricted diffuser.
-The cars are wide enabling slipstream
-For a given downforce level, the finess is higher on prototypes and sports car.


Thies combination+ a myriad of outer factors (different classes racing, endurance racing etc..) gives the possibility to overtake without too much problem.

I would add to that the majority of their downforce will come from the floor*, and virtually all of their front downforce will come from the floor (splitter).


*note also, the relatively shallow ramp angle of their rear diffusers. See here:




Compare that to an F1 diffuser.

[autogyro]

Just to make it absolutely clear for the non aero people reading this thread.
Reducing down force also reduces drag, which in turn reduces wake turbulance.

Absolute pish.


If I removed the rear wing endplates, and replaced them with a central strut, I would dramatically decrease the car's downforce, and at the same time increase its drag, and also the turbulent kinetic energy levels in the wake.

This is a fact and no counter argument from those with jobs in aerodynamics is at all possible.

Maybe leave such statements of facts to the professionals?

To all the wind tunnel gurus, go build an airplane.

To amateur aerodynamicists, don't make definite statements about subjects you do not understand.

I will make definitive statements about anything I please thank you very much.
Protecting jobs in aero does not wash with me no matter what the figures you quote.
Of course simply reducing overall DF levels without other changes and without changing a great many other parts of the car will result in little if any changes to the level of wake effect. But without reducing DF levels nothing else is possible. Your argument is the usual aero closed loop self serving diatribe.
Pish in fact.

[autogyro]

Oh and I have plenty of aero experience at a high level with things that actualy fly in the air and are not locked to the ground where the safety and expertise is no where near as important and the discipline is full of self serving egos who achieve nothing in the world of useful and productive science.
I enjoyed that, your turn.

[kilcoo316]

I will make definitive statements about anything I please thank you very much.

OK. Go ahead. Make yourself look stupid if you want.

I would advise readers to completely ignore the statements, as he is not at all clued up on even the basic fundamentals of aerodynamics.

But without reducing DF levels nothing else is possible.

Ignoring the rest of the rubbish you've posted.


You have no idea what your talking about. F1 cars could easily be designed to generate far more downforce and run much closer together than they can today without overly adverse effects for the second car.

However, to do so involves revoking the flat floor rule, and that is something the FIA are loath to do, simply because if the engineers spot loopholes, you'll quickly have F1 cars cornering at 6g+.



I'm of the opinion they should do it, even if it means mandating a common underfloor.