Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

[ringo]

Excuse me but then you have been under a rock for the past 10 years. Road car manufacturers more and more go for less consumption and research/use alternate fuels. Together with the f1 itself and most other autosports going green making a 1000hp engine just doesnt make sense.

Not really. Why are they increasing the power of the car if fuel consumption is more impotant. Why are the most efficient models not sold in the states?
Simply because they are too weak and don't appeal to the US market.

Racing is about performance first and foremost. The aspect of road cars that should be adressed in racing is the performance aspect; not fuel crisis, or interior design, or colours, or trunk room.

And in what aspect has the F1 ever been relevant to road cars? I cannot think of any technology that was pioneered in F1 that was later used in road cars.

F1 didn't pioneer any technology. But a team experience can contribute or inspire a road car program nontheless. Remember the V10 BMW M5? Not to mention all the flappy paddle cars you can think of.

I don't see any reason to change that, the LMP is a much better way to use road car technology.

That's your opinion. Look Lemans has production cars racing in it. It wont be necessary to extend the same stuff to the LMP cars. Not when you have the GT classes.

Apart from that, how can F1 ever be relevant to road cars if anything relevant is disallowed?

That's why i want certain changes, which you oppose.

Depends on the regulations.

No it does not, you are taking around 60% of their aerodynamical grip, and that cannot be regained by mechanical grip. 60% is a large number and is there anything extra that these teams can use to gain mechanical grip that they dont use now? Sure there are a few things possible, but to what is known and what is allowed in f1 there isnt really a lot more to gain. That is when we dont go to 6 wheelers.

Why such an emphatic no?
The wings aren't 60% of the downforce. And you are forgetting the floor. You went right into mechanical grip without realizing that the floor can have tunnels, it can have fans. It can be blown. The regulations will determine how much downforce the car produce, regardless if it doesn't have wings.

Excuse me but that is just rubbish.

I gets no love on this site.
Boy if i said that to any poster; I'll be banned for a week.

The only thing that is going to happen is that the cars will go 30kph faster and can add a ton of more downforce because the horsepower is there, simply will cause the teams to go even more into aerodynamics simply because the room is there to do so. They can simply say 'we are going to add a sh*tload of wings everywhere because we have the power to do so'

No you are wrong. And you are missing the point. The areo will be fixed to current regulations. You cant add a tonne more downforce if the regs make it physically impossible to do so.
The cars will simply have 1000hp with the current grip levels and cornering G's, making the power and it's modulation and application to the track more influential on lap time.

Wow great now we have 1200hp that will sure fix the f1. Apart from that drivers will reach speeds of around 400kph down the straight. Simply increasing the hp is jsut a rubbish idea and doesnt help anything. Wow they got 1200hp, now they can bolt on any wing they got and still the aerodynamic dependance stays the same since out oft hat still nothing is allowed.

Nope regs wont allow that. Secondly if you think increased power just means more straight line speed, you're not looking deep enough.

I do not see how you can neglect the reduction in CO2 output. It is an simple fact that everyone 'wants' to reduce the CO2 output of their cars. You seriously need to open your eyes, here in every car commercial it's fuel consumption is mentioned as well as CO2 output, and in other countries it is the same. Sure that people want to reduce fuel consumption isn't the case. When you think about road cars you don't think right, you think about Ferrari's and other high performance road cars only going fast. And that is where you go wrong, you need to think the cars everyone got, even these expensive Mercedes' and BMWs go greener and Porsches go greener too.

I thought you said F1 is not relevant to road cars?
Why are you talking of CO2 out put?
Nothing with 700hp running for 2 hours will ever be green. 1000hp doesn't make much difference.

[wesley123]

Excuse me but then you have been under a rock for the past 10 years. Road car manufacturers more and more go for less consumption and research/use alternate fuels. Together with the f1 itself and most other autosports going green making a 1000hp engine just doesnt make sense.

Not really. Why are they increasing the power of the car if fuel consumption is more impotant. Why are the most efficient models not sold in the states?
Simply because they are too weak and don't appeal to the US market.

And we all know how much Americans love formula 1.

Where did I even mention United States by the way? Look over the rest of the world, europe, asia they all go that way. And apart from that I do not see any of these family saloons increase power. When we are talking road cars I personally think more about the family saloons or smaller cars that everyone got than these supercars that only a few people got.

Racing is about performance first and foremost. The aspect of road cars that should be adressed in racing is the performance aspect; not fuel crisis, or interior design, or colours, or trunk room.

And in what aspect has the F1 ever been relevant to road cars? I cannot think of any technology that was pioneered in F1 that was later used in road cars.

F1 didn't pioneer any technology. But a team experience can contribute or inspire a road car program nontheless. Remember the V10 BMW M5? Not to mention all the flappy paddle cars you can think of.[/quote]

Sure thing and until the FIA opens up mechanical development we will barely see any f1 technology in road cars.

I don't see any reason to change that, the LMP is a much better way to use road car technology.

That's your opinion. Look Lemans has production cars racing in it. It wont be necessary to extend the same stuff to the LMP cars. Not when you have the GT classes.

These GT cars are stripped down road car variants, nothing really new here. LMP are due to the closed wheel design and more design freedom much more relevant.

Apart from that, how can F1 ever be relevant to road cars if anything relevant is disallowed?

That's why i want certain changes, which you oppose.

I want these changes too.

Depends on the regulations.

No it does not, you are taking around 60% of their aerodynamical grip, and that cannot be regained by mechanical grip. 60% is a large number and is there anything extra that these teams can use to gain mechanical grip that they dont use now? Sure there are a few things possible, but to what is known and what is allowed in f1 there isnt really a lot more to gain. That is when we dont go to 6 wheelers.

Why such an emphatic no?
The wings aren't 60% of the downforce. And you are forgetting the floor. You went right into mechanical grip without realizing that the floor can have tunnels, it can have fans. It can be blown. The regulations will determine how much downforce the car produce, regardless if it doesn't have wings.[/quote]

Sure thing, but you yourself clearly stated 'removing the wings' not anything with the underbody.

Excuse me but that is just rubbish.

I gets no love on this site.
Boy if i said that to any poster; I'll be banned for a week.

<3

The only thing that is going to happen is that the cars will go 30kph faster and can add a ton of more downforce because the horsepower is there, simply will cause the teams to go even more into aerodynamics simply because the room is there to do so. They can simply say 'we are going to add a sh*tload of wings everywhere because we have the power to do so'

No you are wrong. And you are missing the point. The areo will be fixed to current regulations. You cant add a tonne more downforce if the regs make it physically impossible to do so.
The cars will simply have 1000hp with the current grip levels and cornering G's, making the power and it's modulation and application to the track more influential on lap time.

True, the car on throttle and under braking will be much harder but otherwise they will be going much faster down the straights, and for me that doesnt feel right. Now it is quite simple, or fast down the straights or fast through the corners, the 1000hp engine you propose will give both and it doesnt seem right.

F1 cars simply need to reduce consumption, and car weight. Now they are doing it half-arsed like everything they do. If they wanted to do it correctly they'd let KERS be the replacement for 80hp, not the addition of 80hp, what is even green about that? and in what way useful to anything? It restores energy but in the end still throws it away so you can use 80hp more over a duration of 6 seconds.

Wow great now we have 1200hp that will sure fix the f1. Apart from that drivers will reach speeds of around 400kph down the straight. Simply increasing the hp is jsut a rubbish idea and doesnt help anything. Wow they got 1200hp, now they can bolt on any wing they got and still the aerodynamic dependance stays the same since out oft hat still nothing is allowed.

Nope regs wont allow that. Secondly if you think increased power just means more straight line speed, you're not looking deep enough.

I cannot see the point you are making. The increase in hp will require the driver to be more cautios on throttle as well as the higher top speed will cause the driver to brake much earlier.

I do not see how you can neglect the reduction in CO2 output. It is an simple fact that everyone 'wants' to reduce the CO2 output of their cars. You seriously need to open your eyes, here in every car commercial it's fuel consumption is mentioned as well as CO2 output, and in other countries it is the same. Sure that people want to reduce fuel consumption isn't the case. When you think about road cars you don't think right, you think about Ferrari's and other high performance road cars only going fast. And that is where you go wrong, you need to think the cars everyone got, even these expensive Mercedes' and BMWs go greener and Porsches go greener too.

I thought you said F1 is not relevant to road cars?
Why are you talking of CO2 out put?
Nothing with 700hp running for 2 hours will ever be green. 1000hp doesn't make much difference.

Racing will never be green but when we all talk this green stuff we can better make sure the formula 1 cars can weigh 400kg and have approx. 400hp engines in whatever format you can make them. or what about an incredibly small engine of around 200hp with 200hp kers? formula 1 talks about wanting to go green but doesnt do anything. It gives me the idea they only talk green because that makes them look good to other people, not because they want to.

Indycar is, however their car not looking very well currently, showing a good way to achieve greener racing without loss of performance.

The difference between 750hp and 1000hp still is a fair amount of consumption that you are wasting.

In my eyes formula 1 has lost it's pinnacle of motorsport position a while ago already. When you are the pinnacle of motorsport you'd expect them to come up with new technology. The v8 engines, we already know these for 50 years, the electronics for 20 years, the adjustment of wings was quickly invented after wings themselves were invented thus already known for 50 years.

If you want to be a pinnacle of motorsport and be relevant to road cars then open up mechanical development, allow new things to happen.

Saying this gives me the feeling that we already could be 10 years forward in technlogy, since there would be more headcount working on these things. Everywhere it is limited, and why? because they dont want it to happen, want to fill their pockets with money that come from the blood seat and tears of thousands of other people.

Oh, that last part was barely relevant

[shelly]

@ringo: wings do give around 60% of total downforce (2,5 on 4).

[strad]

Enzo also said something like "I don't sell cars, I sell engines. The rest I give you for free to hold the engine"

hahahaha not the quote I was thinking of but that is typical Enzo

[riff_raff]

Won't the bigger teams be even more creative and innovative? They've got more people and resources to call on so they should find even more ways to gain speed than the little guys....

MIKEY_!,

I don't necessarily agree. Big teams of engineers/analysts are efficient at optimizing a design through iteration. But creativity and innovation are almost exclusively the product of individual efforts, and not those of large teams.

slider

[riff_raff]

.........Why are they increasing the power of the car if fuel consumption is more impotant. Why are the most efficient models not sold in the states?
Simply because they are too weak and don't appeal to the US market.

F1 didn't pioneer any technology. But a team experience can contribute or inspire a road car program nontheless. Remember the V10 BMW M5? Not to mention all the flappy paddle cars you can think of......

ringo,

The primary reason small, fuel-efficient European model cars are not sold in the US is because they don't meet US crash standards. In order to make these cars meet US crash standards, the front end structure would need to be longer and heavier.

I agree with your statement about F1 not pioneering technologies. In fact, F1 is mostly a beneficiary of technologies developed in other industries. The composite materials used in F1 chassis came from aerospace, as did the carbon clutches and brakes, and the CAD/FEA/CFD softwares.

The only useful F1 technology that I can think of that made it onto a production vehicle was Honda's VTEC valvetrain. But I may be wrong.

riff_raff

[Belatti]

MIKEY_!,

I don't necessarily agree. Big teams of engineers/analysts are efficient at optimizing a design through iteration. But creativity and innovation are almost exclusively the product of individual efforts, and not those of large teams.

slider

And I think there is enough evidence in F1 to proof that...

[ringo]

In my eyes formula 1 has lost it's pinnacle of motorsport position a while ago already. When you are the pinnacle of motorsport you'd expect them to come up with new technology. The v8 engines, we already know these for 50 years, the electronics for 20 years, the adjustment of wings was quickly invented after wings themselves were invented thus already known for 50 years.

If you want to be a pinnacle of motorsport and be relevant to road cars then open up mechanical development, allow new things to happen.

Saying this gives me the feeling that we already could be 10 years forward in technlogy, since there would be more headcount working on these things. Everywhere it is limited, and why? because they dont want it to happen, want to fill their pockets with money that come from the blood seat and tears of thousands of other people.

Oh, that last part was barely relevant

It's not really about the technology in the car to me. I don't see that when i watch the races.
What's most important is what the fans see and hear.
The green stuff, the kers, all that mumbo jumbo is gimmicks.

A 400hp F1 will not attract viewers, even if it's driven by a flux capacitor.

People want to see bloody fast cars. Bloody loud cars. It has to be superfluous and unique.
Most of all it has to be a sensual overload.

The only way to do that now is to make it so the cars are closer in performance so they can race.
You can achieve this by increasing power. This makes it easier for the small teams who buy engines.
Increased power increases braking distance. This increases time in the braking zones. More time in the braking zone makes for more possibilities for race craft, dueling, driver errors and driver skills.
There is also a greater demand from the driver to have more throttle control when he has more power but not more grip.
All of this helps the fans and the manufacturers. Aero is less of a factor now that the engine is over speced.

So there are really 2 options: more power; engine power and reliability returning to the forefront of racing, or removal or reduction in the size of the wings.

[Jersey Tom]

The only way to [attract viewers] now is to make it so the cars are closer in performance so they can race.

Agree.

You can achieve this by increasing power.

Disagree.

[ringo]

ringo,

The primary reason small, fuel-efficient European model cars are not sold in the US is because they don't meet US crash standards. In order to make these cars meet US crash standards, the front end structure would need to be longer and heavier.

I agree with your statement about F1 not pioneering technologies. In fact, F1 is mostly a beneficiary of technologies developed in other industries. The composite materials used in F1 chassis came from aerospace, as did the carbon clutches and brakes, and the CAD/FEA/CFD softwares.

The only useful F1 technology that I can think of that made it onto a production vehicle was Honda's VTEC valvetrain. But I may be wrong.

riff_raff

It's not always the crash tests.
You may be familar with the BMW 3 series. In my country, the standard model is the 316i, this car was a 1.6lt engine, beautiful fuel efficiency. Now the 320i is the base model with the current 3 series.
The last time america saw a 4 cylinder from BMW was in the early nineties.
Keep in mind the chassis is the exact same thing. No differences in the build, except for the bigger engine.
Americans simply don't want to buy the aneamic cars.

I don't know if it has to do with culture. But lots of diesels don't make it over to the states and lots of family sedans with small engines dont make it over. Only when the car has big displacement and cup holders.
Down here it's the opposite, we don't buy american cars, we buy japanese or european, with a focus on fuel efficiency and parts availability. American cars and trucks are too heavy and they consume too much fuel.
In fact there is increased duty and taxes for any car over 2.0lt. So it's almost pointless to buy a gas guzzler.

Now back to the power argument. The power of the engines have been increasing. Yes the fuel consumption is reducing as well. But imagine how much more efficient the road cars would be if they stuck to the power levels and curb weights of 12 years ago?

This is why i don't think F1 should pay much attention to fuel aving. Especially if it's just to make a statement.
The manufactures can do much more in the auto car segment. Especially in the states. The chevy volt is a gimmick. That car could do much better.

[ringo]

You can achieve this by increasing power.

Disagree.

reasons?

We need to look at this as openly as possible.

[Jersey Tom]

I just don't see why more power will inherently make the field closer and more competitive.

If nothing else this season had changed other than let's say the engines being +100 hp from where they are now.. do we think the field would have been any closer? I wouldn't suspect so.

Does make me think what the "top players" have going that makes them perform consistently so high above everyone else.

[bhall]

I would have liked to have seen the V10s driven without the benefit of traction control. That might have spiced things up a tad.

[Jersey Tom]

Big engines without TCS are cool and all... just don't see how it would have changed the outcome or spread of things.

[MIKEY_!]

Won't the bigger teams be even more creative and innovative? They've got more people and resources to call on so they should find even more ways to gain speed than the little guys....

MIKEY_!,

I don't necessarily agree. Big teams of engineers/analysts are efficient at optimizing a design through iteration. But creativity and innovation are almost exclusively the product of individual efforts, and not those of large teams.

slider

That's why the large teams get out their bags of money and hire the best people. Red Bull for example. Creativity and innovation are most useful when you've got a big team of experts behind you to develop the idea to it's maximum potential. It's no good having one spectacularly good idea, but then lacking the resources to get it working properly and get the rest of the car working well too.