Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

[Just_a_fan]

The fact is the cars cannot be allowed to exceed the performance level of the circuits. That is one of the basic criteria that rules must encompass for all sanction bodies.

Oh, I agree. But those that call for reduced aero downforce, more aero efficiency etc. also forget that doing so will result in much higher tops speeds at the ends of straights unless the engines are also reduced in power by a similarly large margin. So we reduce the aero and then need to reduce the engine to keep the cars within the circuits' ability to deal with them. And then we're looking at GP2 cars in F1 clothes.

F1's aero, power and speed can not be reduced unless all of the series/formulae below are also similarly reduced. And is the FIA going to do that? Just to keep a few F1 fans happy? Won't be betting on that...

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Range Rovers! Pah!!

I dont want to return to Maserati 250F's or Benz 196ers.

I want a return to the the technical ethos that underlined the forumula. Not the Aerodynamic facet that so dominates it today.

There is more to F1 than aerodymamics. I would say that the man in the street thinks engines matter more than wings etc.

Yet where are we?

Waiting for Ferrari Mclaren Mercedes et al all to come up with the next aero gagdet to beat RB.

Sorry, this aint right.

[strad]

JohnsonsEvilTwin
=D>

[hardingfv32]

F1's aero, power and speed can not be reduced unless all of the series/formulae below are also similarly reduced. And is the FIA going to do that? Just to keep a few F1 fans happy? Won't be betting on that...

This is very true, unless the majority of the audience has no idea what the lower categories are. This could very well be the case in F1. An extreme example would be the countries with F1 races that have very little actual in country motor sports.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

I want a return to the the technical ethos that underlined the forumula. Not the Aerodynamic facet that so dominates it today.

Yet where are we?

Waiting for Ferrari Mclaren Mercedes et al all to come up with the next aero gagdet to beat RB.

Sorry, this aint right.

The mechanical technical ethos of F1 has come and gone. It peaked with the fully active cars, in what the 90's. I hope you were there, it was wonderful. We only needed the drivers for steering purposes and rebooting the system occasionally. Now some will say that there was too much electronics mixed with these mechanical wonders, but it must be said the the mechanical side was pretty much maxed out or on the way to maxing out with the help of electronics.

Hey, nothing stay the same, or things were always better back then... just human nature.

Brian

[ringo]

Range Rovers! Pah!!

I dont want to return to Maserati 250F's or Benz 196ers.

I want a return to the the technical ethos that underlined the forumula. Not the Aerodynamic facet that so dominates it today.

There is more to F1 than aerodymamics. I would say that the man in the street thinks engines matter more than wings etc.

Yet where are we?

Waiting for Ferrari Mclaren Mercedes et al all to come up with the next aero gagdet to beat RB.

Sorry, this aint right.

Solution: One.. thousand.. horses...

[Just_a_fan]

Range Rovers! Pah!!

I dont want to return to Maserati 250F's or Benz 196ers.

I want a return to the the technical ethos that underlined the forumula. Not the Aerodynamic facet that so dominates it today.

What technical ethos is that then?
Suspension? Well, it's either passive as now or active.
Engine control? It's either TC or no TC. Which do you want?
Stability control? Nice and "road car relevant". Really want that in F1?
Engines - want diesel? Or pure electric? Or just variations on current petrol engines? Perhaps with valve trains that have existed since the 1920s? (Really, most stuff on petrol engines has been around a loooong time - there really is little innovation left there).
Hybrids? Well, hardly innovative as road cars have been there for a number of years but hey...

What technical ethos are you aiming for? The "good old days"...?

There is more to F1 than aerodymamics. I would say that the man in the street thinks engines matter more than wings etc.

There is aero, suspension, gearbox, engine and driver aids. That's it (plus tyres but they're controlled so out of the equation). Not sure what you hope to achieve by killing off one of those (aero)...

Oh, and most "men in the street" don't know anything about F1 other than a few driver names - and those will tend to reflect where you are when you ask the question (UK, Germany, Spain etc.). The man in the street doesn't care about any of the technical stuff. But he will recognise F1 from the big wings and the car liveries...

Yet where are we?

Waiting for Ferrari Mclaren Mercedes et al all to come up with the next aero gagdet to beat RB.

Sorry, this aint right.

Where are we? Where we have been for the last 40 years...it's either aero dominated or it's back to the days of cars that look like Formula Fords/Renaults. What do you want?

[Just_a_fan]

F1's aero, power and speed can not be reduced unless all of the series/formulae below are also similarly reduced. And is the FIA going to do that? Just to keep a few F1 fans happy? Won't be betting on that...

This is very true, unless the majority of the audience has no idea what the lower categories are. This could very well be the case in F1. An extreme example would be the countries with F1 races that have very little actual in country motor sports.

Brian

It doesn't matter whether the audience knows about the lower classes. If F1 is lowered to the same or a lower level then it ceases to be "special" and it just becomes another open-wheeled racing series.

F1 is special because of aero. Some series are more accelerative (drag racers), some corner better (prototype/LMP cars perhaps), some have higher top speed (Indy oval racers?) but nothing in the world blends an F1 car's ability to accelerate, stop and corner in one package. They are the quickest cars around a road circuit (i.e. a race track as the world outside of the US / Indy understands it) because they have high downforce coupled with decent power levels. Take that away and they are just another open wheel series.

F1 is special because of aero not in spite of it. Remove aero and F1 disappears. I'm amazed that so many intelligent people fail to see this. They obviously view F1 in isolation and that is fatal...

I'd love F1 to be more technical but that is just fan-wank (which is what too many in here are guilty of - me included; I love reading the technical stuff or I wouldn't be here!). If F1 is to survive it has to be "simply special" and that is not done by having special flavours of widget that only anoraks understand. It's done by setting lap times that no other series can compete with. And that needs downforce. There is no other way.

Do the emerging markets care about F1 being green? No, they do not. Why? Because they still see it as the fastest cars and the best drivers. Only a section of the (mostly) European audience cares about the green agenda. India, China, Russia, Korea etc. aren't bothered by fuel efficency. They want glamour and noise and speed. Take those away and F1 will die. Simple.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

@Just_a_fan

What technical ethos is that? You really have to ask?

Come on mate, one that does not depend on aerodynamics! This is what the discussion is about no?

And "little innovation left" in the engineering side? Thats just plain ridiculous I'm afraid.
There is more engineering to come from oily bits, battery and recuperative technologies that it would seem it is Aerodynamics that has run its course in terms of reaching its innovative zenith.

Want an example?
Whats the total spend now to get a few points extra downforce? 10s of Millions And How similar do all the cars look nowadays.

Back when aero meant less, you had all sorts of different looking cars. Now its paint jobs that define a car, very GP2 if you ask me.

So as I said before, Bring real world problems to F1 for eg, give a team 100 litre of fuel to run a GP, and to qualify with only 1 litre(or such like).
Reduce the crazy over reliance of aero, which can be redressed through tyres.

[Just_a_fan]

@Just_a_fan

What technical ethos is that? You really have to ask?

Come on mate, one that does not depend on aerodynamics! This is what the discussion is about no?

And "little innovation left" in the engineering side? Thats just plain ridiculous I'm afraid.
There is more engineering to come from oily bits, battery and recuperative technologies that it would seem it is Aerodynamics that has run its course in terms of reaching its innovative zenith.

Want an example?
Whats the total spend now to get a few points extra downforce? 10s of Millions And How similar do all the cars look nowadays.

Back when aero meant less, you had all sorts of different looking cars. Now its paint jobs that define a car, very GP2 if you ask me.

So as I said before, Bring real world problems to F1 for eg, give a team 100 litre of fuel to run a GP, and to qualify with only 1 litre(or such like).
Reduce the crazy over reliance of aero, which can be redressed through tyres.

Aero is locked because the rules preclude such things as proper active surfaces. Wings that change shape to suit the needs of the cars at that moment for example.

And do you really think the MP4-26 and the RB7 look alike? Really?!!

I'd be happy for the engineers to be allowed to develop the engines further but you'd see them spending 10 of millions to extract another 50bhp at 18k revs or maybe shave 10% from the fuel consumption (ooh, 3.3miles per gallon instead of 3 miles per gallon. How exciting! That'll fill the grandstands!) The irony is that to do this sort of thing requires the teams to aero model the inlet, cylinder and exhaust tracts to ensure the most efficient use of the air entering and the exhaust leaving the engine. And they would spend millions doing it for a few tenths of a percent improvement. No different to bodywork aero really.

I'd also be happy for the KERS system to be "free use" so that the car's ECU could deploy the energy out of every corner if the team so wished. We'd lose it as a race strategy differentiator though so the racing would be reduced but it would still mean the teams spending money on something other than the dreaded aero. Bttery technology might be moved forward a little but, in reality, the laws of nature are the restricting issue there, not the amount the teams spend. There is only so much energy you can get battery chemicals to take and give. That's why petrol is so good!!

And no, tyres alone could not make the cars go around corners at 4g or stop at 5g peak. That requires, um, downforce.

So, in summary, if you said to the teams "you are free to spend what you want where you want but you only get 100 litres of fuel for the race" do you think they would stop spending on aero and spend it all on engines? No way. They'd spend a lot of time and money developing a car that had high downforce but lowish drag in the corners and little if any of either on the straights and they'd save buckets full of fuel in the process. And the cars would be faster than they are today. And then they'd spend money on getting the engine to pick up whatever was left between the 100 litre limit and whatever the car was still using.

F1 cars use lots of fuel because they are draggy because they have to drag big wings down the straights. Let them dump that drag on the straights and you'd save way more fuel than you could ever save by working on engine efficiency alone.

I'd like to see hub mounted generator/motor units on each wheel linked to batteries/flywheels/whatever too, but I don't think the team would or should spend their budgets on making the next MGU 10 grams lighter. Which is what happens when a technology matures. Oh, and most of them would probably just buy off-the-shelf units anyway...

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see F1 develop interesting oily bits but it must not be at the expense of the spectacle because if F1 stops being brash, noisy, glamorous and above all fast around circuits, then it will die.

F1's USP is the blend of acceleration, cornering and braking that nothing else can compete with. That requires aerodynamic downforce; take that away and you lose F1. Be careful what you wish for...

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I see your position J_A_F is as entrenched as a fundamentalist's.
But you make the mistake of thinking I want aero abolished totally. I dont.

Tyres would easily make up the difference of a REDUCED RELIANCE on aero. Im sure Jersey tom or HardingV32 could point you to some factual information on that side.

The problem today is that teams spend more than half of their budgets on aero. Its a problem thats spiralled since the late 80s. Look at Red Bull, they are primarily an Aerodynamics firm led by a genius aerodynamicist.
Do they make engines? No. They basically build the worlds fastest upside down aeroplanes.

You could level this at McLaren, but then you look at their engineering department and realise these guys are anything but upside down aeroplane makers.
Theyre automotive specialists.

I cannot say the same of Red Bull or its F1 team sadly. And thats not a reflection of themselves, but of F1 as a sport in general. Because, in my opinion, Aerodynamics has wrongly become the dominant area of F1 when other facets have been wrongly neglected.

I mean for example, can you imagine suspension gearbox KERS and engine tech were allowed more freedom?
At certain tracks, they would dominate, and vice versa.

But the real magic would be to level it so that the difference can be seen
by everyone at most tracks! This is not as far fetched as some may think, especially in this day an age of F-ducts and EBD's(via retarding ignition).
It may sound like F1 valhalla, but I think its achievable if aero is kerbed and other facets of F1 are given are fairer chance of shining.

[Just_a_fan]

JET, I'm not entrenched but I will defend aero as key to an F1 car's performance. It wouldn't be much of a debate if everyone just sat in here and said "yes" to original question, would it?

Tyres will never be able to make up for a significant drop in downforce. It just can't happen. F1 cars corner and brake so well because of downforce. That is a simple fact. A tyre that allows 4g cornering and lasts 30 laps? Can't see it happening I'm afraid.

I'm very keen on F1 being allowed to expand on areas other than aero. New engine technology? Yes please! Hell, they're not even allowed variable valve systems these days when even £10k shopping hatchbacks have it and that's just daft. New gearbox technology? Yes please! TC, ABS, Stability control? No thanks - I want these cars to be difficult to drive at the limit. "Sorting men from boys" and all that.

I'm no fan of the "green washing" of F1 but if we must have it, then let the teams get on and use it fully. Let them develop hugely compact and powerful energy recovery systems and let them run them as much aqs they want. Why not?

But I'd also like teams to be able to develop clever aero devices as previously mentioned. These will allow high cornering speeds and lower fuel use - "win, win" as they say.

The problem for those looking to reduce aero reliance is that the only practical way to do so is to define the downforce developing structures in the rules. So we have FIA defined wings, endplates, floor and diffuser shapes. Now, that can be done. It won't prevent the teams spending time and money trying to maximise the downforce generated by the car as a whole though. Why? Because downforce is key to getting around the corners quickly and that is key to fast lap times.

But I will reiterate my concerns that F1's USP is it's ability to corner and brake like nothing else. Take that away and you will lose F1 as "something special". How you maintain lap times and reduce aero is an interesting question; it may not be answerable either...

But one thing that must be remembered is that developing new tech will cost serious money. And that will disadvantage the small teams just as much as aero development costs do. So unless you can force the big teams to effectively subsidise the little teams with free "new tech" then you're no closer to improving the racing by removing aero's influence.

[ESPImperium]

F1 is reliant on aerodynamics, yes, but what is there in the mechanichal areas and engine areas for freedom???

There needs to be a redirection from aero to more mechanichal areas, personally id like to see the return of active suspension, but in a limited form. Id make it that a driver can change the suspension 3 or 4 times a race.

Id also like to see the engines put back to 19,000rpm till the new breed comes out in 2014. Lets wring the endines for all they are worth. The engines are too relyable now, and this needs a re-ballance, lets see more blow ups and such.

As for the electronics side of things, id limit the ammount of switches, buttons and rotars on the drivers wheel to 10 buttons, 2 switches and 5 rotars. As for the gear shifters and clutches, what about only allowing the gear shifters on the back of the steering wheel and the clutch goes back in the foot well?

Lets see a team base a car design arround say a good active suspension and a decent engine with poor in comparison aero that goes well in the more mixed to wet conditions.

As for aero, id make it that teams can only introduce an update once every 6 races, and ban Monza and Monaco specific packages, if a team decides on such a package, it must be ran for the next 6 races, or replaced by the package that started the season.

Another area id look at is the sporting regs, if a team hasnt had a race win in the last 2 seasons, they then get an additional 9th engine for each of their drivers for the season, so when the top teams are fighting tooth and nail for a championship, you could get a upstart win from a Force India on their Joker engine.

As for engines as well, they need to be taken consecutivly and not concurrently, also do the same with Transmissions.

The rules need to be freed up in a sporting sence and technichal sence in certain areas. However aero rules need tightened even more. This is where i think a driver could start making even more of a difference.

What F1 has done well is the single ECU, introduction of KERS (that needs opened up even more in my opinion) DRS has been a success, but needs a bit more refinement in my opinion to allowing every driver 20 activations per race.

[WhiteBlue]

..F1 is special because of aero. Some series are more accelerative (drag racers), some corner better (prototype/LMP cars perhaps), some have higher top speed (Indy oval racers?) but nothing in the world blends an F1 car's ability to accelerate, stop and corner in one package. They are the quickest cars around a road circuit (i.e. a race track as the world outside of the US / Indy understands it) because they have high downforce coupled with decent power levels. Take that away and they are just another open wheel series.

F1 is special because of aero not in spite of it. Remove aero and F1 disappears. I'm amazed that so many intelligent people fail to see this. They obviously view F1 in isolation and that is fatal...

I think you are mixing up aerodynamic development and downforce. You can have an F1 car with zero aero development and two tons of downforce. You simply have to introduce control wings and floors.

Very few people really want to go back to a performance level that was typical for cars without aero downforce. What most people including Ferrari want is to spend a smaller part of the available development resources on aerodynamics and spend more on mechanical bits like the drive train and suspensions.

In a resource controlled environment it means that the resources or the budget for the competing fields of development need to be controlled separately and the respective level of each fields need to be agreed upon. And there we are at the crux of the current debate. The top teams Ferrari and Red Bull have opposed views how this should be done and unless they come to an agreement somehow there will be a threat to the introduction of the 2014 turbo engine. Unless they agree in the next twelve months how to set the different budgets they cannot design the 2014 cars. So my fear is that we will see the turbo engine delayed by another year to 2015 if the issue cannot be settled.

But beside the issue of resource or budget control there is also the method of control that the regulations use on the aero design. I'm talking about the boxes of geometrical restrictions. I don't think that the method is really viable for the future. Changing those boxes around for years has proven a very expensive way to produce some artificially different configurations. And every time the configuration has changed fundamentally hundreds of millions of $$ were spend to increase the downforce. When the reasonable limit was exceeded they changed the configuration again and the game started all over.

It should really be the other way round. The designers should have very little geometric restrictions but a total downforce limit they are working with. This would automatically focus the designers on getting the lowest drag out of the research they can do. That would be beneficial for F1 and as there are no more willy nilly configuration changes the wasting of aerodynamic resources would be significantly reduced.

[ringo]

You guys are overlooking a very simple solution.

You leave the down force as it is now. That remains the same, the F1 cars need to be able to stay at that level to corner like they do.

What you change is the power of the engine. And people are underestimating what this will do the the behavior of the car and the racing.

That is the only way to have your cake (downforce) and eat it (less influence of downforce and bringing back the engine and mechanicals to the fore).

Ask any f1 engineer about upping the power by 30% and what it does to the car.
Scarbs needs to ask one of his F1 links.