Is there a point where downforce is pointless?

[raymondu999]

Hey all... Just wondering... theoretically, given that engine power in F1 is a finite measure, wouldn't it be possible that your speed through a corner is so high (due to the downforce and grip) that you've maxed out your engine and 7th gear anyways, as the engine simply doesn't have enough power to overcome any more drag?

How close are we to ever reaching this? (drivers blacking/redding out notwithstanding)

[mep]

Basically you just need a corner that is close to your top speed.
Depends on the current rules you have, how much power and drag your cars have.
I think corner 16(Blanchimont) and 17 in Spa could come close. Depended what car you have you can drive trough them without lifting. Due to the higher friction loses of the tires during cornering it might be possible that your revs drop automatically therefore you use full engine power in such a corner.
So you would be power limited during the corner but not just because of the drag also because of higher friction in general.

[Jersey Tom]

Sure, there are certain corners where you're power limited instead of grip limited.

But it's rare to have a whole track / race like that (except say Daytona and Talladega in NASCAR).

[Roland Ehnström]

The simple answer to the question is: Anywhere on the track where you are at full throttle.

Straights are a given, but also flat-out bends like Monza's Curva Grande, Spa's Blanchimont, the bend in the middle of the back-straight at Istanbul, the banking at Indianapolis, etc.

[RH1300S]

I'm not entirely sure this answers your question, but it might...

More downforce is pointless at the point your laptimes start to increase as you add d/f rather than come down.

[lolzi]

There have been ovals in IRL or CART where drivers do whole laps full throttle - I would think it would be better to have less downforce and less drag in those situations.
I think Mansell did his pole lap at full throttle in '93 at Michigan, there was a video where he showed a print of the telemetry.

[riff_raff]

raymondu999,

I don't know of any current F1 circuits where the drivers take a corner flat-out. The aero downforce on the cars is always set up for a compromise between drag losses on the straightaways and grip in the corners.

Aero drag losses tend to increase exponentially with speed, so the amount of horsepower it takes to overcome drag in an 80mph corner is only about 25% of that required to overcome drag on a 160mph straightaway.

Regards,
riff_raff

[Earnard Beccelstone]

I don't know of any current F1 circuits where the drivers take a corner flat-out. The aero downforce on the cars is always set up for a compromise between drag losses on the straightaways and grip in the corners.

Off-hand there are several that come to mind, 130R at Suzuka being the most memorable. Turn 11, the right hand kink at Istanbul, and Blanchimont, the turn on the back straight at Spa, have already been mentioned.

I believe that the Red Bulls were taking Turn 8 at Istanbul flat this year, although maybe not on full tanks.

[mep]

There are many corner you can take flat out. Even on a track like Monaco you find one. The corner in the tunnel is taken flat out.

[raymondu999]

Ok so I should clarify my question. Is there a corner where you're constantly at your terminal speed? Where if you decrease downforce, the car will go slower through the corner due to less grip, but if you increase downforce, the car's power isn't powerful enough to overcome the drag anyways?

[hollus]

While it is not at terminal speed, that sounds like Eau Rouge to me...

[tommylommykins]

Well, how do you define a corner?

After all, what's the difference between a corner that's so wide you can't see the bend and a straight?

There's a whole continuity of things, all the way from extremely tight hairpins to inconsequential kinks: Take spa for instance. The back section down to the busstop is full things that are technicaly 'corners' because you have to change direction for them in an F1car, but you don't have to slow down.

[tuj]

To answer the direct question, "is there a point where more *down-force* is pointless?", the answer is emphatically 'NO'. All down-force is beneficial except for the minor fact that it will increase rolling resistance. So for a straight-line drag race, as long as you have traction to propel the car and steer, you don't need any down-force. But if you are doing any kind of cornering, you want it, even slow corners benefit from down-force. Take a look at an A-mod auto-cross car; huge multi-element wings and it never manages to exceed 80 mph in normal competition.

But, this assumes you can increase down-force without increasing drag. So its all about the -l/d ratio. If I can increase -l without increasing d, I win and will add that to the car. But if d increases more than -l then its probably not worthwhile unless the trade-off in increased drag really does result in increased lap times.

Now increasing -l without increasing d to some extent is quite hard, which is why so much of the development focuses on the diffuser which does not contribute that much to drag but adds a significant amount of down-force.

So as a practical answer, yes there is such a thing as too much down-force, but *only* because that down-force is coming with the cost of increased drag. At least that's my take.