[Tech Issue] The lack of proper aerodynamic changes/F-Duct [HUGE MERGE]

[Born Racer]

It's widely agreed that the main problem with overtaking in F1 is the over-reliance on aerodynamic grip. Talented engineers claw back deficits that are implemented by rule changes cutting aero, and very quickly too. What is needed then is a huge reduction, and one not as feasible to overcome (such as standard 'neutral' wings, or no wings).

(Feel free to disagree and tell me I am wrong if this is not true about the aero problem).

I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories, but I have to conclude that there is some unexplained reason why aero is not cut massively, and why they instead fanny about with silly rule changes that ignore the crux of the problem.

For instance, are there so many aerodynamicists vis-a-vis employees in more mechanical positions that they do not wish to negate their role?

There seems to be something going on, and we're not told the story.

[GolddustMini]

i hear that area 51 has a whole stack of adrian neweys in cryogenic deep freeze....


send in molder and scully!


I think your right but I think its more to do with the fact that the teams do not want to give an inch with regards to their competitive edge, for example Ferrari are happy for example spending a lot of money to ensure their car is more aero efficient and has more downforce as it gives them a competitive edge over lets say lotus who are spending much less, therefore Ferrari wouldn't want to go with a complete blanket set of rules which basically removes this costly (yet for them essential) performance advantage.

[Marbot]

To counter that you need to read the article just published on James Allen's Website.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.co.uk/ Aero - counter-argument.

[Last2LiftOff]

Originally Posted by GolddustMini

i hear that area 51 has a whole stack of adrian neweys in cryogenic deep freeze....

I'm sorry Golddust but there is absolute zero evidence to support that claim.

[GolddustMini]

Originally Posted by Last2LiftOff

I'm sorry Golddust but there is absolute zero evidence to support that claim.

[Born Racer]

Interesting link Martyn, and thought-provoking. What Frank says here though is not 'proof':

“Here’s the proof – if downforce prevented overtaking, historically the races with the fewest overtaking manoeuvres would have been the wet races, where maximum downforce settings are used

Wet races have lower grip levels which are compensated for by higher downforce settings. That there are often more overtaking manoeuvres is to do with lack of grip, increased braking distances and the relative abilities of the drivers therefore being exposed. So I can't see how he is correct here.

I think your right but I think its more to do with the fact that the teams do not want to give an inch with regards to their competitive edge, for example Ferrari are happy for example spending a lot of money to ensure their car is more aero efficient and has more downforce as it gives them a competitive edge over lets say lotus who are spending much less

It's about time the governing body showed teams who runs F1, or who should be running it. Unfortunately, when they themselves seem so indecisive, it's hard to have faith in their measures to solve the problem.

[jab]

Dernie is obviously going to defend aerodynamics, because without it he and lots of other aero guys would be out of a job and out of the sport

And that's the big issue. We've got aerodynamicists employed by the teams setting the aero rules via the TWG and OWG. It's the foxes ruling the henhouse, because:

1) They're obviously going to be looking to get around the rules ASAP when setting them, to generate additional downforce and because it's in the interests of the teams that their cars are difficult to be overtaken

2) They'd be out of a job if they seriously cut back as much as they need to, because the key is standardising a lot of the aero

I can already spot a couple of flaws in Dernie's argument just by skimming, including his assertion that 2005 produced more overtaking due to the tyre rules - in fact, if you look at the proper overtaking stats, it had the least overtaking for any single year in the last 30 years of F1. It's just simply biased - anyone with 2 eyes and motorsport brain can see that the best racing is in series like FFord with low downforce provide the best racing

They need independent freelance designers to come up with a definitive set of aero rules - I hate to keep mentioning him but Gary Anderson would be ideal, as he predicted that the diffusers not being banned for 2009 would cause problems

[Purist]

Except F1 can't tell the teams that they aren't the ones in charge. Ferrari, Mercedes, and Renault could just threaten to leave, and kill F1's credibility, not to mention sponsorship. In the end, the big teams have the clout and the ball, and they and FOM know it.

Sorry, but not even Red Bull carries the weight and recognition in motorsport that Renault and Mercedes do, and even those two marques don't have the clout of the Ferrari name. Even if just Ferrari left, who, in terms of teams that really matter, would Mercedes be going out and trying to beat? In F1 terms, nobody who really matters, that's who.

I have better counter-argument for those who put the blame mostly or completely on aerodynamics. Why does Monza, which has by far the lowest downforce settings of any track F1 visits currently, NOT produce the best racing of the year?

[Sodemo]

1999 had some of the worst racing I have ever had to sit through thanks to the harder 4-grooved tyres that Bridgestone brought to the party. However, I do think harder tyres have a place in the solution, but we need harder wider tyres. A harder tyre means less marbles off line (good for overtaking) and making them wider will mean that the increased contact patch would make up for any lack of grip due to the tyres going harder.

[jab]

Originally Posted by Purist

Except F1 can't tell the teams that they aren't the ones in charge.

Indeed. They need to be told what is being done is for their benefit but we know they'll just object to it. There just needs to be an incentive for them

The carrot I'd dangle is customer cars, which naturally favours the big teams because they're the ones that are able to sell their cars

Originally Posted by Purist

I have better counter-argument for those who put the blame mostly or completely on aerodynamics. Why does Monza, which has by far the lowest downforce settings of any track F1 visits currently, NOT produce the best racing of the year?

Because of the high speed corners

It's not absolutely down to downforce levels, but they do play a major part, especially when looking at the bigger picture. It's turbulence and aero sensitivity as well

Here's a question for you, though - what circuit does produce the best racing of the year? Which circuit allows more overtaking and why? Because I can't put my finger on a single circuit that does other than Bahrain, funnily enough, and maybe Sepang and Spa on a good day (2007 is proof that the latter isn't always great)

[Born Racer]

Interlagos always seems to have a good amount of overtaking.

[Purist]

Spa has one off race though in how many? And it was only an off race if you were ONLY watching Kimi the whole time. Of course, it doesn't hurt that it rains in the Ardennes for 40-50% of the GPs held there, but still, the dry races are rarely bad.

Three ones I have seen stand out clearly above the rest, at least in my mind, have been Melbourne, Interlagos, and Spa. I would probably still give the nod just barely to Spa over Interlagos, with Melbourne third in the contest. Part of my ranking is probably impacted by Melbourne being the usual opener, and the fact that Montreal was absent last season. After Melbourne, the next three would probably be Montreal, Suzuka, and Sepang.

I'll be back a little later to explain at least some of my choices.

[johnh875]

I think looking at the overall number of overtaking moves is missing the point. When you have cars seconds a lap faster than can't get past the one in front, and unable to close on the car in front due to lack of aero grip, I see that as a problem. He basically ignored the issue of the cars being "hard to follow".

[Born Racer]

He has a point about tyres, and a point about a dirty track off-line. But these are secondary aspects.

He is turning a blind eye to the aerodynamic problem with some questionable examples.

[Tim the Grey]

He has a point, so hard tyres, manual transmission, and TAKE OFF THE AERO!

In fact, do all that right now...

Let's see who can DRIVE, and who was just good at hanging on to the steering wheel?

[Purist]

Jab, if I had to put my finger on what makes a circuit good for racing, one of the biggest things I think has to be that the circuit in question requires a compromised set-up. That means, there may be a number of corners where you definitely want the downforce, but there is enough more time to be lost on the straights by doing so that you still choose to trim the car out with less drag.

However, I will caution that I don't think all good or great circuits produce good racing for that particular reason. Mosport Park, for example, only has the one long "straight", but you have to be so precise everywhere else, and any mistake can easily put you wide enough to let the guy behind slip inside and take the corner. Camber changes, dips and rises, bumps, varying corner radii, and just the sheer speed of so many of the turns at Mosport mean that mistakes are that much easier to make, and can be that much more costly when made.

On top of all this, circuits with a more sinuous layout often lend themselves to not necessarily having one ideal line through the sequences of corners, as well as often having places where being on the "ideal" line all the way through one corner could put you on a disadvantageous line for the next turn.

Jab, your explanation of Monza doesn't really pan out. If the fast corners were the track's undoing, even with low downforce, how do you explain Hockenheim, before it was butchered in 2002? The first turn, and the turn leading into the old stadium complex are both fast corners, yet cars were certainly able to follow one another through them, and some people overtook their competitors at those particular turns. Spa and Interlagos, with their fast corners, don't fall short as racing circuits either. The culprit is still something else then.

[JeremySmith]

I have to agree as far as the huge dependency on aero is concerned..

Adrian Newey would have had no on track testing for his cars had he been allowed to get away with it, he would still be in the wind tunnel...

[Matt]

Strip off all the wings and make them hilariously over-powered Formula Ford's. You wanna see the best drivers in the world, you got it right there.

[jab]

I wouldn't quite go that far, but it's that sort of thing that needs to be done. F1 should still have the fastest single-seaters but all this guff about not making the radical changes that are needed "because it's F1" is a load of nonsense. F1 has to realign itself which means making some sacrifices - unlike the old myth, F1 doesn't have to be unique. It's only unique because every other series to try that approach has had the common sense to realise that it's totally flawed and in direct opposition to the idea of creating good racing

It's all well and good for us to say they should keep the cars being totally 100% unstandardised but when it comes down to it, we're hardcore fans who will watch for forever and a day - will the casual fans really care? At the end of the day, they just want to see good race every Sunday afternoon

The focus should be on racing, cost and aesthetics

[neiltb]

As noted Dernie has a vested interest and blaming all that mechanical grip, what does his downforce put extra pressure on again? He can't even see that he is part of what he sees as the problem.

The downforce levels at Monza and the old Hock were still pretty big, d/f increases at the square of velocity change but drag (turbulence) is reduced with the skinny wings. Monzas high speed corners (parabolica) are proper corners, Hock only had the stadium section (allowing drivers to get close for the start of the lap), between the chicanes at the start were bendy straights, no d/f required.

[Casper]

There is a good reason not to abandon wings on cars and it is advertising. Pull them off and huge areas of income disappear, laugh if you must but it is true.

[Pingguest]

It's perfectly possible to have good racing without getting rid of downforce. Cars always generate a lift, 'positive' or 'negative'. Without diffusers and wings cars could well generate a positive lift (just as the pre-1967 Formula 1 cars did), causing cars to get more grip in a slipstream and hence making overtaking very easy. That would be wrong in my opinion, because in the ultimate drivers' championship overtaking should require driving skills.

[P38 in workshop]

It surprises me to admit the fact,but I totally agree with Frank Dernie's comments.A switch to a manual gearshift would mean that the driver had to do a greater share of driving the car rather than using an infallible system placed at his disposal by a team of software engineers.A reversion to steel brakes would probably help with the racing as well as reducing the costs a bit.These systems worked during the ground effect era and the aerodynamic downforce then was very high-so was the quality of the racing.

[jab]

Absolutely, those are 2 elements he got right. But they are not enough alone - to implement those and not do anything about the aero would be just as bad as what the FIA have done over the last 12 years, which is to only try and fix part of the problem and thus fail to deal with it sufficiently

[Purist]

The trouble is, what is "good racing", or "reasonable cost", or "good aesthetics"?

I mean, for example, a lot of the new wingless formula cars are still wider than they used to be, for side-impact protection, but this makes them look fat and ugly, especially compared to the ultra-slim and slick 1.5-litre and 3.0-litre "torpedo racers" of F1 from the 1960s.

There really hasn't been much drastic change in quite a long time in F1. If you asked me what I thought the quintessential "modern-looking" F1 car was, I'd probably say it was the 1978 Lotus 79 John Player Special.

None of us knows the real money situation behind the scenes, so it's rather useless to even speculate there, other than to say that teams will obviously spend everything they are given to spend in order to be the best out there.

Good racing isn't just about the number of overtaking maneuvers. The cars have to get your juices going. Sure, FFords have great scraps, but they're not on TV (so I almost never see them), and those little wasps of formula racing cars just don't get my juices going as much as the 700-800hp, winged monsters. Also, it wouldn't be much of a "race" if one guy just slipped past another in one corner, and then drove off into the sunset. So the question is not only how you allow overtaking, but how you allow good, drawn-out scraps to happen on-track.

I might add that I agree with manual, or at least sequential gearboxes. Steel brakes may be a moot point though. They may cost a bit less, but at this point, the limiting factor in actual braking distances seems to be the grip available from the tires.