|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
3 Aug 2023, 20:09 (Ref:4171237) | #26 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,129
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
3 Aug 2023, 20:21 (Ref:4171239) | #27 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 12,069
|
Every team must bring a 60s cigar chassis for each driver to every round in the event of rain. Rain falls and we switch to old school mechanical grip and DFV-based engined cars, no wings no aids just show for the rain braving fans
Ok so lap times will not be spectacular but it's all about the show right? They could even bring bike wheel arches for sray |
|
|
3 Aug 2023, 20:52 (Ref:4171244) | #28 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 11,169
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Celui qui est parti de rien pour arriver nulle part,n'a de merci a dire a personne.Pour ceux qui vont chercher midi a quatorze heures, la minute de Vérité risque de se faire attendre longtemps. |
4 Aug 2023, 13:04 (Ref:4171319) | #29 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 991
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1 These devices would be designed in collaborations with the teams so their disturbance is minimized, known and designed to maintain aero balance of the car throughout it's speed range. 2 An unbalanced car is not competitive so team will dedicate a small percentage of their CFD/windtunnel time to optimize their package with these devices. 3 Say the car with these devices installed will loose 25% downforce, corner speeds would drop massively. Id the drive were to loose control the speed at which that happens will be a lot lower and so the consequences will not be as severe. In fact, the low of downforce could even provide the best racing we've seen for ages... Quote:
|
|||||
__________________
Constructive discussion: A conversion where participants are maximally open to yet critical of each others (and their own) arguments, with the intend of enhancing the knowledge, understanding and/or handling of it's subject. |
4 Aug 2023, 13:50 (Ref:4171329) | #30 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,129
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Even if you have the budget for it, even today teams still struggle with just one base setup. Mid season aero tweaks can sometimes be disruptive. I believe Mercedes was seeing a return of proposing at Spa. You could go nearly all season before you ask teams to fit the wet setup and then find out that some might have significant performance problems that bored upon driver safety concerns. Richard |
||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
4 Aug 2023, 15:08 (Ref:4171348) | #31 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,962
|
First off, love the back and forth guys. Everything a good debate should be. Pleasure to read!
Question…all things being equal, is more or less downforce better for racing in the rain? I assume more is better but if this rain design leads to less downforce plus less aero downforce being generated as a function of the cars being slower in the rain, wouldn’t this solution of wheel arches make it more difficult to drive in the rain? Rather does improved visibility come with the trade off of less drivability in the wet? |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
4 Aug 2023, 15:49 (Ref:4171349) | #32 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,129
|
Quote:
Quote:
1. Safe racing so that extreme rain events allow the race to proceed. 2. What is fastest I think mostly we have been focusing on #1. For #2, I expect more downforce (or efficient downforce) is what you want either rain or dry. I can imagine that with increased speeds (better performance) that the level of spray will be higher. Quote:
Richard |
||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
7 Aug 2023, 08:53 (Ref:4171748) | #33 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 991
|
Quote:
I’m talking about a sort of bargeboard placed further inside catching the air from the front and then turning it down and outside to prevent the spray to get underneath the car or close to the upward air current at the rear. These “bargeboards” would not need to be lower than the underside of the car itself because you can manipulate the air flow to seal of the bottom gap sufficiently. You would have to simulate what this does to visibility when passing. You don’t want people to drive into a wall of water when they pull alongside at 170mph. I think this would work even better with narrow rain tires because with narrower tires you increase the distance between the floor and the underside so there is less intermixing and less spray is thrown up in the first place. Quote:
The FIA and F1 seem to agree the issue needs to be addressed. So you may call it rare, but the powers that are, find it important enough to try and fix it. Quote:
Quote:
The safety part I addressed earlier. Last edited by Taxi645; 7 Aug 2023 at 09:01. |
|||||
__________________
Constructive discussion: A conversion where participants are maximally open to yet critical of each others (and their own) arguments, with the intend of enhancing the knowledge, understanding and/or handling of it's subject. |
7 Aug 2023, 10:05 (Ref:4171754) | #34 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,707
|
At least F1 is working on a solution to wet weather spray. We'll see if this is the answer they are looking for.
Personally I think F1 goes a bit far on the safe side in wet weather. I feel they need to let them race more in the wet. Wet tyres are hardly used now for example, when they should be doing their job. F1 will always have wet weather. Too often there has been not enough running in the wet. I just hope a solution is found so we can allow more racing in the wet Of course F1 in the wet has it's dangers, so it's right to try and minimise the dangers, but we still shouldn't see an end to racing in the wet Wet races have usually been fun. It can spice things up and make it more exciting and also spring a few surprises. But it hardly happens now. Let's see if we get a few wet races before the end. |
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
7 Aug 2023, 10:07 (Ref:4171756) | #35 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,294
|
I think generally speaking, the people that make these technical decisions don’t really know what they are doing, they seem to lurch from one disaster to the next and there is no joined-up thinking. Grooved tyres, then no grooved tyres, make the cars heavier, ok now they are too heavy, ok now make them lighter, increase the downforce, ok now massively reduce it.
Last edited by Sodemo; 7 Aug 2023 at 10:28. |
||
|
7 Aug 2023, 13:12 (Ref:4171778) | #36 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,129
|
Quote:
Which brings up my other core point is that if you do such significant aero changes it will impact the overall aero concepts of cars and there is little guarantee this will not create significant handling impacts in what would be argued as the most challenging conditions. I call out the limited testing, impacts on cost caps, etc. which would hinder the creation of such a solution in a way that it would be both effective and safe, and you are doing some hand waving about CFD and the FIA providing solutions. Quote:
There is also a level of need to respond to the aggravations that fans have felt. They can either try or do nothing. You have a better story to fans to say "we tried, but it doesn't work" vs. "no need to try". And like I said, there was probably some level of "it might work". I think it's worth a try to see if some relatively easy to implement and likely low risk (such as to aero balance) solutions are worth trying. But my predictions is... either those simple solutions will work enough to implement (so far they have not, but maybe some tweaks will improve things) and if they don't they will drop this and move on. They will not implement a complex and invasive solution as you propose. I think there may be no significant solution that doesn't create other undesired side effects that might be worse than the problem they are trying to solve. This is acceptable because there is already a solution for this. Don't race in extreme wet conditions. And because it is rare, it is unfortunate, but acceptable. Richard |
|||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
7 Aug 2023, 19:15 (Ref:4171810) | #37 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 12,069
|
Easiest solution, make the rain tyres worse and then they can't race when the spray would be too much or would have to slow and decrease the range of the spray with slower aero speeds.
|
|
|
7 Aug 2023, 19:23 (Ref:4171813) | #38 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,129
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
7 Aug 2023, 20:09 (Ref:4171815) | #39 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 12,069
|
But then we would have a set of parameters that says this is too much and send out the support equipment to remove the standing water instead of the F1 cars.
Sometimes the best engineered solution is to NOT try to build a better mousetrap but rather admit it's outside of parameters for success |
|
|
8 Aug 2023, 00:54 (Ref:4171833) | #40 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,498
|
Quote:
If the present situation is because the present cars create too much spray, then engineer the regulations that enable the technology we have to build a formula that is not so dependent on aero and the situation would quickly change. Tyres construction was acceptable in the 70's and 80's with wider tyres than we have now so stop playing around with degradation and build a better tyre. Simply 'build it better' because we can. We already have successful models, and the technology is old hat. It is the entrenched views about what is 'important' that need to change. |
||
|
8 Aug 2023, 01:05 (Ref:4171834) | #41 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,037
|
It was also more acceptable in the 70’s to race under conditions where drivers couldn’t see and the cars might aquaplane (which aero helps with). Safety wasn’t so important. There is more to the we used to do it that just the cars and tyres.
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
8 Aug 2023, 08:40 (Ref:4171843) | #42 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,820
|
|||
|
8 Aug 2023, 21:05 (Ref:4171903) | #43 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,129
|
Agree. The current spec is so aero dependent and the rule written with specific aero objectives in mind that it would be, IMHO, a challenge to implement a solution that is effective without causing other aero problems.
There is a similar discussion on f1technical.net which has some parallels to this discussion. Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
9 Aug 2023, 10:41 (Ref:4171953) | #44 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,707
|
Personally I don't think they need to change too much on the cars, just need to focus more on the tyres and the floors. Anyway must check out that discussion on F1 technical, thanks
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
9 Aug 2023, 12:36 (Ref:4171969) | #45 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,431
|
||
|
27 Aug 2023, 19:12 (Ref:4174247) | #46 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 750
|
Perhaps they should consider not having a wet tire. It seems like race control will red flag a race when the conditions are poor enough to run wets.
|
|
|
28 Aug 2023, 14:18 (Ref:4174389) | #47 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,962
|
in fairness, the race was red flagged because there was an off and had there been a SC or VSC it would have taken several laps to clear the incident and inspect/repair the barriers which would have most likely meant the race would have finished under a a yellow flag.
all in all and given the timing of the rain with the number of laps left, my personal opinion is that they made the call right here. for sure the delay was annoying tho but for me it didnt ruin the race. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
28 Aug 2023, 18:10 (Ref:4174422) | #48 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 750
|
Quote:
|
||
|
29 Aug 2023, 09:35 (Ref:4174473) | #49 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 11,169
|
+1. OT: As to cars being unable to run in certain conditions I happily agree but with changing conditions depending on the rain and sometimes part of the track it will be very hard to have another rule for this. That's why I do understand the need of wet tires. IMO. (I remember some endurances held on long tracks, one half of the circuit was perfectly dry while the other was flooding.)
|
||
__________________
Celui qui est parti de rien pour arriver nulle part,n'a de merci a dire a personne.Pour ceux qui vont chercher midi a quatorze heures, la minute de Vérité risque de se faire attendre longtemps. |
29 Aug 2023, 12:28 (Ref:4174505) | #50 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,976
|
This is an interesting discussion that I have only just come to. I've read through every post.
I do believe that something needs to be done to reduce spray, and if F1 came up with something that could filter down to other formulae, so much the better. I've raced in the rain (albeit in much more prosaic vehicles) and it's great fun if you are leading and can see where you are going. If you are in the pack, it's scary and not fun at all. F1 can't afford to wait until someone is killed before it acts. I don't pretend to have any sort of solution to this problem except to say that it needs to be analysed carefully before a solution is found. How much spray comes out of the back of the tyres? How much comes out of the sides? How much comes directly from the floor? To what extent is droplet size a factor? If, as a lot of people on here seem to think, much of the problem lies with tyre spray getting unto the ground effect area, then you will only solve it by changing the ground effect. Sliding skirts that isolate the two areas would work but would be subject to all the problems that got them banned 40 years ago. Attempting to achieve the same effect aerodynamically wouldn't work because subtle shapes and slots have such a large effect it would be impossible to legislate. Going back 20 years or so, mudguards and mudflaps were introduced for lorries that had a "hairy" surface facing the tyres. They were a bit like a plastic door mat. The reduction of spray on motorways was huge and it was very obvious which vehicles had them and which hadn't as you came up to overtake. Perhaps there's a clue to a solution in there. I doubt there is a solution to the problem that can be achieved by employing "sophisticated" aerodynamics. If there is a solution it will like come from the elimination of sophisticated aerodynamics, but that means winding the clock back 50 years and is hardly likely to be acceptable to organisers, teams or fans. Even then, the fact that spray is bad in 100cc karting means that it is a pretty fundamental problem. |
||
__________________
The older I get, the faster I was. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Quick release fixings for wheel arches? | Copperbottom | Racing Technology | 2 | 16 Jan 2012 12:19 |
Sandown - Wet....just how wet | RaceTime | Australasian Touring Cars. | 16 | 20 Sep 2003 07:43 |
Speaking of Great Wheel-To-Wheel... | paul-collins | Formula One | 10 | 24 May 2002 17:18 |
Wet , Wet , Wet | marcus | Formula One | 7 | 3 Mar 2002 02:24 |