Rules How about.... - Page 2

S14 · 4 Apr 2012, 18:36 (Ref:3053620)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheelsportaddict

When I said "No F Duct" what I meant was "no rear wing stalling device". There would be no adjustable ride height, no traction control, no exhaust blowing and no flexible sealing side skirts (sometimes known as "ground control").

As for fuel, they would use current spec race fuel, engines would be 3.5ltr "big block" V8s with up to 1000bhp (governed by an FIA control ECU) and tyres would be as current regulations (determined by manufacturer for each race and colour coded) with the rear tyres of a bigger profile and bigger wheel rim size, front tyres would stay as 270/55 R13 and rear tyres would be 375/65 R15.

But how are you going to ban those things, with the regulations as you presented them? Are you going to have regulations for where and how the exhaust may exit the vehicle? Will you define flexible sealing side skirts (and other ground effect aerodynamic devices) as wings? If you do that, what will you do if a team decides they'll just run a front wing and ground effect sidepods as their rear "wing" - would you have a maximum "wing" length, chord, width, profile, stiffness, etc. in response? What if a team decides to run "cooling fans" to draw air out from the underside of the car? How often would you dyno the engines? Would you have unannounced spot-checks? What are you defining "Traction Control" and "Adjustable Ride Height" and other sorts of driver aids?

Even if you have a small number of technical regulations, they would require significant addenda in order to clarify them (unless you're comfortable with a team interpreting "1000 horsepower" as "1 horsepower = 1500 Watts" (which is about twice the "standard horsepower") or interpreting ground effect aerodynamics as a "wing" or having "cooling fans" or what have you) if you don't want teams to make some radical interpretations of them.

Marbot · 4 Apr 2012, 18:57 (Ref:3053644)

You could have solar power, and then have arguments about how you thought that the rules allowed you to have 'all' of the batteries fully charged before the race.

And BTW, F-ducts aren't banned, only the way in which they were previously operated was banned.

Big block, 1,000 bhp, 3.5 litre, V8 gas guzzlers aren't going to attract a lot of sponsors that want to be associated with efficiency, being green, or just being plain modern and up to date. NASCAR, on the other hand, may have an interest in them.......

stripedcat · 5 Apr 2012, 16:41 (Ref:3054148)

We can't ban downforce. Whilst I would like to see less downforce on the cars and more reliance on mechanical grip, it is not going to happen. Cutting downforce on a car only works for a couple of months at best, then the teams' designers find ways to bring it back. It must be more productive, to find a way of reducing the turbulence(or 'dirty air'). I think it has been suggested that going to a more ground-effect type car could help this(with the downforce coming from beneath the car). It would also help to have more banked corners in the circuits(like there was at Indy). It is a problem in other forms of single seater open car racing as well.

Marbot · 5 Apr 2012, 18:14 (Ref:3054170)

Quote:

Originally Posted by stripedcat

We can't ban downforce.

No. But you can make it a bad thing to have by limiting the amount of fuel that cars can run during the race. Downforce creates drag, and drag is a bad thing to have if you cannot use excessive amounts of fuel (which F1 cars are doing as there is currently no limit on the amount of fuel that you can use) in order to overcome it.

luke g28 · 5 Apr 2012, 18:56 (Ref:3054188)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbot

Downforce creates drag

It doesn't have to.

Marbot · 6 Apr 2012, 00:02 (Ref:3054302)

Quote:

Originally Posted by luke g28

It doesn't have to.

Well they were going to have 'ground effects' and then decided not to.

You'll notice that it was the FIA who wanted 'ground effects' to return, and then the teams blocked it. hmmmm.........

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/169091/..._for_2013.html

wolfhound · 6 Apr 2012, 09:52 (Ref:3054417)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbot

Well they were going to have 'ground effects' and then decided not to.

You'll notice that it was the FIA who wanted 'ground effects' to return, and then the teams blocked it. hmmmm.........

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/169091/..._for_2013.html

If you read further on in that article you see where Bernie suggests reducing the crowd going to GP's to reduce emissions and how are the circuits going to pay him his extoritionate rates then?

Marbot · 6 Apr 2012, 12:41 (Ref:3054457)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfhound

If you read further on in that article you see where Bernie suggests reducing the crowd going to GP's to reduce emissions and how are the circuits going to pay him his extoritionate rates then?

Perhaps going to the race in a car that uses 15% less fuel would sort things out?

Perhaps getting F1 cars to use around 30% less fuel from 2014 will help in that direction?

**bjohnsonsmith** · 6 Apr 2012, 16:55 (Ref:3054542)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfhound

If you read further on in that article you see where Bernie suggests reducing the crowd going to GP's to reduce emissions and how are the circuits going to pay him his extoritionate rates then?

It sounds like a rhetorical question.

**Adam43** · 6 Apr 2012, 17:29 (Ref:3054561)

Ha ha. Classic Bernie. He can still reel them in.

luke g28 · 7 Apr 2012, 13:06 (Ref:3054827)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbot

Well they were going to have 'ground effects' and then decided not to.

You'll notice that it was the FIA who wanted 'ground effects' to return, and then the teams blocked it. hmmmm.........

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/169091/..._for_2013.html

We've discussed this already. Do I have to requote the teams reasoning for rejecting ground effect? Namely that the FIAs idea was to develop ground effect but it was not allowed to out perform the current aero setup. I.e. What is the point?

JeremySmith · 7 Apr 2012, 14:36 (Ref:3054867)

Quote:

Originally Posted by luke g28

We've discussed this already. Do I have to requote the teams reasoning for rejecting ground effect? Namely that the FIAs idea was to develop ground effect but it was not allowed to out perform the current aero setup. I.e. What is the point?

How much aero do you need ?

Marbot · 7 Apr 2012, 19:08 (Ref:3054982)

Quote:

Originally Posted by luke g28

We've discussed this already. Do I have to requote the teams reasoning for rejecting ground effect? Namely that the FIAs idea was to develop ground effect but it was not allowed to out perform the current aero setup. I.e. What is the point?

What happened to all of that mechanical grip that you wanted? And why it is that 'ground effect' allows the cars to follow each other at a closer distance?

The reason for the rejection of ground effects is exactly as quoted in the crash.net article.

"It's quite a big departure. If you were going to go down that route and have a very different set of drag and lift coefficients that you couldn't achieve with the current rules, fine, that's different. But the teams saw it as a massive amount of investment and work for something we don't really understand. We're not scared of that but, if you do spend all that money, why do that and not something you can get to very quickly and cheaply with the current floor. The FIA understood that in the end."

I don't think that it could be made any clearer.

This makes interesting reading. Particularly the 'Stepped noses' and 'Aerodynamics' sections.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre...Charlie-PC.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

How much aero do you need ?

Less when there is too much, and more when there is not enough.

JeremySmith · 7 Apr 2012, 19:12 (Ref:3054985)

I was all for ground effects cars again rather than all this "blingy wingy" silliness..

Marbot · 7 Apr 2012, 19:41 (Ref:3055010)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I was all for ground effects cars again rather than all this "blingy wingy" silliness..

I think that you'll find that the 2014 cars will be a lot 'cleaner' than the current cars are. Mainly because drag will be something that you will need to avoid if you are to make it to the finish of the race.

Currently, F1 cars have a drag coefficient of around Cd 1.0, which is more than your average truck or about the same as a cube creates when held face on into the air stream. It's possibly one of the least effective aerodynamic shapes that you could have. But it's more of an advantage to current F1 cars to pull around all of that drag for extra grip in the corners, rather than have no wings and have a higher top speed on the straights.

Marbot · 7 Apr 2012, 19:44 (Ref:3055011)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I was all for ground effects cars again rather than all this "blingy wingy" silliness..

I think that you'll find that the 2014 cars will be a lot 'cleaner' than the current cars. Mainly because drag will be something that you will need to avoid if you are to make it to the finish of the race.

Currently, F1 cars have a drag coefficient of around Cd 1.0, which is more than your average truck or about the same as a cube has when held face on into the air stream. It's possibly one of the least effective aerodynamic shapes that you could have.

JeremySmith · 7 Apr 2012, 19:48 (Ref:3055015)

That is very interesting, one would think the opposite would be true..

I know I bang about those wings, I do hope your right about cleaning up the appearance of them though..

Marbot · 7 Apr 2012, 20:03 (Ref:3055024)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

That is very interesting, one would think the opposite would be true..

It's far more advantageous for a current F1 car to carry around lots of downforce (and therefore drag) for the corners, rather than have the car set up just for the straight bits.

JeremySmith · 7 Apr 2012, 20:18 (Ref:3055033)

Why did the teams not want to go in the ground effects direction then ?

**bjohnsonsmith** · 7 Apr 2012, 20:23 (Ref:3055037)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbot

Currently, F1 cars have a drag coefficient of around Cd 1.0, which is more than your average truck or about the same as a cube has when held face on into the air stream. It's possibly one of the least effective aerodynamic shapes that you could have.

That is interesting, a Cd of 1.0.

**Bononi** · 7 Apr 2012, 22:00 (Ref:3055073)

So F1 cars are cubes. I'm shocked.

Marbot · 8 Apr 2012, 00:27 (Ref:3055110)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That is interesting, a Cd of 1.0.

It's better to set up your car for cornering, rather than straight line speed. An F1 car is usually cornering more than it goes in a straight line, so you set it up for the corners, and you try not to make the car a sitting duck in a straight line, so there is compromise involved.

There is no fuel load limit at the moment, so you use the right amount of fuel to offset the drag of your car on a particular track.

2014 will be very different because you will not be able to offset drag with more fuel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bononi

So F1 cars are cubes. I'm shocked.

We've got stepped noses! What's so shocking?

trevisio · 8 Apr 2012, 10:52 (Ref:3055270)

The more downforce there is, the harder it is to follow closely, therefore more downforce equals less entertaining racing and more processions.

Teams pay aero people lots and lots of money to essentially make the racing boring.

Now we have fake overtaking devices that require zero driver talent.

What a mess! Just stop aero being part of F1 by enforcing a fixed shape of car....would that be too simple and effective? Who cares about the money invested in wind tunnels? Maybe we would actually then see the best drivers winning rather than the best areo engineering solutions all the time. And less spend on aero might happily end the horrid pay driver trumping talented driver situations we see all too often.

Marbot · 8 Apr 2012, 11:09 (Ref:3055283)

Yes indeed. We need to make aero less of a performance differentiator. The 2014 regulations do go a long way towards doing that. The cars will have around 35% less fuel to carry around in the race than they currently do.

No current F1 car would be able to finish a race distance with 35% less fuel than it normally carries, unless it went around the track very slowly, and so it's possible that it probably wouldn't be classified as a finisher, anyway.

So, the 2014 regs will have cars that rely even more on their energy recovery systems (ERS), which will be around 400% more than current use.

But the one thing that will have a huge effect on fuel consumption and the effectiveness of your ERS, is drag. No way will the 2014 cars be able to run anywhere near as much downforce as they currently do, because drag will be your main enemy, meaning that mechanical grip will have more importance.

The 2014 cars will also have mandated lower noses (proper ones), smaller front and rear wings, plus regulations to get rid of all of the 'untidiness' between the front wheels and the side-pods.

What's not to like?

**bjohnsonsmith** · 8 Apr 2012, 18:00 (Ref:3055434)

If they had gone for ground effect, like they were gong to do, the car itself would have generated the downforce and would have been less reliant on the wings, the wings could then have been smaller.