Could lap times be maintained with half the downforce?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

If a track just had two very long straights with a hairpin at both ends with which to join them together, then it could be that no downforce might be the best answer. It certainly wouldn't be the best answer for Monaco.

It was interesting to note that the HRT cars, despite having engines with competitive bhp figures, were pretty much hopeless everywhere. Having not that much less downforce than their contemporaries, they suffered from every handling flaw under the Sun, whether it be Monaco or Monza. Brake problems and 'locking up', through lack of downforce going into the corners, was also a big issue for them.

The HRT is showing what inefficient aerodynamics contribute to the lap times. The power absorbed goes up with the cube of the velocity, and you cannot generate the same downforce using the same amount of drag as the fast cars.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Bring back Avus

Yes, I've, unwittingly, described that track quite well.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Those 23 seconds to find don't seem a lot. But what is the downforce of an F3 car compared to an F1 car? Are F3 cars also considered to be too reliant on aero for grip? I don't know.

A 650 bhp, lightened F3 car with half of the downforce of a current F1 car. Sounds interesting.

Later versions of the 4 cylinder turbocharged 'Offy' Indy car engines produced 800 bhp. One of those in an F3 car would be interesting just by itself. Also very interesting to drive, I shouldn't wonder!

Sounds a bit like where F1 came from.

I would love to see them!

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by IndyDonut

Give em fatter tires, more mechanical grip, less weight (Keep strenght), lower CoG, and more power. I mean, it would depend on which track, though. Monza just needs raw power. A place like Spa or Malaysia needs lots of grip.

Fatter tyres don't give more grip.

Another cat amongst the pigeons.....

[Adam43]

I presume that you are referring to contact area being bigger, but pressure down being less. So you are right. However the wear is less for the same reason so you can have a softer grippy compound, so...

Otherwise why would you have wider tyres?

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Adam43

However the wear is less for the same reason so you can have a softer grippy compound, so...

Bigger contact area also means that the shear stresses in the tread are distributed over a bigger area, so softer compounds with a lower shear strength can be used. (Or so it seems to me!)

[IndyDonut]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Fatter tyres don't give more grip.

Another cat amongst the pigeons.....

Maybe not enough to add 5 seconds, but it makes a tiny bit of difference (if not to be offset by increase in tire weight).

EDIT: We're looking for ways to reduce lap times, but I think it's a fair assumption by all that we don't suggest *one* idea will do it. Give em 265mm up front and 345mm in the back, and you'll see a small bit of improvement in terms of grip from tires (I'd add the Michelin OPT suspension here, too to see better results). I dare say the FIA messed with tire widths in 1993 and 2010 for a reason. They wanted to slow down the cars for 1993. In 2010, they narrowed fronts because grip from tires was balanced too far to the front, leaving an occasionally loose rear end (not a bad thing if you ask me, make the drivers work a bit).

[Marbot]

hmmm.......interesting. Wouldn't wider tyres increase drag?

[IndyDonut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

hmmm.......interesting. Wouldn't wider tyres increase drag?

You win some, you lose some, eh? They would, but we need somebody of the f1technical forums with knowledge of fluid dynamics to know how big of a difference 2 centimeter-wider tires would make in terms of drag.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I presume that you are referring to contact area being bigger, but pressure down being less. So you are right. However the wear is less for the same reason so you can have a softer grippy compound, so...

Otherwise why would you have wider tyres?

Absolutely - but that isn't just "fatter tyres" - it is softer and fatter tyres....

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Marbot

hmmm.......interesting. Wouldn't wider tyres increase drag?

Yep!

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I presume that you are referring to contact area being bigger, but pressure down being less. So you are right. However the wear is less for the same reason so you can have a softer grippy compound, so...

Otherwise why would you have wider tyres?

Do you remember Carlos Fandango?

[S14]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Absolutely - but that isn't just "fatter tyres" - it is softer and fatter tyres....

Or you get more out of the current softs. Which could help with keeping the times down - you'd get to use them for longer.

[Adam43]

Tyres that last are boring!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by IndyDonut

Maybe not enough to add 5 seconds, but it makes a tiny bit of difference (if not to be offset by increase in tire weight).

EDIT: We're looking for ways to reduce lap times, but I think it's a fair assumption by all that we don't suggest *one* idea will do it. Give em 265mm up front and 345mm in the back, and you'll see a small bit of improvement in terms of grip from tires (I'd add the Michelin OPT suspension here, too to see better results). I dare say the FIA messed with tire widths in 1993 and 2010 for a reason. They wanted to slow down the cars for 1993. In 2010, they narrowed fronts because grip from tires was balanced too far to the front, leaving an occasionally loose rear end (not a bad thing if you ask me, make the drivers work a bit).

When the FIA messed with tyre widths in 1993 the lap times dropped on the narrrower tyres. Possibly why they introduced grooves the next time round.

Schumacher prefers understeer, so that may be one of the reasons they neutered the front tyres. It would also have made the cars more dificult on the limit i.e. not dumb enough for the pay drivers.

[IndyDonut]

Originally Posted by wnut

When the FIA messed with tyre widths in 1993 the lap times dropped on the narrrower tyres. Possibly why they introduced grooves the next time round.

Schumacher prefers understeer, so that may be one of the reasons they neutered the front tyres. It would also have made the cars more dificult on the limit i.e. not dumb enough for the pay drivers.

I would think a lot of the grid getting active suspension and traction control had something to do with it. That, and the fact that aero was becoming important and teams were starting to work in that field by the mid-90's. This is where the FIA chose to allow aero development and ban everything else that could've made the cars faster or more stable.

On pay drivers, good. Let them get weeded out. If they can't handle the car, too bad.

[barnettracing]

Originally Posted by wnut

Schumacher prefers understeer, so that may be one of the reasons they neutered the front tyres. It would also have made the cars more dificult on the limit i.e. not dumb enough for the pay drivers.

As a slight aside from the topic, M. Schumacher (aka TGF) prefers a car with oversteer. He likes to have the front tyres do all the work and then he'll control the rear on the throttle.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by barnettracing

As a slight aside from the topic, M. Schumacher (aka TGF) prefers a car with oversteer. He likes to have the front tyres do all the work and then he'll control the rear on the throttle.

You're right, finger trouble, thinking one thing and typing another understeer of course should have been oversteer.
The post does not make sense otherwise.
Apologies.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Tyres that last are boring!

Tyres that are expected to last, but don't. Are much better.

Tyres that are not expected to last, but are pushed too hard. Better still.

Tyres on a lighter F1 car with a whole lot more than 750 bhp and half of the current downforce are in for a tough time (assuming no tyre/fuel stops).

[luke g28]

Im not sure that your 500kg car with 650bhp would be able to get the power down without downforce.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Im not sure that your 500kg car with 650bhp would be able to get the power down without downforce.

Try it.

[IndyDonut]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Im not sure that your 500kg car with 650bhp would be able to get the power down without downforce.

Hey, they got 800-1,400 horsepower down in the 80's with 1980's tire technology, crude (by today's standards) suspension set-ups, and two wings producing the downforce. We can ask for Venturi tunnels all we want, but the teams turned the FIA down when asked about it a few years ago.

[barnettracing]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Im not sure that your 500kg car with 650bhp would be able to get the power down without downforce.

It's all about throttle modulation. The 1967 Lotus 49 had about 400hp and only 'weighed' about 500kg.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by wnut

Schumacher prefers understeer, so that may be one of the reasons they neutered the front tyres. It would also have made the cars more dificult on the limit i.e. not dumb enough for the pay drivers.

did he, my understanding was the opposite. As long as the front did what he wanted he lived with the rear to quite an extreme. That was why others found his cars quite difficult.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

did he, my understanding was the opposite. As long as the front did what he wanted he lived with the rear to quite an extreme. That was why others found his cars quite difficult.

Yup sorry as above.

Have no idea why I typed understeer.

Schu did of course prefer oversteer.