Fully adjustable aero! ?

[Marbot]

The FIA is considering the use of fully all-round adjustable aero!

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72649

[Ogami musashi]

It seems MM reads the net recently..

It could work and change the situation.

[ECW Dan Selby]

I like the sound of this.

Selby

[Teretonga]

Ferrari introduced a small moveable wing for stability in 68 at Spa and it worked.

If we stepped back from the 'high cornering speed must be sustained' philosophy for a minute and put in place a system that ran a common low downforce underbody, a reasonably high rear wing with adjustable vanes coupled with the wider slick tyres (but compounds less prone to producing marbles - which will possibly be harder, less sticky) the we could have a set of regs that would significantly reduce aero problems, maintain the area for sponsors logos, reduce the underbody/diffuser influence, lower cornering speeds (the most dangerouis aspect relating to safety) and increase the ability to run in close company....

[Pingguest]

The ban on adjustable aero is a safe guard. With the current rules teams will have to find a compromise between drag and downforce, high straight line speeds and high cornering speeds. Without the ban on adjustable wings, teams could get best of both. The speeds may well become out of control.

It will also take away a lot of the drivers' role to find the best possible setup for a complete race, as they would be able to tweak the setup during the whole race. That wouldn't be good for the racing. We need different paces during the race.

[Teretonga]

It would depend on the size of the wings and the amount of adjustability.

If you significantly reduced the wings to the efficiency/size of the late 60's wings tou would make a radical reduction in conrnering speeds over the present cars. That would require significant braking and acceration allowances limiting terminal speeds on the circuits.

A wing that could be feathered in the straight line would have limits if you needed it to corner but didn't have the huge downforce current underbodies generate.

There is no tyre war so even a slick with signifcant grip wouldn't allow current cornering speeds to be maintained. That would limit the terminal speeds no end.

[RTH]

Up to 1967 F1 had no wings at all and about 4" ground clearance and was all the better for it in all respects.

[Tehillim]

I agree with Pingguest, it's an attractive idea but there's a danger that the FIA might feel uncomfortable with the increased speed, and this might result in even weedier engines rather than smaller wings. Not good given that they already take Eau Rouge and 130R flat out. I'd rather see the FIA concentrating on further reducing downforce, the power to grip ratio needs increasing.

[Ultimo]

Originally Posted by RTH

Up to 1967 F1 had no wings at all and about 4" ground clearance and was all the better for it in all respects.

How so? Rose-tinted glasses or actual factual reasons?

The cars were prettier pre-wings probably - were racing/spectacle/quality/technical regulations better? Pretty hard to quantify methinks.

Further aerodynamic advancement doesn't necessarily make it worse.

What about 1982 with all the different winners? '88 ad '89 with Prost and Senna as team mates? Heck, what about '07 and '08? They've been the bet seasons I've seen.

Were mid-60's races even televised so you can compare?

The "glory days are gone" syndrome bothers me if it's unfounded. Not saying you're wrong RTH but I'd like to her why you are right.

[Glen]

The great thing about history is that there is so much of it to choose from.

[chillibowl]

fully adjustable aero...sounds expensive

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

fully adjustable aero...sounds expensive

Nah! just a few servo's,linkages and switches.Your average aeromodeller would be able to help them out.

[broadrun96]

For some reason it just sounds like a gimmick to the rules. There's something to me about showing up practicing and then working on a setup to best meet the conditions you feel the car will face. Makes more a technical exercise to know what the car needs before hand and be good at hitting it right each time. Yes moveable devices could reduce the need for some prior knowledge, if it doesn't work we can tweak it at each corner; but then at tracks like Spa, where's the team/driver's skill and setup? Is the driver good with a loose car and so less drag, or does he need the cornering grip and so slighter slower in the straights? With moveable aero, all of that becomes moot and that to me would ruin it.

I know I hate to say it but rules may have to be introduced to limit the amount of aero grip and make the cars work for it, who wouldn't want to see the cars a little slower but alot more sideways, no not rally sliding but just that little bit on the edge. Tracks may have to be widened but think of the tarmac that could be pulled up at each corner if the driver knowing sliding off the track could trap them in gravel. Maybe a some amount of modification from an agreed upon shape? The FIA, FOM and constructors agree on a basic body form, or a couple; from there teams are allowed more or less to add on aero to a total point (not an engineer so no idea how to define it, surface area or volume of added aero devices?). Could try larger front wings for greater front grip and turn-in with resulting smaller rear wing and less rear downforce; tweak the aero to meet the car's balance but only so far, allowing modifications by track as teams do now.

[Ogami musashi]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

For some reason it just sounds like a gimmick to the rules. There's something to me about showing up practicing and then working on a setup to best meet the conditions you feel the car will face. Makes more a technical exercise to know what the car needs before hand and be good at hitting it right each time. Yes moveable devices could reduce the need for some prior knowledge, if it doesn't work we can tweak it at each corner; but then at tracks like Spa, where's the team/driver's skill and setup? Is the driver good with a loose car and so less drag, or does he need the cornering grip and so slighter slower in the straights? With moveable aero, all of that becomes moot and that to me would ruin it.

I agree with you on the concept of losing the traditionnal part of aero set up but i think seeing moveable aero as easy is incorrect.
Would you say a plane with Fly by Wire Control Logics is easy to set up?
You still have to adapt the logics to the track.

But what i want to say is, and i think some people missed it, that FIA wants automatic moveable aero, that means moveable aeros that answers sensors inputs.
Their plans are clear, whenever you experience a drop in total pressure the wings and floor may adapt to provide you the downforce.

I know I hate to say it but rules may have to be introduced to limit the amount of aero grip and make the cars work for it, who wouldn't want to see the cars a little slower but alot more sideways, no not rally sliding but just that little bit on the edge.

It won't work at all for two redundant reasons:
- You want them to be a bit slower? So you keep aeros? Aeros at the present time can't work with large yaw angles.
-Want to have grippy tyres then? Grippy tyres do not work with large slip angles.

The latter point is even a big point in the overtaking equation, it is fine to cut aeros, make slicks but what if you can't even push hard because each mistake will cost you you race?

I don't see too much the point of sideways..what would it bring of better racing?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Ogami musashi

But what i want to say is, and i think some people missed it, that FIA wants automatic moveable aero, that means moveable aeros that answers sensors inputs.

i was actually wondering about this "automatic" aspect as well.

does this mean that a wing will "flex" under load on its own as we have seen (legally or illegally) in the past few years or will the driver control the changes as they move around different parts of the track (so more of an extension of the one adjustment per lap that we will have this year)?