[Rules] Aero: overtaking, laptimes and aero freedom

[Taxi645]

We have seen the latest 2017 technical regulations proposal trickle through.

To my disappointment it seems that laptimes and aero engineering freedom are being given prevalence over cars being able to follow each other therefore making proper racing almost impossible. I read Adrian Newey say that he doesn't like "GP1". I say screw that. The first and foremost priority should be cars being able to follow one another. All the rest is by the grace of this condition being met.

If they can come up with a set of regulation that allows cars to follow each other they can have all the aero engineering freedom and laptimes they want, but that condition must first be met. Not the other way around. Now they've completely rewriten the rules, reduced laptimes, maintained lot's of aero freedom and complexity, but oh yeah we forgot about overtaking, whoops. And let's not forgot that a lot of aero freedom and aero complexity leaves the door open to a lot of potential cost spiralling.

I hope they come to their senses, postpone the aero, chassis and PSU changes to 2018 and first come up with something that doesn't reduce racing to DRS-ing your way past people. Complete boredom that is.

[Sodemo]

I have every confidence in the FIA's ability to rubber-stamp a set of regulations that will massively drive up costs and provide further ineffective racing.

[Pingguest]

I am pretty close to Ross Brawn, who once called downforce the bane of Formula One. Let get rid of most downforce by eliminating the diffuser and high noses and only allowing both the front and rear wing to exist of one single, albeit movable element. To reduce costs, one could also think about regulations only allowing four bodywork profiles to be homologated annually.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I am pretty close to Ross Brawn, who once called downforce the bane of Formula One. Let get rid of most downforce by eliminating the diffuser and high noses and only allowing both the front and rear wing to exist of one single, albeit movable element. To reduce costs, one could also think about regulations only allowing four bodywork profiles to be homologated annually.

You are dead right that the racing should be paramount and the aero and anything else purely secondary.

I like this idea, although I would like to see fixed single element wings, even better, no wings and free undertray.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I have every confidence in the FIA's ability to rubber-stamp a set of regulations that will massively drive up costs and provide further ineffective racing.

Plus 1 here!

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I am pretty close to Ross Brawn, who once called downforce the bane of Formula One. Let get rid of most downforce by eliminating the diffuser and high noses and only allowing both the front and rear wing to exist of one single, albeit movable element. To reduce costs, one could also think about regulations only allowing four bodywork profiles to be homologated annually.

Your post gets my vote ... Get rid of those ridiculous front wings and DRS ..

[S griffin]

For me let's go back to bigger tyres. Let's also get rid of those winglets and have front and rear wings only and not wider wings either. Let's also go back to manual gearboxes to increase the mistake factor. Then we hopefully won't need DRS ever again

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by wnut

You are dead right that the racing should be paramount and the aero and anything else purely secondary.

I like this idea, although I would like to see fixed single element wings, even better, no wings and free undertray.

When downforce is considered a necessity, ground effects might provide a solution. However, a 'free' undertray is undesirable. Such an undertray would exist of sliding skirts, which are inherently unsafe. And even without sliding skirts, ground effects do have their drawbacks. A ground effect undertray is very prone to ride height changes and thereby requires a rocked-hard suspension setting. With a return of ground effects, one could also expect the calendar to only have entirely flat tracks. What a shame that would be!

This raises the question why Formula One should have high downforce levels. The whole idea of cars cornering faster every year is simply unsustainable. It also forces the legislator to outlaw freedom and hence creativity and intelligence in other, probably more relevant area's. Instead of teams spending an awful lot, almost an infinite amount of resources on aerodynamics, I would rather see them spend that money on the chassis, suspension, drive-trains and even electronics.

[Sodemo]

Make the tyres wider, the chassis wider. The cars will be much faster in the slower and medium corners (the safer corners), the aero can take car of itself in the high speed stuff.

One thing I notice when I look at races from 20-30 years ago is how much faster the cars look in slower corners. The opposite is true of high speed corners. Less aero and more mechanical grip would make the cars more spectacular through the slower stuff, which I think would be enough. The cars are already fast enough in the fast stuff.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Make the tyres wider, the chassis wider. The cars will be much faster in the slower and medium corners (the safer corners), the aero can take car of itself in the high speed stuff.

One thing I notice when I look at races from 20-30 years ago is how much faster the cars look in slower corners. The opposite is true of high speed corners. Less aero and more mechanical grip would make the cars more spectacular through the slower stuff, which I think would be enough. The cars are already fast enough in the fast stuff.

I fail to see the need for more mechanical grip, even in exchange for a massive reduction of downforce. The pace of Formula One is a part of its attraction and entertainment, but it is very relative. In fact, harder and smaller tires could actually allow for better racing. Harder and smaller tires will cause braking distances to be increased and slip angles to be greater.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I fail to see the need for more mechanical grip, even in exchange for a massive reduction of downforce. The pace of Formula One is a part of its attraction and entertainment, but it is very relative. In fact, harder and smaller tires could actually allow for better racing. Harder and smaller tires will cause braking distances to be increased and slip angles to be greater.

Wasn't that part of the argument for the 1998 grooved tyres, that less rubber on the road would lead to longer braking distances and "better racing"?

In reality, it led to twitchy, knife-edge cars, and were generally unpopular. It also forced engineers to run more aero in order to make up for the lack of mechanical grip.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Wasn't that part of the argument for the 1998 grooved tyres, that less rubber on the road would lead to longer braking distances and "better racing"?

In reality, it led to twitchy, knife-edge cars, and were generally unpopular. It also forced engineers to run more aero in order to make up for the lack of mechanical grip.

I think the first question that should be asked is this..

Is F1 primarily about the fastest car or the fastest driver?

After they work that out the regulations, aero etc will be obvious because they can't have both. If it is the fastest driver get rid of all the aero and let the cars move, four wheel drift etc the way they did pre Chapman. If it is the fastest car stack the aero on and let's see who wins. For me it is the fastest driver, let's see who the biggest testicles in a car with marginal grip on the very fastest high speed circuits. Opposite lock for long periods at high speed on long bends is definitely character building.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Casper

I think the first question that should be asked is this..

Is F1 primarily about the fastest car or the fastest driver?

After they work that out the regulations, aero etc will be obvious because they can't have both. If it is the fastest driver get rid of all the aero and let the cars move, four wheel drift etc the way they did pre Chapman. If it is the fastest car stack the aero on and let's see who wins. For me it is the fastest driver, let's see who the biggest testicles in a car with marginal grip on the very fastest high speed circuits. Opposite lock for long periods at high speed on long bends is definitely character building.

In reality it is a mixture of both. The problem is to get the balance right between car technology and driver ability.

[Casper]

While it is seen that way I think it will continue on the path of mediocrity, for me at least. Faster lap times reduces overtaking opportunities, people forget that little problem.

[Taxi645]

Getting rid of downforce is not realistic. How ever enjoyable I would personally find it. If you take away downforce from F1 you also have to slow down all other single seater classes. It's not gonna happen.


It is also not necessary. GP2 cars prove you can combine downforce with cars being able to follow each other. What you need is downforce that is less fragile and thus less dependent on vortices originating from the front wing, which get disturbed from driving in the turbulent air behind other cars.


Problem is it's a whole lot of fun for the aero departments to spend countless hours and euro's in windtunnels and running CFD simulations to get all these vortices to do their magic with hundreds of front wing variants to get the airflow perfect for every track.


To me that is the technological side of F1 overruling what it should obviously be most important; the actual racing. The enjoyment of millions of fans is more important than the enjoyment of a few hundred engineers.




If I would be cynical I would even say that at the start of the year the focus in regards to the 2017 rule changes was on the cars being able to follow each other. Talk was about GP2 like undersides, where the downforce generated from the underside of the cars was much less fragile as it's much less dependent on vortices generated from the front wing. Then the F1 aero community woke up realizing than such much less complex and fragile aerodynamics would take much of the fun out for them and would could even cost a lot of them their jobs. Then all of a sudden overtaking was off the agenda and somebody came up with the idea that the cars had to be 5-6s faster. Lot's of downforce, lot's for the aero departments to do and to hell with the racing and the fans.


Well that would just be the cynical interpretation of an ignorant outsider, I hope it's not the case.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Wasn't that part of the argument for the 1998 grooved tyres, that less rubber on the road would lead to longer braking distances and "better racing"?

In reality, it led to twitchy, knife-edge cars, and were generally unpopular. It also forced engineers to run more aero in order to make up for the lack of mechanical grip.

Everything is relative. In 1998 mechanical grip was more reduced than downforce, causing the cars to be 'under-tired'. But is not what I propose.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

To me that is the technological side of F1 overruling what it should obviously be most important; the actual racing. The enjoyment of millions of fans is more important than the enjoyment of a few hundred engineers.

My point exactly, engineers have led the charge into mediocrity and it all started with Chapman's use of aero, F1 needs a plan and a goal and it has neither. If lap times are reduced the racing will become even more boring and everyone will be wandering around saying the same stuff as they are saying now, scratching their heads and getting splinters in their fingers from doing so. It either has to go down the less is more avenue to encourage more racing or totally high tech to encourage interest from that perspective but I think that horse may have bolted with the establishment of FE and its new support category planned for introduction in a few years times, I call it formula Geek. They have gone up a dead end road and refuse to entertain turning around

[Taxi645]

Proper racing:

“I used to love overtaking,” Fittipaldi wrote. “I used to plan my moves meticulously. If I found that I was closing on a car in front, as I did so I’d watch the way the other car was moving on the racetrack in front of me. I’d analyze the way it was slowing under braking, the way it was turning in, the way it was changing direction, the way it was putting its power down, everything.”
“As I closed up behind him, I’d begin to calculate my options,” he continued. “Sometimes there would be one corner on the lap on which my car was significantly better than that of my opponent, and if that were the case then I’d know that that would be the corner at which I’d make my move. But, in order that my rival wouldn’t be alerted to that fact, I’d begin to ‘show my nose’, as racing people tend to term it, which means that I’d make it look as though I was trying to overtake into a corner on which in actual fact I had no intention of trying to overtake, in an effort to unsettle my quarry.”




Today's F1 "racing":


DRS flap goes down, passes, done.



No preparation, no luring competitors off the ideal line. Often they don't even have to enter a braking duel because the cars are too far passed anyway. Okay, I know it's a bit black and white, but in the majority of the cases it's true.


Yes Max shows it can be done, but that is because of the combination of his talent and the quality of the TR chassis and the fact his engine is too weak to pass on DRS alone.

[Casper]

If a poll of the F1 audience was run with the question

Would you like the cars to revert back with little or no aero to allow driver skills to predominate or would you rather the cars become more technical to allow them to go faster

What would be the majority answer?

[bauble]

Back in 1971 Peter Gethin won the Italian Grand Prix at Monza at an average speed that still ranks as 6th in the top ten fastest ever GP's, four cars crossed the line less than a second apart, and there was constant overtaking lap after lap. Slipstreaming was possible and overtaking relatively easy, and it was a great race.
This was because 'aero' was fairly basic, and did not dominate the performance of the cars. No DRS just plain old fashioned motor racing.

Close racing, overtaking, high speeds - it can be done!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bauble

Back in 1971 Peter Gethin won the Italian Grand Prix at Monza at an average speed that still ranks as 6th in the top ten fastest ever GP's, four cars crossed the line less than a second apart, and there was constant overtaking lap after lap. Slipstreaming was possible and overtaking relatively easy, and it was a great race.
This was because 'aero' was fairly basic, and did not dominate the performance of the cars. No DRS just plain old fashioned motor racing.

Close racing, overtaking, high speeds - it can be done!

It's called... "Vintage Racing".

Richard

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

It's called... "Vintage Racing".

Richard

Richard, is the racing we see today better than then the racing that used to occur when the driver was the predominant factor? If the driver were to be even less of a factor than he is now would it improve?

My feelings are if they are going to go high tech, stop mucking around and do it properly with very few rules and let the engineers loose with all the bells and whistles. If not then get rid of all the bells and whistles and let the driver be the major factor. The latter course would reduce costs by hundreds of millions of dollars and make the series more viable. They are trying to have a dollar each way at the moment and that is invariably a bad thing to do.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

Richard, is the racing we see today better than then the racing that used to occur when the driver was the predominant factor? If the driver were to be even less of a factor than he is now would it improve?

My feelings are if they are going to go high tech, stop mucking around and do it properly with very few rules and let the engineers loose with all the bells and whistles. If not then get rid of all the bells and whistles and let the driver be the major factor. The latter course would reduce costs by hundreds of millions of dollars and make the series more viable. They are trying to have a dollar each way at the moment and that is invariably a bad thing to do.

A small preamble...

1. I have strong opinions and ideas, but I don't pretend to have all of the answers
2. We likely agree on many things, but maybe not completely
3. A lot of people post here about what they think is wrong with F1 and how to fix it. Some ideas are diametrically opposed. However, there is no consensus among a number of passionate positions and that is a real problem. I don't think we can even agree on what F1 "is" let alone how to fix it.

So some common "solutions" that I see posted fall in my opinion in the following camps...

1. Totally open rules
2. Extreme technology restrictions
3. Various other things (cost controls being just one example)

I tend to fall mostly into a combo of #1 and #3. I apologize as I know a number here are proponents of it, but I am strongly opposed to #2 and feel it is completely unrealistic. I really call this the Luddite solution (which is the source of my "vintage racing" poke above). Some common concepts for it are...

1. No telemetry
2. No drivers aids such as revert to manual shift transmissions (H pattern and clutch?)
3. Drastic aero reduction (no wings, spec wings, etc.)

I get the fascination with the idea and the nostalgia for when those items were common in F1, but as beautiful as the Eagle T1G is, I don't see trying to bring back that era as the new "Formula One" as being realistic in any way shape or form. In my opinion there are two main issues with it.

First, it couldn't be considered the pinnacle of racing "today". Two, that era was part of the period in which we were still figuring out what a race car was. We know much more today. Designers can't forget what they know. Even if we could only build to tight specs that ban many technical concepts, it would result in something similar to today. Highly optimized solutions with top teams running very similar times. It wouldn't look like it did "back in the day".

I guess you could end up with something that looks like higher powered Formula Vee with pack racing, drafting and constant passing. While it is entertaining (I enjoy a good Formula Vee race), I view something like that as more of an open wheel version of NASCAR on road courses and not F1.

I think back in the golden era that some want to restore, and there was much less predictability due to many more of the variables being less controlled due to "just not knowing". It is more of a science today than it was then. It boils down to the saying "You can't go home again".

The question remains on how to make it better than it is today? Like I said above, I don't have answers. I have strong opinions on how the sport should be structured to help teams survive (I believe cost caps can work and I feel revenue should be divided more evenly), but as to the racing, I can't say for sure. I do believe that WEC has been doing well with similar technology. I think part of the reason why WEC is good (beyond the good technical regulations) is that the overall "variable" count is higher than in F1 and it's just harder to "engineer" your way to guaranteed success. There is more things that can go wrong in prototype racing. The races are longer, it is multi-class racing, there is multiple drivers per car, there is more refueling and tire stops. Overall, more chances for drama to develop, less variables that the teams can control and overall, more action. Even if you have some level of dominance (Audi for quite a long time and Porsche this past year), you can still have great races that are fun to watch as things ebb and flow.

All of those elements can't be injected into F1. But F1 clearly understands the concept and why it works. Being required to run multi tire specs in a given race and tires that have significant peaks and valleys with respect to performance is an attempt to push in more variables that are hard for the teams and drivers to factor in and deal with. This is also the same reason that wet races, or changing conditions are more interesting in F1. It's just harder to treat it like a math problem that has a right and wrong answer.

I wish I had the solutions, but I think I have the right question or problem. In my opinion that is... What can increase the level of unpredictability or complexity of the problem without it being overly artificial?

Cheap (not in "inexpensive" but rather "shoddy") ways to do this include things like reversed grids, spraying water on track, and maybe also things like DRS and push to pass systems. Those are just too artifical or contrived and while they may help the "entertainment" side, I think it they can tarnish the "sport" side. Again, I wish I had the answers.

The best I can come up with at the moment is back to my combo of #1 and #3 above. And that is (at least for me) to have a combination of strong cost caps enforced by forensic accounting along with relatively (but not totally) open rules. The new "unpredictable" aspect that would shake up the racing, would hopefully be ongoing development and new ideas that ideally creates a constant moving targets for other teams which should again hopefully result in some good racing between machines that may not be quite as identical as they are today. I would love to see smart people figure out how to go fast on limited money. The worry is that even with that system would teams gravitate to similar solutions and not risk trying radical ideas?

Anyhow, sorry for the manifesto!

Richard

[wnut]

Good so we want technology.

Let's go for reductio ad absurdum!

It is clear driverless cars are the next big thing, and people even think they are right for motorsport

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/fe...or-motorsport/

Electric driverless cars, enjoy the "ride".


I am not going to watch it though are you?

In order to have a sport we need competition between drivers who are actually in the cars, and the technology of the cars should enhance their ability to race and display the skills of the drivers.

The current cars are great time trial machines, but really lousy racing cars, and this needs to change.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Casper

Richard, is the racing we see today better than then the racing that used to occur when the driver was the predominant factor? If the driver were to be even less of a factor than he is now would it improve?

Richard, I think the quote from my post is the leading question that needs to be answered. Those that saw both would argue that looking through their rose tinted glasses the answer is today's racing is not better than that which took place when the driver was predominant in the whole equation. If they are wrong why are they wrong? Sort that out and the answer becomes clearer but no one wants to go backwards if that is the answer.

The whole plot went off the rails somewhere back in time through a whole lot of factors IMO but the foremost one I would say is greed on the part of everyone, I doubt any single major personality involved in F1 is any less guilty of this than any of their mates.

Another question is this, why must F1 be highly technical, who said that high tech was necessary to have good racing? In fact a lot of onlookers would contend that high tech has led to just the opposite and want the whole thing slung back to the fifties and start again, not such a good idea me thinks but drum brakes would be interesting and running on cross plies even more interesting.

I have proposed before how to limit costs and the madness that unlimited development brings. The teams should be limited to one laptop per car at the circuit, the whole thing becomes self limiting because if they can't manage it with one laptop they by definition can't use it. I know it sounds like a ludicrous idea but it caps the out of control technical staff the teams now use and by banning telemetry they have not got anything to send back to the team base. They can get as technical as they like but they must manage it with one laptop and no data to leave the circuit.

F1 has no future because it has no plan or vision as to what it wants to be and that is in the end down to poor management.