F1 2017 car design vote

[bhall II]

Since downforce is proportional to the square of speed, an otherwise faster car will lose a significant chunk of downforce - and whatever pace it enabled - just from being held up by a slower car. It would happen even if the adverse effects of wake turbulence were somehow magically eliminated.

EDIT: I --- hate starting a new page.

[turbof1]

If it is all because of the front wing then why did the 2004 cars struggle as much as today's cars do?

http://f1.mortenmeyer.com/images/f12004/SchumiReady.JPG

or even 2000

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pTZCvLzDMcQ/maxresdefault.jpg

I am struggling to see that putting one of these front wings on a 2016/17 car would make them all be able to drive around within 1s of each other and overtake easily.

Furthermore the FIA has already had a go at "fixing" overtaking by simplifying aero

in 2008 we had

http://www.automobilesreview.com/galler ... ton-02.jpg

which was reduced to this in 2009

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _3611a.jpg

What happened to overtaking and following...... basically nothing.

The simple explanation is that it has little to do with complexity of the front wing. Rather, it is hands-on depedency on an aero device which creates relative wise a huge chunk of the downforce. They could have installed a plough to create the downforce for all we care, the end result will get you as far as the complex wings today if that plough created the same amount of downforce. It also matches why 80's cars were able to follow eachother closer: not because they had simpler front wings, but because they had 'less' front wing.

That's quite an important distinction.

[OO7]

I disagree that wake turbulence is not a significant contributor to the lack of overtaking in contemporary F1, the problem is appreciably worse today than it was in the 80's. Right now a chasing car that is of a similar pace to the car ahead will struggle to stay within 1 of that car. In the 80's cars could run much closer together than today. Right now a chasing car can be a second a lap quicker than a car ahead, plus have access to DRS and still struggle to get close enough to pass. The 1 second difference, plus DRS should be more than enough of a performance differentiator and certainly significantly more than was required to pass in the 80's, yet today it is not enough.

The cars make "similar" levels of downforce to that which was achieved in the 80s.

Why is it that in the 80s this downforce had "no" impact upon the following car yet today it prevents them getting within 1 second (8 car lengths?).

The older cars created visibly much more drag and therefore turbulence yet this did not seem to cause a problem at all, why?

I'm not sure that the cars do make similar levels of downforce. I'm of the impression that current cars make a great deal more than cars of the 80's.

The reason I believe current cars are more susceptible to wake turbulence is because of how they generate downforce. In the past it was more a case of large surface areas and mass flow, today's concepts however are based on complex interactions of multiple flows, with there being a great deal of synergy between all the surfaces. Because of this, flow disruption has disproportionately large effect on current cars.

[OO7]

And lets face it, the human factor played a big role as well. In the old days most of the drivers leaned on their talent only ...they were not athletes like today's F1 drivers ...plus those cars where a lot heavier to drive so there is one more reason for difference in performance as well among many other.

I really don't believe the human factor played much of a role. Towards the end of a race on occasion, this may have had an effect, but generally not.

[OO7]

If downforce increases with turbulence then the current cars should have a pretty similar difficulty in overtaking during the current era and the 80s. We know this is not the case therefore it must be something other than "turbulence" that is the main reason for decrease in overtaking.

I assume you mean: If turbulence increases with downforce............?

I have already posted my opinion on why this may be the case (complex aero interactions), though I'm no aerodynamicist.

I'll repeat what I said before. In the past cars could follow a lot more closely than today and overtake with half a seconds pace advantage over the car ahead. Today a car can be over 1 second a lap quicker, have access to DRS and still be unable to pass.
In the last few days, I watched the 1991 Mexican GP, 1991 German GP, most of the 1993 British GP and parts of the 1993 Portuguese GP. It is abundantly clear that cars could follow more closely back then and that includes team mates driving the same cars (which rules out variations in car performance as a factor).

[OO7]

80s cars, (assuming you mean between 1983 and 1988) had the driver positioned much more forward in the chassis than today so weight distribution was more forward as a result. This is party why they had massive rear wings and tiny front wings.

Small front wings result in less proportional downforce reduction from the wake of following another car. Plus 80s cars had far greater mechanical grip with wider tyres and larger diffusers to compensate for the dirty air phenomena.

Those cars had more a more rearward biased weight distribution than today's cars. They had shorter wheelbases, with the engine, fuel tank and possibly even the driver (despite sitting in a more forward position) situated closer to the rear wheels than today's cars.

Also a more forward weight distribution would generally require more front downforce.

[OO7]

If it is all because of the front wing then why did the 2004 cars struggle as much as today's cars do?

or even 2000

I am struggling to see that putting one of these front wings on a 2016/17 car would make them all be able to drive around within 1s of each other and overtake easily.

Furthermore the FIA has already had a go at "fixing" overtaking by simplifying aero

in 2008 we had

which was reduced to this in 2009

What happened to overtaking and following...... basically nothing.

The current cars are even more susceptible to wake turbulence than all the other cars you posted images of.

[OO7]

Since downforce is proportional to the square of speed, an otherwise faster car will lose a significant chunk of downforce - and whatever pace it enabled - just from being held up by a slower car. It would happen even if the adverse effects of wake turbulence were somehow magically eliminated.

But that isn't really a problem. The faster car will still have more downforce allowing it to negotiate the corner faster while staying very close to the car ahead (within 5 metres) and slingshot past on the straight. Today given a similar situation, the chasing car will generate less downforce than the car ahead, preventing it from even getting close enough to dream about a pass.

[bhall II]

The faster car will still have more downforce allowing it to negotiate the corner faster...

Not if the car's superior pace is dependent upon the downforce it loses if driven at a slower pace. Given aero rules that are quite restricted, it doesn't take a whole lot to affect such a change. For example...



lift coefficient = 1.7
air density = 1.225kg/m^3
velocity = 67m/s (150mph)
surface area = 1.2m^2
lift = 5609N

lift coefficient = 1.7
air density = 1.225kg/m^3
velocity = 64.8m/s (145mph)(-3.3%)
surface area = 1.2m^2
lift = 5246N (-6.5%)

[OO7]

Not if the car's superior pace was dependent upon the downforce it lost. Given aero rules that are quite restricted, it doesn't take a whole lot to affect such a change. For example...



lift coefficient = 1.7
air density = 1.225kg/m^3
velocity = 67m/s (150mph)
surface area = 1.2m^2
lift = 5609N

lift coefficient = 1.7
air density = 1.225kg/m^3
velocity = 64.8m/s (145mph)(-3.3%)
surface area = 1.2m^2
lift = 5246N (-6.5%)

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. So (assuming there are no negative effects from wake turbulence as you stated earlier) a faster car in clean air can negotiate a corner at 150 mph. It closes in on a slower car that can only negotiate that same corner at 145mph. Because the faster car has to slow down to 145mph (the speed of the car ahead) to take the corner, it loses downforce which has some sort of compound effect that causes it to go even slower than 145mph? If this was the case drivers wouldn't slow down for corners.

Also what the driver behind would usually do is leave enough of a gap to the car head so as not to get held up and use that momentum plus slipstream to pass on the straight.

EDIT:
I guess the old throttle sensitive blown diffusers may have been a little like that, where lifting off throttle to slow down could cause a loss of downforce. Having said that I don't think the two are the same and then we have to discuss the leading car.

[bhall II]

If this was the case drivers wouldn't slow down for corners.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of corners only support a single racing line. If forced off that line for any reason, a car will be slower by default.

So, until it's possible for cars to safely pass through one another, this particular problem isn't going anywhere.

[OO7]

If this was the case drivers wouldn't slow down for corners.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of corners only support a single racing line. If forced off that line for any reason, a car will be slower by default.

So, until it's possible for cars to safely pass through one another, this particular problem isn't going anywhere.

Sometimes drivers even when out on their own make slight mistakes causing them to slow down rather than go off through a corner. In the example you gave, slowing down would result in less and less grip, which would greatly increase the chances of going off track unintentionally. In reality it doesn't quite work out like that, because although the car has less downforce (when slowing), it also has less speed and speed is the dominant factor.

[bhall II]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say there.

Off-line ≠ off-track

[OO7]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say there.

Off-line ≠ off-track

Basically I'm trying to say that slowing down for a corner (driving slower than the limit e.g 145mph vs 150mph) shouldn't cause a car to go off or have problems. Driving slower should make it easier to take a corner.

[bhall II]

Basically I'm trying to say that slowing down for corner (driving slower than the limit e.g 145mph vs 150mph) shouldn't cause a car to go off or have problems.

The problem is that two cars can't occupy the same space at the same time. A trailing car that would be quicker given different conditions has three options when approaching a corner:

• crash into the leading car, aka "the Maldonado"
• slow down - thus lose downforce - in order to follow directly behind the leading car
• take a different line - thus losing speed, thus losing downforce