Is the recipe for PASSING realy that difficult?

[WhiteBlue]

Diffusers are less sensitive to running in wake, they create downforce centred between the axles and if set at a low expansion ratio are not contributing to wake.

Also the bigger gap between reduces rear wing influence. All the second deck does is creating lower pressure and more diffuser flow so the car generates more downforce, it doesnt increase wake.

The expansion ratio is governed by the height of the diffusor. The DDD height increased by a factor of two or three against the original dimensions. So obviously also the upwash increased significantly. It is not only the turbulence that matters but also the initial direction of the air flow. It is pretty easy to watch the air flow behind cars when they run in the wet and the spray makes the wake visible. It does not look very different to the wake picture we saw last year. There may be some subtle differences but it is obvious, that the main objective of the OWG was missed.

Since we both apparently do not have different CFD models to prove the point a further debate may be useless.

[n smikle]

The wake is insignificant if you only have a tiny amount of time to execute a pass.. so all this aero talk gives some insight but I think it is only contributes a tiny portion to the problem.

My theory is that the key to the problem is the car speed/track width ratio. or some ratio of speed to some track dimension.

Reducing the tubulence in the wake gives the car behind more downforce but how is downforce going to help you if two cars can barely squeeze through a corner safely at those kinds of speed?

[mike]

My theory is that the key to the problem is the car speed/track width ratio. or some ratio of speed to some track dimension.

my theory is that the wheel-base is to large to drive around the track in different racing lines, imaging a Mercedes S-Class around a tight hair-pin....

and track width and wheel-base is also a comparative part. look at a top fuel dragster i bet they can't get around monaco.

[marcush.]

They need to design the corners for overtaking technique instead of "fastest lap time" technique. Maybe make the turns so that two or three cars can go through it fast, simultaneously and still get a decent lap time. It might make the track very easy to master (an extreme example a NASCAR track) so qualifying times will be very close but come race time when 28 cars are in the mix it will be continuous battling for the whole race.

Do you really WANT a track where overtaking is ONLY dependent on potential laptime?

Think about it:
Car/driver No 1 has had the lap of his life in Qualy and stuck the thing on pole
Car No2 has the ultimate car but it needs 5 laps to get the car in its operating
window.
Car No 3 has a real good car on a fresh set of tyres but the --- thing is it does
not keep the balance and fades out in the second half of the race.
With your agenda ,
Car No 1 will be swallowed up in the first lap as theres no way he can defend his position .The whole thing to be on pole is useless as overtaking is a snap.

Car 2 can wait until the tyres come in ...as he KNOWS he will not loose any time in overtaking he just uses the car to its potential and easily wins as his accumulated time to cover the distance is the shortest ,if he does not make any mistakes.

Car No 3 will star on the first laps but will soon go back to the rear .

We will have lots of overtaking,right?
Would it be any exiting? No
Overtaking just is about daring attempts ,decisive moves, strategy,driver finesse,
and at times it just goes wrong.
Ever seen that pass of Montoya in Montecarlo in F3000 ?
You could not believe how he did that really ,it was a canny move and before he had completed the pass you were sure this was a)impossible,and b) ending in an accident.In the end it was a clean pass....unfortunatelly later in that race he
got rid of a wheel or two as well,but still managed to bring the car over the line
in the points...thats exciting.

[kilcoo316]

it was said multiple times before that the DDD doesnt increase the dirty air.

The DDD induces an even more unfavourable wake pattern for the car behind.


That is irrefutable.

[wesley123]

it was said multiple times before that the DDD doesnt increase the dirty air.

The DDD induces an even more unfavourable wake pattern for the car behind.


That is irrefutable.

please, could you say it 'the easy way' these are english words i cant understand lol.

[n smikle]

it was said multiple times before that the DDD doesnt increase the dirty air.

The DDD induces an even more unfavourable wake pattern for the car behind.


That is irrefutable.

That is another good reason why the tracks should be wider.. the guy behind doesn't have to drive behind he can drive to the side jk.

[kilcoo316]

please, could you say it 'the easy way' these are english words i cant understand lol.

Sorry, I am having to phrase it like that as people do not understand the difference between a turbulent flow pattern and homogenous turbulence...


So if I simplify it, someone that doesn't really know what they are on about will grab a random quote and apply it completely out of context.

[Grant25]

Overtaking is possible in f1, Look at brazil, Button determined to win the championship that race did some amazing moves. Also Kobayashi a guy wanting to prove himself on his first f1 outing did awesome at defending his place as well as overtaking.
I think it is possible to overtake on MOST F1 tracks its just the drivers aren't daring or willing enough to take the risk to do so. Most races the best battles are at the back where they aren't fighting for the win or even point some times, so the drivers can have fun do some moves they probably wouldn't do at the front.
For sure if the cars had less down force there would be more overtaking opportunities, but still will the drives make the most of them? Or will they be thinking of the points and letting the pass go? There are many improvement to the car which can be done but also its very much down to the drivers calculating the risks.

G

[animal ed]

How about that we don`t ask about aero solutions capability to produce downforce, instead of that we ask how much that solution produce dirty air behind? We are all aware that designers in F1 do that deliberately! I have some technical knowledge to see the problem but not enough to point to the solution (that makes me a dangerous person)...

[ISLAMATRON]

They do not deliberately design the cars to produce more dirty air, it would be foolish to do so because it is a by product of inefficient aero and creates drag.

[animal ed]

They do not deliberately design the cars to produce more dirty air, it would be foolish to do so because it is a by product of inefficient aero and creates drag.

Maybe I didn express myself right - they do that deliberately as much as they can...

[ISLAMATRON]

No they dont do it at all, it is counterproductive... it would only serve to slow them down

[marcush.]

one of the main points not to try something in F1 is you pay a big penalty at the slightest error when making a move towards a competitor.
If you exceed the maximum design load of a component making contact with the other guy ,you are out of the race.
In touring cars and Sportcar as well ,you see much more room for contact made and survived so of course the drivers do get into the habit of waiting for the sure passing opportunity.
In champcars with more robustness designed into the car theres a lot more the thing can take before giving up.

[animal ed]

No they dont do it at all, it is counterproductive... it would only serve to slow them down

Before season start Geoff Willis said that teams will deliberately develop their cars to make it more difficult for rivals to follow in their slipstream.

"Probably one aerodynamic development will be to disturb the air flow of the following car in order to make your own car less prone to be overtaken,"

...are you still think that it is counterproductive?