Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?

[WhiteBlue]

I'm also not arguing for the sake of arguing. I just don't understand why you want F1 to be something that it's not or why you think a downforce limit will induce the changes you predict.

We should not argue about opinion then. This is a technical board. People will get bored by endless opinion arguments.

I'm am not sure how your rules is supposed to shift the focus from aero research back to anything else when drag reduction still trumps all just like it does now. at the speeds F1 travels aero is the lowest hanging fruit even with a DF limit. Its much easier to find a little gain in drag then it is to get it back through the engine in the form of more power.

I do not believe that your doubts over the technical feasibility of limiting downforce are genuine. You always come back to the same points which have been proven wrong before. F1 also limits rpm and no team tries to cheat on this, although it would give a big advantage. So I believe you are splitting hairs in the defence of an opinion. None of us can demonstrate at this point which opinion is true. I do not share your believe that aero would still be the same low hanging fruit once we have a DF limit and stable geometric rules. So there is little point in continuing a debate about the things we believe, same as bhallg2k.

[flynfrog]

I'm also not arguing for the sake of arguing. I just don't understand why you want F1 to be something that it's not or why you think a downforce limit will induce the changes you predict.

We should not argue about opinion then. This is a technical board. People will get bored by endless opinion arguments.

I'm am not sure how your rules is supposed to shift the focus from aero research back to anything else when drag reduction still trumps all just like it does now. at the speeds F1 travels aero is the lowest hanging fruit even with a DF limit. Its much easier to find a little gain in drag then it is to get it back through the engine in the form of more power.

I do not believe that your doubts over the technical feasibility of limiting downforce are genuine. You always come back to the same points which have been proven wrong before. F1 also limits rpm and no team tries to cheat on this, although it would give a big advantage. So I believe you are splitting hairs in the defence of an opinion. None of us can demonstrate at this point which opinion is true. I do not share your believe that aero would still be the same low hanging fruit once we have a DF limit and stable geometric rules. So there is little point in continuing a debate about the things we believe, same as bhallg2k.

you haven't proven a damn thing you keep repeating you opinion as a fact. A rev limit is not being derived from 30 plus variables its a counter on a shaft.

Address my point. You claim that will focus teams to reduce drag. I have pointed out that is exactly what they are doing now. Some how your magic rule will cause them to seek drag reduction in new cheaper ways?

[WhiteBlue]

you haven't proven a damn thing you keep repeating you opinion as a fact. A rev limit is not being derived from 30 plus variables its a counter on a shaft.

In actual fact I have. I have described with great detail the physical model how downforce will be measured in real time. I have have also provided great detail of the programming behind the digital signal processing. I have shown that all base technologies for doing this are known for many years. What is needed is only a development program by MES who are delivering the SECU for F1. I have also shown that cheating with homologated sensors as you suggested would not be very likely to happen. Give it a rest! Nobody on this board shares your doubts of the feasibility of such a system. I will only entertain further points if they are addressing technical aspects.

You claim that will focus teams to reduce drag. I have pointed out that is exactly what they are doing now. Some how your magic rule will cause them to seek drag reduction in new cheaper ways?

Indeed. You constantly fail to address the complication of changes to the legal geometries of the aerodynamic configuration. In the existing system there are different geometrical rules every other year which means that the point of optimum is changing faster than the law of diminishing returns can catch up. By fixing the geometries and providing direct downforce curbs we will avoid the changing optima. A great deal of money will be saved because the allowed aero configurations will be known after a short time. No money will be wasted to explore new configs. It follows that the research will focus on one optimum configuration and every year the potential of optimization will become smaller and smaller until in the end aerodynamics will play a very small role in performance gains.

One could argue that this would be the time to make a small adjustment in the legal aero configuration in order to balance aero versus mechanical research. That is something I would accept. Aerodynamics should be part of F1 design. But it should not strangle all other activities as it does today.

[flynfrog]

Indeed. You constantly fail to address the complication of changes to the legal geometries of the aerodynamic configuration. In the existing system there are different geometrical rules every other year which means that the point of optimum is changing faster than the law of diminishing returns can catch up. By fixing the geometries and providing direct downforce curbs we will avoid the changing optima. A great deal of money will be saved because the allowed aero configurations will be known after a short time. No money will be wasted to explore new configs. It follows that the research will focus on one optimum configuration and every year the potential of optimization will become smaller and smaller until in the end aerodynamics will play a very small role in performance gains.

One could argue that this would be the time to make a small adjustment in the legal aero configuration in order to balance aero versus mechanical research. That is something I would accept. Aerodynamics should be part of F1 design. But it should not strangle all other activities as it does today.

your reply has nothing to do with setting a mandatory DF. Stable rules wont help either you simply spend more to get less once you approach convergence. What makes you think the same wont be happening in all other area around the same time. You can keep getting power out of an engine either or more traction out of the tires.

you are trying to beat exponential drag with a linear engine power.

[Jersey Tom]

We should not argue about opinion then. This is a technical board. People will get bored by endless opinion arguments.

The site may be called F1 Technical, but much of the commentary on the forum is based on opinion, speculation, and misconception... wrapped around some fleeting technical context.

I regret not having paid much attention to this thread. May have to give it a read through in the morning.

[WhiteBlue]

your reply has nothing to do with setting a mandatory DF.

It actually has. The frequent geometry changes have the purpose of curbing downforce. They work for a short time until the aerodynamicists have found another or modified optimum configuration. Constant DF eliminates the primary need for new geometric restrictions.

Stable rules wont help either you simply spend more to get less once you approach convergence. What makes you think the same wont be happening in all other area around the same time.

The total budget a team has is limited. They will always spend what they have. And if the performance gains are greater in energy recovery research this it what they will do. It is up to the PTB (FOTA,FiA, FOM) to balance the direction the technical development takes in F1. I'm confident that the FiA is already on my side in their aim to make the drive train more efficient and ultimately more important to competitiveness. If there is a potential of less cost in aero research the technical restrictions in energy recovery can be lifted gradually. This will offer opportunities to spend money on getting more power from energy recovery. I'm thinking of a front wheel MGUK, multi stage exhaust turbines and compressors, variable geometries for the turbos and many other technologies which are currently restricted due to missing funds. The ban on those things can be gradually lifted as the need for big aero budgets dwindles.

You can keep getting power out of an engine either or more traction out of the tires.

you are trying to beat exponential drag with a linear engine power.

Engines and tyres are not a problem. If engine power becomes a safety problem in the future or gets out of balance with the rest of the car the fuel consumption can be adjusted. Tyres equally are not a problem. The FiA specs the tyres and have the last word how they are designed in terms of performance. The tyres are also the same for all. So they are not a source of competitiveness. As such they are not a main current concern to cost and safety considerations. They do not absorb any substantial research budget for the teams.

[bhallg2k]

We should not argue about opinion then. This is a technical board. People will get bored by endless opinion arguments.

No one's obligated to read our BS. Besides, sharing opinions is all this will ever be about.

I think we've been answering different questions, though. In addressing the original question, "Is the aerodynamic dependence in F1 too high?" I say no, it's not. I don't know your answer to that question because I think for you the question reads, "Is the aerodynamic dependence in F1 too high for road-relevant R&D?"

My answer for that, by the way, is maybe, but I don't really care one way or the other, because F1 is about racing. I think that's the crux of our disagreement.

[WhiteBlue]

"Is the aerodynamic dependence in F1 too high?" I say no, it's not. I don't know your answer to that question.. [/i]?"

I don't really care one way or the other, because F1 is about racing. I think that's the crux of our disagreement.

The original question has very little to do with racing. I have already stated that I do not want the cars to loose their aerodynamic aspects or their performance. That is supposed to remain unchanged. I want to eliminate waste from the development process. Naturally every engineer or economist will do this. I want the sport, the excitement, the spectacle all to remain but I also want to steer the application of resources towards areas that are profitable to the society as a whole and not towards waste.

At this point I fully expect some block heads to repeat the old mantra that "racing is wasting". But it is not true. The money and resources are spend to entertain millions of people. And that is a legitimate entertainment business like many others. The point really is to run it as least wasteful as possible. And that is the objective which I see.

[flynfrog]

It actually has. The freq1uent geometry changes have the purpose of curbing downforce. They work for a short time until the aerodynamicists have found another or modified optimum configuration. Constant DF eliminates the primary need for new geometric restrictions.

I agree this has nothing to do with money spent on aero.

The total budget a team has is limited. They will always spend what they have. And if the performance gains are greater in energy recovery research this it what they will do. It is up to the PTB (FOTA,FiA, FOM) to balance the direction the technical development takes in F1. I'm confident that the FiA is already on my side in their aim to make the drive train more efficient and ultimately more important to competitiveness. If there is a potential of less cost in aero research the technical restrictions in energy recovery can be lifted gradually. This will offer opportunities to spend money on getting more power from energy recovery. I'm thinking of a front wheel MGUK, multi stage exhaust turbines and compressors, variable geometries for the turbos and many other technologies which are currently restricted due to missing funds. The ban on those things can be gradually lifted as the need for big aero budgets dwindles.

Not arguing that teams will spend the most money where the biggest gains are made. Why not jump to the point and have a spec body.

Engines and tyres are not a problem. If engine power becomes a safety problem in the future or gets out of balance with the rest of the car the fuel consumption can be adjusted. Tyres equally are not a problem. The FiA specs the tyres and have the last word how they are designed in terms of performance. The tyres are also the same for all. So they are not a source of competitiveness. As such they are not a main current concern to cost and safety considerations. They do not absorb any substantial research budget for the teams.

SO suspension research is not important since all the tires are the same?

Also teams weren't dumping loads of cash when they could develop engines? news to me

why not just make it a rule teams can only work on what you deem fit you keep beating around the bush will all of this arbitrary rules.

[WhiteBlue]

SO suspension research is not important since all the tires are the same?
Also teams weren't dumping loads of cash when they could develop engines? news to me

I have often enough said that the rules on suspension design should be cleaned up. It is one area that should receive more research just as energy recovery.

When budgets were much bigger in the early noughties teams were paying a lot more for their engines. But the direction of the research was also flawed. Nobody needs engines that run at 20,000 plus rpm. With the new engine formula the FiA and the teams have made a very good start to set thinks right in that sector.

why not just make it a rule teams can only work on what you deem fit you keep beating around the bush will all of this arbitrary rules.

Again you are joking my friend. And there is little I have to answer to your humour. I will just point out that nothing is arbitrary in my rule proposals. They simply serve the purpose of making F1 better and more efficient as a sport, a business and as a part of the automotive world.

[bhallg2k]

Hey, if you're gonna quote me, don't alter the context of my quote.

Naturally, we disagree on the role of F1 in the world. But, that's a discussion for another time.

[WhiteBlue]

Hey, if you're gonna quote me, don't alter the context of my quote.

I have not changed the context. I have eliminated your speculation on my opinion. It is for me to present my opinion. I have also indicated where the original text was shortened.

[bhallg2k]

No, you've framed it so that it looks like I answer the question by saying no and then that I don't care, when the latter is actually a response to another question.

But, I'm not at all surprised that you would think that's still in context.

This is the part where I retire from this now-asinine discussion and thank the big monkey in the sky that you have absolutely no input into the direction of Formula 1.

All the best.

[WhiteBlue]

No, you've framed it so that it looks like I answer the question by saying no and then that I don't care, when the latter is actually a response to another question.

Well, your original text sits just above my quotation. People can make comparisons and will not be deprived of your original statement. I'm happy to let them make their own judgement about my quotations. Personally I can not follow your argument. If I get a bunch of complaints I will go back and fix it.

[Pingguest]

Well, now I'm just confused.

You want to avoid an "absolute point of perfection" in the regulations by effectively having the regulations define the perfect level of downforce?

(Are you under the illusion that specified downforce will halt aero development?)

And exactly how will engine, gearbox, electronics, suspension, etc., development, in addition to ever-present aero development, contain costs?

Regulations are necessary for various reasons, including safety and divergence. I do not believe that an unrestricted series - also known as a 'Formula Libre' - could be safe, cost-efficient, relevant and competitive and provide divergence. Such a format is simply unsustainable.

However, as regulations are necessary - or ideologically: a necessary evil -, those should not curtail, but promote divergence by providing no absolute point of perfection. This implies that the regulations should provide only a very small number of geometric limitations - such as a limit on length and width and a demand for open-wheel single-seaters - and put the emphasis on limiting 'consumables' and/or certain performance parameters. This could include, non-exhaustive, a ban on mid-race refuelling, a limit on the available amount of fuel, a restriction on the maximum output of engine power, a ban on mid-race tyre changes and a limit on the maximum allowable amount of downforce.
To my opinion limiting the amount of downforce and banning both mid-race refuelling and tyre changes is enough. It would allow the legislator to deregulate the areas I mentioned before. At a given stage of development teams could choose different solutions and as contradicting parameters will exist, producing a race winning car will be a matter of creativity and intelligence rather than consuming an increasing amount of resources.