Enforcing DF limit - possible?

[modbaraban]

Lately I was thinking of a way to save F1 as a constructors championship and the pinnacle of motorsports. The last two words rule out the budget cap solution. These days any 'open development areas' in the rules would quickly increase speeds so rules get tighter every season turning F1 into a spec series. I mean some years ago you could suddenly bolt a giant fan to the car, now every tiny fin is regulated... FIA could control cornering speeds via control tyre, but low mechanical grip kills overtaking (2005).
But what if all the cars were to have the same amounts of downforce? The teams/manufacturers could then invest in more road relevant things like fuel efficiency, minimising drag etc. That would be way 'greener' than the current... EPIC FAIL KERS campaign.
Is it technically possible to enforce a rule of max DF limit?

[Scotracer]

They can put load cells on suspension components to measure peak vertical loads, in the same way the teams use them to test new components with respect to wind tunnel data. Only issue you have with that is gradient changes will effect the data (Eau Rouge has a massive compression in it, increasing the load on the suspension, for example). If they can compensate for that, then fine.

It is feasible but then all the costs would just go into reducing drag for the same downforce level. It may be more relevant to the real-world but for the teams that aren't car manufacturers, that's kinda pointless.

[ISLAMATRON]

enforce a minimum ride height... then at tech inspect place a load on the car equal to the max DF, if the car falls below the min ride height then it is out of spec... if you really want to get fancy with it, mandate a high friction coating under the car so that if they bottom out they slow down immensely, or they could keep the current plank system. or bump stops on the 3rd spring or something.

The teams would have to adjust their spring rates to match their ride heights, but I think they do something similar already.

[xpensive]

I think the general idea with the 2009 rules was just that, the limited diffuser together with the plank and a laterally stepped floor should have been enough.
But when CW and the FIA at an early stage failed to hold the line, there's no telling what we will see for next year.

Load sensors at each corner is an intriguing possibility, question is how deal with reactions over bumps and such, and there you might go again, exceptions leading to more exceptions.

But I could see a max DF-level and otherwise free bodywork, how about that for pushing technical innovativity?

[WhiteBlue]

It is child play to compensate for vertical acceleration components. You just have to measure them and make the appropriate compensation. Every iPhone has the sensors and software on board.

[modbaraban]

But I could see a max DF-level and otherwise free bodywork, how about that for pushing technical innovativity?

I thought it would be way more sensible (and entertaining for the fans too) if the teams invest their money into new smart solutions rather than spend the same amounts to move the shark grills from the sidepods to the cockpit edge and fiddle with millions of almost identical versions of the front wing endplate fins etc. like they at the moment.

[xpensive]

Not only the technical benefits you mentioned mod, imagine having cars that actually might look different in shape?

[ISLAMATRON]

is my idea too simple? Am I missing something?... some feedback please

[xpensive]

I belive that technically, with the plank and laterally stepped floors, a min ride-height is what you already have today?

[bill shoe]

Setting a max downforce limit was a Max Mosley "Idea of the Week" a few years ago. His idea, as mentioned above, was to require a suspension with a combination of static ride height and stiffness so it would bottom out when a maximum load was added to it. This way it could be checked in tech inspection by simply setting weights on the car. On the track if the downforce exceeded this load then the car would bottom out and directly slow itself, or the car would scuff its underplank which would make it non-compliant in post race inspection.

Enter unintended consequences. One possible strategy is to put a speed limiter on the car to limit speed on the fastest straight. This would allow you to run a bigger wing without exceeding the max downforce limit. You would obviously lose time on the longest straights, but the bigger wing would make you faster through the corners. There is a tradeoff, but the obvious question is would this reduce overall laptime?

At the time I did a fairly complex spreadsheet simulator of laptimes for some typical modern F1 tracks, Turkey and China I think. The output was a chart of overall laptime vs speed limiter setting. The answer is yes: For the downforce limits that were being talked about (I think 1 or 2 times car weight) a typical F1 car on a typical F1 track would be quickest with a significant speed limiter. It wasn't a huge differece, I think the optimum speed limiter setting reduced laptime by 1 or 2 seconds compared to no speed limiter and a natural top speed. I think the range of optimum speed limiting was ~10 or 30 kph below the natural top speed. Anyway, obviously no team could afford to leave that last one or two seconds on the table so as a result all cars would end up running speed limiters on the longer straights, a pretty absurd spectacle for F1.

After a few months I never heard about the downforce limit again. I don't know if some technical person in F1 figured out the same thing I did and whispered advice in Max Mosley's ear or if the idea simply died for other reasons.

There is a way to make the idea work without speed limiters. It depends on monitoring downforce with sensors like WhiteBlue mentioned. Instead of a fixed downforce limit you would have a downforce limit that varied with the speed squared (since downforce is typically proportional to the speed squared). This would allow downforce to be limited, but with no incentive to limit top speed. It would have to be monitored with FIA approved sensors and telemetry, that sort of thing. Monitoring the sensors and preventing cheating would be difficult, but F1 has agreed on sensors and monitoring for KERS this year so maybe it's practical.

Thanks for reading. I'm proud that I conceived the speed limiter work around for the downforce limit. I think if the fixed downforce limit had been put into effect then the first season would have started out with one or two clever Ross Brawn type teams using speed limiters and all the other teams screaming bloody hell because it didn't follow the spirit of the rules (i.e they hadn't thought of it).

[xpensive]

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with teams runing at Monza with Monaco aero-settings, while holding back
on the straights. Can't see anything wrong with that, anyone?

Au contraire, it would give F1 a greener image, when the difference in downforce between 280 and 300 km/h is 15%,
but engine-power increases with 23% as powerloss has a cubic relation to speed.

This would be the proper engineerish way of optimizing performance, something which Formula One should be all about.

[ISLAMATRON]

putting a speed limiter on your car would be a total suicide move by any team.... even if it was faster to qualify with the speed limiter the teams with the faster top speed would just easily pass on the straights and then hold up the other teams in the corners... the teams with the speed limiters could not really pass as easily in the corners so they would be stuck behind... just imagine how quickly they would be passed just at he start lights. We can see it already with the KERS... straight speed is worth more in F1 then cornering speed, maybe not in qualifying but definitely in the race.

speed limiter would quickly get thrown in the trash bins and everyone would work towards more efficient aero, that is higher DF to drag ratio so they would have a higher terminal speed.

[xpensive]

Excellent point Islam, holding back on the straight would probably not be the way to go to win races.

Which brings me to my pet-idea of allowing for full bodywork and adjustable aero, but that's perhaps another story.

Today is off in my country, which I will spend without no mistress whatsoever, why I hope you can bear with my ramblings?

[Jersey Tom]

Lately I was thinking of a way to save F1 as a constructors championship and the pinnacle of motorsports. The last two words rule out the budget cap solution.

I strongly disagree with this. You don't need to spend lavish amounts of money to be at a talent peak.

[kilcoo316]

An artificial downforce limit is a silly idea.


If you want to limit downforce, quit beating about the bush - eliminate the diffuser - imposing a flat floor everywhere (use the shadow plate ruling) and cut the rear wing to 1 element.


They can drastically cut downforce to 10% current levels easily. They just choose not to.