F1 2017 car design vote

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Facts Only
188
Joined: 03 Jul 2014, 10:25

Re: F1 2017 car design vote

Post

"24 Valve DOHC TURBO!
"A pretentious quote taken out of context to make me look deep" - Some old racing driver

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: F1 2017 car design vote

Post

DiogoBrand wrote:
Paul wrote:Obligatory go-faster stripes next on the agenda!
I think it should also be mandatory to write "Turbo" on the sides of the cars. This would make them so much cooler!
Hey that's trademarked! I'll first have to see some royalties before that gets my stamp. And even then it only gets onto the car if it includes a spastic picture of me with an enlightening quote as "one turbof1 anal all day, keeps the maldonado from the back away"
#AeroFrodo

OO7
OO7
171
Joined: 06 Apr 2010, 17:49

Re: F1 2017 car design vote

Post

mrluke wrote: I fully appreciate that aero devices are dependent upon the "quality" of the air they receive. However I dont think that there is any evidence that this is the reason modern F1 has no overtaking.

If the trouble with overtaking is purely down to how much turbulence a car creates, then it should be pretty easy to identify which of the current cars makes the most "dirty" air?

My suggestion is that actually the most difficult car to overtake is that of your team mate, you both have exactly the same strengths and weaknesses in exactly the same places, when this is combined with the slight reduction of your cars aero performance the net result is that it is very difficult to pass.

Due to the ever tightening regulations, the current crop of cars are almost identical, there is very little variation between them, they all have pretty much the same downforce, drag and power and they all weigh the same.

If we go back to say the "good old days" we had a mixture of engine layouts, some turbo, some NA, all making power in different ways, some being better in the "twisties" and others better on the straights. This gave differentiation to the cars and creates overtaking opportunities.

The best racing is between 2 cars that set an identical lap time but have completely opposite strengths.
turbof1 wrote: That's the issue in a nut shell. The issue of dirty air has always existed. Also in the 80's. You just had more overtaking because car performance and car reliability had a much bigger variance across the grid.

Turbulent flow is definitely a part of the story, but is in absolute terms not an any bigger issue then it was in the past. Convergence is.

But anyway, how did we get there from the topic "design"?
I agree with what you say about performance variation helping with overtaking in the past. I disagree that is should be easy to identify which cars produce more turbulence than others, because the performance between the cars is too close.

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 second 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.
Last edited by OO7 on 27 Sep 2016, 23:58, edited 1 time in total.

mrluke
33
Joined: 22 Nov 2013, 20:31

Re: F1 2017 car design vote

Post

Blaze1 wrote: 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?

User avatar
bauc
33
Joined: 19 Jun 2013, 10:03
Location: Skopje, Macedonia
Contact:

Re: F1 2017 car design vote

Post

mrluke wrote:
Blaze1 wrote: 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?
One of the reasons is front grip from the tyres , as todays cars loose too much front grip in the corners when they follow another car. Now as a result of that we have the new rules which give us wider tyres next year, but the concern is...with the increase of the total DF levels next year and therefore more turbulence for the following car, it will most probably ruin the effect of the wider front tyre so it remains to be seen how the racing will look like next year. Also in the 80's there were a lot of components that were not standardized and by that the room of difference in performance was bigger therefore the chance of overtake was greater.

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.
Формула 1 на Македонски - The first ever Macedonian Formula 1 YouTube channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJkjCv ... 6rVRgKASwg

mrluke
33
Joined: 22 Nov 2013, 20:31

Re: F1 2017 car design vote

Post

bauc wrote: One of the reasons is front grip from the tyres , as todays cars loose too much front grip in the corners when they follow another car. Now as a result of that we have the new rules which give us wider tyres next year, but the concern is...with the increase of the total DF levels next year and therefore more turbulence for the following car, it will most probably ruin the effect of the wider front tyre so it remains to be seen how the racing will look like next year. Also in the 80's there were a lot of components that were not standardized and by that the room of difference in performance was bigger therefore the chance of overtake was greater.

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.
Highlighted the core of my argument proposed in my original post.

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.

User avatar
GPR-A duplicate2
64
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 09:00

Re: F1 2017 car design vote

Post

mrluke wrote:
Blaze1 wrote: 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?
Downforce is the not the problem. A quick comparison of the front of the cars gives an idea of what the problem is. There is way to much reliance on the complicated front end of the car to get a DECENT front bite. Unlike the old generation cars, when the current generation cars are devoid of good air flow (due to turbulence), the front becomes a GREAT DEAL ineffective. The current cars stand to lose WAY TOO MUCH compared to those old cars. You must have heard drivers complain of losing the feel for the front of the car while following, which is natural result of such complex front end of the current cars. Unless, FIA comes down hard on those complicated front wings, the show isn't going to improve. With next year's cars becoming faster, the length of DRS zones would also become a problem as the cars fire away in those zones faster. I won't be surprised if we don't see as many DRS overtakes from next year.

Image
Image
Image
Last edited by GPR-A duplicate2 on 26 Sep 2016, 18:13, edited 1 time in total.

rich1701
8
Joined: 11 Sep 2009, 17:09

Re: F1 2017 car design vote

Post

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.

dsrankin
0
Joined: 21 Jul 2013, 15:07

Re: F1 2017 car design vote

Post

The FIA needs to implement larger diffusors and smaller wings along with the larger tires coming next year. That's the only way to make passing easier. Simplify the wings by allowing only so many elements and end plates and making them smaller...lowering their affect and cost

User avatar
Shrieker
13
Joined: 01 Mar 2010, 23:41

Re: F1 2017 car design vote

Post

I thought we were finally getting rid of those pesky thumbs ?
Education is that which allows a nation free, independent, reputable life, and function as a high society; or it condemns it to captivity and poverty.
-Atatürk

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: F1 2017 car design vote

Post

Shrieker wrote:I thought we were finally getting rid of those pesky thumbs ?
Nope. A lot of renders have an elongated "normal" nose, but fact is the noses will looke quite similar next year, if not perhaps even more extreme: the space between the chassis monocoque and the neutral section will extent (because the neutral section will be brought more forward to accomodate the delta shape), meaning you'll get more room to stuff crash structure into. The last couple of years teams have reached the limit of meeting the the crash tests while still having an uncompromising nos cone regarding aero. That will become easier next year.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
GPR-A duplicate2
64
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 09:00

Re: F1 2017 car design vote

Post

turbof1 wrote:
Shrieker wrote:I thought we were finally getting rid of those pesky thumbs ?
Nope. A lot of renders have an elongated "normal" nose, but fact is the noses will looke quite similar next year, if not perhaps even more extreme: the space between the chassis monocoque and the neutral section will extent (because the neutral section will be brought more forward to accomodate the delta shape), meaning you'll get more room to stuff crash structure into. The last couple of years teams have reached the limit of meeting the the crash tests while still having an uncompromising nos cone regarding aero. That will become easier next year.
How is that, GP2 cars have regular/decent noses and only F1 cars have such ugly noses?
Image

User avatar
Paul
11
Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 19:33

Re: F1 2017 car design vote

Post

Because that is a spec series. Aestheticism is a viable design direction. In F1 teams will sacrifice looks for performance.

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: F1 2017 car design vote

Post

GPR-A wrote:
turbof1 wrote:
Shrieker wrote:I thought we were finally getting rid of those pesky thumbs ?
Nope. A lot of renders have an elongated "normal" nose, but fact is the noses will looke quite similar next year, if not perhaps even more extreme: the space between the chassis monocoque and the neutral section will extent (because the neutral section will be brought more forward to accomodate the delta shape), meaning you'll get more room to stuff crash structure into. The last couple of years teams have reached the limit of meeting the the crash tests while still having an uncompromising nos cone regarding aero. That will become easier next year.
How is that, GP2 cars have regular/decent noses and only F1 cars have such ugly noses?
http://media.crash.net/original/AU1392204.jpg
Like Paul said, that's a spec series. Cars are being made by Dallara and delivered to the teams with only very limited setup options.

It's a case of forcing teams to use what you get delivered, versus forcing teams to design something that complies to rules. You can envision the same outcome in both cases, but given enough room you'll end with different results.

I think it's for the best. 2014 had way more ugly appendages to the nose. It's much better currently, and technology is actually being pushed to the limit here: these crash structures are absolutely marvels, able to meet the deaccelerations described by the FIA with very limited dimensions.
#AeroFrodo

mrluke
33
Joined: 22 Nov 2013, 20:31

Re: F1 2017 car design vote

Post

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

Image

or even 2000

Image

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

Image

which was reduced to this in 2009

Image

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