Active aero

[Andres125sx]

I think it should be used in both wings for several reasons, but since I´m not an aeronautical engineer I´d love to read opinions from people with real knownledge about the subject

I think F1 should use active aero because the common excuse (dangerous if something fails) is obsolte, several production cars already use active aero so it cannot be that unreliable. It also would make F1 a lot more technologically advanced and a lot more efficient (adaptative l/d ratio for each specific situation), and could even help in the most problematic aspect of F1 from the audience pov, difficulty to overtake.

But it´d force to re-invent F1. Not a big problem IMO, as F1 actually need it

- It´d force to downsize PU further, or they´d reach unbelieveble top speeds and tracks safety would be compromised.
- There should be some limit about total DF allowed, if posible FIA could monitor pressure on suspensions maybe?
- If not posible, restrictions should be related to max angle of attack, apart from dimensions of wings
- If FIA can control max DF created, wings could adopt higher AoA when in a slitpstream (automatically), to compensate the DF drop due to dirty air. It will never be like in clean air, but it will be much better than today with fixed wings so overtaking would be easier
- If not posible, then a higher AoA could be allowed when behind a car. Similar to DRS, but the other way around, instead of reducing drag to pass on straights, increase DF (minimize DF drop) to make it easier to get closer to each other and prepare the pass before the straight getting into the slipstream at the beginning of the straight. As in any other racing series without so much aero dependency


The advantages would be lighter cars (smaller PU), more efficient (don´t need to fight the huge drag current cars create in the straights), faster laptimes (I really don´t care about this, but seems like most people do), and making easier to overtake despite producing a good amount of DF

[Tim.Wright]

I think active aero could solve a lot of problems but I don't think the issue is the safety but rather the cost of the arms race it would create unless it was extremely heavily regulated or standardised.

[Cold Fussion]

I don't think it will help overtaking at all. The reason that overtaking is difficult is because you cannot follow in the corners, reducing your wing level will not help go faster in a corner.

[SteveRacer]

I've always wondered what cars would look like with movable aero if it was unregulated. If you had super flexible wings and body work, one would gain some of the lost downforce while following another car.

[bhall II]

I don't think the safety aspect can be easily dismissed, because there's a real danger of a serious incident should active control ever be compromised, especially mid-corner. You could devise a fail-safe system - something like spring-loaded elements that return to a high-downforce configuration upon loss of power - but such instability would nonetheless be difficult as hell for a driver to manage, and the system itself would add weight and complexity to the car.

That said, and even though I can't come up with a sensible way to make it happen, I'm all about seeing active aero in F1. I don't think it would do much for overtaking, but it could potentially make the cars much faster and much more efficient.

A few thoughts:

• Capping peak downforce would likely prove difficult, because suspension loads are as sensitive to incidental changes in elevation as they are to downforce - think: Eau Rouge. That makes it tough to police the restriction.
• The concern about any systems analogous to DRS isn't the trailing car; it's the one(s) behind it. If we're saying a car needs a high-downforce mode in order to follow a car traveling in a low-downforce mode, what does a car need if it's following both a low-dowforce car and a high-downforce car?
• The scope for optimization is virtually limitless, as is the difficulty of even mildly harnessing such complex, dynamic interactions. My favorite idea is that of a front wing that responds to steering input changes, sorta like the horizontal stabilizers on a fighter jet.
  
  
  
  However, because it would occur at the front of the car, the changes in AoA would have remarkable consequences downstream that would need to be addressed, and the associated cost......
• Active suspension is a must for active aero, and if any part of this should be standardized, I think that's the one.
• Any solution would require extensive on-track testing, because neither CFD nor wind tunnels are capable of modeling the necessary interactions - as far as I know.

It's a challenge-and-a-half, to say the least, but I'm interested to see what folks come up with.

[Andres125sx]

I don't think it will help overtaking at all. The reason that overtaking is difficult is because you cannot follow in the corners, reducing your wing level will not help go faster in a corner.

The idea is exactly the contrary, increasing your wing level in corners while behind a car to compensate the drop in DF due to dirty air.

I think active aero could solve a lot of problems but I don't think the issue is the safety but rather the cost of the arms race it would create unless it was extremely heavily regulated or standardised.

True, I can imagine teams investing in R&D like crazy...

What´s more efficient, movable leading edge, trailing edge or both?
How far can wings move to be efficient?
How does affect those AoA changes to the aero of the rest of the car?
.
.
.
.

But I think some strategy similar to FE could work. Start with some sort of standarized aero allowing development only in some specific part, and free it up season by season... or not, if it woks well it could remain standarized. I´m not a fan of standarizing anything in F1, but if something must be standarized for the good of the sport, it should be aero hands down, because of costs (most expensive part of any F1 car), because of irrelevancy in any other real world application and because of it´s of no interest for 99% of the audience.

[Andres125sx]

• Capping peak downforce would likely prove difficult, because suspension loads are as sensitive to incidental changes in elevation as they are to downforce - think: Eau Rouge. That makes it tough to police the restriction.

True, good point. But maybe it could be compensated with accelerometers/GPS.

I´m drone pilot, they use stabilized gimbals to keep cameras horizontal while the drone is maneouvering with gyros and accelerometers mainly. But when the drone is moving for example sideways, the stabilization system get confused, as it can´t differ between gravity and lateral accelerations. When moving sideways sensors think it´s leaning to a side when it probably is straight but accelerating sideways, so the system leans (aileron axis) to compensate when it actually is not compensating anything, but producing an error (horizon drift). I guess it must be a very similar problem.

But it can be solved with GPS as best systems out there do. The system then knows if it´s travelling sideways to interpret part of that lateral acceleration as that, lateral acceleration instead of inclination. Problem solved, no horizon drift at all.

If I can buy a system compensating this sort of sensor errors, I´m sure F1 could solve it too. In this case maybe with only a vertical accelerometer could be enough to read when it´s the whole car moving upwards/downwards to compensate the pressure sensor reading

[*]The concern about any systems analogous to DRS isn't the trailing car; it's the one(s) behind it. If we're saying a car needs a high-downforce mode in order to follow a car traveling in a low-downforce mode, what does a car need if it's following both a low-dowforce car and a high-downforce car?

Good point again... I guess he´ll be forced to wait until first trailing car pass the leading one

Anycase that problem would be the same as it is today, it wouldn´t solve the problem for the third car, but at least it´d help for the second one. Not perfect, but better than today

My favorite idea is that of a front wing that responds to steering input changes, sorta like the horizontal stabilizers on a fighter jet.

http://i.imgur.com/WEJG8Df.gif

But then the system couldn´t compensate for dirty air. It´s a simplier solution, easier to implement, but wouldn´t take advantage of active aero full potential

[*]Any solution would require extensive on-track testing, because neither CFD nor wind tunnels are capable of modeling the necessary interactions - as far as I know.[/list]
It's a challenge-and-a-half, to say the least, but I'm interested to see what folks come up with.

Completely agree, I know it would be a real challenge, but F1 has always suffered some mayor change from time to time, from front engines with metal cars ignoring aero to current carbon cars wich should be called planes things have changed drastically on every single aspect.

It´s called evolution, and it´s good. IMHO F1 needs a new step forward breaking a new barrier. Technology is prepared for active aero so I think it should be implemented asap, with some control obviously but implemented. Some people think F1 is not the pinnacle of motorsports anymore, and I can´t disagree with them. Some new step forward is needed.

[bhall II]

Leaving aside philosophical and other differences, I do have one technical issue here.

My favorite idea is that of a front wing that responds to steering input changes, sorta like the horizontal stabilizers on a fighter jet.

http://i.imgur.com/WEJG8Df.gif

But then the system couldn´t compensate for dirty air. It´s a simplier solution, easier to implement, but wouldn´t take advantage of active aero full potential

I still don't think it's possible to engineer a solution that can combat the effects of turbulence in a meaningful way. So, my idea doesn't even try; it's just to make the cars quicker. It's also incomplete, because I have no idea what it would do to downstream elements.

Ideally, wings would be mounted in such a way that downforce is transferred more to the wheels individually rather than collectively through the chassis. When cornering, the inside wheels would be given enough downforce to counteract the tendency for load transfer to lift them off the circuit.



The outside wheels would be given a little less in order to create an asymmetrical drag profile - more drag on the inside than on the outside - to help the cars rotate through the turn. Think of it as the drag equivalent to McLaren's dual brake pedals on MP4/12.

In addition to modulating the throttle, the accelerator pedal would also control ride height. At WOT, the car would be at its highest, because that position reduces ground effect, thus drag, along sections of the track where downforce is unnecessary. Lifting off the throttle would have the opposite effect, increasing downforce in slower sections. This would be analogous to the push-to-pass functionality of Williams' active suspension on FW15C.



Other elements would operate along the same lines: telescopic bargeboards, swinging turning vanes, rotating diffuser strakes, silly putty bodywork, etc., all with the goal of minimizing drag on straights and maximizing downforce through corners.

[CBeck113]

Leaving aside philosophical and other differences, I do have one technical issue here.

My favorite idea is that of a front wing that responds to steering input changes, sorta like the horizontal stabilizers on a fighter jet.

http://i.imgur.com/WEJG8Df.gif

But then the system couldn´t compensate for dirty air. It´s a simplier solution, easier to implement, but wouldn´t take advantage of active aero full potential

I still don't think it's possible to engineer a solution that can combat the effects of turbulence in a meaningful way.

There is: the diffuser. Its sole purpose ist to take fast moving air and slow it down (stabilize it), for instance to make an exit from a windtunnel more environmentally fielndly, which also increased the efficinecy of the entire system. It just so happens that by combinding the geometry with the floor of the car you can generate "free" downforce, while also improving the aero of the car (pressure delta between front and rear). Back on topic - by forcing a design which has the primary purpose of stabilizing the air flow at the rear of the car (yes, as a standard solution), then you win downforce at the back of the. To compensate you would have to increase the size of the front wings, and force teh removal of vortex generators, since they actually reduce downforce at the front, but are used to increase df on the car as a whole by turning the entire floor into a diffusor (ok, a bit generalized, but basically that's what they are doing). This could go by the tune "same width, more surface, only straight edges, only one plane (no curves)". Maybe even drop the noses and deregulate the tray area to use as a feeder for the diffusor.

But aero brakes on F1 cars would be awesome, except maybe for the loss of df on the following cars. But it would look cool.
==> No, not a fan of active aero in F1

[mrluke]

I think active aero could solve a lot of problems but I don't think the issue is the safety but rather the cost of the arms race it would create unless it was extremely heavily regulated or standardised.

Im not sold.

The PUs were heavily restricted, did it make them cheaper?

There will no doubt be an arms race but I cant see anybody spending anything other than their full available budget regardless of how much technical freedom is allowed by the regulations.

[bhall II]

Back on topic - by forcing a design which has the primary purpose of stabilizing the air flow at the rear of the car (yes, as a standard solution), then you win downforce at the back of the. To compensate you would have to increase the size of the front wings, and force teh removal of vortex generators, since they actually reduce downforce at the front, but are used to increase df on the car as a whole by turning the entire floor into a diffusor (ok, a bit generalized, but basically that's what they are doing). This could go by the tune "same width, more surface, only straight edges, only one plane (no curves)". Maybe even drop the noses and deregulate the tray area to use as a feeder for the diffusor.

Don't forget about the OWG's abomination. Cars were "dumbed down" to the extreme, and it had no effect on overtaking whatsoever.





I really don't want this to become another turbulence/overtaking debate. But, there's just not a whole lot of evidence to support either the idea that "dirty air" is the problem it's routinely presented to be, i.e. the major reason for the lack of overtaking, or, if it truly is, that it can be solved.

[Andres125sx]

Ideally, wings would be mounted in such a way that downforce is transferred more to the wheels individually rather than collectively through the chassis. When cornering, the inside wheels would be given enough downforce to counteract the tendency for load transfer to lift them off the circuit.

Active suspensions wouldn´t be enough for that?

[Andres125sx]

I really don't want this to become another turbulence/overtaking debate. But, there's just not a whole lot of evidence to support either the idea that "dirty air" is the problem it's routinely presented to be, i.e. the major reason for the lack of overtaking, or, if it truly is, that it can be solved.

It´s obvious I think. Aero provides DF. When in a slipstream aero loose efficiency as it´s not passing through still air, but turbulent, so DF decrease. Higher AoA provides more DF, so it may compensate part of that lost DF.

I agree it will never be the same as in clean air, but it must be better than keeping AoA constant no matter if in clean or dity air. Any reason to supose a higher AoA will not improve DF in the trailing car?

[Tim.Wright]

Ideally, wings would be mounted in such a way that downforce is transferred more to the wheels individually rather than collectively through the chassis. When cornering, the inside wheels would be given enough downforce to counteract the tendency for load transfer to lift them off the circuit.

Active suspensions wouldn´t be enough for that?

Suspensions can only change the distribution of lateral load transfer. It can't really introduce any new forces.

I don't particularly agree with prioritising aero load to the inner wheel if it comes at the expense of total downforce generation. Ive seen a few systems with split wings which increase the angle of attack of the wing closest to the inner wheel but leaves the wing over the outer wheel in a neutral position.


To me it makes little sense. If you put the outer wing at the same angle of attack and you've got more downforce on BOTH the inner and outer wheels so more grip in total. I think there's a bit of a logic failure in the thinking behind these systems.

[bhall II]

It´s obvious I think. Aero provides DF. When in a slipstream aero loose efficiency as it´s not passing through still air, but turbulent, so DF decrease. Higher AoA provides more DF, so it may compensate part of that lost DF.

I agree it will never be the same as in clean air, but it must be better than keeping AoA constant no matter if in clean or dity air. Any reason to supose a higher AoA will not improve DF in the trailing car?

I recognize that turbulence clearly has an effect on trailing cars. Where my views seem to diverge from those of others is that, absent complete standardization such that the negative impact is made to be the same for every car, I don't think there's any way to substantively address the issue. The most you can do is reconstitute the problem, and I don't see any value in that.

Think about how much the sport has changed aerodynamically over the last ten years for the sake of solving this thing. Now think about how (in)effective those solutions have proven to be. Why keep doing it?

From my point of view, there exists a misconception that downforce in and of itself is the root cause of the problem. I disagree. The increasingly complex methods used to generate downforce are the problem, because, active or passive, the relevant aerodynamic interactions are easily disturbed. The only way to combat it is to keep things simple; the only way to keep things simple is to halt development; the only way to equitably halt development is to standardize everything. Whether or not that's a good idea is subjective, based upon one's philosophy of the sport. So, ultimately, there's no right or wrong answer here, only consequences.

I come from a church that worships speed, because speed, and vigorous development, because I'm easily frustrated by competitive environments that make it difficult for teams to thaw frozen advantages borne by rivals. I imagine those who place a greater emphasis on wheel-to-wheel racing might interpret matters differently. Unfortunately, the means necessary to achieve either end make the ends more or less mutually exclusive.

To me it makes little sense. If you put the outer wing at the same angle of attack and you've got more downforce on BOTH the inner and outer wheels so more grip in total. I think there's a bit of a logic failure in the thinking behind these systems.

My idea would increase downforce on both sides of the car; it would just add a bit more to the inside wheels in order to use the higher induced drag to increase yaw rate, which is arguably the most important aspect of aerodynamic performance. The alternative is a straight-up air brake, but that would stall something somewhere and reduce downforce.

Ideally, wings would be mounted in such a way that downforce is transferred more to the wheels individually rather than collectively through the chassis. When cornering, the inside wheels would be given enough downforce to counteract the tendency for load transfer to lift them off the circuit. The outside wheels would be given a little less in order to create an asymmetrical drag profile - more drag on the inside than on the outside - to help the cars rotate through the turn. Think of it as the drag equivalent to McLaren's dual brake pedals on MP4/12.