Hello Ciro,
Ciro Pabón wrote:I repeat (as I do in all aerodynamic discussions) that I don't know duck about it, so the probability of saying something really stupid is high. Anyway, the future of aerodynamics in Formula One is the future of moderation, unless I'm missing something and in a huge way.
No problem at all, i myself never speak with 100% knowledge..that's actually quite hard not to express yourself even when you don't master the subject (i think this applies to 99% humans, don't you think?the 1% representing maybe some super monks)
Let's start by the "critics" that say that the sport isn't interesting enough.
I'll try to stick to what I know, so I cannot say how interesting is GP2: all I know (and I'm not sure) is that they provide lateral acceleration of 3.2 G, uses slick tyres, have 4 liter V8 engines and can accelerate at 1.3 G. This sounds very much as an F1 car: slightly below specs, trying to reach a more cheap compromise, for example by using larger engines at lower rpms, engines that can take 4.000 km. CART has also the same idea: you try to reach approximately the same speeds and cornering abilities by changing something, something not that expensive. Either you throw in slicks (but take away power steering) or turbo (but take away unlimited vacuum). CART is a remarkable car in that sense: for 200.000 euros (or less) you're down a few seconds per lap, compared with 100.000.000 euros cars.
Now, we must understand that the cornering abilities of an F1 car are UNSURPASSED. I do know (I've calculated it, roughly) that at 100 kph an F1 car can take curves at 2.0 G (lateral), which I assume is pure (well, most) mechanical grip. You can compare that with a Ferrari Enzo, able to take curves at 1.2 G!
That is impressive yes, even more impressive if you know that the Enzo will take 1.2G because of downforce so at higher speeds (don't know the speeds, i think somewhere near 150mph).
This is a very important point in my argumentation i'll explain this just below.
Now, at 200 kph, I find that, at Suzuka, the esses (curves 3 and 4) were taken at 4.0 G. Wow.
Not to mention 6.0 G at Suzuka 130R, probably the highest lateral acceleration in motorsport; I dare to say even in aerial combat... a SU-37, the cream of the cream in aerial dogfight develops 9.0 G, but as the airplane is tilted, they are not lateral, but vertical.
Just off topic, and as i come from the planes (and more specificaly military planes) community, SU-37, totaly regardless of efficiency in combat, is, as we talk about aerodynamics (not to be confused with flight dynamics) is a not so superb aircraft.
The original SU-27 is by aerodynamics standard more efficient.
The Su-37 has very high lift coeficients but drags a lot, the features for what it is famous are in the domain of flight dynamics that is the control, the manoeuvrability provided to the pilot.
Turning performance (in rate of turn and turn radius), speed and range/endurance are in the field of aerodynamics (and thermodynamics if we include the engine)
Excuse for the OT, i'll stick back to suzuka. the 4g figure is impressive, i think the peak acceleration was in 2006, the cars ran so fast in corners, look they had 20km/h minus in max speed yet they were only 1 second (depending on the track, in tracks like monza 2 seconds) slower than 2004/5 cars!
This year, they have less mechanical grip but higher max speeds (5-9km/h depending on the circuit, montreal was 9km/h) yet they're slower of 1 seconds to last year.
Modern circuits are "worse" (or better, I don't know). At Turkey, things have been exaggerated beyond everything. The famous turn 8, a curve with 4 apexes,
gives you 5.0 G's for seven or eight seconds or my calculator has to be killed by some merciful soul! At 270 kph! With 4 corners in one! Do I have to put more exclamation marks?!
Now, do you complain of not enough ground effect, my dear and deviated friends? How fun is Turn 8? Do you
realize what the driver is going through, while you yawn in front of your TV?
Would it be funnier if the car gave you more GE? I don't think so. I believe no one would notice... except Juan Montoya, who alleges he can do 300 reps of 50 pounds with his neck.
I think this is here you misleaded (or i was not clear enough) my point.
My point is not that i like to see a driver going at 5g's (well that's impressive yes for sure..) my point is that i prefer seeing a guy a 3g in a tight corner.
Actually you know CART (especially this year) can also go the 6G's (an oval course was even dropped last year because they went above 6g's and started to have gray locks), what makes the F1 so fast is that they accelerate like hell (less since 2 years), and take corners that you and me won't take more than 50km/h with our regular car at 150km/h or even more.
Secondly, if we want to talk about the future, let's look at the past:
Lotus 72
Do you notice ANYTHING essentially different? Yes, I know you will, but I mean in essence. We have been developing the same idea incrementally for 35 years! Do you need more exclamation marks? I don't think so... Either you agree that the development is as good as it gets (read againg the G-forces part
) or you start to long for extreme measures, tested and discarded:
MP4-5B diffuser
The question is not to have more downforce (in absolute amount).
While (and that's why i talked about drivers technics) F1 has already many fasinating facts, that unfortunately are not shown and explained on TV, it is true that overtaking is difficult.
It is not rare to see a car that has more speed that the car in front not being able to overtake it because it means losing too much grip.
F1 cars are at extreme performance, wich means achieve many small increments everywhere.
That's the story of the moto GP vs F1, someday when MS tried a MotoGP cycle, and Rossi tested a F1, they said "look! MS is 20 seconds from the record while rossi is just 1 seconds off the MS record!"
Those 1 seconds require sooooo fine driving , and when a team gain 1 second it is the result of hundred of little increments.
That means every thing you miss has a enormous impact on performance.
So usally in F1 just losin 5% or downforce following a car is horrible, you loose the balance, the tyres start to degradate abnormaly, you loose 0.2 seconds in a turn etc...
That's a problem i think because it really prevents driver that have , at a given time, the best driving line to benefit from it.
So my point was: I do not support GE for a matter of amount, i support GE for a matter of manner, that's the way the Downforce is produced.
In my post i said that with GE wings would be reduced in profile so that means wings would produce less downforce.
I seriously think we don't need more downforce, in the 2009 tech regulations the max downforce is fixed a 1,25 tons, that's fine..
1,25 with a car that weights 600 kg is largely sufficient!
But if that 1,25 tons can be achieve at 200km/h instead of 300km/h that would be great.
This would not be negative for the follower car, and as safety is concerned i think this would be okay too, because cars and devices are done to support absolute deceleration (40g average) so as long as you don't exceed certain speed
at the contact point (this latter is important, we have to see if tracks allow that) the safety will be on same level than today.
Also i'm supportative of GE because GE don't burst like wings, when a wing takes off in the middle of a turn that's an horrible thing that happens, see the last year CART crash of the belgian driver, the rear wing took off the crash was at 250km/h,hopefully nothing serious happened to her.
"It seems that... if the total downforce was reduced, far from making it easier for cars to follow each other, things actually got worse, causing an adverse effect on the following car." I'm not sure, you tell me.
"Gaining the technical edge can make the difference between a run-of-the-mill contender and pace-setter at the front of the field. Aerodynamics has been the turning point in the design of modern F1 machines, and this keeps the designers busy for 12 months-a-year with constant developments."
So, I say, even if you keep downforce constant (a sane option, if you ask me) wind tunnels are there to stay. Ferrari proved that when designed his current car, with a slimmer waist, for less drag and same downforce.
A F1 can be with less downforce, this stays a mobile object rubbing the ground, moving in the air so as thoses two factors are the main ones, yes it will still be the case and i'm not quite sure max mosley is right on saying that by cutting aeros they will lower their Aero R.D budget.
I think this lies in the nature of F1: Competitivity to the extreme.
) you can to squeeze every drop of performance out to make some stupid fast fuel guzzling car that needs complete replacement of major systems, pretty often. In another, you're sacrificing performance and agility and all this other stuff to have a fuel efficient inexpensive, mass producible car.
