The future of Aerodynamics in Formula One

[MMUK]

What does the future hold for aerodynamic development in Formula One? It looks gloomy according to the current FIA proposals...

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=39287

The document also states that all development that cannot be classified as powertrain development – for example aerodynamics – should be “severely constrained”.

Are we going to see the end of aerodynamic innovations (or did that end years ago) ? Are we going to see large numbers of people in CFD and Aero departments being layed off? Or will there still be a place and need for the large aero deparments? This article suggests the future doesn't look too bright for aero employment.

Your thoughts?

[AeroGT3]

The fan base will plummet if these are implemented. Champ car would become infinitely more interesting.

There is more passing and close racing in F3000 and Champ car. The ONLY thing that makes F1 more popular is the level of technology.

19k RPM is what makes an F1 car. 10k bio diesels are for green peace, IMO.

[ginsu]

If, in the future, the cars don't see the level of progress that they do now, with updates from race to race, then I think alot of the competitiveness of each team will be removed and you'll see closer racing, but the season as a whole will be extremely boring. It will become only a driver competition. If that's what the FIA wants, then why doesn't F1 just become a Kart race?

That would save all the teams a bunch of money, increase safety and there would be a heck of a lot of overtaking!

The FIA has the most retarded logic I've ever seen. They make a bunch of rules and regulations that constantly change with no underlying purpose. They should first define what makes F1 enjoyable for both fans, drivers and teams. Then they should build the rules around making the sport more enjoyable. It's really not that complicated, but then you get a bunch of overpaid aristocrats in a room and nothing makes any sense.

[manchild]

The future of Aerodynamics in Formula One:

[zac510]

If they don't want to develop aerodynamics then they'll have to remove the air they race in!

Even if bodywork was spec they'd still want to map downforce throughout air speed/wing attack/pitch/yaw etc in their own tunnel to maximise their knowledge and speed.

[Downforce]

The future of Aerodynamics in Formula One:

Going back to basics...

[checkered]

Well, the FIA is exploring

two aerodynamical approaches for the future and fortunately I have spy footage and a spy picture of the options ...

The first is code named "Gust-O", featuring a highly experimental "Downwind Turbo Propelled (DTP)" powertrain which is expected to whirl into the hearts of the fan base. While the device can actually outpace the driving downwind, the teams are rarely expected to outspeed wind velocity in order to channel part of that energy in a storage device that will in turn boost the vehicle upwind reducing the amount of time the drivers have to pedal and/or step out and push. A 1/5 scale model can be seen racing down a very well camouflaged natural wind tunnel somewhere in the US, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJpdWHFqHm0

The second option is code named "Ray of Hope", a solar-electric solution. As the image shows, aerodynamics have been dumbed down just enough to prevent excess investment in CFD computing power and wind tunnels. Fans are especially expected to relate to the eco "car pool" feature that is being introduced into F1 for the first time in a competitive setting and will guarantee that F1 spearheads all motorsport into the future - the vehicle has to accommodate the driver's race engineer at all times. The new narrow tyre will make driver errors so common that overtaking is expected to occur at phenomenal levels.



Ps. The photo is actually of a Venturi Astrolab. Venturi is a French electric car company that produces an electric sports car too, called the Fetish. Looks cool, don't know the specs to the detail, but it preceded the Tesla roadster albeit I've read it is also priced to the range of Ferrari ...
http://www.venturifetish.fr/fetish.html
http://www.venturi.fr/index.php

[modbaraban]

Well, the FIA is exploring

two aerodynamical approaches....

the vid:
was that Bernie 'pushing the project'?

the pic:
...sculpted sidepods

=========================

Last time I checked Venturi they weren't powered by innovation that much....

[kurtiejjj]

Some fresh young people is what we need at the FIA! someone who understands that entertaining fans is the most important, because without them, no sponsors = no money and no point for car manufacturers to show of their technology. And some sensible decisions would be good from time to time as well!

So goodbye Max + Bernie!

[zac510]

kurtiejjj, what about the formula:
less fans = less sponsor money = less wind tunnel time, team cost savings!

[Ogami musashi]

Hello,

I'm very sceptical about the anti-aerodynamics vendetta by FIA.
I think that the problem is multiple sided by i'll try to stick in the subject of the subject:

The matter is not how much downforce is created, but how.
It seems to me that the FIA is trying to cut the problem without going at the base.
Lowering downforce for sure will make more follow on possibilities but unless mechanical grip compensates for that the F1 will slow down.
I may be wrong but i doubt the mechanical grip increases as fast as the aero one.

As i don't see really the point of having a f1 car going as fast as a gp2(this year in qualifications a GP2 car is only 5 seconds slower, knowing the F1 cars of this year lost regulary 1 to 2 seconds compared to the 2006 ones wich themselves in some tracks lost 1 seconds to the 2005 one i think that if slowing continues we will reach the gp2 times.

GP2 races are quite entertaining right? so why bother?

Well i stick back, i think the FIA should consider giving up with the flat bottom and try to re-introduce ground effetcs, without skirts for sure (as the increase of downforce vs speed was horrifying).

Champ car and GP2 (and formula nippon) have both ground effects.
Of course they're specs series so it easy to control the performance of the bottoms but it is a good proposition i think as overtaking is easier yet the cars are efficient.

I think if you put an airfoil bottom that has a rough surface the efficiency will decrease fast with speed preventing the dramatic increase in downforce that the skirt cars had.

It was one of the thing that happened in the last years, max downforce was limited but downforce increased at slow and medium speed and then lap times exploded.

I found the F1 cars very impressive, nervous and seeing them running so fast in corners is definitevly something i like.

[miqi23]

Ground effects can be a very good solution to the current problem. We have to appreciate that it works, however it is dangerous at the same time.

On a second note, what are your thoughts about the CDG wing? I know they look ugly but deep inside I feel like it may work if some restrictions are placed on the rear end of the car. Again, restricted bodywork and all that dont sound good in F1 dont you think?

Anyone else who can propose an alternative to what they should be doing would be great. Atleast we can give it a go and see what the out come is. Modifications to the current CDG concept would also be considered.

[Ogami musashi]

Hello,

In my opinion, the CDG concept was dropped.
You probably remember that max mosley did say that they will provide more mechanical grip (that quite good! a car is linked to the ground by its tyres!) to balance the loss of aero appendices.

I found an article (it was on autosport i think) back at the time when CDG was offered that described the alternative solution to CDG Teams proposed to FIA.
Coincidencely, in this article Pat symonds described their altenative as being a solution with more mechanical grip with new, simpler and updated bodywork.

I think then FIA did choose something like that.

About the CDG, there was an article just here in F1technical about a CFD analysis of the CDG wings on a leading car and a follower at one car lenght.
The CFD resulted in saying that there were really different flow patterns and that the CDG really created a high downforce area for the following car but the problem is that the diffuser of the leading car did create just the opposite, so in result, losses of downforce was just similar to today.
But that simply means opitimisation had to be done.

One thing though on the concept itself: you can't provide for slipstream and downforce at the same time.
More downforce (at least through high velocity stream)= More drag= Less slipstream, especially here where the high downforce zone is just at the level of the upper side of the follwing car's front wing that's on the level of the bodywork.

That's why again Ground effects would be good because the air the exit the leading car have more velocity while the bodywork of the leading car provide for low velocity at the level of the body work of the following car.

I'd be more for regular wing and GE but definitively GE should be really carefully done because at the skirt era downforce increase was higher than the grip necessary to the tyres to stick the road so the driver just had to throttle up and they always had (at least from certain speeds) enough grip wich is quite scary.


About the lack of innovation i definitively agree. Of course we have to consider many parameters like security but i'm a little bit worried the F1 is becoming a spec serie( well not really but moves toward).

[miqi23]

Right, why not try it and see if it really works! Have you got any concept sketches on you?

[Ogami musashi]

Unfortunately no. I'm pretty bad at drawing.

Anyway i'm sure there're plenty of people both in FIA technical group and in Teams that knows what are the good solutions, i mean technicaly.
I seriously think the problem lies elsewhere, in policies.

That should be for another topic, but i'm not quite for the "overtaking orgy" that some dream about.

I think F1 is already interesting but the problem is that we are shown not the higlights of a race, who knows that in a formula 1 , TC is set up during races, before each turn and often in turn by drivers?
How knows that LSDs are also to be set continuously?
How knows that the rate of turn of the steering wheel changes the vectors of application of the tyres lateral force wich result in turns that have not one and only racing line?


Hum that should be explained i think and then people could concentrate on what they call pilot skill, because it is. Race is not only about overtaking it is also about driving fine don't you think?


Sticking back to topic, i think the problem with wings is that they're set a considerable angle with agressive profiles wich leads to brutal velocities losses and also early turbulent transitions.

While i did not saw it clearly i'm pretty sure there're plenty of vortex downforce generators all around the cars.
Vortex are great but they slow down they have the bad habit to mix with freestream (making it turbulent) and when the burst they just slow down too much.

Laminar aerodynamics would be better, and guess what? Ground effects are laminar in majority also because of the venturi effect you don't need a wing bottom with an agressive profile like the wings.

However if not possible the idea of the article on CDG is great i think:
If CDG provide for high velocity flow (more downforce) for the following car, with the diffuser problem fixed, then the drag obstacle could be easily compensated by movable (variable Angle of Attack) aero wings.
When in the wake of the lead car the wing could lower the AOA so that it would produce less drag yet it would benefit for the downforce.

I think i've read Max Mostely interview talking about movable aero devices but at the same time i've read him saying the we need to increase drag (WHY???)...So..

About the CDG, i recall that in the 2009 tech regulations, there's an artcile saying that the width of the body work behind the rear wheels center axis is increased from 1000 mm to 2000mm ....guess what would extend 2000mm wide in rear part?? CDG of course. I wonder what will happen if the CDG doesn't pop up, what will? A super wide rear wing?