2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
wesley123
178
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:55 pm

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by wesley123 » Tue May 02, 2017 10:23 am

cplchanb wrote:
Mon May 01, 2017 4:24 pm
not quite true. The biggest reason for the inability to keep up close is the because of the reliance on the wings for downforce. Indy next year will have new cars that rely more on the floor for grip. If F1 relies more on the floor and mech grip they can have both
It's good that you use indy as an example of how it should be, considering those cars(together with all of Dallara's current open wheelers) run barn door rear wings.

There is very little evidence confirming that relying on wings for downforce hampers overtaking. Sure, you are being affected by dirty air, but so is your floor, and thus, both will most likely lose similair percentages of downforce.
Andres125sx wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 9:53 am
Maybe you got excited those final laps, but to me it was pretty obvious only a mistake from Bottas could change the outcome.
Really? Based on what?
Vettel got increasingly close and due to DRS did not lose much on the straights. It would very well be plausible that Vettel would have outbraked Bottas into T2, or considering Vettels superior pace in the corners thereafter.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by turbof1 » Tue May 02, 2017 11:57 am

The thing is, the rear wing has only been widened and sits lower. It's not creating a lot more downforce & turbulence, and indeed percentage-wise compared to the whole car it has dropped. On top of that, many to most teams now run smaller rear wings then is required by the regulations. Before this year, teams ran at almost every venue the max allowed dimensions. This is now no longer needed as overall downforce has increased enough.

So that means, in my opinion, most of the increased turbulence comes from the diffuser. A lot of people are pointing towards more ground effect to solve the overtaking issue, which in my eyes is nothing more than a myth and proved by this year's rules. I was hopeful that this year's rules would allow for a better upwash of the turbulent airflow coming out of the diffuser as the rear wing sits lower and should better connect the flows. However, the smaller wing and the hung back position means that although the flows definitely should connect better, the angle of the flow is way less swept up. Ben already warned about this a few months ago and although I was skeptical about it, he now looks set to be right about it.

I think a higher rear wing and a beam wing actually might aid overtaking.

shady
18
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:31 am

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by shady » Tue May 02, 2017 1:14 pm

F1 Isnt about easy overtakes, its about the challenge of solving the driver in front of you. DRS this year is probably exactly what it should have been the whole time since 11, which is that it aides the driver in getting close, but doesnt allow them to blow by; allowing them to challenge for an overtake in a corner or further down the road, they stumbled into something incredible. I dont think this years cars are any more difficult than in the last 25+ seasons. I do however think drivers whine a great deal more about this specifically, as if places are just handed out (read whinging about blue flags). To me, some small adjustments can be made, I still think that we can move to a flat floor 24 years on, I think its ok to revisit. Personally I would like to see a max combined surface area for the floor and front wing, but i doubt that would happen, however it would force teams to choose what their priority would be.

http://cliptheapex.com/overtaking/

f1316
106
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:36 pm

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by f1316 » Tue May 02, 2017 5:40 pm

turbof1 wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 11:57 am
The thing is, the rear wing has only been widened and sits lower. It's not creating a lot more downforce & turbulence, and indeed percentage-wise compared to the whole car it has dropped. On top of that, many to most teams now run smaller rear wings then is required by the regulations. Before this year, teams ran at almost every venue the max allowed dimensions. This is now no longer needed as overall downforce has increased enough.

So that means, in my opinion, most of the increased turbulence comes from the diffuser. A lot of people are pointing towards more ground effect to solve the overtaking issue, which in my eyes is nothing more than a myth and proved by this year's rules. I was hopeful that this year's rules would allow for a better upwash of the turbulent airflow coming out of the diffuser as the rear wing sits lower and should better connect the flows. However, the smaller wing and the hung back position means that although the flows definitely should connect better, the angle of the flow is way less swept up. Ben already warned about this a few months ago and although I was skeptical about it, he now looks set to be right about it.

I think a higher rear wing and a beam wing actually might aid overtaking.
Not trying to be a smart arse, but didn't we have those things in 2010 with very little overtaking? Or am I missing something?

turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by turbof1 » Tue May 02, 2017 6:02 pm

f1316 wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 5:40 pm
turbof1 wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 11:57 am
The thing is, the rear wing has only been widened and sits lower. It's not creating a lot more downforce & turbulence, and indeed percentage-wise compared to the whole car it has dropped. On top of that, many to most teams now run smaller rear wings then is required by the regulations. Before this year, teams ran at almost every venue the max allowed dimensions. This is now no longer needed as overall downforce has increased enough.

So that means, in my opinion, most of the increased turbulence comes from the diffuser. A lot of people are pointing towards more ground effect to solve the overtaking issue, which in my eyes is nothing more than a myth and proved by this year's rules. I was hopeful that this year's rules would allow for a better upwash of the turbulent airflow coming out of the diffuser as the rear wing sits lower and should better connect the flows. However, the smaller wing and the hung back position means that although the flows definitely should connect better, the angle of the flow is way less swept up. Ben already warned about this a few months ago and although I was skeptical about it, he now looks set to be right about it.

I think a higher rear wing and a beam wing actually might aid overtaking.
Not trying to be a smart arse, but didn't we have those things in 2010 with very little overtaking? Or am I missing something?
Double diffuser.

I'm not claiming this would be a solve all miracle, for the record. There has to be more study and testing into what is effectively unknown territory.

djos
82
User avatar
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 5:09 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by djos » Tue May 02, 2017 11:22 pm

turbof1 wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 11:57 am
The thing is, the rear wing has only been widened and sits lower. It's not creating a lot more downforce & turbulence, and indeed percentage-wise compared to the whole car it has dropped. On top of that, many to most teams now run smaller rear wings then is required by the regulations. Before this year, teams ran at almost every venue the max allowed dimensions. This is now no longer needed as overall downforce has increased enough.

So that means, in my opinion, most of the increased turbulence comes from the diffuser. A lot of people are pointing towards more ground effect to solve the overtaking issue, which in my eyes is nothing more than a myth and proved by this year's rules. I was hopeful that this year's rules would allow for a better upwash of the turbulent airflow coming out of the diffuser as the rear wing sits lower and should better connect the flows. However, the smaller wing and the hung back position means that although the flows definitely should connect better, the angle of the flow is way less swept up. Ben already warned about this a few months ago and although I was skeptical about it, he now looks set to be right about it.

I think a higher rear wing and a beam wing actually might aid overtaking.
Before CART imploded and the series was actually worth watching, they were running large full length ground effects tunnels with uncomplicated front and rear wings and the racing was imo excellent. Passing still had to be earnt but drivers could race in each other's dirty air without being impacted as heavily as they are in F1.

Reynard and Lola both had some really nice floor designs like the one below and the racing was pretty great imo.

Image
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

SR71
16
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:23 pm

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by SR71 » Wed May 03, 2017 6:00 am

djos wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 11:22 pm
turbof1 wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 11:57 am
The thing is, the rear wing has only been widened and sits lower. It's not creating a lot more downforce & turbulence, and indeed percentage-wise compared to the whole car it has dropped. On top of that, many to most teams now run smaller rear wings then is required by the regulations. Before this year, teams ran at almost every venue the max allowed dimensions. This is now no longer needed as overall downforce has increased enough.

So that means, in my opinion, most of the increased turbulence comes from the diffuser. A lot of people are pointing towards more ground effect to solve the overtaking issue, which in my eyes is nothing more than a myth and proved by this year's rules. I was hopeful that this year's rules would allow for a better upwash of the turbulent airflow coming out of the diffuser as the rear wing sits lower and should better connect the flows. However, the smaller wing and the hung back position means that although the flows definitely should connect better, the angle of the flow is way less swept up. Ben already warned about this a few months ago and although I was skeptical about it, he now looks set to be right about it.

I think a higher rear wing and a beam wing actually might aid overtaking.
Before CART imploded and the series was actually worth watching, they were running large full length ground effects tunnels with uncomplicated front and rear wings and the racing was imo excellent. Passing still had to be earnt but drivers could race in each other's dirty air without being impacted as heavily as they are in F1.

Reynard and Lola both had some really nice floor designs like the one below and the racing was pretty great imo.

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/LolaUnderbody.jpg

Exactly, you can have high DF and good racing.

Newey knows this - so do a few other geniuses on the grid - the rest of us see aero as wing solutions only. Unfortunatlely for F1 the rule makers do as well.

Wing's = 20th century.

One thing is for sure, you CAN have high downforce AND good racing...

f1316
106
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:36 pm

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by f1316 » Wed May 03, 2017 7:41 am

turbof1 wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 6:02 pm
f1316 wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 5:40 pm
turbof1 wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 11:57 am
The thing is, the rear wing has only been widened and sits lower. It's not creating a lot more downforce & turbulence, and indeed percentage-wise compared to the whole car it has dropped. On top of that, many to most teams now run smaller rear wings then is required by the regulations. Before this year, teams ran at almost every venue the max allowed dimensions. This is now no longer needed as overall downforce has increased enough.

So that means, in my opinion, most of the increased turbulence comes from the diffuser. A lot of people are pointing towards more ground effect to solve the overtaking issue, which in my eyes is nothing more than a myth and proved by this year's rules. I was hopeful that this year's rules would allow for a better upwash of the turbulent airflow coming out of the diffuser as the rear wing sits lower and should better connect the flows. However, the smaller wing and the hung back position means that although the flows definitely should connect better, the angle of the flow is way less swept up. Ben already warned about this a few months ago and although I was skeptical about it, he now looks set to be right about it.

I think a higher rear wing and a beam wing actually might aid overtaking.
Not trying to be a smart arse, but didn't we have those things in 2010 with very little overtaking? Or am I missing something?
Double diffuser.

I'm not claiming this would be a solve all miracle, for the record. There has to be more study and testing into what is effectively unknown territory.
Hmmmm it's tough to know, isn't it, because in all subsequent years prior to hybrid era we had a high rear wing + beam wing and no double diffuser - and yes, there was a lot more overtaking.

But my impression over those years was not that cars had no trouble with dirty air but that the differences in grip because of flimsy Pirelli tyres (+drs and, let's not forget, driver controlled KERS) were the things allowing them to overcome it.

You may be right, it may be better this way - and certainly any images I've seen attempting to illustrate the wake of a car show large vortices coming off the diffuser, so seems likely that ground effect is not the answer, unless the air coming off the diffuser is somehow treated differently (tunnels that feed smaller volume diffuser perhaps?) - but equally beam wings and high rear wings have been done without being the 'answer' (as indeed you say). High rear wings are imo not very nice aesthetically.

FYI I'm actually not too bothered by overtaking being very hard; i do think a manually controlled kers was nice since both drivers had it, so it was less artificial than drs, but it gave them a strategic tool.

Andres125sx
253
User avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by Andres125sx » Wed May 03, 2017 10:29 am

wesley123 wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 10:23 am
cplchanb wrote:
Mon May 01, 2017 4:24 pm
not quite true. The biggest reason for the inability to keep up close is the because of the reliance on the wings for downforce. Indy next year will have new cars that rely more on the floor for grip. If F1 relies more on the floor and mech grip they can have both
It's good that you use indy as an example of how it should be, considering those cars(together with all of Dallara's current open wheelers) run barn door rear wings.

There is very little evidence confirming that relying on wings for downforce hampers overtaking. Sure, you are being affected by dirty air, but so is your floor, and thus, both will most likely lose similair percentages of downforce.
Andres125sx wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 9:53 am
Maybe you got excited those final laps, but to me it was pretty obvious only a mistake from Bottas could change the outcome.
Really? Based on what?
Vettel got increasingly close and due to DRS did not lose much on the straights. It would very well be plausible that Vettel would have outbraked Bottas into T2, or considering Vettels superior pace in the corners thereafter.
Based on the three previous races. How many overtakes did you see between cars with similar pace this 2017 season?

Drivers struggle to lap cars, so overtaking a car with a similar pace is today more difficult than ever, even when some people do prefer to assume F1 drivers complain without reason :roll: , facts and statements from the principal actors show this season overtaking is more difficult than ever before

Andres125sx
253
User avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by Andres125sx » Wed May 03, 2017 10:34 am

SR71 wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 6:00 am
djos wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 11:22 pm
turbof1 wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 11:57 am
The thing is, the rear wing has only been widened and sits lower. It's not creating a lot more downforce & turbulence, and indeed percentage-wise compared to the whole car it has dropped. On top of that, many to most teams now run smaller rear wings then is required by the regulations. Before this year, teams ran at almost every venue the max allowed dimensions. This is now no longer needed as overall downforce has increased enough.

So that means, in my opinion, most of the increased turbulence comes from the diffuser. A lot of people are pointing towards more ground effect to solve the overtaking issue, which in my eyes is nothing more than a myth and proved by this year's rules. I was hopeful that this year's rules would allow for a better upwash of the turbulent airflow coming out of the diffuser as the rear wing sits lower and should better connect the flows. However, the smaller wing and the hung back position means that although the flows definitely should connect better, the angle of the flow is way less swept up. Ben already warned about this a few months ago and although I was skeptical about it, he now looks set to be right about it.

I think a higher rear wing and a beam wing actually might aid overtaking.
Before CART imploded and the series was actually worth watching, they were running large full length ground effects tunnels with uncomplicated front and rear wings and the racing was imo excellent. Passing still had to be earnt but drivers could race in each other's dirty air without being impacted as heavily as they are in F1.

Reynard and Lola both had some really nice floor designs like the one below and the racing was pretty great imo.

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/LolaUnderbody.jpg

Exactly, you can have high DF and good racing.

Newey knows this - so do a few other geniuses on the grid - the rest of us see aero as wing solutions only. Unfortunatlely for F1 the rule makers do as well.

Wing's = 20th century.

One thing is for sure, you CAN have high downforce AND good racing...
Based on what exactly?

Cart can´t be considered a highly developed aero category, and that´s the problem Bhall II conviced me some time ago.

The aero problem comes from the aero development. That myth about ground effects comes from the ground effect era where aero was still on its infancy, but once aero was further developed, everything is studied and optimized, there´s no way to eliminate dirty air and the consequent reduction in downforce, plain and simple. When an aero element is developed to optimize its downforce, any dirty air will reduce its efficiency dramatically, and there´s no way to avoid this

IMO the only way to solve that would be with fan cars, I even opened a thread some time ago where Bhall tried to convice me about that´s not a solution either. He couldn´t tough, I still think a fan car would be the only way to enjoy high DF cars wich are easy to overtake, or at least they´re not severly more difficult to overtake that cars without aero

shady
18
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:31 am

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by shady » Wed May 03, 2017 1:13 pm

Andres125sx wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 10:34 am
SR71 wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 6:00 am
djos wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 11:22 pm


Before CART imploded and the series was actually worth watching, they were running large full length ground effects tunnels with uncomplicated front and rear wings and the racing was imo excellent. Passing still had to be earnt but drivers could race in each other's dirty air without being impacted as heavily as they are in F1.

Reynard and Lola both had some really nice floor designs like the one below and the racing was pretty great imo.

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/LolaUnderbody.jpg

Exactly, you can have high DF and good racing.

Newey knows this - so do a few other geniuses on the grid - the rest of us see aero as wing solutions only. Unfortunatlely for F1 the rule makers do as well.

Wing's = 20th century.

One thing is for sure, you CAN have high downforce AND good racing...
Based on what exactly?

Cart can´t be considered a highly developed aero category, and that´s the problem Bhall II conviced me some time ago.

The aero problem comes from the aero development. That myth about ground effects comes from the ground effect era where aero was still on its infancy, but once aero was further developed, everything is studied and optimized, there´s no way to eliminate dirty air and the consequent reduction in downforce, plain and simple. When an aero element is developed to optimize its downforce, any dirty air will reduce its efficiency dramatically, and there´s no way to avoid this

IMO the only way to solve that would be with fan cars, I even opened a thread some time ago where Bhall tried to convice me about that´s not a solution either. He couldn´t tough, I still think a fan car would be the only way to enjoy high DF cars wich are easy to overtake, or at least they´re not severly more difficult to overtake that cars without aero
I have nothing to add, but the dissonance with your two points is hard to reconcile. Im not sure you understand a) dirty air, or b) fans. Quite literally other teams were complaining about the dirt/rocks/debris being blown into their visors.. This is the antithesis of what you want to achieve.

CBeck113
100
User avatar
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:43 pm
Location: Regensburg, Germany

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by CBeck113 » Wed May 03, 2017 1:27 pm

Andres125sx wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 10:34 am
SR71 wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 6:00 am
djos wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 11:22 pm


Before CART imploded and the series was actually worth watching, they were running large full length ground effects tunnels with uncomplicated front and rear wings and the racing was imo excellent. Passing still had to be earnt but drivers could race in each other's dirty air without being impacted as heavily as they are in F1.

Reynard and Lola both had some really nice floor designs like the one below and the racing was pretty great imo.

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/LolaUnderbody.jpg

Exactly, you can have high DF and good racing.

Newey knows this - so do a few other geniuses on the grid - the rest of us see aero as wing solutions only. Unfortunatlely for F1 the rule makers do as well.

Wing's = 20th century.

One thing is for sure, you CAN have high downforce AND good racing...
Based on what exactly?

Cart can´t be considered a highly developed aero category, and that´s the problem Bhall II conviced me some time ago.

The aero problem comes from the aero development. That myth about ground effects comes from the ground effect era where aero was still on its infancy, but once aero was further developed, everything is studied and optimized, there´s no way to eliminate dirty air and the consequent reduction in downforce, plain and simple. When an aero element is developed to optimize its downforce, any dirty air will reduce its efficiency dramatically, and there´s no way to avoid this

IMO the only way to solve that would be with fan cars, I even opened a thread some time ago where Bhall tried to convice me about that´s not a solution either. He couldn´t tough, I still think a fan car would be the only way to enjoy high DF cars wich are easy to overtake, or at least they´re not severly more difficult to overtake that cars without aero
But why should passing be easy? The fight makes it interesting, not the pass itself.
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!” Monty Python and the Holy Grail

krisfx
29
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by krisfx » Wed May 03, 2017 1:36 pm

Andres125sx wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 10:29 am
wesley123 wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 10:23 am
cplchanb wrote:
Mon May 01, 2017 4:24 pm
not quite true. The biggest reason for the inability to keep up close is the because of the reliance on the wings for downforce. Indy next year will have new cars that rely more on the floor for grip. If F1 relies more on the floor and mech grip they can have both
It's good that you use indy as an example of how it should be, considering those cars(together with all of Dallara's current open wheelers) run barn door rear wings.

There is very little evidence confirming that relying on wings for downforce hampers overtaking. Sure, you are being affected by dirty air, but so is your floor, and thus, both will most likely lose similair percentages of downforce.
Andres125sx wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 9:53 am
Maybe you got excited those final laps, but to me it was pretty obvious only a mistake from Bottas could change the outcome.
Really? Based on what?
Vettel got increasingly close and due to DRS did not lose much on the straights. It would very well be plausible that Vettel would have outbraked Bottas into T2, or considering Vettels superior pace in the corners thereafter.
Based on the three previous races. How many overtakes did you see between cars with similar pace this 2017 season?

Drivers struggle to lap cars, so overtaking a car with a similar pace is today more difficult than ever, even when some people do prefer to assume F1 drivers complain without reason :roll: , facts and statements from the principal actors show this season overtaking is more difficult than ever before
An overtake should be like scoring a goal in football (I think Brundle coined that one before me) - It should be difficult and rewarding, if it was easy everyone would be doing it and it'd get incredibly dull as a result. To put it into perspective, sometimes the best football games have no goals or maybe 1. A goal loses its appeal and reward if there's a 20 goal scoreline every game.

Racing is about the chase, the fight and the overtake, yes. If we as fans get the chase and the battle then that's surely good, with the ultimate reward being the overtake. I do agree that closer racing is something that F1 should look to achieve, perhaps using gimmicks or regulation changes. Unfortunately the same people moaning about (lack of) overtakes move onto moaning about said gimmicks or regulations.

3jawchuck
25
User avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 7:57 am

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by 3jawchuck » Wed May 03, 2017 2:04 pm

CBeck113 wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 1:27 pm
Andres125sx wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 10:34 am
SR71 wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 6:00 am



Exactly, you can have high DF and good racing.

Newey knows this - so do a few other geniuses on the grid - the rest of us see aero as wing solutions only. Unfortunatlely for F1 the rule makers do as well.

Wing's = 20th century.

One thing is for sure, you CAN have high downforce AND good racing...
Based on what exactly?

Cart can´t be considered a highly developed aero category, and that´s the problem Bhall II conviced me some time ago.

The aero problem comes from the aero development. That myth about ground effects comes from the ground effect era where aero was still on its infancy, but once aero was further developed, everything is studied and optimized, there´s no way to eliminate dirty air and the consequent reduction in downforce, plain and simple. When an aero element is developed to optimize its downforce, any dirty air will reduce its efficiency dramatically, and there´s no way to avoid this

IMO the only way to solve that would be with fan cars, I even opened a thread some time ago where Bhall tried to convice me about that´s not a solution either. He couldn´t tough, I still think a fan car would be the only way to enjoy high DF cars wich are easy to overtake, or at least they´re not severly more difficult to overtake that cars without aero
But why should passing be easy? The fight makes it interesting, not the pass itself.
I think the main objection these days is about how close cars can drive to each other. But yes, overtaking should not be an easy thing, but a close tactical battle is immensely exciting. We almost had it in Russia between Vettel and Bottas.

turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by turbof1 » Wed May 03, 2017 2:16 pm

CBeck113 wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 1:27 pm
But why should passing be easy? The fight makes it interesting, not the pass itself.
I agree, but to have a fight you need to have cars running very close to one another. Something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WufmGOnww8s

(Actually, these cars had bigger diffusers then they have now. However, the rear wing was also more vertically placed compared to the diffuser and we had a beam wing).

Ultimately, Ben also pointed that it's certainly not all about aerodynamics. Just looking at all fights and overtaking in history, the majority comes from a significant performance deficit between the 2 cars.