This is an excellent visualisation of why when Lewis says he can't get close he really means he can't get close.
Formula E have made the right choice it's a shame F1 fans have years to wait before similar radical, good looking and necessary improvements to aero can arrive.
I don't think it is actually a problem, it's just a downside of a high-downforce formula. Turbulence is related to downforce generation(let's ignore the wheels turbulence on this one). Thus, to lower the turbulence generated, you'd have to sacrifice downforce, at which point you'd have to ask why you would be watching a high-downforce formula, but don't actually want this downforce.
Outside of that, there is very little reason to actually actively fight for position, you'd be wasting tires and fuel on actually being slower. It's simply more efficient to avoid these fighting for position. So even if the turbulence issue would be solved it is questionable if that would mean racing will be better.
I think the chase for overtaking has created a desire for unrealistic goals, it has given the idea that that is what F1 should be, whereas it is so much more. F1 isn't only cars driving past each other; it's a championship and has a whole culture surrounding it. F1 is unique in it's development; Every race the cars have something new on the car and has teams/drivers push to the edge to win, or lose, the championship. F1 isn't the race; it is the whole season that makes F1, it's the weeks in between the races.
I am going to defer to my good mate "jjn9128" here with his PhD Thesis on "Aerodynamic Effects of the Salient Flow Features in Grand Prix Car Wakes". Here is his abstract:
Grand Prix cars are the fastest circuit racing cars in production, a large part of this is due to the high
downforce generated by the car's aerodynamic surfaces, in excess of the car's own weight above 150kph.
It is well known that a race-car operating in the wake of an upstream vehicle experiences a reduction of
aerodynamic drag, and a corresponding increase of ultimate straight line speed. There is also a loss of
aerodynamic downforce, predominately from surfaces acting on the front axle. The eect of the reduced
downforce is an increase of lap-time and degraded handling characteristics, thereby reducing tyre life and
the ability to follow the lead car or affect an overtake.
The wake of a generic Formula 1 car is shown to be characterized by a counter-rotating vortex pair, with
centreline up-wash and a region of total pressure decit, which is predominately a dynamic pressure decit,
with CPO < 0. The streamwise vorticity is dominated by the tip vortex pair emanating from the rear wing,
which merges with other vortices, forming a coherent structure by just half a car length behind the rear of
the car. The vortices have an influence on the location and strength of the total pressure decit, sweeping
the loss to the centreline, and upwards to surround the vortex cores, forming a 'mushroom' shaped wake.
The eect of an upstream vehicle wake has been measured in the wind tunnel and computationally, with
downforce and drag losses of up to 67% and 29% respectively. The use of a short axial length blu-bodied
wake generator allows for a longer axial separation to be achieved with a complete downstream vehicle, in
a conventional length wind tunnel working section, without further compromising the downstream model
scale.
The sensitivity of the downstream car to the various salient flow features in the upstream wake have been
investigated using the method of imposing the wake on the inlet of a CFD simulation. Imposing the wake
has meant that the wake can be altered without the need to modify the upstream vehicle surfaces. The key
wake feature has been shown to be the axial velocity decit, which accounts for up to 90% of the downforce
loss experienced by the following vehicle. While secondary flows in the wake do result in downforce loss for
the following vehicle, they are also benecial in diverting the dynamic pressure decit over the following
vehicle, thereby introducing higher energy flow onto the following vehicle.
"And here you will stay, Gandalf the Grey, and rest from journeys. For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman the Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!"
Racecar engineering and another member here (Dynamicflow) have published a load of drafting simulations over the years looking at a number of different car geometries and the impacts of their wakes, if you can find the old issues I would thoroughly recommend.
Formula E have made the right choice it's a shame F1 fans have years to wait before similar radical, good looking and necessary improvements to aero can arrive.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this? Formula E, while quick, is a low speed formula compared to F1 (not a criticism, I love FE), but downforce is less than half an F1 car. The problem and subsequent solution is different. Indycar are going down the route of reducing downforce to improve racing - a year after F1 tried to appease moaning fans and increased downforce to the detriment of the racing. Don't blame F1 (FIA/FOM) blame the fans.
#aerogandalf "There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica
Id love to see some CFD on if the ran 3 evenly stacked air blades across the width of the diffuse. Would accelerate air horizontally from the diffusion into a ground level laminar sheet.
Racecar engineering and another member here (Dynamicflow) have published a load of drafting simulations over the years looking at a number of different car geometries and the impacts of their wakes, if you can find the old issues I would thoroughly recommend.
Formula E have made the right choice it's a shame F1 fans have years to wait before similar radical, good looking and necessary improvements to aero can arrive.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this? Formula E, while quick, is a low speed formula compared to F1 (not a criticism, I love FE), but downforce is less than half an F1 car. The problem and subsequent solution is different. Indycar are going down the route of reducing downforce to improve racing - a year after F1 tried to appease moaning fans and increased downforce to the detriment of the racing. Don't blame F1 (FIA/FOM) blame the fans.
I think that F1's reliance on aero from wings is a huge detriment to close racing and ultimately entertainment and I don't know how you can blame fans because they have absolutely no power to change things in a specific way. Everyone wants close racing where the best driver wins but it was Bernie's F1 clowns decided upon these new aero rules and as predicted reduced close racing ever further.
I have stressed time and time again there should be less reliance on wing generated downforce and a focus on mechanical grip and a much greater proportion of downforce generated from under the car.
As far as looks go to the mostly uneducated eye of most race fans the Formula E car looks light years more futuristic than this current Formula 1 and that's a huge component of the overall show and the ability for promoters to sell the show and not lose millions. I saw a lot of excitement on social media particularly from a younger audience during the Formula E unveiling. Until F1 addresses the looks, the racing and the contact with the fans like Formula E has done it'll continue to leak its audience away.
That's why I say Formula E are doing it right they are building an audience that are not interested in F1 and who are not interested in the total levels of downforce.
I'm not sure I agree with you there. The current rules were a result of fan pressure to increase the speed of the cars - through the twitters and fan surveys. So the brief of the technical working group was to make the cars faster and more aggressive looking - not to make the racing more entertaining.
Drag is the issue, not wings. In fact the wake of the rear wing clears a following car, even running nose to tail. It is the collective wakes of the underbody and wheels (esp. rear wheels) which are the most detrimental to a following car - so a massive diffuser and giant rear tyres are not great for racing. It's a myth that downforce from the underbody is drag free or is the perfect solution to tight racing.
There is no such thing as mechanical grip - it's a made up term - if there were tin top series like Aussie V8s or BTCC would be as quick as F1 cars through trick suspension and sticky tyres. Lateral loads are increased because of downforce. Don't believe me here's Frank Dernie https://www.motorsport.com/f1/video/mai ... 94939/?s=2
#aerogandalf "There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica
Isn't the issue that the front wing is affected by being in dirty air. The front wing presents a double whammy - it loses downforce and it struggles to generate the flows used by the rest of the car.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Yes and no. While the front wing loses downforce, equally so does the rest of the car. Arguably the front edge of the floor is the more critical in terms of aero-balance than the front wing.
My thinking is that opening up multiple racing lines is more beneficial than playing around with downforce levels or trying to "clean up" the wake. Because it's so difficult to mandate a certain wake profile or downforce characteristic without resorting to a spec formula. As they found in 2009 when the double diffuser allowed teams to get more "floor" downforce than was desired by the OWG (overtaking went down 2008 to 2009 but arguably racing was more exciting in '09). Where, as shown in the gif from the OP, the wake just a little way outboard is almost non-existent - so being able to sit on a different line to a competitor vastly reduces the dirty air effect - while maintaining the beneficial slipstream.
So, make the tyres harder to reduce the marbles off-line and the rubbering in effect on-line. There will still be a fastest way around corners, but a following driver can try new things and maybe set up an overtake 4/5 corners beforehand. Increase braking distances to reward drivers who can be brave without locking up. I'd have tyres that can last a race - maybe the tyres used in the previous race become the tyres available for free practice in the next race like FE - but bring back refuelling to have pit stops and strategy, while making the cars lighter throughout the race.
#aerogandalf "There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica
There is no such thing as mechanical grip - it's a made up term - if there were tin top series like Aussie V8s or BTCC would be as quick as F1 cars through trick suspension and sticky tyres. Lateral loads are increased because of downforce. Don't believe me here's Frank Dernie https://www.motorsport.com/f1/video/mai ... 94939/?s=2
Careful - he corrects himself by saying that you can't increase mechanical grip past its optimum except by adding more downforce, but he also states that the grip is from optimal tire temperatures, which are achieved by a perfect suspension set-up (described by using the term "mechanical grip").
That's the same analogy as saying that a good driver is faster than the car itself, which is total BS: the driver can only help the car operate closer to its theoretical optimum, but never past it.
“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
What I meant is that it is an incorrect term, much like "dirty air" in describing a wake (I've said before dirty air is a preferable term to "wake turbulence" which is a specific component of a wake, and is often infuriatingly misused to describe the whole wake). They don't really mean anything but we ascribe a sort of meaning to them, which is only half correct.
In the case of "mechanical grip", the only way of transmitting grip is through the tyre contact patch - so "mechanical grip" is an amalgamation of friction coefficient, kinematic efficiency, downforce...etc. The point being downforce cannot be distinct from "mechanical grip" as it works through the contact patch to increase the peak lateral loads (cornering g-force).
So, "more mechanical grip but less downforce" is a meaningless statement, as with less downforce, grip will be reduced. The bigger tyres this year was a means of improving the thermal properties of the tyre, so they can operate in the correct window for longer (less overheating).
#aerogandalf "There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica
How about a simulation on dirty air on the turn in to a corner. Where is the air going as the lead car is turning? I have heard stories of cutting under a carwidth in good air then slide thru the wash back to good air on the other side. Id like to see the cars moving thru the turn in tandem with the dirty air simulation.
Is there any truth that the teams currently design their cars to increase turbulence("dirty air") behind their cars to negatively impact their competitors? Or is the turbulence fully a product of the current aerodynamic regulations?
The idea that they design to affect the following car has been aired many times over the years. I doubt they need to do so as the cars are inherently disruptive to following cars. Also, why waste energy designing bits to mess with the flow when messing with flow is draggy and slows you down too.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
