Tomba wrote:
- No refuelling is fine by me, but I don't think it will improve overtaking, actually rather the contrary as all will be on the same load.
However, drivers/race engineers will not have to speculate with pit stop strategy to gain positions in the pits. Drivers will have to have a bigger go.
Actual strategy, race engineer: "Wait for him to pit, make a couple of fast laps and then come inside. You will come out of pits at the front."
ced ampo wrote:GROUND EFFECT SHOULD BE ALLOWED. And also ban front wings and rear wings. That should decrease turbulence and still make cars grippy. Also put a single groove in the front tire. That should balance the car.(As a side note, they can put the stripe back in the front wheels. The green line in the tire sidewall doesn't really work if you are using aerial view.)
I recon its all down to the rear diffuser and the rear wing, with a little few tweaks to the front wing that are all thats needed to the cars, looking at some more responces.
Diffiser: The reduction of the 175mm line to arround the 150mm mark would probably be best for the diffuser, using current regs for the rest of the diffuser, it could work.
Rear wing: The reduction of the radii of the wing could be the best idea. Make it a standardised radaii, reducing the ammount of "scoop" that the rear wings have to reduce downforce. But id increase the size of it, a small ammount, maybes arround 50mm each side. Also reducing the ammount of height from the top of the wing to the bottom plane by 25mm would also reduce downforce.
Front wing: Increase downforce, but not by much, maybes by about 4-7%, try and get the cars to be "braver" into a corner, but id like to make the noses sort of standardised, but do away with the high noses we currently have. Something like the BGP001 or MP4/24 nose at the lowest or the F60 or FW31 at the other extreme. Try and get the cars to "punch" thru the hole in the air a little better.
Im shure there can be something done with the Brake systems that they can be standardised, maybes make it a mandatory rule that changing the brake ballance by the driver is banned, and can only be done in the pits by removing the front wing and changing it that way. But make it a mandatory rule that 60% of the bias must be toward the front brakes, whitch would be made arround 25% larger than the rear brakes. Theese with increased use of the dustbins, but id make it that theese can only be changed from launch spec once each season, as they are a expencive piece of equiptment with simmilar development costs.
ced ampo wrote:GROUND EFFECT SHOULD BE ALLOWED. And also ban front wings and rear wings. That should decrease turbulence and still make cars grippy. Also put a single groove in the front tire. That should balance the car.(As a side note, they can put the stripe back in the front wheels. The green line in the tire sidewall doesn't really work if you are using aerial view.)
rjsa wrote:It was banned from F1 in an attempt to reduce overall downforce and to reduce cornering speeds- that's the safety measure.
Not really. Yes, there was an element of reducing speeds, but the main reason was because the ground effects meant the cars were inherently unstable. It depended on the car being 'stuck' to the road. If the car became 'unstuck' to the road even for a split second, for example, hitting a bump whilst cornering, the 'ground effect' could potentially disappear, sending the car out of control with the driver as passenger.
rjsa wrote:It was banned from F1 in an attempt to reduce overall downforce and to reduce cornering speeds- that's the safety measure.
Not really. Yes, there was an element of reducing speeds, but the main reason was because the ground effects meant the cars were inherently unstable. It depended on the car being 'stuck' to the road. If the car became 'unstuck' to the road even for a split second, for example, hitting a bump whilst cornering, the 'ground effect' could potentially disappear, sending the car out of control with the driver as passenger.
that's why it was banned.
If you don't mind providing me links with such information... I'd like to learn about this.
rjsa wrote:It was banned from F1 in an attempt to reduce overall downforce and to reduce cornering speeds- that's the safety measure.
Not really. Yes, there was an element of reducing speeds, but the main reason was because the ground effects meant the cars were inherently unstable. It depended on the car being 'stuck' to the road. If the car became 'unstuck' to the road even for a split second, for example, hitting a bump whilst cornering, the 'ground effect' could potentially disappear, sending the car out of control with the driver as passenger.
that's why it was banned.
If you don't mind providing me links with such information... I'd like to learn about this.
As Lauda commented, "The wildest imaginable things could happen behind the wheel of a ground effect car." After advancing throughout the grid, by 1981-82 all teams were using ground effects. But in an effort to bring more driver control and skill to F1, ground effects — first the skirts (along with six-wheeled and four-wheel drive cars) in 1981, and then underbody venturi tunnels in 1983 — were finally banned from Formula One.
As mentioned on the wiki article, it was successfully exploited by champ car. Which never failed to provide good racing, on ovals or street circuits.
Tomba wrote:
- No refuelling is fine by me, but I don't think it will improve overtaking, actually rather the contrary as all will be on the same load.
However, drivers/race engineers will not have to speculate with pit stop strategy to gain positions in the pits. Drivers will have to have a bigger go.
Actual strategy, race engineer: "Wait for him to pit, make a couple of fast laps and then come inside. You will come out of pits at the front."
OK, from Peter Wright Formula 1 Technology, page 219:
Banned technology -> Venturies and skirts
...The cars were so unpleasant to drive that for 1983, flat bottoms were mandated, setting the stage to much more pitch sensitive aerodynamic configuration ... There are advantages in enabling cars to run closer together ... Eventually, other formulae, including Formula 1, may adopt this configuration.
rjsa wrote:There is no suggestion that ground effects where banned on flipping issues on either article.
I never said anything about flipping? I said the cars could become easily unstable.
Read the whole article:
Despite their advances, ground effects had a problem, namely that slight miscalculations in set-up would render the ground-effect F1 car undriveable and wickedly unstable. The need to keep ground clearances extremely low led to rigidly sprung, rock-hard cars with virtually no ride height tolerance and little if any ability to handle bumps and curbs. Something really terrible, unnatural and unpredictable would happen if the airflow beneath the car was disrupted for one reason or another.
The downforce created by the ground effect was so dominant in the early '80's designed cars, that many would not even have a front wing! This meant any disruption to the vacuum created under the cars, be it from a bump, debris, damage to the skirts, mid -corner could result in the driver losing all control due to the loss of downforce. This might happen only for a split second, but when you are cornering at 150mph, a split second is all it takes. Put simply, the cars were getting incredibly quick through the corners, but also unpredictable.
Well, I just don't agree and will stick with Peter Wright and my memory. I follow F1 since that time and no good good source I have seen so far says venturis where banned due to snapping behaviour.
More yet, we still see those on 2009 F1 cars on the form of extractors, which are today responsible for a good 40% of overall downforce. And no one is flying around because their extractors are stalling or any other malfunction.
I say just move those venturis forward to the side pods.