F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
User avatar
AMG.Tzan
42
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:35 am
Location: Greece

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

The FIA managing to produce a solution that worsens the spray effect is embarrassing to say the least…

Sometimes I get the feeling that they don’t even research their ideas-solutions before developing them! Some examples being:
-1994 planks (didn’t improve safety, sparks disappeared, made cars look quite high off the ground)
-2005 no tire changes (just to stop Ferrari winning)
-2009 aero rules (ended up producing awful looking, slow and worse to race f1 cars)
-2012 step noses
-2014-2021 finger noses
-2016 trumpet exhaust to improve the noise :lol:
"The only rule is there are no rules" - Aristotle Onassis

mzso
mzso
64
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

AMG.Tzan wrote:
Fri May 10, 2024 8:45 am
The FIA managing to produce a solution that worsens the spray effect is embarrassing to say the least…

Sometimes I get the feeling that they don’t even research their ideas-solutions before developing them! Some examples being:
-1994 planks (didn’t improve safety, sparks disappeared, made cars look quite high off the ground)
-2005 no tire changes (just to stop Ferrari winning)
-2009 aero rules (ended up producing awful looking, slow and worse to race f1 cars)
-2012 step noses
-2014-2021 finger noses
-2016 trumpet exhaust to improve the noise :lol:
You mean the (originally) wooden plank still used today? It does work, even if to little consequence.

The no tire change idea was a good one, poorly executed. Refueling rendered it meaningles. Also the nonse of only allowing changing damaged tires was dumb. They should have had free change of tires with a minimum pit stop time of 15-20 seconds.
And should have used the black/orange flag diligently for people driving around with damaged tires.

Wasn't the trumpet exhaust just a random suggestion, instead of a serious proposal?

michl420
michl420
20
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 4:08 pm
Location: Austria

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

From my logical thinking there can be no water on the tyre because it spins 30 times/sec. The water come from the point where the tyre touch the ground, no need to cover the tyre in the upper half. Maybe a horizontal plate around the ground surface around the tyre? And of course the floor produces most of the spray.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
628
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

michl420 wrote:
Sun May 12, 2024 9:10 am
... Maybe a horizontal plate around the ground surface around the tyre? ....
as in the 1940/50s the Alfa 158/9, BRM V16, Maserati 250F, and MB 196 had ? (behind the front wheels)
also the Lancia D50 'pontoons'
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Sun May 12, 2024 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bananapeel23
8
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:43 pm

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

AMG.Tzan wrote:
Fri May 10, 2024 8:45 am
The FIA managing to produce a solution that worsens the spray effect is embarrassing to say the least…

Sometimes I get the feeling that they don’t even research their ideas-solutions before developing them! Some examples being:
-1994 planks (didn’t improve safety, sparks disappeared, made cars look quite high off the ground)
-2005 no tire changes (just to stop Ferrari winning)
-2009 aero rules (ended up producing awful looking, slow and worse to race f1 cars)
-2012 step noses
-2014-2021 finger noses
-2016 trumpet exhaust to improve the noise :lol:
The 2009-2013 cars and the similar 2015-2016 cars looked fantastic. What do you mean? The step noses looked a bit weird, but the Y250 era front wings were incredibly pretty and the bodywork looked amazing without all of the odd (and honestly dated looking) side wings and weird banana front wings the 2008 cars had. The 2008 cars looked so much more primitive and crude than the 2009-2021 era cars did with their insanely intricate aero surfaces.

Also the narrow noses looked amazing in my opinion. Also the low noses look so much better than the high noses of the late 2000s and early 2010s.

User avatar
AMG.Tzan
42
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:35 am
Location: Greece

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

bananapeel23 wrote:
Sun May 12, 2024 4:22 pm
AMG.Tzan wrote:
Fri May 10, 2024 8:45 am
The FIA managing to produce a solution that worsens the spray effect is embarrassing to say the least…

Sometimes I get the feeling that they don’t even research their ideas-solutions before developing them! Some examples being:
-1994 planks (didn’t improve safety, sparks disappeared, made cars look quite high off the ground)
-2005 no tire changes (just to stop Ferrari winning)
-2009 aero rules (ended up producing awful looking, slow and worse to race f1 cars)
-2012 step noses
-2014-2021 finger noses
-2016 trumpet exhaust to improve the noise :lol:
The 2009-2013 cars and the similar 2015-2016 cars looked fantastic. What do you mean? The step noses looked a bit weird, but the Y250 era front wings were incredibly pretty and the bodywork looked amazing without all of the odd (and honestly dated looking) side wings and weird banana front wings the 2008 cars had. The 2008 cars looked so much more primitive and crude than the 2009-2021 era cars did with their insanely intricate aero surfaces.

Also the narrow noses looked amazing in my opinion. Also the low noses look so much better than the high noses of the late 2000s and early 2010s.
Rear wings are meant to be wide and tall! They fixed the height but destroyed the width of them! Front wings are meant to be between the front wheels, not over them! They looked like a bulldozer! They still look weird to me but I’d say they’re better than the 2009-2013 ones! 2026 aero rules seem to be going back to 2008 front wings thankfully…

As for the noses during 2014-2021, Mercedes was the only team producing aesthetically pleasing noses (plus Toro Rosso in 2017 and pink Mercedes)! The rest of the field kept producing these nasty looking noses with that little finger protruding in the middle… :lol:
"The only rule is there are no rules" - Aristotle Onassis

User avatar
bananapeel23
8
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:43 pm

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

AMG.Tzan wrote:
Wed May 15, 2024 4:10 pm
bananapeel23 wrote:
Sun May 12, 2024 4:22 pm
AMG.Tzan wrote:
Fri May 10, 2024 8:45 am
The FIA managing to produce a solution that worsens the spray effect is embarrassing to say the least…

Sometimes I get the feeling that they don’t even research their ideas-solutions before developing them! Some examples being:
-1994 planks (didn’t improve safety, sparks disappeared, made cars look quite high off the ground)
-2005 no tire changes (just to stop Ferrari winning)
-2009 aero rules (ended up producing awful looking, slow and worse to race f1 cars)
-2012 step noses
-2014-2021 finger noses
-2016 trumpet exhaust to improve the noise :lol:
The 2009-2013 cars and the similar 2015-2016 cars looked fantastic. What do you mean? The step noses looked a bit weird, but the Y250 era front wings were incredibly pretty and the bodywork looked amazing without all of the odd (and honestly dated looking) side wings and weird banana front wings the 2008 cars had. The 2008 cars looked so much more primitive and crude than the 2009-2021 era cars did with their insanely intricate aero surfaces.

Also the narrow noses looked amazing in my opinion. Also the low noses look so much better than the high noses of the late 2000s and early 2010s.
Rear wings are meant to be wide and tall! They fixed the height but destroyed the width of them! Front wings are meant to be between the front wheels, not over them! They looked like a bulldozer! They still look weird to me but I’d say they’re better than the 2009-2013 ones! 2026 aero rules seem to be going back to 2008 front wings thankfully…

As for the noses during 2014-2021, Mercedes was the only team producing aesthetically pleasing noses (plus Toro Rosso in 2017 and pink Mercedes)! The rest of the field kept producing these nasty looking noses with that little finger protruding in the middle… :lol:
Personally I just loved the intricate designs that era of regulations gave us. I couldn't care less about whether they are efficient or not. Obviously the most efficient cars have pretty simplistic aero surfaces, but I think the insanely intricate ones really highlight the insane degree of engineering that goes into these cars, and thats why I love them. I think the 2018 cars were the best of all (especially the beautiful SF71H), but the 2009-2016 cars were also really good (except for you, 2014), especially in 2015 and 2016.

The 2009-2021 regulations really showcased the engineering insanity of F1 better than any other regulation set. I love them so much.

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

AMG.Tzan wrote:
Fri May 10, 2024 8:45 am
The FIA managing to produce a solution that worsens the spray effect is embarrassing to say the least…
It was quite obvious that it would do so - the stated aim was to improve the ability to follow closely (which it did) by lifting the disturbing wake over the following car (which it did). Unfortunately, that also lifts any water spray up high too. Result is very poor visibility. Not unexpected but on balance it's better to have decent dry weather racing than cater for occasional bad weather.
Sometimes I get the feeling that they don’t even research their ideas-solutions before developing them! Some examples being:
-1994 planks (didn’t improve safety, sparks disappeared, made cars look quite high off the ground)
Did improve safety, as did the much hated (at the time) Halo.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

Rodak
Rodak
35
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:02 am

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

Well, they could just copy aircraft spray deflector designs.....

User avatar
AMG.Tzan
42
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:35 am
Location: Greece

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
Wed May 15, 2024 5:18 pm
AMG.Tzan wrote:
Fri May 10, 2024 8:45 am
The FIA managing to produce a solution that worsens the spray effect is embarrassing to say the least…
It was quite obvious that it would do so - the stated aim was to improve the ability to follow closely (which it did) by lifting the disturbing wake over the following car (which it did). Unfortunately, that also lifts any water spray up high too. Result is very poor visibility. Not unexpected but on balance it's better to have decent dry weather racing than cater for occasional bad weather.
Sometimes I get the feeling that they don’t even research their ideas-solutions before developing them! Some examples being:
-1994 planks (didn’t improve safety, sparks disappeared, made cars look quite high off the ground)
Did improve safety, as did the much hated (at the time) Halo.
How did the planks improve safety? No bottoming, thus no diffuser stalling?
"The only rule is there are no rules" - Aristotle Onassis

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

AMG.Tzan wrote:
Thu May 16, 2024 1:56 pm
Just_a_fan wrote:
Wed May 15, 2024 5:18 pm
AMG.Tzan wrote:
Fri May 10, 2024 8:45 am
The FIA managing to produce a solution that worsens the spray effect is embarrassing to say the least…
It was quite obvious that it would do so - the stated aim was to improve the ability to follow closely (which it did) by lifting the disturbing wake over the following car (which it did). Unfortunately, that also lifts any water spray up high too. Result is very poor visibility. Not unexpected but on balance it's better to have decent dry weather racing than cater for occasional bad weather.
Sometimes I get the feeling that they don’t even research their ideas-solutions before developing them! Some examples being:
-1994 planks (didn’t improve safety, sparks disappeared, made cars look quite high off the ground)
Did improve safety, as did the much hated (at the time) Halo.
How did the planks improve safety? No bottoming, thus no diffuser stalling?
One of the factors in Senna's accident was the low tyre pressures meant the floor bottomed out leading to a loss of downforce and then loss of control. The plank meant that the teams had to run higher than they had before to avoid wearing the plank - so reducing the issue that affected Senna. Then the stepped bottom was brought in to really take the problem away - the underside of the floor (other than the central "boat") was always at least 60mm off the ground (50mm step plane + the 10mm plank thickness before the reference plane).
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

User avatar
AMG.Tzan
42
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:35 am
Location: Greece

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
Thu May 16, 2024 3:30 pm
AMG.Tzan wrote:
Thu May 16, 2024 1:56 pm
Just_a_fan wrote:
Wed May 15, 2024 5:18 pm


It was quite obvious that it would do so - the stated aim was to improve the ability to follow closely (which it did) by lifting the disturbing wake over the following car (which it did). Unfortunately, that also lifts any water spray up high too. Result is very poor visibility. Not unexpected but on balance it's better to have decent dry weather racing than cater for occasional bad weather.


Did improve safety, as did the much hated (at the time) Halo.
How did the planks improve safety? No bottoming, thus no diffuser stalling?
One of the factors in Senna's accident was the low tyre pressures meant the floor bottomed out leading to a loss of downforce and then loss of control. The plank meant that the teams had to run higher than they had before to avoid wearing the plank - so reducing the issue that affected Senna. Then the stepped bottom was brought in to really take the problem away - the underside of the floor (other than the central "boat") was always at least 60mm off the ground (50mm step plane + the 10mm plank thickness before the reference plane).
What made me question planks is why such an accident like Senna’s (because of bottoming) never occured before during 1983-1994 with the flat bottom cars!

Plus I don’t understand how Senna’s tires had lower pressure on lap 7 than on lap 6! Just coincidence?
"The only rule is there are no rules" - Aristotle Onassis

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
557
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

The tyres alsosqueeze water out to the side and with wheel arhces the drops/spray caught by it is simply sent back to the road where itis lifted up again! Poor solution.

Better solution is not to blockthe drops but deflect them. I expect them to start testing the deflectors soon. (Which would shift the discussion over into the other thread, mind you 8))
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

☄️ Myth of the five suns. ☄️

☀️☀️☀️☀️☀️
LxVxFxHxN

mzso
mzso
64
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

PlatinumZealot wrote:
Fri May 17, 2024 1:27 am
The tyres alsosqueeze water out to the side and with wheel arhces the drops/spray caught by it is simply sent back to the road where itis lifted up again! Poor solution.

Better solution is not to blockthe drops but deflect them. I expect them to start testing the deflectors soon. (Which would shift the discussion over into the other thread, mind you 8))
I think the arches work fine, for tires. The problem seems to be that the floor is strong enough to suck up all the water under it.
Wouldn't matter that the arches put back the water, if mist weren't created. At least we would see more wet racing.

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
557
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

The arches are purposely done as an "isolation" here to create a scientific control to see how much the floor lifts up standing water squeezed out by the tyres, and also any water on the road. So yeah, I reckon the next step now is to add the deflectors to shift away that water squeeze out by the tyres from the floor. Not much can be done about the floor itself, so it will be about just deflected the drops till a satisfactory level of visibility is reached IMO.
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

☄️ Myth of the five suns. ☄️

☀️☀️☀️☀️☀️
LxVxFxHxN