questions on car setups

[raymondu999]

Hey all. A few questions here.

1st, about having less wing. We often hear of a setup that has the optimum laptime, then some drivers put up a little less wing for more straightline speed. This would, presumably lower the laptime. The thing I don't understand is, wouldn't this just backfire on them? What''s the use of having that higher straightline top speed (even on a straight as long as Abu Dhabi) if on the corners leading up to that straight the car with optimum laptime just pulls away?

2nd, we sometimes hear about lazy drivers that just don't really care about doing much setup. Jenson Button I believe has admitted recently that during his days in the Williams that had a winning car, he just didn't car about setting the car up and just used the car as is. Wouldn't that actually significantly hamper laptimes? I believe it was Alain Prost who said that a good setup was worth to 4 seconds. Or 3. I can't remember which. Then, wouldn't even the winning car advantage be overcome by this lack of good setup?

3rd, Some people told me that adding too much front wing would lead to oversteer. While I can see that decreasing front wing would increase understeer, I fail to see how too much front wing can unsettle the rear. The rear has the same amount of grip, while the front just has less understeer. No?

4th, I've heard from a friend that in terms of setting up front/rear wings, the rear is set-up first, before then the front is used to balance the rear. But then while the rear would determine the straight line speed, the front wing would determine the turning better, to a certain extent. Are the fronts actually set first for the turning, then the rear set at a height that can balance out the turning so that you don't oversteer, or am I looking at it the wrong way, and it's done by rear wing first before using the front to balance the set-up's turning?

Finally, we hear about drivers complaining of no balance on one circuit, when the previous race they have a balance. Is this because of the differing setups? So they have to re-tune the balance? A balanced set-up should prove balanced at any circuit, no? Say, maybe a driver's set-up for Australia which is balanced, if used at, say, Barcelona, should still be balanced, but just not good for laptimes no? Or am I not catching something else?

Thanks for reading the lengthy post

PS. Anyone know of good F1 games that allow for realistic setting up, but also racing (I know AI will probably not be too good on overtaking/blocking maneuvers, but it's something) right now I play on F1 Challenge, the Walu 2010 V2 mod...

[RacingManiac]

This is me replying as based on what I guess happens, not by any means accurate....

1) Not sure how this may work anymore due to Parc Ferme rule, but back in the old days I think its not unusual to have a "optimum" setup for quali for the best possible laptime, but tweaks to have better top speed down the straight for the race. Especially if you are more mid-pack. Since they are so difficult to overtake anyway in turbulance, that it is a worthwhile trade to have straight line speed to give you that better chance to pass someone then not being able to extract the fast lap in the dirty air.

2) I think since the prevalence of computer simulation and rig/windtunnel testing, cars with "no setup" is still setup for the track. The on track testing is more to fine-tune the bits to suit the car more specifically to the condition.

3) Assuming if you are within the envelope of the tires, more wing at one end will give it more grip. So adding front without adding rear, the rear is at a lower level of grip vs the front. And the whole idea is that the cornering speed increases(thus needing more grip), if the front turned in at some speed, and the rear does not have to grip to handle the higher speed, the rear will give way. Thus oversteer.

4) Again, a lot is done now way before hand via simulation and rig testing. They tend to arrive at a track based on some downforce value they need and they pick a rear wing for it(most rear aren't adjustable anymore), and they use the front wing and rideheight/rake to balance the car. If both side are adjustable, I suppose you can do with the front first, but my gut feeling says the rear has more of an influence on top speed, so you want to get to the speed you want first then balance out the handling.

5) Cornering speed plays a big part in "balance". A high speed track and low speed track will need different thing to be balanced, since the stability of the vehicle is more critical at high speed where more kinetic energy needs to be controlled.

Someone smarter will have more correct answers I am sure.

[raymondu999]

Thanks for the replies. What I meant for point 1 however was that they have already sacrificed laptime for better top speed in qualy. For 3rd, What I meant is that a car that doesn't under/oversteer at driving, say, Turn 3 at Spain, at 200km/h, will still not under/oversteer at 200km/h if you add front wing (not changing rear wing) I believe, no?

[RacingManiac]

If the tires are saturated at that point, and the car is balanced, then adding more wing won't do anything(steady state, driver reaction pending...etc). But in most cases I doubt they are saturated, since they don't tune for one corner only. In that case, adding more wing at one end will give that side more grip, but if you don't get the same increase to the opposite end, then the opposite side will give way first. If you do add both, then your speed through that corner may go from 200 to 205. But at the same token the extra drag may trade-off elsewhere on the track.

I am not quite sure on the first point...

[Jersey Tom]

1st, about having less wing. We often hear of a setup that has the optimum laptime, then some drivers put up a little less wing for more straightline speed. This would, presumably lower the laptime. The thing I don't understand is, wouldn't this just backfire on them? What''s the use of having that higher straightline top speed (even on a straight as long as Abu Dhabi) if on the corners leading up to that straight the car with optimum laptime just pulls away?

Easier to pass someone on a straight than in the middle of a corner.

2nd, we sometimes hear about lazy drivers that just don't really care about doing much setup. Jenson Button I believe has admitted recently that during his days in the Williams that had a winning car, he just didn't car about setting the car up and just used the car as is. Wouldn't that actually significantly hamper laptimes? I believe it was Alain Prost who said that a good setup was worth to 4 seconds. Or 3. I can't remember which. Then, wouldn't even the winning car advantage be overcome by this lack of good setup?

If a driver isn't involved in setup tuning, they are indeed probably leaving some lap time to be dropped. Computer work and DAQ get you close, but not all the way. Some drivers are just more tuned into feeling out vehicle response than others.

3rd, Some people told me that adding too much front wing would lead to oversteer. While I can see that decreasing front wing would increase understeer, I fail to see how too much front wing can unsettle the rear. The rear has the same amount of grip, while the front just has less understeer. No?

Has nothing to do with the rear being "unsettled" as much as giving the front more grip than the rear can reply with. Understeer and oversteer is just a measure of how much more grip or response the front and rear axles have relative to each other. It makes no sense to speak of "less understeer" in terms of just the front, or just the rear.

4th, I've heard from a friend that in terms of setting up front/rear wings, the rear is set-up first, before then the front is used to balance the rear. But then while the rear would determine the straight line speed, the front wing would determine the turning better, to a certain extent. Are the fronts actually set first for the turning, then the rear set at a height that can balance out the turning so that you don't oversteer, or am I looking at it the wrong way, and it's done by rear wing first before using the front to balance the set-up's turning?

In a sim, front and rear wing and a number of things are probably set simultaneously. But, if I were doing track testing, you know that generally the front airfoil is going to work easier than the rear, in less disturbed air. If the rear is the limiting factor it would make sense to get the most out of that first, then crank on enough front downforce to balance.

Finally, we hear about drivers complaining of no balance on one circuit, when the previous race they have a balance. Is this because of the differing setups? So they have to re-tune the balance? A balanced set-up should prove balanced at any circuit, no? Say, maybe a driver's set-up for Australia which is balanced, if used at, say, Barcelona, should still be balanced, but just not good for laptimes no? Or am I not catching something else?

Different tires at different tracks... different setup requirements... even different ambient conditions. On an aero car, a swing in air temperature should certainly affect balance.

[autogyro]

Wow, not a single mention of mechanical set up.

[raymondu999]

Nothing against mechanical, but it's just that I didn't have questions on those

[autogyro]

Nothing against mechanical, but it's just that I didn't have questions on those

It is just that all your answers are effected by mechanical set up, so without considering it you will go round in the usual circular aero discusion.

[DaveW]

Nothing against mechanical, but it's just that I didn't have questions on those

It is just that all your answers are effected by mechanical set up, so without considering it you will go round in the usual circular aero discusion.

Totally agree, autogyro. However, F1 has determinedly regulated itself into a corner from which there is little prospect of achieving a sensible aero/mechanical compromise. FOTA even appears to be manoeuvring to retain the current unsuitable tyres. I guess that is why there is currently some overlap in performance between F1 & GP2 despite weight, aero & power differences (I was tempted to add tyres, but actually GP2 has the advantage in that department). GP2 is a "spec" series, so differentiation is largely about achieving a good compromise between available aero & mechanical performance.

[010010011010]

PS. Anyone know of good F1 games that allow for realistic setting up, but also racing (I know AI will probably not be too good on overtaking/blocking maneuvers, but it's something) right now I play on F1 Challenge, the Walu 2010 V2 mod...

Live for Speed. Most realistic sim available according to many. Its has a free demo with Formula BMW and you can do set ups on that to get you started.

Oh and you can go online with the demo so you can test yourself against other people not crappy AI

http://www.lfs.net/

[Jersey Tom]

I'd put iRacing well above LFS...

[010010011010]

Too be honest i've never played i racing because i feel its a rip-off but from what ive heard theyre pretty much the same