F1technical.net

xpensive wrote:As for the concept of a compass-flat floor eliminating ground-effects, you better beleive it, it would overnite make the Newey's of this world yielding some of their precious importance to the Costas', Bells' and Gascoynes' of the same.

I still believe that flat floor will never again feature in F1. The stepped floor with the plank was introduced in 1994 after Senna's death and it proved to be so effective in controlling ride height that they still have them. There is much more probability that the ban on tunnels is lifted.

WhiteBlue wrote:The stepped floor with the plank was introduced in 1994 after Senna's death...

I wasn't aware of that.

WhiteBlue wrote:There is much more probability that the ban on tunnels is lifted.

In which case, I guess that the aerodynamic community will rule absolutely. Track machining technology might be a good investment.

DaveW wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:The stepped floor with the plank was introduced in 1994 after Senna's death...

I wasn't aware of that.

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/03/2 ... explained/

DaveW wrote:In which case, I guess that the aerodynamic community will rule absolutely. Track machining technology might be a good investment.

There is absolutely no reason why tunnels cannot be combined with a device that controls a minimum ride hight. The plank just has to be made a bit narrower or similar devices introduced at the sides of the car. Tunnels work a little less efectively if you keep the current ride hight but they will still work sufficiently. The diffusors are proof of that.

As I have said before we will just get a better downforce distribution without rear bias. Why should tunnels be any different to restrict if you want to reduce aerodynamic spending?

xpensive wrote: I'd rather consider a Ferrari racing a BRM at Monza with what was effectively an aerodynamic lift, gaawd how they slipstreamed.

Great, let's all go back 40 years. Do we have to go back to cross ply tyres and folded aluminium tubs too? Presumably we should also be looking to kill 2 drivers per season whilst we're at it...?

Amazing. We have people calling for a reduction in aero downforce etc. and they don't even appear to have a grasp of the basic terminology or history of the system. Spoilers and wings are not the same thing. Read up on aero development e.g. flat and stepped floors before decrying it all.

Sheesh!

Unusually, I find myself agreeing with WB:

WhiteBlue wrote: There is absolutely no reason why tunnels cannot be combined with a device that controls a minimum ride hight. The plank just has to be made a bit narrower or similar devices introduced at the sides of the car. Tunnels work a little less efectively if you keep the current ride hight but they will still work sufficiently. The diffusors are proof of that.

As I have said before we will just get a better downforce distribution without rear bias. Why should tunnels be any different to restrict if you want to reduce aerodynamic spending?

Ride height can be controlled / monitored electronically these days too so there's no reason to rely on a "wood" plank to do so.

They only way to restrict the aero spending is to establish a spec body shape. Anything less that that and the teams continue to do aero development.

I though this discussion was about an over dependance on aero vs mechanical design. Cost or performance was not a concern.

Brian

hardingfv32 wrote:They only way to restrict the aero spending is to establish a spec body shape. Anything less that that and the teams continue to do aero development.

I though this discussion was about an over dependance on aero vs mechanical design. Cost or performance was not a concern.

Brian

You seem to be unaware that aero research resources like CFD TeraFlops and wind tunnel hours are restricted since 2010. Naturally if the PTB in F1 decide to apply further restrictions to push aero back for the benefit of drive train and suspension development the teams cannot legally increase aero research.

Cost or resources are always a concern! The days of unlimited budgets are over for at least two years now. And they will continue on the chassis and aero side until at least 2015 when the current RRA runs out. The FiA is party to this agreement and they will not liberate the cost side even if some teams may want to do this.

So then why the big out cry at the start of this thread that the cars are all about aero these days? The limitations you state should pretty much take care of controlling the aero development. And I am assuming that the teams are following the restrictions.

That said, then why the feeling among the early posters that aero is out of balance with mechanical development?

Brian

I agree with Ferrari and the majority of posters that aero is still over rated in F1.

There is too much willy nilly change just to create new opportunities for the aerodynamicists. They should cut it to half the current tunnel and CFD resources. The money should rather be spend for areas that are restricted now.

Examples:

- twin scroll and multi stage exhaust turbines
- front and rear MGUKs
- active suspension
- variable valves
- variable turbo vanes
- energy storage research

Unless you start racing in a vacuum (excuse the pun), you can't undo the physics that make aerodynamics so important. All you can do relegate it to ever smaller advantages by making rules to restrict its scope. You battle in the wind tunnel over tiny advantages in aero instead of big ones and it retains the same importance just with every smaller values.

gixxer_drew wrote:Unless you start racing in a vacuum (excuse the pun), you can't undo the physics that make aerodynamics so important. All you can do relegate it to ever smaller advantages by making rules to restrict its scope. You battle in the wind tunnel over tiny advantages in aero instead of big ones and it retains the same importance just with every smaller values.

Exactly. If you ban obvious downforce producers, the teams will work even harder to find some other way of producing downforce. And they'll also work very hard to cut drag. Aero is here to stay in one form or another and it will always take a lot of time and money because you can't do it properly on the cheap.

A compass-flat floor, as it was intended already back in 1983 when someone wanted to have the option of the diffuser, would of course change the aerodynamic rules forever and ever. Or at least that's what i think.

Just_a_fan wrote:

gixxer_drew wrote:Unless you start racing in a vacuum (excuse the pun), you can't undo the physics that make aerodynamics so important. All you can do relegate it to ever smaller advantages by making rules to restrict its scope. You battle in the wind tunnel over tiny advantages in aero instead of big ones and it retains the same importance just with every smaller values.

Exactly. If you ban obvious downforce producers, the teams will work even harder to find some other way of producing downforce. And they'll also work very hard to cut drag. Aero is here to stay in one form or another and it will always take a lot of time and money because you can't do it properly on the cheap.

Although I doubt this will would hold true in F1, but in various other rungs of racing there are examples where completely open rules for aerodynamics are resulting in lower costs of development. Great ideas are cheap compared to testing with 0.01% repeatability so that your diffuser performs better than one built in the same box but with 0.02%.

xpensive wrote:A compass-flat floor, as it was intended already back in 1983 when someone wanted to have the option of the diffuser, would of course change the aerodynamic rules forever and ever. Or at least that's what i think.

Yah then you just shift what you are doing to cheating the tolerances and definitions any way you can. Then you start using ride control, etc for aerodynamics ala Nascar. If you are going that fast aero is still king you just get it different ways depending on what the rules are. In aero controlled motorsports people spend heaps of money just like they do in F1. With the kind of money there is in F1, it will get elaborate.