F1technical.net

http://planetf1.com/driver/18227/739336 ... e-pressure

Montezemolo - "The aerodynamic impact is too high - aerodynamics mean 80-90 per cent of the performance of the car, this is too much. We don't do planes or satellites, we do cars."

He makes a good point. The aerodynamic reliance of Formula One cars is too high, I believe. The FiA cut it down in 2009, but it's back up because the aerodynamicists have found the ways around the regs. It isn't surprising. It's their job to make the fastest car they can with the rules they're given. I'm not posing any solutions to cutting down the dependence on aerodynamics, but I'd like to hear the opinion of this forum on whether or not aerodynamics has too large of a presence in F1 currently.

Personally, I enjoy watching the cars take corners at very, very high speeds. I'm not sure how that happens without F1-level aero.

"Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?"

Yes. It does not relate in any direct way (theoretical or visible) to road cars.

More important, it does not add to the "spectacle" or to the spectator's experience.

donskar wrote:"Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?"

Yes. It does not relate in any direct way (theoretical or visible) to road cars.

When was Formula 1 technology ever relevant to road cars? Formula 1 was never meant to be relevant to Road Cars technology so I do not know why it is believed to be that way. Apart from that, the LMP's are relevant to road cars.

More important, it does not add to the "spectacle" or to the spectator's experience.

2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2003, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1995, 1994 etc. etc. There is enough spectacle on track. Recent years have been rather dull but the years before '09 all were really good seasons, although that is based on opinion.
What I understand under spectacle is this;
1. Blown engines
2. Crashes
3. Fighting over position
4. Reliability
5. Driver errors
When looking at these points I raised, is it weird that there isnt enough spectacle? No. 1 and 4 are simply barely possible anymore due to the engine/gearbox rules. 3 is barely possible too due to DRS and KERS.

F1 is digging it's own grave, on one hand it has to be safer and cheaper, and on the other hand there has to be more spectacular. In the f1 environment it just is not possible. If they want to be that spectacular and cheap they should look at the indy cars, since that is both.

wesley123 wrote:

donskar wrote:"Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?"

Yes. It does not relate in any direct way (theoretical or visible) to road cars.

When was Formula 1 technology ever relevant to road cars? Formula 1 was never meant to be relevant to Road Cars technology so I do not know why it is believed to be that way. Apart from that, the LMP's are relevant to road cars.

More important, it does not add to the "spectacle" or to the spectator's experience.

2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2003, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1995, 1994 etc. etc. There is enough spectacle on track. Recent years have been rather dull but the years before '09 all were really good seasons, although that is based on opinion.
What I understand under spectacle is this;
1. Blown engines
2. Crashes
3. Fighting over position
4. Reliability
5. Driver errors
When looking at these points I raised, is it weird that there isnt enough spectacle? No. 1 and 4 are simply barely possible anymore due to the engine/gearbox rules. 3 is barely possible too due to DRS and KERS.

F1 is digging it's own grave, on one hand it has to be safer and cheaper, and on the other hand there has to be more spectacular. In the f1 environment it just is not possible. If they want to be that spectacular and cheap they should look at the indy cars, since that is both.

Yes, I agree, recent years have been rather dull.
No, by spectacle I do not mean blown engines, but markedly different engines and engine types (V8, V12, flat 12, etc)
No, I do not mean crashes, but cars that are instantly recognizable due to different body shapes (Brabham, Arrows, March) or iconic colors (Lotus, BRM, Ferrari, Cooper, etc).
By spectacle, I mean engine sounds and color schemes and driver personalities (Eddie Irvine, Kimi, I Ireland, M Gregory, G Hill et al).

Simple answer is "yes". But I like it that way, part of the appeal is these are supposed to be the fastest cars in the world around a circuit. I think the 2011 season was a good one even with Vettel dominating. There were awesome battles especially mid pack, and some great battles at the front. The Nurburgring gp was an awesome three way tussle for the win, so was Japan, Monaco.

Montezemolo is just bitter his team didn't make the car to beat.

donskar wrote: Yes, I agree, recent years have been rather dull.
No, by spectacle I do not mean blown engines, but markedly different engines and engine types (V8, V12, flat 12, etc)
No, I do not mean crashes, but cars that are instantly recognizable due to different body shapes (Brabham, Arrows, March) or iconic colors (Lotus, BRM, Ferrari, Cooper, etc).
By spectacle, I mean engine sounds and color schemes and driver personalities (Eddie Irvine, Kimi, I Ireland, M Gregory, G Hill et al).

I don't think that is all spectacle but rather diversity. That is something I would like to see too. Let one team run a small 4 cylinder turbo and another a V12.
The FIA should specify strength and safety rules for formula 1, put in a consumption limit(half the fuel of what they use now) and let the teams figure it out themselves. By this you are forcing teams to look more after their fuel and work on reducing fuel consumption, which is in turn also useful for road cars. By this everyone is happy

Aerodynamics is about 40% of car performance. But it gives u 90% of progress during the season.
It is clear why montedzemolo is angry - they lose. But I think it's their own problem, and u shouldn't blame the whole F1 because of your problems.

Is the Aerodynamic dependence in Formula One too high?
YES, YES, AND YES AGAIN!!!!!

Sonic59 wrote:Aerodynamics is about 40% of car performance. But it gives u 90% of progress during the season.
It is clear why montedzemolo is angry - they lose. But I think it's their own problem, and u shouldn't blame the whole F1 because of your problems.

Montezemolo's complaints miss the point. It's not simple reliance on aerodynamics that is the root of the problem, it's F1's very specific rules concerning aerodynamics that creates the problem. All of the low-hanging fruit in F1 aero development has been harvested. Incremental gains in aero performance become smaller each year and come at greatly increasing cost. While the intention of tightly controlled aero regulations is to equalize performance and reduce cost, the opposite usually results.

I would argue that looser regulations would allow teams with less financial resources to use creativity and innovation to make up for their budget deficits. Improvements through creativity and innovation are much cheaper than those gains through simple optimization.

I would rather say the limits on mechanical development are the reason. An V12, not alowed, small 4cyl turbo? not allowed. Everyone has a similair gearbox due to the rules and so on and so on, weird huh that the engineers have to rely so much on aero?

riff_raff wrote:

Sonic59 wrote:Aerodynamics is about 40% of car performance. But it gives u 90% of progress during the season.
It is clear why montedzemolo is angry - they lose. But I think it's their own problem, and u shouldn't blame the whole F1 because of your problems.

Montezemolo's complaints miss the point. It's not simple reliance on aerodynamics that is the root of the problem, it's F1's very specific rules concerning aerodynamics that creates the problem. All of the low-hanging fruit in F1 aero development has been harvested. Incremental gains in aero performance become smaller each year and come at greatly increasing cost. While the intention of tightly controlled aero regulations is to equalize performance and reduce cost, the opposite usually results.

I would argue that looser regulations would allow teams with less financial resources to use creativity and innovation to make up for their budget deficits. Improvements through creativity and innovation are much cheaper than those gains through simple optimization.

Won't the bigger teams be even more creative and innovative? They've got more people and resources to call on so they should find even more ways to gain speed than the little guys.

To answer the question, I think yes. I favor more (or larger) elements like the FW centre section that create lift (upwards) an thus reduce the change in stability when in dirty air. (maybe a FW of less width and a RW more like the spa or monza ones as well!)

F1 is an aero formula and has been for 40 years or more. There was an interesting comment in one of the videos posted by Strad elsewhere hereabouts; in 1970 the Porshe 917 set a lap record several seconds quicker than the F1 cars at Spa. Do we want F1 to go back to being slower than contemporary sportscars?

And for those who try to link F1 to road cars, there are series more suited to road car development - touring cars and rallying for example. F1 is a 'fantasy series', not a 'relevant series'.

I can't help but think that those who dislike aero dislike it because it's too cerebral...

wesley123 wrote:I would rather say the limits on mechanical development are the reason. An V12, not alowed, small 4cyl turbo? not allowed. Everyone has a similair gearbox due to the rules and so on and so on, weird huh that the engineers have to rely so much on aero?

Exactly. Great point. I always thought that they should allow the teams to build whatever engine they want, whether it be V8, V12, I4 turbo, rocket, diesel, whatever. The only catch is the horsepower is limited, fuel tanks are limited, RPM is limited, and maybe turbo psi is limited. So the engines are essentially equal, but the teams can develop different types of engines, developing ideas for road use. Do the same with transmissions as well. One problem I see with this, however, is that eventually the teams would try and develop the best engine, and down the road, after they've refined and refined, they'd all be using the same sort of engine.

i think the issue with relevance to aerodynamics has a lot to do with the rules and less with the aero conceptually. Road cars have so much to be desired in terms of safety and efficiency that could be achieved. You could have car's that are much more stable when aquaplaning, stop quicker and use a lot less fuel.