Interesting F1 ideas...........poss' new regs?

[RH1300S]

Again thanks to Autosport:

"By Jonathan Noble Wednesday, 13 July 2005 10:32


Formula One designers are being urged to consider a complete rethink of car aerodynamics in a move that would dramatically change the look of Grand Prix machinery, Autosport-Atlas has learned.

With discussions currently ongoing about a major revamp of the sport's technical regulations for 2008, FIA president Max Mosley has now asked the teams about whether it is time to change the emphasis on car design.

He suggests that rather than the technical challenge of Formula One being a battle to produce as much downforce as possible, it should instead become a competition between designers to create cars with the least amount of drag.

Mosley believes that such a shift of focus would not only help increase overtaking in the sport, but would also have more relevance to the road car industry.

In a letter that Mosley has written to Formula One team bosses on Wednesday, he has asked them whether they believe a complete overhaul of aerodynamic regulations is a good idea.

"We believe there may be a case for placing a limit on the amount of downforce a car can generate (ie a maximum of x newtons) rather than constantly regulating to restrict the aerodynamics in the hope of containing performance," wrote Mosley.

"Research would then be directed to reducing drag, possibly useful to the car industry. Techniques for generating massive amounts of downforce from the bodywork of a single-seater racing car have limited practical application.

"Also, if we have a fixed but relatively low maximum permitted downforce, why would we need to continue to ban moveable aerodynamic devices? Could we not allow them at least under braking? Or perhaps forward of the front wheel centre line to help aerodynamic balance when following another car closely?

"We would have to have an accurate and reliable means of measurement, but I am told this will be much easier with a single tyre supplier. Moveable devices might also be useful for safety."

Mosley's previous suggestion to reduce levels of downforce to just 10 percent of their current levels has been greeted with some scepticism by some car designers, who have argued that it would lead to F1 cars being slower than other major single-seater championships."

Combine this with this (From Grandprix.com)

"Regenerating old ideas
Formula 1 is a fickle world. Back in March 1998 the FIA formally banned regenerative electrical motors, thus closing a loophole after rumours that McLaren had used such devices to run auxiliary pumps of the engine at certain places on each lap, which in effect gave the drivers a boost button as the horsepower needed for the auxiliaries was then available.

Seven years later the FIA has decided that the system is a good idea after all as it would help to give F1 a better image by addressing hybrid technologies and this give F1 more value to the car manufacturers in the sport as it would enable them to develop more efficient systems for their road cars. This is a sensible step forward although Mosley's idea of giving drivers a "push-to-pass" boost button, similar to that used in Champ Car is more controversial. This, however, would probably help overtaking although it would not be clear to the audiences when boost buttons were being used and when a manoeuvre was based entirely on the driver's skill.

Regenerative systems convert the forces and heat generated during heavy braking to create electricity which is then stored in a battery to be used later. The ideas do not really fit in with Mosley's low-tech vision of the future but is a gesture to the manufacturers which are looking for more rather than less technological knowledge to come from F1"

And a bit more from Auotsport (part of a long article)

"The FIA's preliminary view is that technology which helps the driver to control the car (eg traction control, ESP-type systems, launch control, etc, etc) have no place in Formula One, which should remain a supreme test of driver skill. This view is supported by the public in the FIA/AMD survey. On the other hand, technologies which improve car performance by, for example, saving energy or reducing mechanical losses should be encouraged. These do not devalue a racing driver's skills and their development can benefit the ordinary motorist.

The example of an energy recovery, storage and release, or "hybrid", system is a good one. Using known technology it would be possible to recover and store about 300 kilojoules of energy when braking for a corner and release it to give about 60 bhp for 5 seconds on the next straight, all from a system weighing no more than 50 kg. If we were to regulate (limit) such systems by weight, the research would aim for the maximum energy (power) for the minimum weight. We would soon see more power for longer from lighter systems. Such systems will eventually be on all road cars - it is just a question of how many kilojoules per kilo of weight plus system cost compared to fuel cost. Deployment in Formula One would greatly accelerate the rate of development of such devices as well as promoting public acceptance and consumer demand"

Some interesting ideas in there; this time Max Mosley is showing how to use his powerful intellect for the good of the sport.

[manchild]

As long as FIA continues to prescribe recipes by tying the hands of engineers and creative designers F1 will continue to sink deeper in problems. Cars are now very safe and all that needs to be done is to improve safety on certain circuits.

If they want F1 to be as attractive as it used to be before FIA started messing with cost cutting and proscription of technology than they should simply look back and let designers design, engineers engineer and inventors invent - freely, just as it was done from 1950 to early ‘90s.

We don’t need FIA as governing body to tell us what kind of technology they consider attractive – they should only think on safety and respect of sporting and technical regulations instead of imposing minimum c.o.g or bore and stroke etc.

That is not the purpose of FIA’s existence and as long WMSC continues to have members who from certain F1 teams (Todt) there will always be suspicion regarding technical regulations they impose. Down with nepotism! Did you know that Massa’s manager is Todt’s son?! Pure coincidence with Ferrari engines?

Any person involved in competition as a team member or engine manufacturer employee etc. should not be member of any FIA ruling body, just as employees in companies organizing lottery can’t participate in it.

Regarding changes, anyone knows that you can’t make good setup if you change bunch of things at same time. I’d vote for step by step approach – a tryouts that would last one season and than be abolished if they don’t bring results.

My personal suggestion would be – bring in the manual operated clutch and gearbox for one season and if number of overtaking doesn’t dramatically increase than cancel it. Naturally, things as slicks, wider cars and tyres are something that can’t bring any harm at all.

But PLEASE – don’t play with stupidities like concepts of aero efficiency instead of downforce etc. Let F1 be what is used to be most of its existence and if you’re keen to experiment organize another series for that!

[ReubenG]

I agree with the step by step approach regarding new regulations etc., but I don't think one year is sufficient. If the regulations change annually, the teams which benefit the most are those with sufficient resources to respond to rapid changes [no comment on Ferarri this year] - which may include writing off past investments into areas that have now been "regulated out" of the equation. IMO, the recent spate of regulation changes is why we are seeing a bigger performance gap between the teams with lots of resources and those without. Many spectators are losing interest in F1 because it's nearly impossible to keep up with the latest qualifying format or tyre limitations without spending most of one's time on the F1 sites. Phase in the new regulations, whatever they may be, but I believe everyone is better served by keeping the regulations in place for at least two seasons.

[RH1300S]

I think you guys are missing the point of these outline ideas. Step back a couple of weeks and it seemed like standard ECU's, controlled CofG height etc. was the view of the future - that was serious dumbing down of F1.

First point - not to be ignored; I think this is clever politics (and fortunately could be good for F1). These few words allow the FIA to step back from their trenchant position, the one that may have spelt the end of F1 as we know it - and lets them offer an olive branch to the manufacturers and associated GWPC Teams.

Second - At the moment the rules are so tight that it is ALL about optimisation and this is most likely to benefit the guys with most money, staff & facilities.

These regs COULD allow a design genius in a lowly team that little bit of space to create the "un-fair" advantage (I bet Colin Chapman/Gordon Murray would be rubbing their hands together right now). It could really freshen F1 up and create technical interest. Who knows, maybe moving aero devices that not only adjust the front/rear balance - what about side to side & diagonal balance?

[jaslfc]

personally u think they should cut down in the regulations and let the engineers design the cars freely(like the old days) this at least may give smaller teams a chance.. who knows minardi engineers comes up with an inovative design and blitz the field!!

[Reca]

He suggests that rather than the technical challenge of Formula One being a battle to produce as much downforce as possible, it should instead become a competition between designers to create cars with the least amount of drag

First of all a premise. I already said elsewhere that IMO aerodynamics isn’t the only responsible of lack of overtakes, just one of the several causes. That’s still my opinion. Nevertheless here I’m focusing on aero only to understand if something can be done on aero to improve the situation a bit.

To do it, or to at least start it, we have to talk about effect of downforce on laptimes so we have to look at this graph :


It shows two curves laptime vs downforce for a given car. I obtained the curves with Bosch LapSim but I removed the numbers on the axis because it’s the qualitative result what matters.
The two curves are for the same car, the F1 sample car of LapSim.
While doing the calculations for the two curves I kept everything absolutely equal but power, red curve the car has 950 hp vs the 850 hp of the blue line. Then for each curve, in all the simulation points everything is equal but downforce and drag, drag being the downforce divided by an efficiency that I kept constant for all the simulations
Ignore for the moment the yellow line.
The first qualitative and well known result is that, for a given car and a given power, in a given track, there’s an optimum level of downforce that gives the lowest possible laptime. If you add more downforce over that point then the laptime will suffer. Obviously the shape of the curve will depend by the track, in Monza the minimum will be at low downforce, in Monaco possibly the minimum doesn’t even exist and the more downforce you have the better.
The second qualitative result is that, keeping everything equal and changing only the engine power, the optimum point shifts toward an higher level of downforce as visible comparing the two, red and blue, vertical lines that indicates the minimum of each curve; that’s easy to explain, when you have lot of power it’s better to spend it to generate downforce than to increase the top speed.
So this give us a first result, you can limit downforce without touching the car aero, just limit the engine power and designers will limit the downforce by themselves.
Now assume that the yellow line is the maximum level of downforce that the limitations on aero (wing size, number of elements, diffuser size) allow on the basic car, and look at the graph from the designer point of view. What you can see is that there’s a huge potential to improve performance by increasing downforce, so the designer tries everything he can, adding winglets, fins, horns, whatever, to get back to the level of downforce that gives the minimum laptime. And that’s exactly what teams do every time FIA imposes limitation on aero, 2005 is the latest example. This year the cars are quite often at maximum downforce level available on the car, on almost all the tracks because due to the limitations they can’t get back to the minimum of the curve.
Obviously this thing has a secondary and pretty important effect.
In fact, in the part of the curve in the vicinity of the minimum, the slope of the curve itself (the sensitivity of laptimes vs downforce) is very low, meaning that even a relatively big variation of downforce has relatively small effect on laptimes. And obviously the opposite is true, add (to preserve tyres) or lose (to favour a bit top speed in race) a bit of downforce and your laptime will not change by much.
On the contrary, in the part of the curve where the yellow line is located, the sensitivity is quite high, meaning that a small increment of downforce gives a relative big advantage in term of laptimes. And obviously the opposite is true, lose even a bit of downforce and your laptime will suffer badly.
That undoubtedly affects quite a lot the teams without the possibility to work in wind tunnel 24/7. At the end it could give us also an explanation of why this year the drivers complain about the fact that the cars suffer more running in others car wake, FIA limitations possibly moved the downforce in an area where the sensitivity of the laptime vs downforce is lot higher so also a small reduction of downforce affects the car performance lot more.

Result of this, quite basic analysis ?
If you want to reduce downforce the most effective way is to limit power.
If you want to make car less sensible to other cars you have to make it easier to generate downforce hence not imposing too strict direct limitations on wing size, diffuser etc etc.
Look at the last 10 or so years and see what FIA did, continuous limitations on aero and basically no limitations on engine power that did growth year after year.

Sorry for the long post.

[RH1300S]

Thanks for the long post, it's very interesting to see it graphically and have it explained so well.

The important part of the FIA proposal is to control the maximum amount of downforce available (there must be ways of measuring that dynamically). So, they (if I understand you correctly) could free up engine power a little if they wanted to, which would make the cars more challenging to drive without driver aids. This, in turn would reward the genuinely talented drivers etc. etc. You are right about reducing engine power (the curve shows that well), which then forces a reduction in downforce, but ultimately that would turn F1 cars into F3 cars (i.e. low power and not traction limited).

I really believe that top level race cars should be traction limited (more power than grip) to let talent shine.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

this is just another example of Max Mosley being indecicive...one month its this, one month its the next, every issue of F1 Racing magazine I get nowadayz has Mosley changing his mind...AGAIN.

He shouldn't meddle with what he doesnt understand! F1 will only really move forward when the FIA start consulting the teams when deciding on technical regulations, then the team's tech depatments can tell the FIA what would effect the cars and how...and then maybe we mght get what we want.

Better yet just get rid of Max!

[RH1300S]

My feeble brain has just collided with this thought...........

IF moveable aero devices are allowed AND a maximum downforce is stipulated. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the cars will be set up to generate very high downforce at low speed and then trimmed out as speed increases. At the moment the downforce developed increases by the square of the speed - it also falls away at the same rate. Moving aero changes the whole picture.

[Reca]

To fix a given amount of downforce (x Newton) is utopia just like it’s utopia to police the TC. It would very likely require to mandate a standard aero package and that’s just not F1.
Furthermore, as you can see from the graph, it would be like being locked at the yellow line in the point of high sensitivity. And an increment of power would make it even worse because it would increase the slope of the curve making a downforce loss more influent on performance, again as the graph shows quite clearly.
The only way to avoid or at least minimize this problem is to allow the teams to reach the downforce corresponding to the minimum laptime for that power level. Ideally one could also force them to use more downforce than needed (as they do in IRL) so the loss of downforce in the wake wouldn’t affect performance at all but that’s something you can do in a single spec series, not in F1 where everyone designs his own car. It’s simply black or white, you can 1) mandate a single aero package or 2) leave the aero design relatively free. History of the last 10 or 15 years shows that any attempt to do something in the middle is very likely going to be a failure.

BTW, in my previous post I forgot to point out one thing, although it should be clear. That analysis doesn’t include the fact that an aero design is possibly more sensitive than another one to the perturbations caused by other cars wake; for example many blame the 2005 higher front wing because it’s more sensitive compared with the 2004 one; I wouldn’t be surprised if it was actually the case because to generate the same downforce as before with the front wing is obviously lot more difficult and when something is difficult to achieve even a smaller perturbation ruins it. But the difference in the downforce loss between two different designs in the same condition is something that one has to study with accurate CFD, wind tunnel and on track testing and then, once you understand how it works, you can also work to reduce the effect (and AFAIK at least a couple of teams do it).
What the previous analysis shows on the contrary is the qualitative effect on performance of a given downforce reduction, and that’s unfortunately something that is impossible to change so the only way to “solve” this problem is allow the team to reach the area with lower sensitivity. Once you are in that area, also if a particular design is more sensitive to perturbations than another one, the loss of performance will be relatively small anyway.

You are right about reducing engine power (the curve shows that well), which then forces a reduction in downforce, but ultimately that would turn F1 cars into F3 cars (i.e. low power and not traction limited).

I certainly don’t suggest to go to F3 level (210-215 hp), a reduction of 200-250 hp compared with the current level, is more than enough, say something like 650-700, a bit less than what we should see next year. In fact I’m confident that next year we will see more interesting aero designs instead of the current “fit a wing wherever you can” cars. Still more freedom in bodywork rules should be allowed.

As for the more power than grip showing the talent, that’s true in a way and surely it’s more visible and more understandable to the casual viewer, but also to exploit downforce hence the maximum cornering grip requires talent. In fact I did talk with many team managers of lower series and they often say to me that one of the most difficult things for young drivers is exactly to exploit that little bit more of grip from a bit more of downforce; not all of them are capable to do it, and if one can’t by talent then he can try to learn it and he can improve, but apparently he will never be as good as the ones who do it by talent. Same for exploiting downforce in braking, to know that there’s potential grip to be exploited and to be actually capable of exploiting it are two very different things.

At the end the movable devices. No please.
First of all it would add nothing, all the drivers would go at full downforce in corners and least drag in straight line, what would be the point ? Then it would open an can of worms, with not small safety issues, and not only because of risk of failure, a sudden variation of the aero setup isn’t as simple thing to do as one would think, it could cause huge stability problems.
Furthermore what makes F1 interesting from the technical point of view, and creates different approaches between the teams, is the search of the right compromise. We already lost, due to refuelling, the search of the compromise in the setup for a car that was losing 180-200 kg during the race, that one was a big challenge. Nowadays when a car is “full” of fuel it’s about 55-65 kg heavier than at the end of the stint so it does make relatively little difference in the setup. Then we lost the compromise in the design for optimal cg positioning, now it’s all about making everything as light as possible and put ballast where you need it to “fix” the cg. At the end we have almost lost the compromise in aero because of limitations so teams want the maximum downforce, next year we could get that back a bit due to the lower power so we’re, for once, moving in the right direction, let’s not kill it again with movable devices.

[kilcoo316]

I'm gonna disagree with Reca on the moveable devices (kind of).

My opinion is that the main problem in overtaking is a loss of balance when closely following another car - the front wing loses grip, and the car understeers.

Solution, allow a moveable front wing only.

The diffuser may also be looked at, maybe reduced, and the rear wing enlarged - I think the amount of 'drag free' downforce has to be cut to a minimum, but the wake must be concentrated a reasonable distance above the level of the front wing, this still gives a tow down the straight, but reduces the balance sensitivity of following another car.

I do agree that power needs to be cut back to around the 700 - 750 bhp mark, I also think that a means of doing that would be imposing no refuelling during the race - thus the engines would offer a benefit by being more fuel efficient - infact, the FIA could impose a fuel tank size limit, which would force the teams to develop the best fuel efficient engine, while not traditional F1, it does open up a new area for development, and has greater cross over to the 'real world'.

[RH1300S]

Wise words Reca, good argument - don't agree with it all 'though

But, yes - it makes sense..........

[DaveKillens]

Reca, I commend you on a very skillful and well thought analysis. Such information is wonderful.
I'm an older person, and I have been watching racing since the 50's. Back then, when racing technology was still very new, and there were many new untried theories, sheer performance was the goal. More power, more downforce, better tire grip. But we have now reached a plateau in technology (not saying that a great fundamental aspect of racing is still undiscovered) where we now evaluate and try to find a balance between safety, appeal, and performance.
As a fan, I appreciate close racing, no matter what the speed or type of vehicle. And to be honest, a bit of sheer speed spices things up.
But in modern F1, the manufacturers have to have a reason to be involved. Yes, the sheer prestige is nice. But it is desirable to have available technologies for the manufacturers to work on, technologies they can apply to their production vehicles, or vice versa.
Personally, I don't place much on downforce. I'd rather see a lot less downforce, and more focus on driver skill and mechanical grip.
It's nice to see Formula One touted as the premier motorsport, but we also have to be realists. Other racign series beat F1 in some areas. Dragsters go over 300 MPH. So much for bragging about speed. NASCAR cars circulate at lap averages of over 170 MPH at some tracks. Those are examples, just to illustrate the fact that bragging rights about a certain discilpine aren't worth much. But to put on a great show, where drivers with great skill battle in front of excited crowds, where the best of the best go to compete, that's what should be the end goal.
The great history of motor racing is mainly about cars and drivers, especially drivers. Make the drivers the focus of attention, place the greatest demands on all their skills, let them succeed, or fail.
Get rid of technologies designed just for sheer performance. Bring back manual shifted transmissions, get rid of the wings, limit the power from the engines.

As a side note, I'd like to offer one specific rule change. Allow refuelling, and tire changes. Allow the teams as much as they desire. But allow only one task per pit stop. You can change tires, but not refuel, and vice versa. Would make for interesting strategies.

[RH1300S]

I was reading something recently (I think Ross Brawn's words). Effectively saying that much of today's downforce comes from "dirty downforce" - body surface appendages that disturb the air to make D/F. This disturbed air is what the following cars have to pass through, so their downforce devices don't work well. He also said that underbody downforce can be almost free of drag.

The inference I draw from this is that if the engineers could be allowed to produce the D/F they want (Reca's graph), but could get it all from "clean downforce" (venturi cars again?), then they would not need to add wings/winglets/flip ups etc. - then leaving a cleaner wake, cars could run closer.

BTW - Ross suggested removing the front wings all together, just keeping a rear wing for stability, then giving bacl mechanical grip with wide slicks etc.. If you think about the idea of no front wing, this could have some very interesting side effects in the way cars would need to be deigned and how much downforce they could use.

[DaveKillens]

Many years ago, in the heyday of skirted ground effect cars, I recall being told that the skirted chassis generated almost all the downforce, the the then tiny wings attached to the cars were there primarily to balance the aero effect.
And with that prelude, does anyone know what the values were for drag over downforce in one of two variants. Ground effect venturi/skirts versus the present setup, which appears to be a chssis with just flat plate and rear venturi, with wings and many minor attachments.
Would a geniune ground effects vehicle have much lower drags, but more downforce, than today's cars?