FIA - Centreline Downwash Generating (CDG) Wing

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
Guest
Guest
0

Post

I agree with you whole heartedly on that one

jaslfc
jaslfc
0
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:47 pm

Post

i think the complete ban of TC is required. the only problem is having to govern the teams. Wat bout the intoduction of 'push to pass' i dont know much about it but the few cart races i saw they seem to make overtaking easier!!

Guest
Guest
0

Post

But wouldn't it be fun if everything works the way the FIA says it will. We have teams cooperating "Ok Michael let Felipe lead for a while and give your fronts a rest", "close up to Juan there Kemi it will give you both another 10kph along the straight" and trains of cars lining up like NASCAR trying to position themselves for the dash for the line.
Not so sure about making the cars wider again it’s similar to making the track narrower.
Optimist

RH1300S
RH1300S
1
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:29 pm

Post

I don't think the FIA are the most brilliant people in the world, but I don't see their rule changes as evidence of utter incompetence.

Many rule changes were introduced to contain speeds, not help overtaking. Narower track cars will go around corners slower (that's simple physics) and will be faster on the straights, which should increase braking distances (need to get to a slower speed from a higher one). Grooved tyres - daft idea. The stepped bottom forces a measurable and un-cheatable gap between the underside of the pod and the road (remember what happened in the 1980's when the specified a gap! 8) ) Two race engines daft execution, but the right direction.

So what if the cars are faster this year - imagine where they would have been with last years regs - the FIA have contained speeds without making the cars too slow.

If they revert to rules from previous decades where there was overtaking - with what teams have learned in aero and tyre tech (not to mention electronic diffs etc.), the speeds will be huge AND I suspect, overtaking even harder.

IMHO - driver aids need to go (TC for one) and it would be great if paddle shifts went with it (perhaps they should at least ban all electronic control of the shift and clutch apart from simple actuation of the mechanism - that would include banning the "kickers" that match engine revs when changing gear) and keep a manual clutch (whether foot or hand).

As for the aero CDG idea, at least they recognise that dirty air behind the cars makes following another car very hard to do. If they remove all aero then F1 will no longer be the fastest on the planet (and no sponsor space :wink: ), so they can't do that and expect to keep the premier slot on TV. Whether this is the right solution, we don't know - I see it as a big signpost pointing at the problem. Something that the engineers need to look at. 8)

Don't forget, with the proposed wing location downforce and corner speed will be cut dramatically, along with increased braking distances and cars running closer in corners - which should make for better racing. So, what is wrong with that? :?:

I don't see why discussing an idea has to turn into a rant against the FIA.

RH1300S
RH1300S
1
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:29 pm

Post

manchild wrote:In 1979 Villeneuve’s Ferrari wasn’t dominant car but fact that both cars had manual shifting that enabled him to match up and beat Arnoux.
If you use this example to support an argument that manual gearboxes create good racing - it is flawed. (BTW, you know I agree that gear changing is a lost art :wink: ).

How about this take on the racing...........

The cars had aero, but they were pretty inefficient and because they had venturi underbodies the cars could run close together - thus creating the potential for a race. Also, different power deliveries between the Turbo and Ferrari Flat 12. Then you add the Villeneuve element (not to mention Arnoux in a Renault in France :twisted: ) into the equation and you suddenly have a race on your hands 8)

User avatar
Scuderia_Russ
0
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:24 pm
Location: Motorsport Valley, England.

Post

manchild wrote:
Scuderia_Russ wrote:I think you'll find that Arnoux had a fuel pick up problem!
Haven’t found anywhere that Arnoux had fuel pick problem, to me it seamed like typical “turbo lag”.
Trust me, he did!
"Whether you think you can or can't, either way you are right."
-Henry Ford-

User avatar
Steven
Owner
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 5:32 pm
Location: Belgium

Post

Back on the rear wing idea...

It seems to me like the FIA is blaming the rear wing for the loss of overtaking. Note that in the aforementioned early 90s the rear wing was bigger and higher above the ground.

To me there are therefore 2 main reasons for overtaking problems because of low pressure behind the car:

- Possibly to limited effect, but I think that a higher rear wing would leave a higher pressure behind the car as it allows more air to pass under the wing (and over the rear light).
- What about the diffuser? They used to be simple and big, while now they are rather small but very aerodynamically shaped. Maybe the 2005 regulations did not go far enough to limit downforce generated there... :?:

User avatar
Scuderia_Russ
0
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:24 pm
Location: Motorsport Valley, England.

Post

manchild wrote: All the things they are now suggesting for 2007 or 2008 are actually just return to status before FIA’s messing had begun. Back to wider cars (FIA narrowed them), back to slicks (FIA banned them), back to wider pneumatics (FIA narrowed them) … It seams to me that they are trying to get away and suck-up to F1 fans by bringing back things they’ve stolen from fans just to maintain their seat at the top or the pyramid.
Everyone moans and whines about the F.I.A. not listening to the fans... they have a poll and are now trying to put right some of their wrongs... trying to give people what they said they wanted in the poll which you probably took part in Manchild. Why then sit there and whine about them trying to give people what they want? I'm sure you oppose everyone just to be obtuse!
As for the CDG wing I think it looks promising. Two elements, low wing sitting behind the dirty air of the two rear wheels all point to low downforce.

Image

Image
"Whether you think you can or can't, either way you are right."
-Henry Ford-

RH1300S
RH1300S
1
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:29 pm

Post

Tomba wrote:Back on the rear wing idea...

It seems to me like the FIA is blaming the rear wing for the loss of overtaking. Note that in the aforementioned early 90s the rear wing was bigger and higher above the ground.

To me there are therefore 2 main reasons for overtaking problems because of low pressure behind the car:

- Possibly to limited effect, but I think that a higher rear wing would leave a higher pressure behind the car as it allows more air to pass under the wing (and over the rear light).
- What about the diffuser? They used to be simple and big, while now they are rather small but very aerodynamically shaped. Maybe the 2005 regulations did not go far enough to limit downforce generated there... :?:
Is the overtaking in times past a bit of a Red Herring? Couple of things to consider.

The cars were far less efficient and had lots more power (if we are talking Turbo era), so the big rear wings created a big hole behind the cars to allow a tow from further back. Even then they struggled to follow closely in the dirty air, but could pick up the tow further away. I think two things helded overtaking - draggy rear wings (which were Ok with excess engine power) and longer braking distances due to less downforce.

While we are on braking and overtaking - with modern diffs, the braking zone is really deep into a corner (I think deeper than ever before see discussion about LFB) - surely this must create problems passing when much of the braking is still happening after turn in. This is not the same as having most braking being done in a straight line and final trail braking (longer braking distances) - in this case the proportion of braking in the corner entry phase is very high.

PS Tomba - I do agree with some of your post, just trying to show a different angle.
Last edited by RH1300S on Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scuderia_Russ
0
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:24 pm
Location: Motorsport Valley, England.

Post

RH1300S wrote:I
As for the aero CDG idea, at least they recognise that dirty air behind the cars makes following another car very hard to do. If they remove all aero then F1 will no longer be the fastest on the planet (and no sponsor space :wink: ), so they can't do that and expect to keep the premier slot on TV. Whether this is the right solution, we don't know - I see it as a big signpost pointing at the problem. Something that the engineers need to look at. 8)
Exactly, they are stuck between a rock and a hard place trying to keep everyone happy.
RH1300S wrote: Don't forget, with the proposed wing location downforce and corner speed will be cut dramatically, along with increased braking distances and cars running closer in corners - which should make for better racing. So, what is wrong with that? :?:
Nothing!
RH1300S wrote: I don't see why discussing an idea has to turn into a rant against the FIA.
That makes two of us.
"Whether you think you can or can't, either way you are right."
-Henry Ford-

RH1300S
RH1300S
1
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:29 pm

Post

Scuderia_Russ wrote:That makes two of us.
Ta......... :D

RH1300S
RH1300S
1
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:29 pm

Post

Scuderia_Russ wrote:Image
Looks quite funky......... 8)

Sawtooth-spike
Sawtooth-spike
0
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge

Post

ok being a little bit thick, i just want to ask something,

Will there be any slip stream left with the new wing?

Also i thought the problem with the 2005 cars was that to get back the downforce they lost they had to add loads of flip up and and work the air they had got alot harder, which worked well in clean air but in the dirty air the effectiveness of the flip ups was lost, thus making it hard to get get close to each other. if i am well of somebody please tell me.

The FIA have done there Home work this time, i think the only thing the messed up is the mock up they made looks a little big ugly, I am sure when the teams work on it they will make something that looks sexy.

RH1300S
RH1300S
1
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:29 pm

Post

Sawtooth-spike wrote:ok being a little bit thick, i just want to ask something,

Will there be any slip stream left with the new wing?

Also i thought the problem with the 2005 cars was that to get back the downforce they lost they had to add loads of flip up and and work the air they had got alot harder, which worked well in clean air but in the dirty air the effectiveness of the flip ups was lost, thus making it hard to get get close to each other. if i am well of somebody please tell me.

The FIA have done there Home work this time, i think the only thing the messed up is the mock up they made looks a little big ugly, I am sure when the teams work on it they will make something that looks sexy.
That's my understanding of the problem too..........

manchild
manchild
12
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:54 am

Post

The problem I see in FIA's suggestion is that they only think it will work which might not happened at all. That is why I think it is better to switch back to regulations that have enabled overtaking more than a decade ago. Basically, I don't understand why FIA must experiment with new solutions that might not work when there is an old recipe that worked for many seasons? :?

Since everything FIA suggested so far had opposite effect than announced one I say this “tractor” look-alike rear wing won’t work.

Why FIA doesn’t puts another survey on their website and suggest many impartial solutions for how to fix overtaking and what how qualifying should look? Let them put their current suggestions among the possible answers including the regulations that worked before and I’m sure fans will throw their CDG wing and knockout qualifying system in “recycle bin”.