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

Post

manchild wrote: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”.
I understand your reasoning, but I just don't see how the FIA could back track to older regs (I presume you are talking aero regs and tyres/track width - not engines or safety). You may be right about getting more overtaking, but the cars would be faster and it would not remove the fundamental problem or dirty air making close folowing hard. Also, the older regs would surely make the cars more efficient than now, so braking distances would get shorter. At least here the FIA are trying to address that in a sensible way by looking right at where the problem is.

Cheers - :D

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

Post

Yes, I only had in mind aero regs and tyres/track width.

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

Post

After hours of frantic discussion, peace breaks out 8)

So, come on - do you think that the idea has a chance of working? :D

User avatar
johny
0
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 8:06 am
Location: Spain

Post

why it couldn't work? we found it strange, even stupid but we know that it's a step into close racing, they now are moving into the right direction, if you put out all aero things (spliters, chimeneys, winglets...) but you put in widder slick tires you don't forget safety and you could be less aerodependent. Another problem is braking distance, in an interview de la rosa sayd that this year with v8's engines and an aero regulation for much powerfull engines it'll be far easier to drive a f1 car, he also mentioned the braking distance, with those engines distances will be shorter, if before braking point was at 100m now you could brake in 80m, how could be overtaking moves with such a small distance? if we had smaller brakes or steel brakes it would be better

talking about secuential gearboxes, i'll switch off them with their comfortable paddles, use a stick like most of us use and clutch in the foot.

it's true that f1 is the pinnacle of motorsport and they must use the best tecnology but if it continues developing things that helps drivers well reach a point were a driver won't be necesary, it could keep on being the pinnacle but with sensible rules and providing spectacle

f1 rules need changes, but not every season changes, public could be confused and even left f1

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

Post

Right so if its partly down to the Dirty Messing up all the flip up, why dont they make the rules so that they can have any?, maybe by setting a maximum hight for the side pods?

Also maybe build some tracks with good overtaking places?

User avatar
johny
0
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 8:06 am
Location: Spain

Post

what do you call good overtaking places? isn't long enough monza straight, or shangai one?

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

Post

Good points johny - of course with lower power engines, cars will be slower on the straights, so need less stopping distance.

This proves that they need to do something about downforce.

Sawtooth-spike - getting rid of the aero appendages would be a good interim measure.

I still reckon they need some blue sky thinking to make a big shift away from the problem (as they have done with this idea).

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

Post

Sawtooth-spike wrote:Right so if its partly down to the Dirty Messing up all the flip up, why dont they make the rules so that they can have any?, maybe by setting a maximum hight for the side pods?
The teams were forced to increase the height of the sidepods in '95 to increase the lateral protection for the driver in the event of an accident, they would prefer them to be lower for aero purposes.
"Whether you think you can or can't, either way you are right."
-Henry Ford-

Guest
Guest
0

Post

I dont understand what you people have against technology. For instance just look at TC and LC and full auto gearboxes. When FIA introduced these did the racing become different from the previous year ? Did these "aids" help the lesser driver catch up with the faster ones ?

To me the TC of a F1 car is an aid just like the steeringwheel is. Its what you do with it that counts.

Tech aids simply change the skillrequirement that the drivers need to have in order to be the fastest.

Just look at Lauda. Lauda said something like "Even a monkey can drive the car". When Lauda tried the Jaguar he spun and stalled the engine trying to be as fast as the regular drivers. Either you need to have serious skill or a monkey is a better driver than Lauda.

Dont get me wrong, the debate on how much technology is reasonable in F1 is very different from the debate on how tech aids prevents skilled drivers from shining. The first one is a good one and the other a stupid one.

To me F1 is suposed to be about engineering and driver skill.

/ Fx

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

Post

Anonymous wrote:I dont understand what you people have against technology. For instance just look at TC and LC and full auto gearboxes. When FIA introduced these did the racing become different from the previous year ? Did these "aids" help the lesser driver catch up with the faster ones ?

To me the TC of a F1 car is an aid just like the steeringwheel is. Its what you do with it that counts.

Tech aids simply change the skillrequirement that the drivers need to have in order to be the fastest.

Just look at Lauda. Lauda said something like "Even a monkey can drive the car". When Lauda tried the Jaguar he spun and stalled the engine trying to be as fast as the regular drivers. Either you need to have serious skill or a monkey is a better driver than Lauda.

Dont get me wrong, the debate on how much technology is reasonable in F1 is very different from the debate on how tech aids prevents skilled drivers from shining. The first one is a good one and the other a stupid one.

To me F1 is suposed to be about engineering and driver skill.

/ Fx
Me, personally - I like to think that the driver is doing something that is very hard to do AND there is more chance of a mistake in the heat of battle. Just my preference.

Apart from that - I agree with you. A skilled driver (&/or race engineer) will use these aids more effectively than the un-skilled. I think Niki Lauda managed to prove that these are tricky and highly strung beasts that are hard to drive at 10/10ths.

Someone said as much very recently (Brundle or Blundel I'm sure) - the technology is the reason that young drivers can hop in these things and drive within a second of the regular guys with little trouble (just a bit of natural talent) - the hard bit is extracting those last few tenths/hundredths......... :twisted:
Last edited by RH1300S on Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dumrick
dumrick
0
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:36 pm
Location: Portugal

Post

F1's became more aero-dependent not only because of regulations, but also because of increasing aero efficiency. If a F1 team would make a car today with 1990's regs it would be completely diffrent from a 1990's car (high-nose, turning vents, additional wings...)! So, it's weird to suggest that it would allow for close racing without loosing downforce!

Concerning this wing proposal, it really seems to work on a turbulent area! It's efficiency must surely be a lot lesser than today's wing. It should carry also a reduction of front wing downforce, to allow correct downforce distribution F/R.

Cyco
Cyco
0
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 1:44 pm

Good Idea

Post

I personally think this is an impressive idea to emerge from the FIA. Some of their idea in the past have not been perfect (grooved tyres) in trying to achieve what they want (more overtaking) but at least they were trying to combat the advances made by the aero guys.

The older rules only allowed overtaking due to the inefficencies of the car design (high drag/downforce). With modern aero development the overtaking issues would be the same.

I'm with dumrick in that I believe that this could cause some major loss of downforce overall to keep the car balanced, but with 17 months till the first race with this I'm sure some of the teams are already modeling it.

BTW Manchild, Why the serve hatred of the FIA? As a side point with a ZeroShift gearbox design there will be no need for a clutch even if paddles were banned.

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

Post

Scuderia_Russ wrote: The teams were forced to increase the height of the sidepods in '95 to increase the lateral protection for the driver in the event of an accident, they would prefer them to be lower for aero purposes.
Yeah its a fine line, i am just trying to think of a way they can rule out the flip ups and little wings, without saying "No silly little wings and stuff like that" in the rules.

Anybody think that the new rear wing will make it harder for the refueler to get clear at pit stops?

Guest
Guest
0

Post

RH1300S: Technology for sure changes aspect or the point of attention and that has consequences, but does it make sport less fun or exciting to watch ? Just look at when LC was allowed, the starts were exciting and unpredictable, in my opion the starts were better with LC than without.

I have a faint memory that one of them(Brundle or Blundel) said something like that and that F1 was better in the old days. I also remember that a young German in 1991 got a break with Jordan at Spa-Francorchamps a track he had never driven on and ended up qualifying ahead of both Brundle and Blundel in a car he only briefly had tested at Silverstone. I believe skill is everything and that technology can never make up for skill. Technology can decrease or increase the distance between a good and a better driver depending on different circumstances. Look at Barichello TC has certainly not helped him close the distance to Schumacher.

This year both Button and Alonso put their cars in the wall, Schumacher spun during a safetycar period and Montoya spun his car during a race. I like to believe that the drivers are still doing something incredibly difficult in collaboration with modern technology. Besides I want Schumacher to win because he is a better and faster driver not because the other drivers or teams make misstakes(like bringing the wrong tire :D).

I like brave and bold passes like Alonso´s pass on Schumacher at Suzuka, the problem I have with that pass is that it should have happened alot sooner! Schumacher is good on defence but still when being as slow a he was at the time Alonso should have been able to pass him right away. The thing preventing Alonso from passing Schumacher sooner was the "aero" problem an that is why I find it much more urgent to solve this problem than to get rid of electronic gizmos.

/ Fx

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

Post

@ Guest - Hard to disagree :D 8)

I still have prefernces :wink: