They would pivot the entire wing at the base.
In what sense?
Why not limit the length as well I wonder? I think the current length is noxious for balance and a handicap to taller/heavier drivers.JordanMugen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:17 am[*]Maximum(or mandatory?) wheelbase of 3400mm (down from 3600 to 3650mm of 2019 cars)
This sounds a lot like what I suggested, but was ridiculed and harassed for in the current aero thread:JordanMugen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:17 am[*]Flat floor rule is generally abandoned, with no more tea tray etc
[*]Champcar style underbody inlet with vortex generator strakes. Prescribed tunnel inlet area. The current unrestricted bodywork areas around the bargeboards are presumably eliminated.
[*]Greater diffuser angle than 2019 F1 cars with the diffuser starting further up the car and ahead of the ahead of the rear axle, similar to older CART cars or the Swift Formula Nippon car
What purpose does vortex generation serve? Guiding the air more effectively upwards?JordanMugen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:17 am[*]Champcar style underbody inlet with vortex generator strakes. Prescribed tunnel inlet area. The current unrestricted bodywork areas around the bargeboards are presumably eliminated.
And what have them waste resources to build anything they want and then arbitrarily ban it? This would be ridiculous, and also not a formula.Maplesoup wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:12 pmSuspension changes to deal with the 18 inch rims will probably add quite a bit of weight.
Personally I think they should give a spending cap and open up the regulations but before any specific concept can be used on a car it should be ok'd by the FIA and made public before it's introduction. The FIA could then choose too reject certain concepts if they don't feel that they fit in with the spirit of F1 or open wheel racing.
Wow. You're being utterly ridiculous.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:39 pmLooks like F1 is going to be merging with Indy sometime around 2025. Basically a spec series with little for the teams to do other than turn up and polish the paintwork.
The idea would be to approve or reject concepts and designs as they are generated not as they are built and appear on the race cars. Which is something teams do quite alot like with the blown wheel rims concept which has been accepted.mzso wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:56 pmAnd what have them waste resources to build anything they want and then arbitrarily ban it? This would be ridiculous, and also not a formula.Maplesoup wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:12 pmSuspension changes to deal with the 18 inch rims will probably add quite a bit of weight.
Personally I think they should give a spending cap and open up the regulations but before any specific concept can be used on a car it should be ok'd by the FIA and made public before it's introduction. The FIA could then choose too reject certain concepts if they don't feel that they fit in with the spirit of F1 or open wheel racing.
“At the moment, we have a car running in CFD and windtunnels which when they are behind another car loses 5% of its downforce. That is pretty small. At the moment, when they get nose-to-tail, the car behind loses 50% of the downforce.
“It’s no surprise, we’ve done that with ground effect. We are using the underside of the car a lot more and it gives us smoother wake behind the car. It’s a dramatic difference, but it’s not the only thing we need to change to get close racing. If we don’t get them together, it doesn’t matter how well they can race each other.”
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/four ... ontent=wwwThe FIA is understood to have received four bids from companies interested in fulfilling the tender for a supply of a gearbox cassette to all Formula 1 teams for the 2021-2024 seasons.
Its really difficult to discuss the concept, the regulations haven't been released yet. FOM's idea of what a project INDIA car might look like should end up being completely different as to what the teams actually come up with.
It's not so simple, "ground effect" reduces upwash which makes the wake hang around for a following car. The rear wing creates upwash and inwash which helps to pull the wake up and pull "clean" air from around the car in to fill the space. Total head deficit is indeed the primary loss in a wake but the local upwash will effectively reduce the incidence of wing surfaces. It's why downwash from the y250 is desirable - because it increases the effective incidence of the floor, making more downforce. So if you have a big underbody but no upwash then the wake hangs around and will hurt a following car more, if you have a big rear wing and little underfloor then the wake will have a lot of upwash which will then hurt another car.DiogoBrand wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:49 pmWhen talking about wake and loss of downforce by following another car, I'm always reminded of this video.
Willem says that what causes the loss of downforce is not the upwash, but rather because the longitudinal movement of the air created by the car in front reduces the delta between the air speed (which is ideally zero) and the car behind, which in turn makes for a loss in downforce and drag, since both of them are proportional to the air velocity squared if I'm not mistaken.
I'm really excited, and even a bit skeptical about Brawn's claim of the loss of downforce going from 50 to 5%. I just wonder why in those pictures the diffuser isn't wider and the brake ducts still feature that load of winglets. I mean, wouldn't it be better to have a clean brake duct and let the diffuser pretty much fill the gap between the rear tyres?
Also, I hope they can create rules that not only allow for more ground effects, but also for simple downforce there, otherwise it will just be a race of which team can spend more money developing the floor of their car.
I don't even know where to start on this...DiogoBrand wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:49 pmSo to me the only way to make cars easier to follow is ground effect. Since the asphalt is "holding" the air for the car passing over it, the wake of the car in front won't matter.