F1technical.net

Is there a realistic way to regulate aerodynamics to make them less effective? Not being an Aero or CFD expert I'm unsure that there's any real way to do this, no matter what some people might say. sure you can make the wings smaller and smaller, but due to sponsor reasons plus the look of F1, that will only happen up to a certain degree. Is there any solution?

Reduce engine power.

So is the idea of limiting aero to:
1) Try to reduce costs and create a more balanced field?
or
2) Try to slow down the cars because of safety?

Reason 2) makes sense considering the nature of the sport and I take no issue. While I would not want to take it to the limit of WRC and dirt track power sliding everywhere, making sure that cars can't do 5g's around a corner and flip if upended makes sense.

Reason 1) won't happen. (Sarcastically) I mean we could eliminate aero and turn this into north american stock car racing. Seriously, look at all the work (and money) the works teams took on when the 2004 regs where added? CFD, windtunnel, track testing, etc. New regs just tend to make the engineers more creative, not reduce costs. And no one seems to play this better right now than they team from Maranello.

I tend to think that the works teams shouldn't actually race, but be suppliers only. As in NASCAR, the field could be kept roughly even by 'penalizing' faster teams (maybe by adding a widget, or reducing chord lengths, limiting diffusing length/angle). Let the suppliers spend the heavy development costs. Let the racing teams figure out the setup and strategy.
-Paul C

People talk about reducing engine power to reduce the danger of high speed corners. But if grip levels remain the same, wouldn't the speed in corners remain the same as well? Sure the cars would be handicapped on top end power, but rarely ever are the cars pushing 19K rpm and 340kph in a turn. Since it's downforce compared with centripital force that determines how fast a car can take a turn, wouldn't a decrease in power have negligible effect on cornering?

there are three aims of reducign performance through aero,
reduce downforce
increase drag
decrease sensitivty

Reducing downforce but cutting wing sizes decreases drag and actually increases ctraightline speeds, teams soon find the lost grip. This year there was a six percent loss in rear DF, the teams already have more Df for similar drag, thats a gain of arond eight percent over the winter...!

Increasing drag is rarely applied but worked for Champcars with the handford device (a bulky rear wing) This woudl suit f1 cars as it would increase sponsor area, reduce both cornering and top speeds.

Cars lose downforce behind other cars and when going over bumps etc, raising the floor and diffusers (hence the step in 95) decreases both sensitivty and grip

Overall the to slow the cars the first area shoudl be the front and rear wing design, banning 3d curvature and enforcing a handford type cross section. Cutting the size and increasing the height of the diffuser. Raisng the front wing again. tightening up bodywork dimensional tolerances in the regs to close off the windows in which to put bargeboards and winglets.

I would understand raising parts of the car, but I really dont want to see them limit the differences from car to car. Formula One is about technology and to see them ban 3D wing sections and force all the cars to be even more similar than they already are would be painful. I agree the cars are very fast, but to me I would rather the FIA put on tougher regulations on track safety than comprimise the technology that makes Formula One the pinacle of motorsports. And we have seen some very seriouse shunts, but the drivers have been ok. They could increase survival cell safety which would likely make the cars heavier, without taking from their technology.

I agree w/ rough_wood. If the FIA wants to increase saftey and slow the cars down, make the survival cells have to withstand a heavier impact. To make the cells stronger they will have to be heavier, thus reducing the amount of ballast that can be run. Currently I think its somewhere around 30mph. Which I think is crazy since the cars are always going faster than than, except for stopping in the pits and perhaps the hairpin at Monaco.

what about mandating a vshaped cross section bottom? this way you´d have alomost zeropossibility to run the car in groundeffect.To have something of half a flat bottom ,the car would need to roll substantially ,wich contradicts the neccesities ofmodern suspension thinking .Cut of the Underfloor at front and rear axle height completely,
so there is no leverage .Make sure they cannot run the car lower than 100 mm at full bump.
Put a box on top of the fuelcell ,where the ballast has to be put if you had any.this puts effectively an end to the rediculous putting gold ballast into the carbonfibre floor...
This way all downforce created from underbody is gone forwever,the raised cg-heights will slow the cars to no end.
It is surely eyebrowraising that all regulations to reduce speed never adress the problem itself,and why?Well what to do with the millions spent for a windtunnel,the most important tool nowadays,as they say...even Mr Sauber would hate the scenario to have spent that much money for no benefit in the future...and I like that,aero rules!to hell with the horsepowerjunkies.

I wondered if fte FIA could stipulate that the wings had to be perforated, with a set number of holes of a given diameter in a given plane, in a set pattern. This would reduce downforce, increase drag, and yet still allow large sponsors logos.
It would also allow teams to carry on developing the wings to minimise these problems and thus not hamper creativity which is a vital factor of F1.

As speeds creep back up, as they inevitably would, the number/size/orientation of the holes could be altered to compensate.

But I'm not an aerodynamicist, so please tell me if I'm talking through my hat.

uzael wrote: Since it's downforce compared with centripital force that determines how fast a car can take a turn, wouldn't a decrease in power have negligible effect on cornering?

Generating lateral force in corners the tyres also generates a drag (think about the slip angle and you’ll see it) that is proportional to vertical load (downforce + mg). Increasing downforce you increase the drag, both aero and tyre drag, in both cornering and straight line (also rolling resistance grows with vertical load), so you need more power (power required is drag * v), but, to put that power on the ground often you need more downforce... so more power etc...
Currently F1 cars have so much power that the ideal aero setup in most of the tracks is close to the maximum SCl the car can generate, reduce the power and they will be forced to use less downforce. Obviously that’s not a definitive answer, they will always work on aero to improve efficiency and on tyres etc, so they will be back to the same point they are now, but it could require, maybe, a bit more time. The rate of improvement on aerodynamics is too fast to be stopped working directly on aero parts and the potential for performance improvement too high to assume the teams will decide to reduce the windtunnel/CFD work, the only real way to reduce aerodynamics importance would be to race on the moon.

BTW, the reason car had such increment of performance this year isn’t downforce, it’s just FIA inability to understand the consequences of each new rule they introduce. FIA decided to increase pit lane speed. FIA decided to use in qualifying the fuel load for the first stint, FIA allows 20 people working contemporarily on the car during the pit stop so they can change tyres and refuel in 8 seconds. All the FIA new rules in the recent years pushed designers decisions towards an increment of number of stops and towards an aero design aimed to work at best in clean air in the single lap qualifying and in the 1-2 laps before the stop when the driver in front of you is already in the pit lane. Last year the new rules were introduced too late to modify cars and strategies were somehow locked by the cars characteristics but this year teams fully adapted and now we have 70-80 km (at maximum) long stints, with 70-80 km lasting tyres, with a variation of car weight of just 5-6% in the stint (it used to be 30+ % in early 90s), perfect setup and no difference in performance between qualifying, start of the race and end of the race, any time the car stops for refuelling the crew resets the car potential. Driver slows down at the end just because he prefers to, position is secured and he has just to cruise to the end preserving engine etc, but the potential of the car, bar reliability issues, is constant during the whole race. It’s obvious that car speed increases, it’s optimised to work always in qualifying trim.

scarbs wrote: ↑

17 Apr 2004, 11:24

there are three aims of reducign performance through aero,
reduce downforce
increase drag
decrease sensitivty

Reducing downforce but cutting wing sizes decreases drag and actually increases ctraightline speeds, teams soon find the lost grip. This year there was a six percent loss in rear DF, the teams already have more Df for similar drag, thats a gain of arond eight percent over the winter...!

Increasing drag is rarely applied but worked for Champcars with the handford device (a bulky rear wing) This woudl suit f1 cars as it would increase sponsor area, reduce both cornering and top speeds.

Cars lose downforce behind other cars and when going over bumps etc, raising the floor and diffusers (hence the step in 95) decreases both sensitivty and grip

Overall the to slow the cars the first area shoudl be the front and rear wing design, banning 3d curvature and enforcing a handford type cross section. Cutting the size and increasing the height of the diffuser. Raisng the front wing again. tightening up bodywork dimensional tolerances in the regs to close off the windows in which to put bargeboards and winglets.

What exactly is a Hansford Device?

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2018, 16:38

What exactly is a Hansford Device?

A gurney-flap-like spoiler attached across the back of the rear wing to greatly increase drag. The result is a massive increase in the slipstream, which improves wheel-to-wheel competition as well as multiple lead changes per lap.

Vyssion wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2018, 17:48

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2018, 16:38

What exactly is a Hansford Device?

A gurney-flap-like spoiler attached across the back of the rear wing to greatly increase drag. The result is a massive increase in the slipstream, which improves wheel-to-wheel competition as well as multiple lead changes per lap.

Oh god, was that the abomination that Indycar/Cart used in the 80s??? On the bottom surface of the wing?

Promote overtaking by having less mid speed corners, and removing chicanes at the end of straights. Reducing downforce won't affect overtaking, increasing drag will because the slip stream effect will be stronger.

As it is now, the cars can stay with each other because of the high drag, but they can't follow closely because they lose too much aero balance. As teams find more consistent downforce following will become easier, and slipstreaming will be more effective, therefore, I think more downforce is the answer. At worst nothing changes, at best cars will be able to follow closer.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

21 Mar 2018, 18:49

Promote overtaking by having less mid speed corners, and removing chicanes at the end of straights. Reducing downforce won't affect overtaking, increasing drag will because the slip stream effect will be stronger.

As it is now, the cars can stay with each other because of the high drag, but they can't follow closely because they lose too much aero balance. As teams find more consistent downforce following will become easier, and slipstreaming will be more effective, therefore, I think more downforce is the answer. At worst nothing changes, at best cars will be able to follow closer.

I don't think more downforce is the answer. The slipstream is the same effect as dirty air, it's just beneficial on a straight and detrimental in a corner so has a different name. The problem with relying on the slipstream is that car's can't get close enough in corners to make use of it - even with DRS in some cases.