F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

[Just_a_fan]

The majority of the spray is water lifted by the tyres - that is then incorporated in to the wake. The cars don't really suck water off the track like a vacuum cleaner (although doubtless some moisture will be lifted that way it will be insignificant compared to the amount of water moved by the tyres. It's why a dry line starts as two tyre tracks, not a full car's width of dry track.

And it's worth remembering that if they reduce the spray then they will increase the time it takes for the track to dry. The guards will just cause most of the water to fall back on to the track behind the tyre.

The best solution to the problem is the development of porous tarmac that can handle the stresses of F1 cars. That benefits all users of the track, of course, which is useful gain for the circuit's owners - many fewer weather related safety issues.

Okay, but weren’t f1 tyres just as wide in the 80/90s? When the show ‘never’ stopped?

They didn't have as much downforce. The spray is not only caused by water displacement. It's also caused by the aero lifting the spray further.

Less downforce, different aero, but there was still spray one couldn't see through. What has changed is the acceptance of the risk associated with driving through the spray at 180mph...

[AR3-GP]

Okay, but weren’t f1 tyres just as wide in the 80/90s? When the show ‘never’ stopped?

They didn't have as much downforce. The spray is not only caused by water displacement. It's also caused by the aero lifting the spray further.

Less downforce, different aero, but there was still spray one couldn't see through. What has changed is the acceptance of the risk associated with driving through the spray at 180mph...

The cars were slower in the 90's. Top speeds may be similar, but cornering speeds are much higher now. Average speed is higher. For a fixed quantity of spray, visibility is more difficult the faster you go.

The risk itself is actually greater. Every crash will be at higher speeds.

[Just_a_fan]

They didn't have as much downforce. The spray is not only caused by water displacement. It's also caused by the aero lifting the spray further.

Less downforce, different aero, but there was still spray one couldn't see through. What has changed is the acceptance of the risk associated with driving through the spray at 180mph...

The cars were slower in the 90's. Top speeds may be similar, but cornering speeds are much higher now. Average speed is higher. For a fixed quantity of spray, visibility is more difficult the faster you go.

The risk itself is actually greater. Every crash will be at higher speeds.

Once visibility is effectively zero, the speed you're driving in to it is irrelevant. But, yes, potentially any accident will be higher energy today. The cars are safer, of course, but there just isn't the appetite to see lives put at risk unnecessarily.

[Vanja #66]

Wouldn't the use of outwash devices, whilst good for reducing the amount of water entrained in the wake, have an adverse effect on the ability of the cars to follow? Reducing outwash was a key part of the new rules, after all.

The FIA didn't really prevent teams from generating decent outwash with sidepods, so on the front tyre nothing would change in my view. The rear tyre could have a different scuplting of the arches, as long as it covers the full wheel spray, but leaves the car open-wheeled

[AR3-GP]

Indycar used to have these hideous things called bumper pods. They were suspended in place by the beam wing.

[mzso]

There was spray. A lot of spray.

For example:
LinkTube



And, who can forget this one:
LinkTube



There has been a change in the level of risk that is acceptable, too, which has framed the issue in a different light.

So the issue is excessive whining. No big secret.

[mzso]

The cars are safer, of course, but there just isn't the appetite to see lives put at risk unnecessarily.

Then the course is pretty clear. Stop racing altogether. But that still leaves many risks, so we should stop using motor vehicles, and don't walk anywhere, stay home instead, because it adds a lot of danger.

[Just_a_fan]

Wouldn't the use of outwash devices, whilst good for reducing the amount of water entrained in the wake, have an adverse effect on the ability of the cars to follow? Reducing outwash was a key part of the new rules, after all.

The FIA didn't really prevent teams from generating decent outwash with sidepods, so on the front tyre nothing would change in my view. The rear tyre could have a different scuplting of the arches, as long as it covers the full wheel spray, but leaves the car open-wheeled

The issue appears to be dealing with the zone immediately above the tarmac. If one watches the Valkyrie wet testing - a useful stand in as it's got big tyres, tunnels, etc., we can see the water that's lifted off the tarmac is pulled inwards and upwards to form the rooster-tail of spray. Capturing that water as it's first lifted and dropping it back down as large droplets that are less likely to be caught by the wake, seems to be the key. The front tyres' spray is controlled by the bodywork on the Valkyrie, of course, but doubtless a similar solution applied there would help too. Presumably that's why the sketch seen so far has large clam-shell devices very low down - to simply turn spray in to large droplets. Add some texture to the tyre-facing surface and you'd probably capture a majority of the water.



One side effect of dealing with the spray like this is, of course, that the track won't dry nearly so quickly - most of the lifted water would be deposited back on to the track. One could see a race that starts wet staying wet even long after the rain itself has abated. The inter might never get used in such a case.

[CMSMJ1]

They didn't have as much downforce. The spray is not only caused by water displacement. It's also caused by the aero lifting the spray further.

Less downforce, different aero, but there was still spray one couldn't see through. What has changed is the acceptance of the risk associated with driving through the spray at 180mph...

The cars were slower in the 90's. Top speeds may be similar, but cornering speeds are much higher now. Average speed is higher. For a fixed quantity of spray, visibility is more difficult the faster you go.

The risk itself is actually greater. Every crash will be at higher speeds.

Agree with the points above by all of you

However, logically - (and blowing my own trumpet) - the reduction in tyre width is a win win
Less spray - footprint is smaller
Slower speeds - as footprint is smaller
Safer as aquaplaning reduced with slimmer tyres
Safer - speeds are slower

Root cause is the width of tyres and the power of the wake - I wonder where the CDG wing idea has gone?

[Just_a_fan]

Less downforce, different aero, but there was still spray one couldn't see through. What has changed is the acceptance of the risk associated with driving through the spray at 180mph...

The cars were slower in the 90's. Top speeds may be similar, but cornering speeds are much higher now. Average speed is higher. For a fixed quantity of spray, visibility is more difficult the faster you go.

The risk itself is actually greater. Every crash will be at higher speeds.

Agree with the points above by all of you

However, logically - (and blowing my own trumpet) - the reduction in tyre width is a win win
Less spray - footprint is smaller
Slower speeds - as footprint is smaller
Safer as aquaplaning reduced with slimmer tyres
Safer - speeds are slower

Root cause is the width of tyres and the power of the wake - I wonder where the CDG wing idea has gone?

F2 tyres are narrower than F1 tyres and they still suffer from the spray/visibility issue. How narrow would you have to go before the spray was markedly reduced? And what are the unintended consequences of that? Inability to handle the power is one that comes to mind.

And the root cause is the open wheel nature of the cars. A big lump of bodywork behind the rear tyres would massively help the issue.

[mzso]

I wonder where the CDG wing idea has gone?

Gone to the "Ewww, it doesn't look like what we're used to" hell.

And the root cause is the open wheel nature of the cars. A big lump of bodywork behind the rear tyres would massively help the issue.

Luckily that's trivial to solve. Just don't have them open. There are wast amounts of examples for race cars that don't have the tires out in the air stupidly.

[Just_a_fan]

I wonder where the CDG wing idea has gone?

Gone to the "Ewww, it doesn't look like what we're used to" hell.

It didn't work, basically.

And the root cause is the open wheel nature of the cars. A big lump of bodywork behind the rear tyres would massively help the issue.

Luckily that's trivial to solve. Just don't have them open. There are wast amounts of examples for race cars that don't have the tires out in the air stupidly.

F1 is an open wheel series. Cover the wheels up and it becomes another sports car prototype, basically.

I don't have a problem with that, actually, but F1 is currently the pinnacle open wheel formula in the racing stable of the FIA so it's a huge change.

[mzso]

F1 is an open wheel series. Cover the wheels up and it becomes another sports car prototype, basically.

I don't have a problem with that, actually, but F1 is currently the pinnacle open wheel formula in the racing stable of the FIA so it's a huge change.

Not basically, not at all. It had covered wheeled cars before.

Open wheel formula, is essentally meaningless. It's just one arbitrary and very nonsensical thing.

[Just_a_fan]

F1 is an open wheel series. Cover the wheels up and it becomes another sports car prototype, basically.

I don't have a problem with that, actually, but F1 is currently the pinnacle open wheel formula in the racing stable of the FIA so it's a huge change.

Not basically, not at all. It had covered wheeled cars before.

Open wheel formula, is essentally meaningless. It's just one arbitrary and very nonsensical thing.

As I said, it's currently open wheeled. It's been open wheel since the mid-50s?

Yes, it's arbitrary but so is the requirement for only 4 wheels. Or a requirement for a super licence.

[CMSMJ1]

I was only kidding with the CDG...but yeah..

Tyres wise - JaF - why not make them 70% the size they are now. They were made huge just for the regs in 2017, right?

There is a lack of grip in wet anyways, so losing more isn't really going to matter, right?