General aero discussions

[Just_a_fan]

Without aerodynamics, F1 cars would look like cars of the 1960s. These are the cars of the movie, Grand Prix, free on youtube. Much of the scenes in the movie are of actual F1 races.

I propose that spectator enjoyment would be great without aerodynamics. While it's hard to turn one's back on progress, aerodynamics in auto racing is too dangerous.

No, they wouldn't look like 1960s cars. Well, they would have no wings but they'd still be large and bulky units with things like halo on them. They'd also still have sidepods because of the cooling need of a modern combined-1000hp PU compared to the 300-400bhp units of the 1960s. And unless they banned any form of floor other than the bottom of the chassis tub itself, they'd still make downforce by virtue of running a floor near to the ground.

The aerodynamics aren't what makes F1 cars "dangerous", it's the open wheel nature of the cars that's most of the problem - the suspension is easily damaged causing crashes, the cars can be lifted if the wheel interlock, etc.. But even in those cases where large crashes occur (and they are rarely primarily the result of aerodynamics), the cars are remarkably safe. The last big scare was Grosjean's fire and that would have been fatal without halo (so no taking it off to make the cars look like 1960s cars).

As for spectator enjoyment, there are lots of series where aerodynamics doesn't play a big part (or any part) and they aren't nearly so well attended as F1 races are or watched on TV as much as F1 races are.

Interestingly, if one looks at lists of driver deaths in motorsport e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_d ... motorsport the majority aren't in high downforce cars. They're in things such as rally cars, sports cars, drag racing, etc. Yes, there are some Formula car deaths but they are remarkably rare, thankfully, in recent times. And the 1960/70s saw plenty of F1 deaths as the cars were death traps in a crash.

[mzso]

So, not doubting it would produce good racing, but how to market such formula that is, and looks, way slower than any local aero racing formula, even slower than some amateur-ish ones?

Sometimes I imagined that a F1 or similar class series could have a dual formula, one with downforce and one without. Same drivers, same teams one points system. One raced on Saturday, the other Sunday.

I would also guess that a modern engineer with modern CFD would manage to take a ruleset with a flat floor and no wings, with no vortex producing sharp edges, and still manage to produce significant downforce.

And unless they banned any form of floor other than the bottom of the chassis tub itself, they'd still make downforce by virtue of running a floor near to the ground.

I would think the first thing to do was to ban any tricks that might cause down-force. Large area flat floors near the tarmac would be an obvious no-no. I don't think they even make sense if the goal is only (or supposed to be) to decrease drag.
Did the old 60s cars even have any substantial flat areas on their bottoms? I see no bottom view photos, but the sides seem to curve inward a lot near the bottom.

Well, they would have no wings but they'd still be large and bulky units with things like halo on them. They'd also still have sidepods because of the cooling need of a modern combined-1000hp PU compared to the 300-400bhp units of the 1960s.

But would 1000hp PUs stay? There's only so much force you can pass through the tires without downforce.
I think it would make more sense to decrease size and weight as much as possible and sacrifice power. Like Chapman's famous design philosophy.

[Just_a_fan]

And unless they banned any form of floor other than the bottom of the chassis tub itself, they'd still make downforce by virtue of running a floor near to the ground.

I would think the first thing to do was to ban any tricks that might cause down-force. Large area flat floors near the tarmac would be an obvious no-no. I don't think they even make sense if the goal is only (or supposed to be) to decrease drag.
Did the old 60s cars even have any substantial flat areas on their bottoms? I see no bottom view photos, but the sides seem to curve inward a lot near the bottom.

Every car has some surfaces facing the ground (other than those designed to withstand land mines). If a surface faces the ground and is within the chord length (in this case the length of the floor) then it can be made to be in ground effect. Want to stop that? Then the rules are going to be massively restrictive.

Well, they would have no wings but they'd still be large and bulky units with things like halo on them. They'd also still have sidepods because of the cooling need of a modern combined-1000hp PU compared to the 300-400bhp units of the 1960s.

But would 1000hp PUs stay? There's only so much force you can pass through the tires without downforce.
I think it would make more sense to decrease size and weight as much as possible and sacrifice power. Like Chapman's famous design philosophy.

If you want to make the cars zero/low downforce and low power then there is already a series for that. It's called Formula 4.

And if you want to run low power, low weight and decent lap times, please do explain which safety systems will be abandoned. Tubs that can withstand crashes? Tubs that can withstand high speed side impacts? Halo? All of those things add weight. Remove weight from the chassis and you make the cars less survivable. That's great if you're sat in your den eating nachos watching men risk their lives for your entertainment.

Me? I've watched drivers die. I didn't find it entertaining in the least.

[mzso]

Every car has some surfaces facing the ground (other than those designed to withstand land mines). If a surface faces the ground and is within the chord length (in this case the length of the floor) then it can be made to be in ground effect. Want to stop that? Then the rules are going to be massively restrictive.

Increasing the ride-height a bit is massively restrictive?

If you want to make the cars zero/low downforce and low power then there is already a series for that. It's called Formula 4.

Also Bumper cars... Completely irrelevant. We're talking about F1. I didn't even raise the point of no-downforce F1.

And if you want to run low power, low weight and decent lap times, please do explain which safety systems will be abandoned. Tubs that can withstand crashes? Tubs that can withstand high speed side impacts? Halo? All of those things add weight. Remove weight from the chassis and you make the cars less survivable. That's great if you're sat in your den eating nachos watching men risk their lives for your entertainment.

Me? I've watched drivers die. I didn't find it entertaining in the least.

Missed the point by a mile. The teams wold want to sacrifice weight. If the huge engine power doesn't result in laptime gains, then then they would downsize engines until the best compromise is reached.

Your safety tangent is not relevant to the discussion.
And anyways I don't think that the cars are so heavy chiefly because of safety features. I think the bloated car size, tire size, too many PU stuff, material restrictions, and minimum weights are mostly to blame.

But since you brought it up I would do away with the halo, and wold have reinforced windshield, the would protect agains smaller stuff as well, like Massa's spring, and would allow to give back the peripheral vision of drivers. Also would allow the team do design their own crash structures instead a of crude uniform ones.

Mind you, if you save weight elsewhere you can reduce weight in the crash structures as well.

[Alan]

Glad to read your discussion of banning aerodynamics.

When a car produces aero downforce by any means, including a flat floor, the wake will have upwash. Aero downforce without upwash in the wake is impossible. Think Newton's law, "For every action there must be an opposite reaction". Perhaps rather than ban elements, such as wings and flat floors, cars would have to pass a test with instruments on the axles to verify that there was no aero downforce.

Eliminating aero downforce would reduce aero drag, especially at speed. So the cars would be faster on some parts of the course. Any aero force is proportional to speed squared, so the benefits of downforce would be small on slow corners and the additional drag at speed is a high price to pay for that small downforce on corners.

[Tommy Cookers]

... Eliminating aero downforce would reduce aero drag, especially at speed. So the cars would be faster on some parts of the course. Any aero force is proportional to speed squared, so the benefits of downforce would be small on slow corners and the additional drag at speed is a high price to pay for that small downforce on corners.

F1 aerodynamic changes over nearly 6 decades ? .....
tracks now have 20+ corners essentially to cap maximum speeds below what DF would otherwise engender
eg Silverstone for 35 years had 8 corners and (with DF) a 160 mph lap - now it has 18 corners

capping the power directly or indirectly to eg 200 hp was Paul Frere's answer to the DF problem
the 2026 cars are a step in this direction - less power and more efficient (active) DF

yes if there's no (aerodynamic) DF there is no following problem
and remember that a car's drag will tend to contribute to reduced contact force on its own front wheels

[Just_a_fan]

Every car has some surfaces facing the ground (other than those designed to withstand land mines). If a surface faces the ground and is within the chord length (in this case the length of the floor) then it can be made to be in ground effect. Want to stop that? Then the rules are going to be massively restrictive.

Increasing the ride-height a bit is massively restrictive?

If you want to make the cars zero/low downforce and low power then there is already a series for that. It's called Formula 4.

Also Bumper cars... Completely irrelevant. We're talking about F1. I didn't even raise the point of no-downforce F1.

And if you want to run low power, low weight and decent lap times, please do explain which safety systems will be abandoned. Tubs that can withstand crashes? Tubs that can withstand high speed side impacts? Halo? All of those things add weight. Remove weight from the chassis and you make the cars less survivable. That's great if you're sat in your den eating nachos watching men risk their lives for your entertainment.

Me? I've watched drivers die. I didn't find it entertaining in the least.

Missed the point by a mile. The teams wold want to sacrifice weight. If the huge engine power doesn't result in laptime gains, then then they would downsize engines until the best compromise is reached.

Your safety tangent is not relevant to the discussion.
And anyways I don't think that the cars are so heavy chiefly because of safety features. I think the bloated car size, tire size, too many PU stuff, material restrictions, and minimum weights are mostly to blame.

But since you brought it up I would do away with the halo, and wold have reinforced windshield, the would protect agains smaller stuff as well, like Massa's spring, and would allow to give back the peripheral vision of drivers. Also would allow the team do design their own crash structures instead a of crude uniform ones.

Mind you, if you save weight elsewhere you can reduce weight in the crash structures as well.

I was replying to Alan, not you. So, er, yeah.

[mzso]

I was replying to Alan, not you. So, er, yeah.

A strange way of doing that by quoting my comment and only mine, and responding to what's written in it.