why cant we have f1 downforce on road cars

[Cold Fussion]

You are massively over-estimating the capabilities of active aerodynamics and suspension.

[bhall II]

For those who says downforce increasing drag, it is irrelevant for cars like p1 since you dont have to have the spoiler etc up all the time, a push of a button solves that problem.

It's far from irrelevant. McLaren claims P1 generates 600kg of downforce. It would need 600% more to achieve equivalent performance to that of an F1 car due to its heavier weight, and an aero package capable of creating such prodigious downforce can't just be folded up and stowed away at the push of a button.

[rjsa]

Just add a Cl field here and everyone will be happy:

[livinglikethathuh]

Many people (including me) wouldn't be able to sustain F1 levels of lateral acceleration. 5Gs is too much for my neck, probably yours too.

[Phil]

why cant we have f1 downforce on road cars

The answer is in the question itself: because it's a road car.

What does it mean? Rather simple; Roads are very inconsistent. You have bumpy surfaces, smooth surfaces, different grip levels, different conditions from snow, ice to rain to outright dry. Everything from cold to hot asphalt. This ultimately leads that a road car requires a very wide operating window - opposed to anything track focused to even purpose specific like a F1 car.

The wider the operating window - the less focused it can be. Instead of having super stiff cars that would fall apart (eventually) on bumpy surfaces, a compromise needs to be found to suit the circumstances. To focus on downforce would mean that you are moving away from this compromise to something more focused, something that only benefits on a very predictable surface, like a race track. Hence you're moving away from the definition of what typical roads impose and as a result it would lead to a very dangerous car. Not to mention that it likely wouldn't be allowed anyway, given the road and safety regulations we have and that car makers need to conform to (i.e. to protect pedestrians in case of a collision).

Not to mention that downforce is only relevant at higher speeds anyway - speeds you rarely do on any road, even on roads where you have speed limits above 120kmh will you not have tight corners that would require any means of downforce that would require huge wings and crazy design choices on something that is essentially a rectangled box with 4 wheels.

In other words, it would be daft with little to no benefits at all. Even for hyper cars, which by definition are just as meaningless as most of these cars are bought for their prestige value and not their performance. Typically, any hot hatch is driven on average in more anger than these super exotica cars would be.

It's the same daftness like the bike vs car topic; To argue that a bike is quicker on the roads when the bike is anything but equipped to handle high speeds on unpredictable bumpy surfaces on the very limit. Oops, did I really just open that can of worms?

[mertol]

If a manhole cover has a radius of 40cm and weighs 100kg and a car with underbody area of 10m^2 passes over, it would need to generate more than 100*10/(pi*0.4^2)= 1989kg of downforce from the floor to lift it like in that movie "driven"

[Sevach]

For those who says downforce increasing drag, it is irrelevant for cars like p1 since you dont have to have the spoiler etc up all the time, a push of a button solves that problem.

It's far from irrelevant. McLaren claims P1 generates 600kg of downforce. It would need 600% more to achieve equivalent performance to that of an F1 car due to its heavier weight, and an aero package capable of creating such prodigious downforce can't just be folded up and stowed away at the push of a button.

And what that prodigious downforce would achieve is getting people killed, driving faster than they should.

[Just_a_fan]

If a manhole cover has a radius of 40cm and weighs 100kg and a car with underbody area of 10m^2 passes over, it would need to generate more than 100*10/(pi*0.4^2)= 1989kg of downforce from the floor to lift it like in that movie "driven"

Manhole covers don't weigh 100kg though...most are much less.

[PlatinumZealot]

Aerodynamic effects only kick in above 60 miles per hour or so. So it will be very useless on your typical road car. For a hyper car like mclaren P1 the body shape will be spoiled by all the wings and holes in the body and your car will look like an lmp1 car.

[mertol]

They could make a fan-car and have the downforce at any speed. It also solves the problem with drag and the fan could be turned on only for the turns. Only problem would be throwing rubbish in the air.

If a manhole cover has a radius of 40cm and weighs 100kg and a car with underbody area of 10m^2 passes over, it would need to generate more than 100*10/(pi*0.4^2)= 1989kg of downforce from the floor to lift it like in that movie "driven"

Manhole covers don't weigh 100kg though...most are much less.

My bad but the force should be a lot bigger than the weight of the cover if you expect it to throw it in the air in the split second that the car spends over.

[JMS11]

Aerodynamic effects only kick in above 60 miles per hour or so.

This is 100% wrong and just plain stupid. Are you saying air doesn't exist until you go 60mph, and then poof, all the sudden it exists?

Take a look at Formula SAE/Formula Student, or winged autocross classes like A-mod. Their operating speeds are mostly in the 30-60 mph range and aerodynamics have a huge effect on the performance of those cars.

[turbof1]

Aerodynamic effects only kick in above 60 miles per hour or so.

This is 100% wrong and just plain stupid. Are you saying air doesn't exist until you go 60mph, and then poof, all the sudden it exists?

Take a look at Formula SAE/Formula Student, or winged autocross classes like A-mod. Their operating speeds are mostly in the 30-60 mph range and aerodynamics have a huge effect on the performance of those cars.

I think what he is trying to say is that it doesn't become relevant until a certain speed. Road cars typically weight a few times what a formula SAE car weights, so the additional grip relative to the weight is a lot different. You'll need higher speeds in a road car to have the same effect.

[Edax]

If a manhole cover has a radius of 40cm and weighs 100kg and a car with underbody area of 10m^2 passes over, it would need to generate more than 100*10/(pi*0.4^2)= 1989kg of downforce from the floor to lift it like in that movie "driven"

Tell that to Bernd


But seriously. I have been wondering about it myself. Back in the eighties and nineties there were a lot of high performance cars on the road with big splitters and wings fitted from stock.



I think the aerodynamically inclined gentlemen on this forum can point tons of reasons why most of these devices are not that effective but that is besides the point. The whole idea of having a supercar is the illusion that it can go fast, despite most of them spending their life revving at traffic lights or in gridlock.

And now the aero has disappeared. That does not make sense. Obviously a wing is needed for real performance as the track versions of these cars have them. So why settle for half the illusion; "my car is incredibly fast except when I have to go around a corner".

The only thing I can think of is that the regulators nowadays do not look kindly on devices which have the potential to convert pedestrians and cyclists to french fries.

[J.A.W.]

why cant we have f1 downforce on road cars

The answer is in the question itself: because it's a road car.

What does it mean? Rather simple; Roads are very inconsistent. You have bumpy surfaces, smooth surfaces, different grip levels, different conditions from snow, ice to rain to outright dry. Everything from cold to hot asphalt. This ultimately leads that a road car requires a very wide operating window - opposed to anything track focused to even purpose specific like a F1 car.


It's the same daftness like the bike vs car topic; To argue that a bike is quicker on the roads when the bike is anything but equipped to handle high speeds on unpredictable bumpy surfaces on the very limit. Oops, did I really just open that can of worms?

Yeah right.. "daftness" indeed..

So just how do - any - of those - Isle of Man - Superbike racers - manage to even finish a race..

( FYI Phil, the lean angle a bike uses generates downforce.. which is why bikes do corner faster than road cars)..

[Erunanethiel]

If a manhole cover has a radius of 40cm and weighs 100kg and a car with underbody area of 10m^2 passes over, it would need to generate more than 100*10/(pi*0.4^2)= 1989kg of downforce from the floor to lift it like in that movie "driven"

Tell that to Bernd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUMbiHNJkpk

But seriously. I have been wondering about it myself. Back in the eighties and nineties there were a lot of high performance cars on the road with big splitters and wings fitted from stock.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/imag ... 01AR8lk5sw
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/imag ... wJRmmeRLNQ

I think the aerodynamically inclined gentlemen on this forum can point tons of reasons why most of these devices are not that effective but that is besides the point. The whole idea of having a supercar is the illusion that it can go fast, despite most of them spending their life revving at traffic lights or in gridlock.

And now the aero has disappeared. That does not make sense. Obviously a wing is needed for real performance as the track versions of these cars have them. So why settle for half the illusion; "my car is incredibly fast except when I have to go around a corner".

The only thing I can think of is that the regulators nowadays do not look kindly on devices which have the potential to convert pedestrians and cyclists to french fries.

So those wings and splitters on f40 and that clk dont work?