What about imposing a drag limit in aero rules?

[Andres125sx]

So teams have one different floor/difuser for each ride height?

Or those are the usual aero updates throughout the season?

You should be looking at the monkey seats (or lack thereof). The downforce they generate in their own right is negligible, but the upwash they produce increases the efficiency of the diffuser andhelps keep air flow attached to the rear wing. The design varies according to circuit requirements.

Here's the one Mercedes used at Spa...

http://i.imgur.com/cTqXQjL.jpg

Ok, thanks for the explanation, but that does not answer my question. Do F1 teams use different difussers depending on ride height or that´s only the usual aero development?

Assumming they use different floor and difussers depending on ride height, then next time I read/hear some complain about PU costs I´ll laugh louder than usual



What if rules only allow one floor/diffuser for the whole season?

Would that force designers to make it efficient at any ride height? Is that possible?

I know efficiency would drop drastically, but DF is so restricted it could be compensated easily removing some other restriction.

[bhall II]

- To my knowledge, diffusers themselves aren't circuit-specific. But, ancillary components like the rear wing, monkey seat, etc, are circuit-specific, and they affect underbody performance in different ways from race to race.

- I think a floor freeze is impractical, because it would limit the scope of aero development all over the car, and it would lock-in the advantage enjoyed by the team that has the best diffuser, or underbody design, straight out of the box. In that way, it would be the aero equivalent of the 2014 PU freeze.

[Andres125sx]

That could be solved with a standard floor. Yes I know standard and F1 should never be put together, but if it can solve one of the biggest problems in F1 it may be worth

Try to look further ahead, would be posible to design a floor and diffuser wich can take different ride heights?


If possible, with active suspensions and a limited ride height wich can be lowered when following a car the overtaking problem would be finally solved

[bhall II]

Try to look further ahead...

I have, and it's exactly why I keep telling you there's no solution to this "problem."

• Standardizing components reduces the number of areas in which performance differentiation can be realized.
• Overtaking aids lose potency as teams converge upon optimal solutions.
• Virtually all aero development increases sensitivity to turbulence.
• Qualifying typically orders the starting grid in such a way that cars with the greatest potential to overtake aren't often behind cars with the greatest potential to be overtaken.
• A lack of on-track overtaking is not exclusive to series that make extensive use of aerodynamics.

...would be posible to design a floor and diffuser wich can take different ride heights?

In general? Yes. In context? Unlikely. There are too many interactions between the various aero elements on a Formula One car.

[Andres125sx]

Try to look further ahead...

I have, and it's exactly why I keep telling you there's no solution to this "problem."

• Standardizing components reduces the number of areas in which performance differentiation can be realized.

Obviously, but if it may reduce perfomance differentiation needed to overtake in a higher ratio, then it may be worth

[*]Overtaking aids lose potency as teams converge upon optimal solutions.
[*]Virtually all aero development increases sensitivity to turbulence.

That´s the reason some solution wich provides a technical advantage to the car at the back is needed. DRS is just that, but it provides a different advantage (top speed in straights) than the problem wich needs a solution (reduced DF when in a slipstream) so it does not equal both cars, one will be faster in the corners while the other will be faster in the straights. Far from perfect and causes unfair situation as some cars will be able to take advantage of it (those with a good PU) while others will be unable to take advange of DRS (STR, McH...)

The solution must solve the initial problem instead of causing a different unbalance

[*]A lack of on-track overtaking is not exclusive to series that make extensive use of aerodynamics

But cars wich are more than a full second faster than the car in front and cannot overtake are exclusive to series that make extensive use of aerodynamics, so I agree this is a common problem for any motorsport, but it´s magnified by aerodynamics

...would be posible to design a floor and diffuser wich can take different ride heights?

In general? Yes. In context? Unlikely. There are too many interactions between the various aero elements on a Formula One car.

I understand no solution will be ideal, there will always be compromises. But my reasoning is based on a fact, DF is very restricted by rules. Teams could increase DF by a factor of 2 easily if rules allow it, so there must be some way to provide a DF advantage to the following car wich compensates or minimize dirty air problem. Even if it´s not perfect or means some part of the car work under not so favourable conditions normally

There are hundreds rules imposing limits to F1 cars, there must be some way to limit DF in standard setup wich can be removed on the go to provide an advantage to the following car, so in the end DF created is similar to the car in front.



Thanks to you Bhall I know this problem will never be solved with equal cars because DF is based on clean air so a slipstream make it imposible to create similar downforce. But that´s based on equal cars. With active aero and active suspensions there are thousands combinations to increase DF on the go, we only need to find some wich is doable, we only need to be creative enough

[bhall II]

[strad]

Dunning Kruger
So that's the name of the study or one very much like it that I read about many years ago and have seen play out so often in my work place.
Thank You