New formula idea

[Stradivarius]

What restrictions are you refering to?

How about the all out ban on using active suspension systems.
The all out ban on using electronics to manage tyre slip.
The all out ban on using anything that isn't a normally asperated 2.4l V8.
The all out ban on ...

Like you said yourself, there would initially be very different solutions before converging towards an optimum, so at the beginning there would of course be a lot of performance potential, even to the engines.

But if you take active suspension as an example, this was a very new technology in 1993 when Williams made it work much better than anyone else, not to mention the required hardware and software needed to make it work, which is now a much more mature technology. I suspect it would not take very long for all competitors to get reasonably close to an optimal solution, and then the potential advantage of improving further would be limited. I might also add that the aerodynamics would also vary more in the beginning before starting to converge towards an optimum.

Aero in F1 may well be restricted, but it's the least restricted part of the sport.

I realize that we are facing a definition problem here: If you define the "lack of restrictions" to be the potential of improvement within the regulations, then yes, I agree that aerodynamics is the least restricted part of the sport. I am sure that the current cars can still improve a couple of seconds in lap time by improving the aerodynamics, and I don't see any other area where this is possible within the regulations.

But this is really part of my point in the first place. If you define the amount of restriction as how much the current restrictions limit the performance, there is not doubt in my mind that aerodynamics is far more restricted than most other things. Having read many of your posts getting at least some impression of your technical knowledge, I am sure you would agree that removing all the aerodynamic restrictions that apply today, would make today's f1 cars lap several seconds faster (and that is an understatement). I guess I am not exagerating if I say they would lap at least 10 seconds faster on some circuits. Ground effect and moveable aerodynamic devices would increase the corner speeds significantly and make much more of a difference to the lap times than active suspension, brakes and differentials ever could.

[Tim.Wright]

Unfortunaly, not even the best pilot in the world would be able to push such a thing to its limit. It exceeds what humans can do. This thing should be fully automatic in order to keep things safe.

Fun fact: race cars are already running below their optimum because of the driver factor. The cars are designed and setup so that the rear axle is away from its limit in order to keep the car stable enough for the driver to control.

[Stradivarius]

it doesn't mean there are several seconds to be gained through developing new suspension, differential and brakes.

In my opinion, you would easily arrive at a several second improvement if you were unrestricted in brakes, suspension and differential.

Yes, I am not arguing with that. My point is that if these restrictions were actually removed, everyone would make their improvements and the lap time would go down several seconds right away. But then what? Would there then be enough potential of improvement left for one team to further improve by 2 seconds during a season?

I believe they would arrive close to an optimum fairly quickly, and then there wouldn't be much potential of improvement left.

[Tim.Wright]

I believe they would arrive close to an optimum fairly quickly, and then there wouldn't be much potential of improvement left.

I wouldn't agree with that. In the current very restrictive rules we can say that they take 3-4 years to converge (e.g. from the 2009 regulation change until now).

If you were to really open everything up, it would take decades to converge to an optimum.

[turbof1]

I agree with that. Ground effect seems to have a huge development potentional. Also if all limits were off, I think cars would be getting to supersonic speed, at which point airflow starts to behave different. Something which is completely not understood for cars.

[Tommy Cookers]

race tyre grip will will become unavailable long before Mach 1
tyres etc turn downforce into (a greater) sideforce, but not when they are made of metal

anyway, above a certain speed it will be better to throw away the car and use an aircraft
it's all a matter of having enough speed to use a suitably high wing loading (a small wing)
going beyond the present Red Bull planes could have such lapping some F1 circuits faster than the cars
a job for Mr Newey ?

car driver orientation is better for lateral 'g' than the aeroplane driver's orientation, though

[beelsebob]

But if you take active suspension as an example, this was a very new technology in 1993 when Williams made it work much better than anyone else, not to mention the required hardware and software needed to make it work, which is now a much more mature technology. I suspect it would not take very long for all competitors to get reasonably close to an optimal solution, and then the potential advantage of improving further would be limited. I might also add that the aerodynamics would also vary more in the beginning before starting to converge towards an optimum.

I'm not convinced. What makes you think that they would get so quickly so close to an optimal solution for everything that isn't aero, but wouldn't for aero?

But this is really part of my point in the first place. If you define the amount of restriction as how much the current restrictions limit the performance, there is not doubt in my mind that aerodynamics is far more restricted than most other things.

I think I'd agree with you, but only in so much as removing the restriction "no movable aero" would instantly open up for a massive improvement in performance. If you don't open that one up, I'm unconvinced that aero can gain you as much as clever electronics/computer control for all kinds of things like suspension, traction, etc.

Having read many of your posts getting at least some impression of your technical knowledge, I am sure you would agree that removing all the aerodynamic restrictions that apply today, would make today's f1 cars lap several seconds faster (and that is an understatement).

Definitely! But I also think that removing the restrictions on the amount of computer and electronic control of parts would make F1 cars lap several seconds faster. I think you're lacking imagination in how much you can get a computer to perfect all of this stuff, and in fact, how much benefit to aero having a computer do all this stuff would have. I think you're also lacking in imagination in how much work it would be to get this absolutely dead right.

[beelsebob]

I agree with that. Ground effect seems to have a huge development potentional. Also if all limits were off, I think cars would be getting to supersonic speed, at which point airflow starts to behave different. Something which is completely not understood for cars.

I'm unconvinced by the idea that cars would be approaching mach 1 – remember, the human race has only ever built one mach 1 car, and that involved 2 jet engines... Certainly with the limit on energy pre-stored before a race, I think mach 1 would be pretty much impossible (at least with current tech). That said, Cornering speeds twice what we're currently at, and straight speeds one and a half times the current I don't see as unreasonable.

[hollus]

There is no free downforce. Downforce grows at the expense of drag, although some sources of downforce are more draggy than others. There is no such thing as a free lunch and all forms of downforce generation involve, directly or indeirectly, slowing down the incoming air, which results in drag. Plus normally the optimal shapes for downforce, like a wide floor, at at odds with the optimal shapes for low drag.
So a strict fuel limit becomes de facto an effective drag limit if you are to finish the race an be fast, and that drag limit becomes indirectly a downforce limit. One could policy downforce (and consequently cornering speeds) simply by reducing the fuel allowance.

[beelsebob]

There is no free downforce. Downforce grows at the expense of drag

Not when you can change the profile of the wing with clever electronics.

although some sources of downforce are more draggy than others. There is no such thing as a free lunch and all forms of downforce generation involve, directly or indeirectly, slowing down the incoming air, which results in drag.

But that drag can be shed when the downforce is not necessary if you're allowed to move aero surfaces.

Plus normally the optimal shapes for downforce, like a wide floor, at at odds with the optimal shapes for low drag.
So a strict fuel limit becomes de facto an effective drag limit if you are to finish the race an be fast, and that drag limit becomes indirectly a downforce limit. One could policy downforce (and consequently cornering speeds) simply by reducing the fuel allowance.

Not when you don't ban movable aero you couldn't.

[Stradivarius]

But if you take active suspension as an example, this was a very new technology in 1993 when Williams made it work much better than anyone else, not to mention the required hardware and software needed to make it work, which is now a much more mature technology. I suspect it would not take very long for all competitors to get reasonably close to an optimal solution, and then the potential advantage of improving further would be limited. I might also add that the aerodynamics would also vary more in the beginning before starting to converge towards an optimum.

I'm not convinced. What makes you think that they would get so quickly so close to an optimal solution for everything that isn't aero, but wouldn't for aero?

I am not saying they will necessarily reach an optimum very quickly, I am saying that they will get close enough to an optimum that the largest benefits will be on aero. This means that even if your traction control and active suspension still has some potential for improving, the rewards of focusing on aero would probably by much higher.

But this is really part of my point in the first place. If you define the amount of restriction as how much the current restrictions limit the performance, there is not doubt in my mind that aerodynamics is far more restricted than most other things.

I think I'd agree with you, but only in so much as removing the restriction "no movable aero" would instantly open up for a massive improvement in performance. If you don't open that one up, I'm unconvinced that aero can gain you as much as clever electronics/computer control for all kinds of things like suspension, traction, etc.

Having read many of your posts getting at least some impression of your technical knowledge, I am sure you would agree that removing all the aerodynamic restrictions that apply today, would make today's f1 cars lap several seconds faster (and that is an understatement).

Definitely! But I also think that removing the restrictions on the amount of computer and electronic control of parts would make F1 cars lap several seconds faster. I think you're lacking imagination in how much you can get a computer to perfect all of this stuff, and in fact, how much benefit to aero having a computer do all this stuff would have. I think you're also lacking in imagination in how much work it would be to get this absolutely dead right.

Maybe I am lacking in imagination in how much could be done in many different areas. My reasoning is not so practical, but more fundamental:

What limits the performance of a race car is primarily grip (relative to weight) and power (relative to weight and drag/friction). In addition there is the secondary limitations that has to do with enabling the driver to get as close to the theoretical limits as possible.

The grip is limited by the friction coefficient of the tyres, the downforce and the distribution of the forces on the tyres. In this formula the tires are the same for everyone, so that leaves downforce and the distribution on the tyres. Active suspension will help both increasing the grip by distributing loads on the tyres in a more optimal way, especially when climbing the curbs, and can also help the driver in that it makes the car handle more like the driver wants. But what is it that makes an f1 car able to go through a non-banked high speed corner with more than 4 g lateral acceleration? The answer is aerodynamic downforce. Active suspension and traction control can only take you closer to the theoretical limit of an acceleration equal to g times the friction coefficient, i.e. if the friction coefficient is 1, the maximum acceleration is 1 g. This is an absolute theoretical maximum cornering speed no matter how sophisticated your active suspension and traction control is. Aerodynamics, however, can move the theoretical limit and allow the car to achieve accelerations several times higher.

When I think about it, the greatest benefit of active suspension is probably improved aerodynamics, as it will allow a very low ride height, massively increasing the downforce, and also keep the car level. So I am not sure if it makes sense to distinguish the two.


Anyway, whether or not aerodynamics are more important than active suspension and all kinds of electronic aids, the main focus would still be on other things than the energy efficiency which has a much smaller impact on the lap time than everything else combined, including both aerodynamics, active suspension and all kinds of electronic aids.