F1 2017 car design vote

[OO7]

The problem is that two cars can't occupy the same space at the same time. A trailing car that would be quicker given different conditions has three options when approaching a corner:

• crash into the leading car, aka "the Maldonado"
• slow down - thus lose downforce - in order to follow directly behind the leading car
• take a different line - thus losing speed, thus losing downforce

Okay, so if we focus on "slow down - thus lose downforce - in order to follow directly behind the leading car":
Firstly we have eliminated wake turbulence as a problem, as per your earlier post "It would happen even if the adverse effects of wake turbulence were somehow magically eliminated."

Losing downforce (by slowing) to say inline with the car ahead isn't really a problem. While the chasing car will have lost downforce (all other things being equal e.g tyre performance), it will still produce at least as much as the car ahead. Having to stay inline happens in all forms of road racing, even motorcycle racing where there is often only one line, yet we see plenty of overtaking there. In the scenario you describe, all the chasing car has to do is stay close enough until they reach a straight, where it can slingshot past with the aid of the slipstream.

One problem is modern 'Tilke' circuits. These are often designed with a slow speed corner leading onto a long straight. Exiting the corner at low speed, with the 'accordion effect' taking place as well as less effective slipstreaming, (due to the accordion effect and the low initial speed) makes overtaking very difficult without quite a significant pace advantage from the chasing car.

[SR71]

Why is it that contemporary F1 fans subscribe to this DOGMA that dirty air is a problem and that somehow a following car should have the right DF and clean air?

Since when is a chasing car entitled to anything outside of the basic (passing) rules of engagement?

Correct me if I'm wrong but RaceCarEngineering did a study that showed a well design floor could maintain balance in the chase car even with a substantial DF loss on the front wing....

1) Never again will we see low aero F1 cars - we need solutions that take us forward not backwards
2) Aero solutions that maintain BALANCE not peak DF should be the aspiration of future rule sets
3) the chasing driver always has to overcome several setbacks - loss of total DF is one of them - loss of balance NEED NOT be

[bhall II]

In the scenario you describe, all the chasing car has to do is stay close enough until they reach a straight, where it can slingshot past with the aid of the slipstream.

Bad idea. The best way I've seen it contextualized is this: the next time you're out for a drive, closely follow a semi-trailer truck (lorry) at the same speed. Then try to overtake the truck. You'll see that it requires a helluva lot of power to make it stick. And while there's certainly a difference in output among the different PUs in F1, it's not enough for that tactic to be a viable one in most situations.

That's what makes overtaking an art.

It also alludes to one of the reasons why Tilke's circuits can be problematic, despite the intention to improve chances for overtaking. Tight, low-speed corners encourage dive-bombing, and that severely drains a car's momentum.

[OO7]

Bad idea. The best way I've seen it contextualized is this: the next time you're out for a drive, closely follow a semi-trailer truck (lorry) at the same speed. Then try to overtake the truck. You'll see that it requires a helluva lot of power to make it stick. And while there's certainly a difference in output among the different PUs in F1, it's not enough for that tactic to be a viable one in most situations.

You say "bad idea" but that is pretty much one of two methods used to overtake. The first (and most effective) is to leave a small gap, drive through the corner a little quicker than your opponent, then use the momentum plus slipstream to pass. The second is to stay close enough and just use the slipstream on exit. I watched the GP3 races (online) at Spa and Monza and in those races saw cars on occasion pass one another completely (fully in front) before reaching the braking zone. If the chasing car is close to the car ahead 5m and at relatively high speed (145mph), the slipstream will be very strong and easily worth 15m of extra momentum over a 700m acceleration zone.

[bhall II]

You say "bad idea" but that is pretty much one of two methods used to overtake. The first (and most effective) is to leave a small gap, drive through the corner a little quicker than your opponent, then use the momentum plus slipstream to pass.

That's why I said the other way is a bad idea.

This is what springs to mind...


(2015 Spanish GP)

[OO7]

You say "bad idea" but that is pretty much one of two methods used to overtake. The first (and most effective) is to leave a small gap, drive through the corner a little quicker than your opponent, then use the momentum plus slipstream to pass.

That's why I said the other way is a bad idea.

This is what springs to mind...

http://i.imgur.com/Wr6Rbgn.png
(2015 Spanish GP)

That's an apples to oranges comparison though bhall. In Hamilton's case he had to deal with wake turbulence in the faster sections preventing him from getting close enough and the accordion effect in the slow sections (sector 3 and in particular the slow chicane at the end of the lap).

[bhall II]

That's an apples to oranges comparison though...

As are comparisons to GP3. Different tires, brakes, mechanical setups, etc., mean like-for-like comparisons will be misleading.

And how do you know that Hamilton's issues were the result of wake turbulence? (Drivers can't feel downforce, only grip.)

I'm not saying the effects of wake turbulence are totally benign. I just think the problem is about eleventy different kinds of overstated, and the measures taken to address it have done more harm than good, because they're all analogous to undergoing brain surgery to cure a mild headache.

[OO7]

That's an apples to oranges comparison though...

As are comparisons to GP3. Different tires, brakes, mechanical setups, etc., mean like-for-like comparisons will be misleading.

And how do you know that Hamilton's issues were the result of wake turbulence? (Drivers can't feel downforce, only grip.)

I'm not saying the effects of wake turbulence are totally benign. I just think the problem is (waaaaay) overstated, and measures taken to correct it have done much more harm than good, because they're all analogous to getting brain surgery to cure a mild headache.

The GP3 comparison was just to show how similar cars (which also suffer from wake turbulence) can get enough of a slipstream to pass down the straights. You used a car pulling out from behind a lorry as an example, so GP3 cars in a race should also be a fair example.

I'm generalising now because I can't remember the specifics of that race, other than Hamilton not being able to get past Vettel. I'm assuming the situation was the same as pretty much every other contemporary F1 race, where a significantly faster car struggled to get past the car ahead. I'm assuming that Hamilton was lapping much faster than Vettel, allowing him to close down the gap between them rather quickly (e.g 1 second a lap), then as soon as he got to around 1 second behind, his progress halted.

I've just had brief skip through the 2015 Spanish GP and Hamilton (ignoring DRS and high power modes) couldn't really get closer than 8 or 9 tenths. This gap is significantly larger than it was in the 80's and 90's, e.g Mansell vs Senna Portugal 1989 (opening laps) or Senna vs Prost Japan 1989. Imagine if those older cars had DRS! Overtaking would have been a mere formality most of the time.

The wake turbulence problem is significant. In Spa this year Hamilton struggled to get DRS against Ricciardo (often lost a great deal of time through S2 where downforce is important), despite being much quicker.

[bhall II]

My example wasn't meant to be a like-for-like comparison; your example inherently depends upon such a construct, because you're effectively saying that the mechanical characteristics of a GP3 car are identical to those of a Formula 1 car. Otherwise, your example doesn't work.

And this...

I've just had brief skip through the 2015 Spanish GP and Hamilton (ignoring DRS and high power modes) couldn't really get closer than 8 or 9 tenths.

...is extreme cherry picking unless it's your contention that reduced horsepower can't possibly degrade performance. The same applies to any comparison of cars equipped with different engines/fuel loads, e.g. cars from the '80s and '90s.

I recognize that what I'm saying here is counterintuitive. I think it's because anecdotal evidence has been allowed to reign virtually unchallenged for decades...

"I think that's one of the concerns that people have, because none of us really fully understand overtaking," [Pat] Symonds told ESPN. "We can apply some truisms to it, roughly it's a truism that if you've got more downforce then it's harder to overtake, but that's not completely true because there are certain aerodynamics that are more harmful than others. I don't think any of us really understand enough about it and it would be nice if we did.

[...]

"If I go back to the Overtaking Working Group, we did begin to understand that there were certain things you could do to the wake of a car that were less detrimental to the following car than other things might be," Symonds added. "But that was very basic bit of work, and the amount of work and the level it was done at, compared to the level of work we do in our day jobs, was very very low.

"If we took an aerodynamic group out of any of the teams and sent them away for a year and gave them plenty of money and plenty of facilities and gave them nothing to do other than understand overtaking, you would have some very interesting answers.

[Sevach]

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 32371.html

Extra long wheelbases(Amus so German language).

Also this

[OO7]

My example wasn't meant to be a like-for-like comparison; your example inherently depends upon such a construct, because you're effectively saying that the mechanical characteristics of a GP3 car are identical to those of a Formula 1 car. Otherwise, your example doesn't work.

My example wasn't like for like either, but it was more representative. The mechanical characteristics have nothing to do with it though, we are discussing aero and GP3 cars are spec, have aero and suffer from wake turbulence issues.

I've just had brief skip through the 2015 Spanish GP and Hamilton (ignoring DRS and high power modes) couldn't really get closer than 8 or 9 tenths.

...is extreme cherry picking unless it's your contention that reduced horsepower can't possibly degrade performance. The same applies to any comparison of cars equipped with different engines/fuel loads, e.g. cars from the '80s and '90s.

I think it is a fair comparison. Current cars have DRS to help close the gap to the car ahead, as well as DRS, so at the end of the straight they could have gained 6 tenths on the car ahead (4 tenths from DRS and 2 tenths from high power (Mercedes cars)). These gives a false impression of the aero related gap which then increases as they negotiate the fast twists and turns.

I recognize that what I'm saying here is counterintuitive. I think it's because anecdotal evidence has been allowed to reign virtually unchallenged for decades...

"I think that's one of the concerns that people have, because none of us really fully understand overtaking," [Pat] Symonds told ESPN. "We can apply some truisms to it, roughly it's a truism that if you've got more downforce then it's harder to overtake, but that's not completely true because there are certain aerodynamics that are more harmful than others. I don't think any of us really understand enough about it and it would be nice if we did.

[...]

"If I go back to the Overtaking Working Group, we did begin to understand that there were certain things you could do to the wake of a car that were less detrimental to the following car than other things might be," Symonds added. "But that was very basic bit of work, and the amount of work and the level it was done at, compared to the level of work we do in our day jobs, was very very low.

"If we took an aerodynamic group out of any of the teams and sent them away for a year and gave them plenty of money and plenty of facilities and gave them nothing to do other than understand overtaking, you would have some very interesting answers.

What Pat describes is slightly different to what we are talking about. He is essentially saying that they don't fully understand how wake turbulence effects the aero of a following car. Yes they understand that the following car will lose x amount of downforce, but the don't understand the flow patterns and fields around the chasing car. My concern is in the simple observable results (downforce lost and or minimum distances between the cars), not the flow patterns around the car. The latter is necessary to help develop aero solutions.

[bhall II]

...we are discussing aero and GP3 cars are spec, have aero and suffer from wake turbulence issues.

According to you. If you take that for granted, the rest of this is pointless, because your assumption will color everything that follows. You have to treat it as an unknown variable. When you do, you'll see that the preponderance of the evidence doesn't support the conclusion that wake turbulence in and of itself is a decisive factor when it comes to overtaking. And until that changes, it's folklore.

Like the Yeti. (And my humility.)

[OO7]

...we are discussing aero and GP3 cars are spec, have aero and suffer from wake turbulence issues.

According to you. If you take that for granted, the rest of this is pointless, because your assumption will color everything that follows. You have to treat it as an unknown variable. When you do, you'll see that the preponderance of the evidence doesn't support the conclusion that wake turbulence in and of itself is a decisive factor when it comes to overtaking. And until that changes, it's folklore.

Like the Yeti. (And my humility.)

The evidence does support the conclusion though. It's almost like having a car that loses hp as it approaches a car ahead of it, such a situation would make overtaking very difficult. The further the chasing car is to the leading car the more difficult overtaking is. If the chasing car is lapping faster than the leading car and wake turbulence isn't an issue, there should come a point at which the time gap will close to within 2 or 3 tenths, this doesn't happen however. Looking at team mates (very similar equipment) of today and comparing them to team mates in the past, it is clear that in the past the cars could follow more closely.

[mrluke]

We all know that cars used to be able to follow more closely than they can now, nobody is debating that. The question is why.

[bhall II]

...it is clear that in the past the cars could follow more closely.

Despite being at the controls of a world-class Dirty Air Maker, I'm pretty sure Kimi Raikkonen was none too pleased by the proximity of the ten drivers who managed to overtake him within the space of two laps during the closing stages of the 2012 Chinese GP.

There's a whole lot more to this than aero...



Believe me; I understand that this isn't easy to accept. The first guy who suggested that surgeons might wanna wash their hands before putting them into people was largely ignored (and ridiculed) for 20 years. We're simply not wired to readily accept iconoclastic ideas, especially if they originate elsewhere. I'm still coming to terms with the V6 turbo power units!