FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[killem2]

I've been reading on and off about F1 cars from, the 70s, 80s, 90s and such, and it says ground effects have been banned since like the 80s. Is that because they were pricey back then and were ruled out because only certain teams could afford it or is it just something banned and has been that way with out much thought?

Just curious.

[Hammer278]

I believe the main reason was safety. Ground effects were allowing cars to take corners at frightening speeds, and coupled with low safety measures at the time were resulting in too many deaths. The technology surrounding GE had high potential and cars were simply going faster and faster until they decided to slow them down.

The safety is much improved today which is why there are many asking for it again.

[EagleF1-27]

I believe the main reason was safety. Ground effects were allowing cars to take corners at frightening speeds, and coupled with low safety measures at the time were resulting in too many deaths. The technology surrounding GE had high potential and cars were simply going faster and faster until they decided to slow them down.

The safety is much improved today which is why there are many asking for it again.

This, plus if you hit something like another car and got launched into the air, the sudden loss of ground effect meant the cars flew quite a height and distance before they crashed back into the ground. As evidenced by Villeneuve's fatal crash at Zolder and Pironi's career ending crash at Hockenheim.
It was these incidents that effectively brought about the end of ground effect in F1.
Also, as the cars had to have extremely stiff suspension to cope with the downforce, drivers would get battered just trying to drive the things through the corners.

[killem2]

I never saw the crash so I dont know the stats of the lift off, but was it any worse than webber taking off in valencia last year?

[stonemonkey]

I never saw the crash so I dont know the stats of the lift off, but was it any worse than webber taking off in valencia last year?

It's maybe not that the severity of a bad crash would be worse but that reliance on ground effect could make crashes of that severity more frequent. If there were crashes like Webbers or like Kubicas a few years ago in Canada happening several times a season then the chances of serious injury or worse go up.

EDIT: Although in Kubicas case, a loss in downforce might have resulted in him clearing the wall and going head on into the traffic coming out of the hairpin, horrific as it actually was that could have been even worse.

[Gaz]

Ground affect works by duckling the car to the race track by creating negative pressure underneath the car.

So the car could take corners a much greater speeds than a non-ground affect car.

If the car lost this vacuum on a corner the car would loose a massive amount of grip and be thrown off by the g force.

[killem2]

It is all so strange. All these things that seem like they would be safer for drivers as in keeping on the road, become violently deadly if they fail.



So is it true 2013 we might see them come back? Are they just going to spit on the fans and make the drivers use 3 cly diesel engines to counter act the benefits of the effects?

[stonemonkey]

It is all so strange. All these things that seem like they would be safer for drivers as in keeping on the road, become violently deadly if they fail.

Racing drivers drive to the car's limit, extending the car's capabilities does not equal making the car safer, instead it means that the car will be going faster or be in a position it wouldn't otherwise be in when something goes wrong.

So is it true 2013 we might see them come back? Are they just going to spit on the fans and make the drivers use 3 cly diesel engines to counter act the benefits of the effects?

I think there are many ways ground effect can be used, the current front wings might use some sort of ground effect to some extent and I imagine if it does make a comeback then it'll be heavily regulated.

[Gaz]

they might bring it back as F1 is alot safer now. There is talk of big offs if this adjustable rear wing sticks open because of the lack of drag when breaking

[Hexagram]

Also, as the cars had to have extremely stiff suspension to cope with the downforce, drivers would get battered just trying to drive the things through the corners.

I remember Piquet passing out on the podium after winning his home GP due to exhaustion after an extra long race with ground effects.

[youtube]bskUWD8EFyA[/youtube]

If they bring ground effects back into F1, drivers won't be losing weight no more for KERS they will be working out to build up muscle.

Not in favour of it though, Webber would have probably been killed in Valencia, his car would have gone 2-3 times higher into the air.

[Gaz]

Muscle building wouldn't cut it, they'd need G suits to stop them passing out halfway though a corner.

[texasmr2]

Muscle building wouldn't cut it, they'd need G suits to stop them passing out halfway though a corner.

Would be kinda like trying to drive the RBR X1 .

[geetface9]

Ground affect works by duckling the car to the race track by creating negative pressure underneath the car.

So the car could take corners a much greater speeds than a non-ground affect car.

If the car lost this vacuum on a corner the car would loose a massive amount of grip and be thrown off by the g force.

As this poster said, the vacuum disappears and the car loses grip and just slides right off the track. I think I read somewhere a few weeks ago that the vacuum created by ground effect can be lost very easily too, just by simple bumps here and there, so that compounded the issue

[vlad]

I think that's why Red Bulls were faster in high speed corners last year.

[killem2]

I think that's why Red Bulls were faster in high speed corners last year.

Because of ground effects?