- 01 Jul 11, 16:53#263659
A bit dated perhaps but the state of F1 today drives his point home all the harder.
Want to Fix F1? Forget V-8s. Ban Downforce!
BY CSABA CSERE
March 2005
Other than Ferrari fanatics around the world, of which there are certainly many, who was happy with the 2004 Formula 1 season? I don't know any fans who were energized by Michael Schumacher's winning 12 of the first 13 races as he cruised to his fifth consecutive world championship in his overdog Ferrari, which earned the Prancing Horse its sixth consecutive constructors' championship.
Not only did Schumacher and Ferrari dominate the season, but they also achieved their victories in the most antiseptic fashion. Whether attending a race in person, as I did the Spanish and U.S. Grands Prix, or viewing the action on the Speed Channel, excitement was scarce. Schumacher started from the pole position in eight of the season's 18 races, winning those rounds with apparent ease. During his five other wins, Schumacher would consistently and mysteriously grab the lead and establish a comfortable cushion well before the end of the race.
In fact, Schumacher and company would typically seize the lead in the pits. This leadership in race strategy and pit work, combined with the fastest car and best driver, explain the season's outcome. And Ferrari deserves credit for assembling such a consistently superior effort. But it sure didn't make for interesting racing.
At the same time, technical variety and innovation seem at an all-time low in Formula 1. Twenty years ago, the cars were powered by fours, sixes, eights, and twelves, either naturally aspirated, turbocharged, or supercharged. Moreover, suspension designs varied significantly, as did aerodynamic configurations. Today, in the interests of cost savings, the cars are remarkably similar. They are all required to use naturally aspirated V-10s. Their suspension configurations are substantially the same. And with the exception of the oddball curlicue, the aero packages are essentially identical.
This enforced uniformity is an effort to control costs. But with current annual budgets running about $400 million for the winning teams, everyone thinks the series is still too expensive. The FIA has responded with several proposals for the 2006 season to further reduce costs.
As you may have heard, the plan is to reduce engine displacement from 3000 to 2400cc and the cylinder count from 10 to eight. This being a 20-percent reduction in both cases, the idea is to cut engine power while maintaining the existing cylinder modules. But the regulations actually go much further than this.
Current rules allow any angle between a V-10's two cylinder banks, but the proposed 2006 rules mandate a conventional 90-degree bank angle. The new rules also do away with the existing five-valve option, forcing a four-valve design. They also limit the maximum cylinder bore to no more than 3.86 inches (98.0 millimeters), the bore center spacing to no less than 4.19 inches (106.5mm), and the minimum engine weight to 208 pounds, and they ban variable-geometry intake systems, variable camshaft timing and lift, more than one injector per cylinder, and any use of magnesium, metal matrix composites, or various other exotic alloys and composites. And the detailed restrictions go on and on. By forcing the use of conventional construction and materials, the FIA expects these proposed engines will be less expensive to develop and manufacture.
These represent remarkable changes for a race series that considers itself to be at the technical apex of the sport. Given that the new BMW 3-series is about to go on sale with a magnesium block, the Ford GT and several production motorcycles have two injectors per cylinder, and numerous engines use variable cam timing and five valves per cylinder, these changes, if implemented, will make F1 engines less sophisticated than many contemporary mass-produced powerplants. Sounds a little like NASCAR, on a somewhat higher technical plateau.
Although these changes might save the teams some money, cheaper engines and somewhat less power are not going to make the racing any more interesting. To accomplish that, Formula 1 needs to do something that will make it easier for one driver to outbrake another while entering a corner, or draft another driver in a curve to make it easier to pass on a subsequent straightaway.
Currently, outbraking another driver is extremely difficult because the braking distances are so short. Today's Grand Prix cars can slow from 200 to 50 mph in about 2.3 seconds and in less than 400 feet. Leave your braking even a 10th of second later than your opponent, and you will be entering the 50-mph corner at 55. Schumacher can't pull that off.
Even an exotic sports car such as the Porsche Carrera GT requires something more than 1000 feet to slow from 200 to 50 mph. That's two and a half times as long as a Grand Prix car takes, and the difference is caused by downforce. At 200 mph, a modern GP car develops as much as 4000 pounds of aerodynamic downforce, or two and a half times the weight of the car. That's why the car can brake at more than 5.00 g at 200 mph.
This same downforce is what prevents one racer from closely following another through a high-speed corner. The disturbed air slipping and sliding off the front-running car prevents a closely following competitor from developing optimal downforce. Without this aerodynamically induced grip, the following car can't negotiate a corner as quickly as the leading car, essentially losing any chance to pass on subsequent straightaways.
The answer to both of these competition-smothering problems is simple. Get rid of the downforce—all of it, or at least most of it. With zero downforce, braking distances from high speeds would nearly double, making it far easier to pass while slowing for a corner.
Similarly, eliminating downforce would make it possible to draft in corners and pass far more easily on straightaways. Moreover, cornering speeds would be reduced, enhancing safety, and with less grip, power oversteer would again be a factor rewarding drivers with more-sensitive throttle control.
Getting rid of downforce is easy. Ban front and rear wings, along with barge boards and other aerodynamic contrivances. Then raise ride height sufficiently to destroy the efficiency of underbody diffusers. If the billboard area lost with the wings is needed for commercial purposes, add a vertical tailfin above the engine bay.
More passing, closer racing, power oversteer—how could such racing not be better?
Want to Fix F1? Forget V-8s. Ban Downforce!
BY CSABA CSERE
March 2005
Other than Ferrari fanatics around the world, of which there are certainly many, who was happy with the 2004 Formula 1 season? I don't know any fans who were energized by Michael Schumacher's winning 12 of the first 13 races as he cruised to his fifth consecutive world championship in his overdog Ferrari, which earned the Prancing Horse its sixth consecutive constructors' championship.
Not only did Schumacher and Ferrari dominate the season, but they also achieved their victories in the most antiseptic fashion. Whether attending a race in person, as I did the Spanish and U.S. Grands Prix, or viewing the action on the Speed Channel, excitement was scarce. Schumacher started from the pole position in eight of the season's 18 races, winning those rounds with apparent ease. During his five other wins, Schumacher would consistently and mysteriously grab the lead and establish a comfortable cushion well before the end of the race.
In fact, Schumacher and company would typically seize the lead in the pits. This leadership in race strategy and pit work, combined with the fastest car and best driver, explain the season's outcome. And Ferrari deserves credit for assembling such a consistently superior effort. But it sure didn't make for interesting racing.
At the same time, technical variety and innovation seem at an all-time low in Formula 1. Twenty years ago, the cars were powered by fours, sixes, eights, and twelves, either naturally aspirated, turbocharged, or supercharged. Moreover, suspension designs varied significantly, as did aerodynamic configurations. Today, in the interests of cost savings, the cars are remarkably similar. They are all required to use naturally aspirated V-10s. Their suspension configurations are substantially the same. And with the exception of the oddball curlicue, the aero packages are essentially identical.
This enforced uniformity is an effort to control costs. But with current annual budgets running about $400 million for the winning teams, everyone thinks the series is still too expensive. The FIA has responded with several proposals for the 2006 season to further reduce costs.
As you may have heard, the plan is to reduce engine displacement from 3000 to 2400cc and the cylinder count from 10 to eight. This being a 20-percent reduction in both cases, the idea is to cut engine power while maintaining the existing cylinder modules. But the regulations actually go much further than this.
Current rules allow any angle between a V-10's two cylinder banks, but the proposed 2006 rules mandate a conventional 90-degree bank angle. The new rules also do away with the existing five-valve option, forcing a four-valve design. They also limit the maximum cylinder bore to no more than 3.86 inches (98.0 millimeters), the bore center spacing to no less than 4.19 inches (106.5mm), and the minimum engine weight to 208 pounds, and they ban variable-geometry intake systems, variable camshaft timing and lift, more than one injector per cylinder, and any use of magnesium, metal matrix composites, or various other exotic alloys and composites. And the detailed restrictions go on and on. By forcing the use of conventional construction and materials, the FIA expects these proposed engines will be less expensive to develop and manufacture.
These represent remarkable changes for a race series that considers itself to be at the technical apex of the sport. Given that the new BMW 3-series is about to go on sale with a magnesium block, the Ford GT and several production motorcycles have two injectors per cylinder, and numerous engines use variable cam timing and five valves per cylinder, these changes, if implemented, will make F1 engines less sophisticated than many contemporary mass-produced powerplants. Sounds a little like NASCAR, on a somewhat higher technical plateau.
Although these changes might save the teams some money, cheaper engines and somewhat less power are not going to make the racing any more interesting. To accomplish that, Formula 1 needs to do something that will make it easier for one driver to outbrake another while entering a corner, or draft another driver in a curve to make it easier to pass on a subsequent straightaway.
Currently, outbraking another driver is extremely difficult because the braking distances are so short. Today's Grand Prix cars can slow from 200 to 50 mph in about 2.3 seconds and in less than 400 feet. Leave your braking even a 10th of second later than your opponent, and you will be entering the 50-mph corner at 55. Schumacher can't pull that off.
Even an exotic sports car such as the Porsche Carrera GT requires something more than 1000 feet to slow from 200 to 50 mph. That's two and a half times as long as a Grand Prix car takes, and the difference is caused by downforce. At 200 mph, a modern GP car develops as much as 4000 pounds of aerodynamic downforce, or two and a half times the weight of the car. That's why the car can brake at more than 5.00 g at 200 mph.
This same downforce is what prevents one racer from closely following another through a high-speed corner. The disturbed air slipping and sliding off the front-running car prevents a closely following competitor from developing optimal downforce. Without this aerodynamically induced grip, the following car can't negotiate a corner as quickly as the leading car, essentially losing any chance to pass on subsequent straightaways.
The answer to both of these competition-smothering problems is simple. Get rid of the downforce—all of it, or at least most of it. With zero downforce, braking distances from high speeds would nearly double, making it far easier to pass while slowing for a corner.
Similarly, eliminating downforce would make it possible to draft in corners and pass far more easily on straightaways. Moreover, cornering speeds would be reduced, enhancing safety, and with less grip, power oversteer would again be a factor rewarding drivers with more-sensitive throttle control.
Getting rid of downforce is easy. Ban front and rear wings, along with barge boards and other aerodynamic contrivances. Then raise ride height sufficiently to destroy the efficiency of underbody diffusers. If the billboard area lost with the wings is needed for commercial purposes, add a vertical tailfin above the engine bay.
More passing, closer racing, power oversteer—how could such racing not be better?
"I'll bet ya a hundred and five thousand dollars you go to sleep before I do."
--Dobbsie
--Dobbsie
I'd like that too!
