FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[acosmichippo]

I hear a common complaint here and elsewhere that F1 is too aero-dependent. Because cars don't work properly without a clean stream of air, they're not able to follow closely behind other cars in order to pass them. Can't say I disagree with that outright, but I do tend to disagree with the solution that is often followed by that complaint: somehow limiting aero effectiveness.

I've mentioned this before, but I really hate the idea of limiting anything on the car unless it's to improve safety or limit runaway spending. One way to lessen the dependence of aero wouldn't be to directly limit it, but to unfreeze the development of other aspects of the cars. I think we all would like to see this first, but since the teams seem to be happy with these freezes for cost limitation, I think we can rule this out for the foreseeable future.

My thought was this: Instead of KERS or DRS, why don't we bring back driver-adjustable wings? There could be two settings: one setting for "clean" air, and one for "dirty" air in traffic. If a driver finds himself stuck behind another car, he could switch the car to the preset "traffic" mode, where the wings would adjust to generate more downforce in the dirty air. This would allow him to follow the car in front more closely, and take advantage of overtaking windows more readily. And if that driver manages to pass the car in front, switch the wings back to "clean air" mode.

So, to sum it up, these are the reasons why I like this:

1) It's not another limitation on the cars that are suposed to represent the pinnacle of motorsport.
2) There are no built-in limitations like with KERS or DRS. Use it whenever you want.
3) The benefit is there to all cars at all times. Not like DRS where only the car behind has a a benefit of less drag on a straightaway.


What do you guys think?

[LewEngBridewell]

I'm in two minds about this subject of aero-dependence. On one hand, I would think the simpler-the-better with regards to F1 cars, but then again, there is a reason why F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport.... and being technologically advanced in these areas is thus to be expected...

It's an interesting concept with the adjustable wings. As an F1 fan, my knowledge limitations have always been centred on the technological side, so I'm waiting with eagerness to see what others think. I myself have not been disappointed with KERS and DRS. I've preferred the racing we've had this season compared to the days when a car that was much faster simply couldn't make a pass when hitting the dirty air.

[Hansy]

Although I know nothing about aerodynamics , that sounds like a cool idea

[acosmichippo]

I should add, I am by no means particularly knowledgeable in aerodynamics either. I get the big concepts, but I admit this may not be a feasible idea at all. Like I said, just brainstorming.

[scotty]

My thought was this: Instead of KERS or DRS, why don't we bring back driver-adjustable wings? There could be two settings: one setting for "clean" air, and one for "dirty" air in traffic. If a driver finds himself stuck behind another car, he could switch the car to the preset "traffic" mode, where the wings would adjust to generate more downforce in the dirty air. This would allow him to follow the car in front more closely, and take advantage of overtaking windows more readily. And if that driver manages to pass the car in front, switch the wings back to "clean air" mode.

But what's to stop the leading driver just using the adjustment too? It'd be a stalemate...

(Thread moved to The Pits)

[acosmichippo]

My thought was this: Instead of KERS or DRS, why don't we bring back driver-adjustable wings? There could be two settings: one setting for "clean" air, and one for "dirty" air in traffic. If a driver finds himself stuck behind another car, he could switch the car to the preset "traffic" mode, where the wings would adjust to generate more downforce in the dirty air. This would allow him to follow the car in front more closely, and take advantage of overtaking windows more readily. And if that driver manages to pass the car in front, switch the wings back to "clean air" mode.

But what's to stop the leading driver just using the adjustment too? It'd be a stalemate...

(Thread moved to The Pits)

If the leading car uses the "dirty air" setting clean air, then along with more downforce, they would also generate more drag, and be comparatively slower. This would not affect the trailing car since they're in the slipstream of the leading car.

[scotty]

Just to clarify are you saying the leading car couldn't use the traffic setting?

[acosmichippo]

Just to clarify are you saying the leading car couldn't use the traffic setting?

Correct. This is assuming that there is not a car in front of them as well.

The "traffic" setting increases downforce, which necessarily increases drag (which is affordable while in the slipstream of another car).

The "Clean air" setting decreases drag, which also decreases downforce (which is affordable while in clean air where the wings are optimized for downforce).

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

I'm shocked you don't remember this. Shocked, ...shocked I tell you. Shocked and appalled! Most of "you people" scoffed but a pretty comprehensive solution was offered here more than a year ago.

Beyond aero, the problem is overly-regulated car design that inevitably makes the cars more and more alike. Design convergence causes performance convergence. Lack of performance differential produces lack of overtaking. The FIA have got to get out of engine design and learn to be less meddlesome with the rest. In a sport that once produced everything from H-16s to four wheel drive gas turbine powered cars, I find it deplorable that today everyone are using 90° V-8s. And not because that makes them fastest but because the FIA commands it.

The variable front wing already has proved itself ineffective at improving overtaking (hint: they were 'standard' in 2009). An F1 car's grip -- along with just about everything else -- begins at the front wheels; if they don't stick, nothing that follows will either. How often do you see a car receive seemingly minor damage to the front wing, then the driver radios to his pit to complain to his engineer of pronounced understeer? So while an adjustable rear wing might let a car overtake where it otherwise couldn't, it does not address the problem of front end grip being exceedingly dependent upon clean air. It only gives the driver a limited ability to slingshot past when there is little to no sideloading on the tyres. Nor does the adjustable rear wing do anything to promote the principle that the best car (or driver) should win.

Cornering grip has three principle determinants: aerodynamic downforce, tyre compound and tread width. You can reduce any one and maintain the same relative cornering speeds by increasing one or both of the others. In the olden days, the hallmark of the best drivers was their ability to control the car in a four-wheel drift. That's because their cars were not pinned to the tarmac by 2 Gs of aerodynamic downforce. Nowadays, if a driver breaks all four tyres loose at speed and doesn't put it in the hay bales, it's front page news. Go to YouTube and watch some of the epic battles between Hunt and Lauda, or Andretti and Peterson. Their cars remained sideways half the bloody lap! So the short answer to the OP is to substitute an increase in mechanical grip for the current surplus of aerodynamic grip. That will get you started in the right direction.

Enzo Ferrari always used to say, aerodynamics is for those who can't build a proper engine.

[acosmichippo]

I'm shocked you don't remember this. Shocked, ...shocked I tell you. Shocked and appalled! Most of "you people" scoffed but a pretty comprehensive solution was offered here more than a year ago.

Beyond aero, the problem is overly-regulated car design that inevitably makes the cars more and more alike. Design convergence causes performance convergence. Lack of performance differential produces lack of overtaking. The FIA have got to get out of engine design and learn to be less meddlesome with the rest. In a sport that once produced everything from H-16s to four wheel drive gas turbine powered cars, I find it deplorable that today everyone are using 90° V-8s. And not because that makes them fastest but because the FIA commands it.

Well, I totally agree that the "Divergent Governance" strategy would be ideal, but my point in the OP was that FOTA doesn't want this to happen for fear of increased costs.

The variable front wing already has proved itself ineffective at improving overtaking (hint: they were 'standard' in 2009). An F1 car's grip -- along with just about everything else -- begins at the front wheels; if they don't stick, nothing that follows will either. How often do you see a car receive seemingly minor damage to the front wing, then the driver radios to his pit to complain to his engineer of pronounced understeer? So while an adjustable rear wing might let a car overtake where it otherwise couldn't, it does not address the problem of front end grip being exceedingly dependent upon clean air. It only gives the driver a limited ability to slingshot past when there is little to no sideloading on the tyres. Nor does the adjustable rear wing do anything to promote the principle that the best car (or driver) should win.

But were the wings in 2009 designed to increase overall pace in clean air, or were they designed with the intention to increase cornering performance in the wake of a leading car? And to further clarify, I don't just mean one variable wing - I mean both together. It sounds like you can't really adjust only one wing without completely throwing off the cornering balance of the car.

Cornering grip has three principle determinants: aerodynamic downforce, tyre compound and tread width. You can reduce any one and maintain the same relative cornering speeds by increasing one or both of the others. In the olden days, the hallmark of the best drivers was their ability to control the car in a four-wheel drift. That's because their cars were not pinned to the tarmac by 2 Gs of aerodynamic downforce. Nowadays, if a driver breaks all four tyres loose at speed and doesn't put it in the hay bales, it's front page news. Go to YouTube and watch some of the epic battles between Hunt and Lauda, or Andretti and Peterson. Their cars remained sideways half the bloody lap! So the short answer to the OP is to substitute an increase in mechanical grip for the current surplus of aerodynamic grip. That will get you started in the right direction.

Enzo Ferrari always used to say, aerodynamics is for those who can't build a proper engine.

Right, but as I said in the OP, this isn't a viable option in the current incarnation of F1. I'm all for the idea of opening up development on all aspects of the car, but it just isn't going to happen. The teams like saving money too much. But then if you want to go in the other direction and start limiting aero development, then I have two things to say to that: 1) that's going against your belief of "too much regulation in F1"; and 2) F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, and as such, it should have to tackle issues such as aerodynamics, not ignore them. It's part of the game whether you want it to be or not.

[scotty]

I'm sorry but that divergent governance idea is over-regulation in itself, so how the two can be mentioned in the same breath is, to me, madness.

As per the original actual topic i would say it's just seemingly a more comprehensive DRS...

[bud]

I hate that Enzo quote, always saw it as a dig at the British teams who were kicking his bottom constantly. Sore loser!

The answer to F1s aero woes is simple, it's in the name... Formula. Go back in time to a formula where overtaking was rampant say late 80s early 90s modernise the regs safety wise and wunderbar. Close hard racing.

[andrew]

Somehow get rid of the over-reliance on aero, go back to mechanical grip with the driver making more of a difference than they do now and get rid of KERS, DRS and fragile tyres would be a step in the right direction. However, I think that the teams would see this as going backwards as F1 would not be developing and using what is perceived as new tachnology (even though KERS has been around for years). It has been the natural evolution of F1 for the emphasis to shift to an over-dependance on aerodynamics.

[Jabberwocky]

why don't they just say right for this track you are allowed a maximum of x downforce. It is up to the teams to then make the cars as slippery as possible. from what I remember from college a slippery car produces less wake so tidier air.

I also think KERS should be come unrestricted and they limit the size of the fuel tanks.

[stonemonkey]

Standard simple rear wings with some degree of adjustment designed (with input from all teams?) to produce as little turbulence as possible and standard diffuser. And fatter rear tyres.