Reduce downforce or allow ground effect?

[Gilsen]

A month ago there was a discussion on this forum about whether tyre changes should be allowed or pit stops should be banned at all. Now, I'd like to have that same sort of discussion about the aerodynamics.

As we all know the aerodynamics make close racing really difficult, causing a lack of overtaking. But in the Formula 1 there's a debate going on how this problem should be resolved. During the last couple of seasons two solutions were proposed:

1. A massive reduction of downforce. On 5 July the FIA proposed a reduction of 90% and to keep the current drag levels by 2008. The proponents of the downforce reduction argue that downforce will always reduce the braking distance and improve the car handling, and hence make it more difficult to pass.
2. The return of restricted ground effect. Some, like Geoff Willis and Sam Michael, argue that the downforce reductions of the past decade didn't improve the racing. This group ways to the 1995 season. That year the FIA dramatically reduced downforce to improve the safety, but overtaking became even more difficult.

What's your opinion on this?

[Pingguest]

I advocate the restricted ground effect. It’s a good compromise: the downforce won’t have to be reduced massively and we’ll see a lot more ‘close racing’. There three possible ways to introduce a restricted ground effect:

• The use of a skirt. The GP2-cars have a skirt. It prevents the air from leaving the underbody and creates a low pressure and hence downforce;
• The use of flat bottoms with large grooves. The car is sucked down by creating a partial vacuum underneath;
• Combination of both solutions above.

CART and GP2 are two upon ground effect based racing series. The reason that CART continued with venturis is that it was found that slipstreaming cars were less unbalanced by running in the turbulent wake of the car ahead, if they had venturis. With enough front axle downforce being developed by the underbody, and hence less dependence on the front wing, loss of front wing downforce changes the balance of the car by a much smaller amount.

A lot of other racing series have relatively more ground effect than Formula 1. The use of ground effect has minimized in Formula 1, by the introduction of ‘trapped flat bottom’ and wooden plank.

Based on the experience of CART, GP2 and in the past of Formula 1, I’d like to see the following changes to be made in Formula 1:
1. Introduction of venturi tunnels;
2. A lowering of the front wing and raise of the rear wing to the levels of the early 1990’s;
3. Introduction of flat front wing endplates;
4. Reduction of the front and rear wing to only one diagonal element;
5. A ban on any sort of bardge boards;
6. Reintroduction of 200 cm wide chassis.

[chunterer]

Some nice ideas here, but exciting as 'ground effect' vehicles may be to watch, i wouldn't want to see a return to rock hard, teeth shattering ground clearance on F1 cars, which drivers weren't all that keen on 25 years ago.

[Marbot]

I'm sure that a great many of us long for the return of "Sparks" (No,not the pop group you idiot).Yes ground effect could work,but IIRC once one of those cars lets go,it lets go in a big way.

Did the FIA ban venturis or did the F1 engineers just move on from them?

[davyboy]

I think a restrictions on both forms of aero-based adhesion would make sense for F1, shifting the focus to mechanical adhesion with tyre and suspension geometry. Its relatively easy to standardize the underbody to produce a wake which will punch a hole in the air allowing the car behind to slipstream propely. The front and rear wings should be similar to those run [minus handford lip] by CART at superspeedways... i.e. purely for balance. Winglets, barge-boards and all sorts of other peripheral aero devices should be eliminated too.
By the way, I would make tyre compound choice and manufacturer free right up until the grid. Tyre wars have always created the greatest variance and excitement through the years. Imagine F1 with 5 or 6 tyre companies involved.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

I'm sure that a great many of us long for the return of "Sparks" (No,not the pop group you idiot).Yes ground effect could work,but IIRC once one of those cars lets go,it lets go in a big way.

Did the FIA ban venturis or did the F1 engineers just move on from them?

They were banned, because the FIA thought it was the only way to ban the skirts. But the Americans proved it was possible to continue with ground effect without the skirts.

But the GP2 proved the use of well regulated skirts wouldn't be a problem.

[Adam43]

There is much sense said above. However venturis where not banned to rid us of skirts In addition it should be noted who the governing body behind GP2 is.

[TheNewBob]

GP2 teams don't design and build their own cars. Regulations and the ability to govern them in F1 would be a much tougher task...?

[Adam43]

A good point, if the governing body gets to be involved we have GP2 cars, but all the same. If the teams are involved we have F1 cars, but all different. Although there can be a cross-over of ideas.

Anyway, perhaps this is bringing it all a bit off topic. The GP2 cars aren't great 'ground effect' cars anyway and it is perhaps more relevant to consider there downforce levels.

We need to remove sensitiviy of aero. Of course if you reduce the overall levels then any percentage change can have a lesser impact on how closely you follow. The FIA hav looked at rear wings, which while not a definitive plan, shows they are looking at them. However they need input from the teams, but I feel reducing the effect of the rear wings on the following car and the sensitivity of the front wing of the following car is the key.

[ghinzani]

On a slight tangent anyone know of any road cars that have really made use of ground effect prinicples? I know road surfaces arent as smoothe as tracks , and that you cant have wings etc. It always struck me, especially when I was involved in a few kit car builds at work during the off season that it would make sense to try and box the underneath in a bit and get some venturi in there.

[Hazza]

Originally Posted by ghinzani

On a slight tangent anyone know of any road cars that have really made use of ground effect prinicples? I know road surfaces arent as smoothe as tracks , and that you cant have wings etc. It always struck me, especially when I was involved in a few kit car builds at work during the off season that it would make sense to try and box the underneath in a bit and get some venturi in there.

Enzo Ferrari does I do belive?

Pitty the Douer Porsche didn't

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

A good point, if the governing body gets to be involved we have GP2 cars, but all the same. If the teams are involved we have F1 cars, but all different. Although there can be a cross-over of ideas.

Anyway, perhaps this is bringing it all a bit off topic. The GP2 cars aren't great 'ground effect' cars anyway and it is perhaps more relevant to consider there downforce levels.

We need to remove sensitiviy of aero. Of course if you reduce the overall levels then any percentage change can have a lesser impact on how closely you follow. The FIA hav looked at rear wings, which while not a definitive plan, shows they are looking at them. However they need input from the teams, but I feel reducing the effect of the rear wings on the following car and the sensitivity of the front wing of the following car is the key.

The question is whether this should be achieved by reducing the rear wing or reducing the importance of the front wing. I choose for the second solution, which will be possible by re-introducing venturi's.

[davyboy]

Its not just the rear wing that causes the wake to be so turbulent. It begins with the airflow from the front of the car and how that is directed around/over/through the bodywork. Even if the rear wing was made standard on a current F1 car, the wake would be little different because of the 'dirty air' created by the rest of the devices on the car. Current F1 cars are pretty heavily restricted in terms of their bodywork and devices anyway, that's why they largely look the same. I feel quite strongly that by taking the restrictions a little bit further [thereby eliminating most of the effects of aero], and freeing up the options for mechanical grip [which are too restricted now], we would have better engineering challenges and more exciting racing.

[Pingguest]

An interesting point, davyboy. If the importance of the wings will be reduced, the engineers will have new challenges.

But the problem by a reduction of downforce is that the drag will be reduced as well. This was a main problem in 1995. To improve the safety after the dramatic 1994 season the FIA massively reduced downforce. In opposite to what was expected overtaking became more difficult.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

But the problem by a reduction of downforce is that the drag will be reduced as well.

Not necessarily. You can reduce downforce, but not decrease drag. Think of a brick.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Not necessarily. You can reduce downforce, but not decrease drag. Think of a brick.

Lol, a Formula 1 in form a brick. That would make Formula 1 totally ridiculous.

[Kicking-back]

No more ridiculous than some of your proposals for it.

Armchair aerodynamicists do not often make good rules

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Lol, a Formula 1 in form a brick. That would make Formula 1 totally ridiculous.

Think truck!-Limited to 100mph and fitted with a tachograph,problems solved.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

No more ridiculous than some of your proposals for it.

My proposals are not that ridiculous, as it is proposed by some aerodynamicists and brought about in the US open-wheel series and GP2.

[davyboy]

I think drag and downforce should not be perceived as being one and the same here. Its perfectly possible to dramatically reduce the reliance on aero as the primary source of adehesion merely by regulation and it doesn't follow that the cars will automatically be doing 300mph on the straights. I really can't see why the FIA have continued to go down other avenues with this every time... but I guess someone here's gonna tell me :-)