Trade ground effects for
aerodynamics.
In the late 70’s ground effect cars were
developed that used the underside of the car, like an inverted wing, to literally suck the
car onto the road, increasing grip dramatically. This was subsequently outlawed.
Today’s F1 car is much worse than the outlawed ground
effect cars as it is very sensitive to turbulence, which ground effect cars were not, and
just as dangerous. Why not allow limited ground effects while reducing wing sizes
accordingly? .
Please submit any comments you have on this
suggestion below
(comments are sorted latest first)
Ian B from Australia adds,
It seems to me that we
might be missing the point. In the 'Good Old Days' when memory tells us
overtaking was more common (though never really as much as we think) part of
the reason was the variation between the cars and drivers. Some cars were
fast in a straight line, some had really good brakes, others cornered
better, some were quicker out of corners. All of these combined with drivers
of different styles, abilities, courage and even background to make the grid
much more varied than it is now after seeming endless testing to obtain the
smallest gain. Here is the idea- allow variations in the rules to bring back
the difference. What do I mean? Things like allow bigger brakes with a power
(rev) limited engine or smaller slick tyres with a fully flat floor (no
diffuser) or ground effects without front and rear external wings! I know
that the teams would eventually find the ideal combination but at least
different car/drivers would perform better at some tracks than others so
there would be more variety and interest. What do you think and what
combinations would you think might work
The Heretic replies,
I have often wondered what would happen if
wings were limited to inboard of the wheels within current car height
limitations. With the exception of under body or ground effect downforce, it
would be a lot harder to get the same extreme downforce in the turbulent
area over the body of the car.
Nathan from the US
The FIA's attempt at reducing speeds and the
effect of turbulence on overtaking by increasing the height of the front
wing and reducing the number of wing elements in the back is an exercise in
futile thinking. It has no basis in racing principles, but is actually
contradictory to them. The needs for overtaking and safety improvement do
not have to compromise the ideals of motorsport, as the FIA's actions
suggest. I believe solutions lie, not at the expense of racing, but in its
very ideals.
One of the ideals of F1 that I love most is that of EFFICIENCY. Lighter cars
need less grip, less horsepower, smaller brakes, less fuel, and less driver
assistance that heavier cars to go the same speed around a race track. This
is why F1, the pinnacle of motorsport, has the lightest cars.
Another area of efficiency is that of power generation. The
horsepower-to-engine displacement ratio of any other normally aspirated cars
pale in comparison to the 250+ hp/L of an F1 engine. Yes, turbo cars can
exceed this, but they are less efficient in terms of design, cost, and
complexity. It could also be suggested that F1 cars also exhibit the
greatest efficiency of grip in racing because of aerodynamic downforce.
However, this is not the same as actual aerodynamic efficiency. The most
efficient aerodynamics are those that produce the least amount of resistance
for a given size and volume object, while still achieving the same goals in
generating downforce. The FIA went against this when they outlawed ground
effects and forced engineers to find downforce in wings. They also went
against the principles of efficiency when they introduced grooved tyres. The
mechanical grip produced through the tyres has less negative effects on
resistance, acceleration, speed and engine load than wings or even
ground effects. The one thing the FIA did that fosters efficient design was
to narrow the cars.
Another aspect of efficiency is how much affect the cars have on the
immediate environment, namely, the air. This is an area where F1 cars go
completely against the ideal of efficiency. Think about it, F1 cars are
smaller, lower, and lighter than NASCAR vehicles, but probably produce as
much or more turbulence. This is pathetic, especially when those who side
with open-wheel racing often criticize other venues by pointing out how
their cars are heavier and have bigger engines, while being slow in
comparison.
F1 cars are, I believe, the most elegant and aesthetically pleasing vehicles
in racing. They seem to defy the laws of nature with their insane ability to
get from point A to B faster than anything else in all but a straight
line. The amazement is only elevated when their small size, engine
displacement, and low weight are considered. Would they not be all the more
thrilling were they to achieve their speeds without hardly creating a
breeze? Wouldn't they also be so if they could accelerate and go as fast
with less horsepower or go even faster with the same amount they already
have?
Whatever the logic, I believe that F1 racing would be better were the cars
paramount examples of efficiency in all performance aspects. They would not
only be more amazing, but the racing would be more exciting, with more
overtaking F1 cars should be more aerodynamically efficient, therefore,
ground effects should be reintroduced (and the wings appropriately
restricted) while the maximum drag coefficient should be significantly
restricted, to around .5 CO, perhaps. F1 cars should also generate their
grip more efficiently, which limiting CO will help do indirectly by making
designers rely less on downforce and more on mechanical grip. To this end
slicks should be allowed again, and if cornering speeds become excessive,
simply narrow the tires or limit the allowable wear. These might not even
increase top speeds on the straights because exit speeds on moderate to fast
corners would be reduced and the length required to brake at the end of the
straights would be increased. If, or more likely, when, speeds become
excessive due to advances in tire and suspension technology, it may be time
to reduce engine displacement again, which isn't really a negative thing
since it promotes better engine design and efficiency.
That's my 2 cents.
The Heretic's reply:
Taking your comments from the top:
An idealistic view but absolutely spot on. F1 has always been the absolute
leading edge of development and any restriction on development can only
distort progress to an artificial representation of what is possible today.
Your second paragraph emphasises the point. Optimisation of performance is
curtailed by the introduction of almost whimsical restrictions aimed at
spoiling rather than limiting efficiency. Grooved tyres rather than smaller
tyres, size of aerodynamic devices rather than limiting engine capacity,
outlawing ground effects without realising that this will result in
turbulence affecting the sport. A lot of these changes, to be fair, were
made in ignorance of the potential effect that they may have. What we have
learnt from the recent past is that it takes on average less than a season
for the teams to find a workaround and it often exacerbates the problem that
we are trying to eliminate.
Ground effects is a great example. This was originally outlawed because it
was seen to make the sport too dangerous. Today, in my opinion cars are
potentially far more dangerous. Now the aerodynamic devices are the most
vulnerable in a contact with another car and the effect could be very
dramatic, especially if many cars are involved in a high speed tangle.
Current F1 cars use more power to gain downforce than they do to attain
maximum speed - this could be normal as there is an optimum mechanical grip
speed for every track, after that it is up to the aerodynamics.
I am all in favour for eliminating all the restrictions aimed at maiming the
ability of the car (including ABS) and restricting the size of the engine
instead. If they want to limit tyre sizes as well I do not object as long as
everyone is allowed total freedom within these limits.
We currently have the situation where safety of the drivers and spectators
have created a situation that is driven by semi-political motivations. Add
to this the need to make the sport more spectacular and the FIA are between
a rock and a hard place. They made their choices - I hope it works for
them.
It is unlikely to work for us.
