chaide

What Do You Think Can Make F1 More Interesting

120 posts in this topic

I think a public hanging of Max Mosley and Fernando Alonso would make F1 more interesting. I'll bring the beer.

I'll bring the rocks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a public hanging of Max Mosley and Fernando Alonso would make F1 more interesting. I'll bring the beer.

Church approves it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:thbup:

A good stoning then a hanging. Perhaps both at once?

Of course both at once, it's the only way to go, I also suggest we also unleash some Mclaren engineers (with assorted tools) on them as well.

Edited by rainmaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a public hanging of Max Mosley and Fernando Alonso would make F1 more interesting. I'll bring the beer.

Why get Alonso involved??? Rather spare his life and take Bernie instead(maybe keep him till he gets the Indian Gp started) and after that prosecute him.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why get Alonso involved??? Rather spare his life and take Bernie instead(maybe keep him till he gets the Indian Gp started) and after that prosecute him.....

:rolleyes: well after Andres marries him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now I know he is everyone's bitch!

Bitch! :P

NO he is Paul's and my Bitch....

EDIT: you can have Shaggy....

Edited by goferrarigo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1] Well you sound like you know what your talking about so I won't argue too much given my inferior technical knowledge, but I will say that surely aero has increased compared with 10 or 20 years ago, if not 2004, isn't more mechanical grip the solution to the problem that cars can't follow others? Or is it better to change the way aero is produced? I don't mind either way, as long as it leads to better overtaking opportunities.

2] Your right racing is certainly not dead, proved by some decent racing midfield today at Spa, I just wish the better/more aero efficient cars could have this too. I agree the techno race is also a race, and the engineers/mechanics/designers deserve a little more credit from the average fan.

1] The ground effects cars of late 70s and ealry 80s had plenty of downforce, and the turbo of mod 80s monsters ran big wings, quite bigger than today. Then came the active suspensions car witch had the aerodynamics build around them.

Today's cars have actually improved in air flow control/vortices and so on.

Downforce isn't the problem (it doesn't kill the racing), how it's produced is.

It's like saying electricity is the problem because there's nuclear waste (produced by nuclear power plants).

image025.jpg

image054.gif

As you can see there is blue beneath the car.

The diffuser is usually found on each side of the central engine and gearbox fairing and is located behind the rear axle line as seen in Figure.

As seen in Figure , the diffuser consists of many tunnels and splitters.

It is designed to carefully guide and control airflow underneath the racecar.

Essentially, along with the flat bottom, it creates a suction effect on the rear of the racecar and pulls the car down to the track.The suction effect is a result of Bernoulli’s equation, which states that where speed is higher, pressure must be lower.Therefore the pressure below the racecar must be lower than the pressure at the outlet since the speed of the air below the racecar will be higher than the speed of the air at the outlet.Racecar engineers must carefully design the diffuser, since its dimensions are limited by the racing regulations and its angle of convergence is somewhat restricted.If the angle of convergence is too great then the flow will separate because of the adverse pressure gradient.

So basicaly downforce is produced 2 ways: from above (wings) and from underneath (flat bottom + rear diffuser ground effects).

However due to regulations to reduce downforce, the lift of the front wing + modifications to the rear diffuser, the suction to the car onto the track from underneath has been reduced.

So when we have 2 cars, the one behind encounters turbulence (created by the aero appendixes of the car in front), instead of being kept onto the track (sucked from underneath) its front wheel start to lose contact with the ground.

Ofcourse these 2005 regulations are only added to the crapy 1995 regulations of reducing the front wing size and lowering the rear wing.

Champ-Car and GP2 made sure their cars are sucked onto the track in such a case.

In their case if something happens to the above downforce (turbulence/dirty air) they stil have the beneath downforce.

The new Champ Car splits the downforce wings to ground effects 50:50. It's the best solution.

While F1 ****ed it up with their attempts to reduce downforce/performance.

The 2009 regulation I've heard will make the front wing bigger, lift the the rear wing and modify the diffuser, basicaly undoing the 1995 regualtions and partially the 2005 ones and making the cars closer to Champ Car, IRL and GP2.

2] They always deserved more. But people saw just the facade and cheered for the drivers.

Fangio might have been great, but his MB silver arrow had mecanical fuel injection, desdemonic valves and a more aerodynamical body.

Clark's Lotus had adjustable suspension and was monocoque construction.

Very big technological advantages.

Edited by DOF_Renault_BMW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1] The ground effects cars of late 70s and ealry 80s had plenty of downforce, and the turbo of mod 80s monsters ran big wings, quite bigger than today. Then came the active suspensions car witch had the aerodynamics build around them.

===========================================================================

Very big technological advantages.

Nice post, sorry I can only offer this mediocre reply.

So you are basically saying it's the way aero is produced that should be changed? Sounds good to me if it leads to more overtaking.

Fangio and Clark were gods, never should a bad word be spoken against them! (As was Senna)

Anyway I agree with you so nothing more to add really...

Edited by rainmaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

Well, Mr.DOF. As usual your posts are so full of technical data it's intimidating for us posters who can't distinguish between a fuel valve and a windshield, but enjoyable to read nonetheless! Bravo! :clap3:

About the flat bottom+diffusers downforce, I thought the reason they reduced it is because of Senna's accident. His car (accoridng to the official version, at least) was too close to the ground (does anybody remembers those cars and all those sparks flying around?) and it hit the tarmac and went airborne, thus causing the accident (more or less)

Am I right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice post, sorry I can only offer this mediocre reply.

1] So you are basically saying it's the way aero is produced that should be changed? Sounds good to me if it leads to more overtaking.

2] Fangio and Clark were gods, never should a bad word be spoken against them! (As was Senna)

Anyway I agree with you so nothing more to add really...

1] Exactly. Keep or increase the downforce, but in a clean proper maner to allow overtaking.

And ofcourse increasing mecanical will also be nice.

2] I never said anything bad about Fangio and Clark's skills. Just that their cars were a lot better.

Fangio himself said he won 2 WDCs in the MB W196 quite easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, Mr.DOF. As usual your posts are so full of technical data it's intimidating for us posters who can't distinguish between a fuel valve and a windshield, but enjoyable to read nonetheless! Bravo! :clap3:

About the flat bottom+diffusers downforce, I thought the reason they reduced it is because of Senna's accident. His car (accoridng to the official version, at least) was too close to the ground (does anybody remembers those cars and all those sparks flying around?) and it hit the tarmac and went airborne, thus causing the accident (more or less)

Am I right?

There were drastic modifications for 1994 as opposed to 1993.

In the name of safety, reducing costs and humanization of the sport. In effect it made things worse.

Driver aids (traction control, anti-lock and power brakes, automatic gears) banned.

Four wheel steering no longer permitted.

Downforce reduced: smaller front wing endplates, shorter diffuser, deflector panels restricted.

Pump fuel compulsory.

10mm skid block under reference plane.

(and tires modifications)

But the problem was they came in to ealry. As the Williams car was made with active suspensions and TC in mind.

So basicaly they just modified it in the last moment from a active car to an passive one.

The car needed modifications to wheelbase lenght, weight distribution, aerodynamics and so on, witch only happened later on with the FW16B spec.

It's still sort of mistery what happened.

But sufice to say the new regualtions meant to increasse safety worked the other way as the accidents of pre season testing showed.

Take a look at what active suspensions can do and why would the FW16 (initially intended to have them) had problems.

The flat bottom car has the problem that it has a tendency to lift off, take off, do backflips and so on when encountering bumps, vibrators, turbulence. Because their flat bottom make the car a wing and they esentially catapult it. This was experienced in the 1930s streamline GP cars and late 60s/early 70s sport prototypes.

Only ground effects (inverted wing and skirt cars) and active suspensions helped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There were drastic modifications for 1994 as opposed to 1993.

In the name of safety, reducing costs and humanization of the sport. In effect it made things worse.

Driver aids (traction control, anti-lock and power brakes, automatic gears) banned.

Four wheel steering no longer permitted.

Downforce reduced: smaller front wing endplates, shorter diffuser, deflector panels restricted.

Pump fuel compulsory.

10mm skid block under reference plane.

(and tires modifications)

But the problem was they came in to ealry. As the Williams car was made with active suspensions and TC in mind.

So basicaly they just modified it in the last moment from a active car to an passive one.

The car needed modifications to wheelbase lenght, weight distribution, aerodynamics and so on, witch only happened later on with the FW16B spec.

It's still sort of mistery what happened.

But sufice to say the new regualtions meant to increasse safety worked the other way as the accidents of pre season testing showed.

Take a look at what active suspensions can do and why would the FW16 (initially intended to have them) had problems.

The flat bottom car has the problem that it has a tendency to lift off, take off, do backflips and so on when encountering bumps, vibrators, turbulence. Because their flat bottom make the car a wing and they esentially catapult it. This was experienced in the 1930s streamline GP cars and late 60s/early 70s sport prototypes.

Only ground effects (inverted wing and skirt cars) and active suspensions helped.

So are you saying that bringing back skirts + active suspension would allow cars to get closer for overtaking without losing downforce or safety?

On a side note, it's true that active suspension today would work a lot better than it did in the past, for the electronics have advanced enough to make it much more reliable...now this is interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who's shaggy?

Your God forbids me from saying his name

Edited by goferrarigo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you saying that bringing back skirts + active suspension would allow cars to get closer for overtaking without losing downforce or safety?

On a side note, it's true that active suspension today would work a lot better than it did in the past, for the electronics have advanced enough to make it much more reliable...now this is interesting.

You can increase, keep, decrease the downforce, but it doesn't mean racing will get better. Because it's how the downforce is produced that's the problem.

The new Panoz DP01 Champ Car has more downforce then the old Lola one and the racing is better.

F1 has less downforce then in 2003 but the racing is worse.

So the idea that less downforce = better racing is B*.

The official CCWS statement

The new DP01 makes around 5,500 pounds of downforce at 200 mph with the underwing accounting for nearly fifty percent of the downforce. The focus on increasing the proportion of downforce produced by the underbody is the key component in trying to improve the raceability of the DP01 compared to recent Champ Cars.

111future.jpg

62j0yh3.jpg

The undertray (upside down in this picture),

... the air entering the undertray from the front is accellerated as it squeezes between the ground and the tray. As the velocity increases the pressure drops. The vanes genereate vortices which increase the efficiency. As the air exits into the openings at the rear it decelerates and the pressure rises.

This effect varies with the ride height so much of the shock program is centered around keeping the undertray in the proper relationship with the ground.

So the things that controled the relationship with the ground in F1 were either hydropneumatic suspensions used by Brabham, or active suspensions used by Lotus, Williams, McLaren (inspired by BMC's hydroelastic suspensions witch itself was inspired by Citroen's hydropneumatic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you saying that bringing back skirts + active suspension would allow cars to get closer for overtaking without losing downforce or safety?

DOF is correct. Sliding skirts create downforce from the chassis as opposed to today's aero that relies on wings and greeblies. It's the wings and greeblies that lose downforce when following another car because they rely on the airflow quite a bit higher than the ground. That airflow is affected by a leading car's diffuser and rear wing. Sliding skirts utilize the airflow close to the ground that is not affected as much by the leading car. Active suspension aids the chassis in creating downforce.

Combine the above with slicks and you'll get fantasic racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

^ But unfortunately the FIA has other ideas.

sliding skirt would be too much of a risk, more like the Champ Car vanes or the Brabham BT49D.

Edited by DOF_Renault_BMW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you mean, and I agree that more "botton" downforce, as opposed to winglets downforce is needed. My question is: after the Senna incident, the FIA has become very safety oriented (too safety oriented, some may say). Is it possible to bring back bottom downforce without compromising safety? Because if not, then I can't see the FIA going the risky way.

Boring spectacles are bad for FIA and the teams, but horrific accidents are bad AND expensive.

Jsut to be clear: I am not saying that I rather have the F1 we have now. I am trying to think like Mosley or the teams would do, because I guess that there must be something that prevents them for doing what everybody is asking for in order to improve the spectacle. And I wanna know what is that and what can realistically be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see what you mean, and I agree that more "botton" downforce, as opposed to winglets downforce is needed. My question is: after the Senna incident, the FIA has become very safety oriented (too safety oriented, some may say). Is it possible to bring back bottom downforce without compromising safety? Because if not, then I can't see the FIA going the risky way.

Boring spectacles are bad for FIA and the teams, but horrific accidents are bad AND expensive.

Jsut to be clear: I am not saying that I rather have the F1 we have now. I am trying to think like Mosley or the teams would do, because I guess that there must be something that prevents them for doing what everybody is asking for in order to improve the spectacle. And I wanna know what is that and what can realistically be done.

1] There were accidents, like Kubica's, a lot worse were, and the drivers survived due to improvements made to the car (crash boxes, super-monocoque) and HANS.

So such an accident, or worse, would not be fatal.

Kimi's accident:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteEd2_db8I

Kubica's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkqahGb1OME

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGQlad59gzY

2] You can use the active suspensions to regulate the car's hight to the ground and thus mecanical grip, aerodynamics, prevent bottom-ing, understeer and the catapulting/take off effect (to a certain degree) so on.

3] The ground effects used properly would be safer than the flat bottom cars.

The problem with the ground effect skirt cars, is that the cars were over reliant on skirts and eliminated the front wing and reduced the rear one. So if something happened to the skirts/the car lost contact with the ground the rear wing could not act as a fail safe.

But with the flat bottom the cars are now over reliant on wings and winglets.

So the problem wasn't solved/safety increased, with the flat bottom, just switched from one place to another.

As the death of Elio de Angelis proved (his rear wing was lose).

Champ Car's vanes (not sliding skirts) and 50:50 distribution is a good solution.

With active suspensions it would be even better.

Edited by DOF_Renault_BMW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now