Richards: Aerodynamics Irrelevant

Here's an interesting thought:

David Richards

I think it's very appropriate that Jean Todt has taken over the reins of F1 just at this turning point, because I don't think we can carry on the way we have in the past with the excesses we have seen in various fields," he said. "Probably one of the best examples is in aerodynamics, where we talk about relevance of motorsport technology and yet, today, I can't think of anything less relevant than aerodynamics to the general automotive industry. Sure, it has a minor part to play, but when one compares it to efficiencies in other areas such as the drive toward the electric vehicle and generative braking systems, I think motorsport has to take a very serious look at itself.

Click to expand...

http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/5402.html?CMP=OTC-RSS

Makes sense to me, but it puts forward an interesting debate - should F1 be about racing the cars at the highest speeds and the fastest times and therefore dependent on aerodynamics? Or should F1 be about the technology and being more relevant technology wise to car manufacturers or the car industry in general?

I think F1 does sit at a crossroads right now, does it go down the route of lowering costs and focusing on improving the actual racing or does it go down the route of keeping its "forefront of technology" tagline and helping to produce greener car technologies and further the efficiency and safety of motorsport? Is it possible to do both? Should F1 abandon aerodynamics and standardise it?

I've always loved the aerodynamics aspect of F1 and its a large area of competition in the sport so I've never really considered F1 structured any differently.

I think both aspects are a bit ridiculous. I think if they really wanna increase efficiencies, make them run an entire current-length race without refueling. and using the current fuel-tank size. Do allow tire changes. Then we'll see some creativity. Don't force KERS stuff down everyone's throats simply to ensure Greenpeace doesn't ram your megayacht.

And then there's the aero stuff, which, for the past ten years, has simply been getting ridiculous. Sure, you can get so much downforce that the grooves in the tires simply become irrelevant, but there's been the dirty air problems and the like for years, now. But I'm a little split on it. Could get interesting if they start to have to take drag into the equation...

Jim Prower

I think both aspects are a bit ridiculous. I think if they really wanna increase efficiencies, make them run an entire current-length race without refueling. and using the current fuel-tank size. Do allow tire changes. Then we'll see some creativity. Don't force KERS stuff down everyone's throats simply to ensure Greenpeace doesn't ram your megayacht.

Click to expand...

Erm, all of that is already happening next year.....

Jim Prower

And then there's the aero stuff, which, for the past ten years, has simply been getting ridiculous. Sure, you can get so much downforce that the grooves in the tires simply become irrelevant, but there's been the dirty air problems and the like for years, now. But I'm a little split on it. Could get interesting if they start to have to take drag into the equation...

Click to expand...

That happened this year, but unfortunately the teams decided to ignore Ross Brawn's advice about closing the double diffuser loophole...the 2009 regulations were all about getting rid of the air wake effect. And they did succeed to an extent, just the double diffusers screwed it all up.
Also, the switch to slick tyres but not changing the width of the front tyres meant all the cars had more understeer, this should be fixed next year as Bridgestone are supplying smaller front tyres for 2010.

oh.

*smek*

'Least it's not as bad as DTM aero.

Despite their best efforts, there's not enough passing amongst F1 cars to suit many involved in the sport, let alone TV audiences.

My recommendations:

1) Make the cars narrower to allow more of them side-by-side through more corners. This can be accomplished by both narrower tires and narrower track width.

2) Semi-enclose the tires to allow more "rubbing" and incidental contact without resulting in a DNF or pitstop to replace a broken wing. The tops of the tires should be exposed, but shrouded from tire-to-tire contact from in front or behind.

3) Return to steel brakes. This lengthen braking distances and promote more passing by late-braking tactics.

Can we get back to the original topic point? This isn't a discussion of how the current rules and regulations don't work for on track action - its a discussion of how F1 can be changed in a grand sense - not just in rules, but in a commercial, technology and structure sense.
What Richards is referring to is rather than making teams spend millions trying to gain 0.1 of a second in downforce, why not make them compete in a different way in order to provide more usable spin-offs. Like he says, the field of aerodynamics isn't developing and isn't terribly usable anymore in other motorsports or in car manufacture.

I would be sad to see the development race of aerodynamics disappear because its quite visible and you can see the differences. But I'm intrigued in the thinking of such a massive change in competition.

In any case - the whole passing argument I think is a null and void one, go back through the years and there wasn't massive amounts of overtaking before. I actually like Formula 1 because of its focus on making overtaking more rare and skillful. I agree to an extent that drivers should be given better slipstreaming chances but otherwise I don't think the FIA should go out of their way just to produce more overtaking. NASCAR has much overtaking but it doesn't require much skill, not in the act of overtaking. Its something that should be improved but its not a massive problem in my opinion.

The problem I see is that there's no more room for innovation in F1. The rules are so restrictive that the only way to get an advantage is on aero. I mean, if some team were to use a rotary engine or something similarly innovative, or a new type of gearbox, it would immediately be banned. What would probably help is having a budget limit and more freedom to implement new technologies.

Ardius

In any case - the whole passing argument I think is a null and void one, go back through the years and there wasn't massive amounts of overtaking before. I actually like Formula 1 because of its focus on making overtaking more rare and skillful. I agree to an extent that drivers should be given better slipstreaming chances but otherwise I don't think the FIA should go out of their way just to produce more overtaking. NASCAR has much overtaking but it doesn't require much skill, not in the act of overtaking. Its something that should be improved but its not a massive problem in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Go back through the years and you'll see that commercial success has become more important than tradition and artistry. If the viability of F1 as a going concern is at stake in an ongoing global financial disaster, then improving "showbiz" with the return of Schumacher and much close racing is to be highly desired. Years ago I enjoyed watching Clark finish miles ahead of the field, but today that would just too boring.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

^And that was for the better, the sport is better covered and far more followed as a result. Safety has vastly improved and talent with it (though thats debatable naturally).

I haven't disagreed improving the show is necessary, but I don't see going overboard trying to get overtaking in is the way to go. The NASCAR example is what I'm thinking here, we don't need artificially engineered racing just for the sake of close fields and overtaking.
All I'm saying is that it shouldn't be the only thing the FIA should look at and consider. We could easily have lots of overtaking if the cars were all Renault Clio Cup cars, but that isn't the only reason we watch is it?

Back to the aero, I think freeing up the engines is a good way to go, the problem is its difficult to keep a check on. Its difficult to allow inovation without allowing spiralling costs as teams attempt to use exotic materials that have little use in the everyday car.
This is why I think perhaps the technology side of things starts to become questionable - it has a cost associated with it and it needs companies to feel they are getting something back. But without it F1 is no different from a spec series.

Back in the "kit-car" 70's, the racing was mostly close and exciting. Major manufacturers were mostly not involved until Renault got into the act. Finally Andretti and Lotus spoiled it all by racing off into the distance with ground effects.

Like you, I love F1 and I'm looking forward to the best season in years. I agree technology, aerodynamics and costs are all active issues. But the teams are finally united and the management end, the FIA and so on, seem to have finally got their act together as well.

If Heidfeld and Schumacher make the field, that'll be seven Germans, the most since the '30's!

I think its quite interesting that most of the overtakes back then were largely caused by mistakes or differences in performance. Its another interesting debate about whether current driver's are really challenged enough and if they are as susceptible to mistakes. Back then they had rubbish tyre compounds, tiny width wheels, basic downforce, basic suspension and very challenging circuits. Not to mention manual gears and clutch and little safety as well.

But at the same time, drivers today have to take into account a million new things, as we regularly hear on Hamilton's radio, they are constantly thinking about brake bias, temps, wing angles, etc in almost every corner and talking with their engineers through the lap (it varies though).

Places like the Montjuïc circuit were quite amazing and challenging, though incredibly unsafe. F1 nowadays has changed for the better with safety, but in doing so it cannot return to such challenges. I think this in a way is quite sad (without being disrespectful to those who died at such unsafe places).

I probably should have done a degree in analysing Formula 1 and how it could be improved in spectacle Its a very interesting subject.

Back in 1982 I was bored for a while, and studied up on every driver who had entered any GP from 1950 to 1982. It was about 500. A full 33% of them died behind the wheel of one type or another of racing vehicle.

Sorry, but I'm reading a whole "We didn't get the rights to the Renault team ... but we never wanted it, anyway" subtext to Richards' comments.

Thats some great input to the discussion there interludes.

The short-term view is that aerodynamics research is expensive. Requiring wind tunnels and lots of hours.

The long-term view however is that aerodynamics in as little as 10 years will be done largely, if not entirely, by computer using CFD. CFD is already used for lots of high performance applications and Renault have invested heavily in computing facilities because of it.

The issue we come across is that currently F1 aerodynamics are about downforce, with drag seen as an acceptable off-shoot. The automotive industry however is seeking to minimise drag without having to re-invent the shape of the car (Prius good example, 3-wheel concepts bad example).

Personally the only way I can see them going in the same difrection again is to chop the wings off. Make the cars fast one the straights with minimum drag and slow in the corners, nearly entirely dependant on mechanical grip.

I'm not saying that's a good idea though...

Ardius

Thats some great input to the discussion there interludes.

Click to expand...

Oh, come on: Dave Richards has made four separate attempts to break into the sport. First in 2008, then trying to buy Honda for 2009, though the teams selection process earlier this year, and just recently when he tried to purchase Renault. Four attempts to break into a sport that still relies on aerodynamics, even if the FIA are trying to decrease the importance of it ... and now he comes out and says Formula One isn't relevant anymore? If he believes that, then we try so hard to make the grid in the first place?

interludes

Oh, come on: Dave Richards has made four separate attempts to break into the sport. First in 2008, then trying to buy Honda for 2009, though the teams selection process earlier this year, and just recently when he tried to purchase Renault. Four attempts to break into a sport that still relies on aerodynamics, even if the FIA are trying to decrease the importance of it ... and now he comes out and says Formula One isn't relevant anymore? If he believes that, then we try so hard to make the grid in the first place?

Click to expand...

We are not debating David Richads' motives, Flavio could have come out and said this and I would still started the discussion. I'm not asking if Richards is right.

ExigeEvan

The short-term view is that aerodynamics research is expensive. Requiring wind tunnels and lots of hours.

The long-term view however is that aerodynamics in as little as 10 years will be done largely, if not entirely, by computer using CFD. CFD is already used for lots of high performance applications and Renault have invested heavily in computing facilities because of it.

The issue we come across is that currently F1 aerodynamics are about downforce, with drag seen as an acceptable off-shoot. The automotive industry however is seeking to minimise drag without having to re-invent the shape of the car (Prius good example, 3-wheel concepts bad example).

Personally the only way I can see them going in the same difrection again is to chop the wings off. Make the cars fast one the straights with minimum drag and slow in the corners, nearly entirely dependant on mechanical grip.

I'm not saying that's a good idea though...

Click to expand...

Maybe instead, keep the wings and make the overall aerodynamics standardised. Then open up development in a different area, such as getting rid of the engine freeze and allowing more varied engine configurations.
But the problem is balancing between innovation that shoots off into irrelevance and allowing no innovation at all.

Ardius

Maybe instead, keep the wings and make the overall aerodynamics standardised. Then open up development in a different area, such as getting rid of the engine freeze and allowing more varied engine configurations.
But the problem is balancing between innovation that shoots off into irrelevance and allowing no innovation at all.

Click to expand...

Personally I'm not a fan of standardised aerodynamics. Every series that has that just looks to sterile as aerodynamics will obviously be a major part in the varying looks of the cars.

Varied engine configurations could be interesting. Maybe limit the power-to-weight ratio of the engines, and let them do what they like from there. Boxer engines would give a lower CoG, but perhaps a V would fitin with suspension better etc.

I think aerodynamics has a strong identity in Formula 1, and by changing it you are changing the nature of F1. The differences in aerodynamics alter the aesthetics of the cars, for cars that are already confined to a very rigid formula, this is a bad thing, as the individuality of the cars is lost, all thats left would be the drivers helmets and paintjobs (exaggerating a little).

Whats the real important thing to consider in my mind, why are spin off technologies such a good thing? so that manufactures have more reason to get into f1? Do the likes of William's care about the spin off's? they are priveteers after all. Is it F1's primary function to benefit the automotive industry?

For me some of those answers are pretty obvious, I want to see aerodynamic development continued.

I think they can limit the size, width and height of the wing this will still allow for further development. But I can see were it can be considered irrelevant to automotive developement of the consumer car since wings are usually only effective at high speeds which is usually past the arverage speed limit of most highways. So it would be more prudent to developing areodynamics to the shape of the car itself and integrate the wings into the body. This would make the designers, design more rigid body panels to avoid damage when coming into contact at corners and avoiding all the debris. I also think they should ban refueling permanently, this way they will force engine builders to design more fuel efficient engines and ecourage them to use kers or even hybrid motors or full electric with a generator to power them. Also allow for different types of fuels, motors and tires.

The whole concept of motor racing was really into developing the best consumer car so the focus should be that and let the spectators be entertained by the results. Does it really matter if the F1 car will go 200mph or 300mph, will it be less entertaining if it did go slower than 170mph? Instead teams and sponsors focus on just winning that they forget what the main goal of what they are trying to develope. Having said that, who should be the responsible party to maintain this goal FIA, FOTA or someone else?

Stevisiov

I think aerodynamics has a strong identity in Formula 1, and by changing it you are changing the nature of F1. The differences in aerodynamics alter the aesthetics of the cars, for cars that are already confined to a very rigid formula, this is a bad thing, as the individuality of the cars is lost, all thats left would be the drivers helmets and paintjobs (exaggerating a little).

Whats the real important thing to consider in my mind, why are spin off technologies such a good thing? so that manufactures have more reason to get into f1? Do the likes of William's care about the spin off's? they are priveteers after all. Is it F1's primary function to benefit the automotive industry?

For me some of those answers are pretty obvious, I want to see aerodynamic development continued.

Click to expand...

Ironic actually, because Williams were the ones to prefer to use KERS next year, as they had developed a flywheel system and were looking to hopefully gain an advantage from it and probably try and sell the system to other teams.
But yes, race teams won't care too much about technologies being useless outside of the races. But at the same time, if F1 is to be a leading sport worldwide it has to stay in the picture and has to show its providing something other than a giant marketing show. The fans won't care, but the sponsors and the circuits (and hence the nations hosting) will.

I mean, look at the British GP, the only thing stopping the government coming in to help is because of the image of F1 being an immensely rich sport which gives little back in the eyes of the public. Admittedly, its not fair that it can't be judged in the same way athletics is but its still a problem.

The turbulent air problem has been around as long as F1 cars had the modern kind of cornering speed - I would say somewhere around the mid-1980s. So if they want to dramatically reduce this problem, they will have to return to much greater reliance on mechanical grip, rather than the aerodynamics. The teams, FIA, and probably drivers would be reluctant for this because F1 is supposed to be seen as the pinnacle of motorsport - fastest cornering, all-round fastest on normal closed circuits (previously probably also most powerful). The problem is made even bigger because if the reduce the downforce by much, then other series such as GP2 will be faster cornering.

I have to point out that KERS is actually very relevant in road cars...

Surely the argument that "F1 cars increase Drag - road cars decrease drag" is also false because if you know how to do one - you know how to do the other...

Also - Aerodynamics are important on the road... cast your mind back to the Lamborghini Miura... a car that once it got close to 70MPH the front would lift up - due to aerodynamic lift...

C.

yeti

I have to point out that KERS is actually very relevant in road cars...

Click to expand...

It is, but not the way F1 uses it. KERS systems currently being used on the road are all electrical, no flywheel, and go towards powering a large starter motor to allow stop-start engine management. That or they are used for purely electric vehicles.

Unlike in F1 where it's used to create a charge and a "boost" system.

Surely the argument that "F1 cars increase Drag - road cars decrease drag" is also false because if you know how to do one - you know how to do the other...

Click to expand...

Nope. I've just sat, and nearly failed, an aerodynamics module. It's not that simple.

Also - Aerodynamics are important on the road... cast your mind back to the Lamborghini Miura... a car that once it got close to 70MPH the front would lift up - due to aerodynamic lift...

C.

Click to expand...

Again, it's not the fact it's important, it's the relevance between F1 and road cars.

Road cars are currently looking to reduce drag on a shape that has no relevance to F1 cars. And F1 cars are predominatley trying to increase downforce.