F1 car vs LMP1 car - downforce levels

[RacingManiac]

The problem in comparing flight RM, is that planes have 3 and more fail safe duplicated systems to make them "safe".

Could you imagine the performance of an F1 car if it had to have 3 wishbones, 2 springs, etc etc etc.

I don't see how is it different from the adjustable front flap now that they already have. Or all the pre-requisite structural testing that all the parts that have to be passed anyway.

If there is no fail-safe for Porsche's depolyable rear spoiler, If it fails to deploy on a road car at speed, I'd think the 1st Gen Audi TT like accident is very likely for that car, especially at 170mph on Autobahn.

In terms of safety and liability stand point, I'd much more worry about that than F1 drivers on the track when they are knowingly involved in a sports that they have high level of skill for, rather than a Joe-Schumo driving his 911 on the highway thinking his car is perfectly suitable to do that kind of speed.

Besides, if you are worry about redundancy or that kind of issue for potentially dangerous system on the car, F1 also have throttle by wire and electronically controlled diff, what if those thing were to fail in the manner of Toyota's whole throttle thing? Thats no more or less risky or dangerous than adjustable aero.

Out dated thinking I think....

[Alastor]

Alastor, the point of rules that caused MUCH consternation for years was the clear breakign of them.

Well what is clear to one person, isn't always clear to another.

ANd the rules permit the driver to do anything they like.
Of course if anyoen came up with a put your hand out to make it go FASTER i'd love to see the physics at work and more importantly the retorts on the SAFETY of such an insane decision.

My point was that if they designed the body to deflect the air around the cockpit in such a way that the driver could stick his hand into the air-stream and manipulate downforce/drag this shouldn't be considered a movable aerodynamic device. As well, I don't see the difference if the air is going around the cockpit or through the cockpit, nor if it is the drivers hand or the drivers leg.

Personally, I think my idea would be much more entertaining.

Rules were never changed by "whim" and most rule changes that happen quickly are because ANOTHER designer manages to find a loop hoel of the WRITTEN regs regalrdless of the spirit of them.

My previous post was harsh, and I don't really believe they make changes on a whim. But I don't see what the spirit of rule has to do with how it is written. It should be written well enough that everyone involved interprets it the same way or can only be interpreted in one way. Leaving part of the rules open to interpretation, limited by only spirit, is obviously going to lead to different understandings of what the spirit means.

Your "pie in the sky garbage" comment is interesting as you then proceed to disporive the point I think you try to make

Again...I was melodramatic in my previous post, but how did I disprove my point?

BIG teams won't complain because they can afford to go design a new tub.
BUT it will need rule changes for them to deploy it as the tub is submitted at the beginning fo the season and then can't be changed. So it's going to be interesting if they are allowed to submit another tub ... teams with money may chose to do this so they can sneak in an "illegal" tub redesign .. again breakling the spirit of the rules and regulations.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Everyone is given the same rule book, right? Everyone has the same amount of time to develop a new chassis, right?

So why then is it if someone comes up with a new design that is significantly faster than the rest of the field it either 1) has to be banned for not being in the spirit of the rules or 2) the rules have to be re-written to allow the other teams to take advantage of the new design.

What about the team that spent all the resources to develop this design (which at the time of introduction was legal). Don't they deserves a chance to race and win if possible with their design?

Just as when we last had moveable aero the problem is when it moves when not intended. SO if a driver has a differnt problem awhich knocks their knee out of position, letting low pressure air bleed adn lose of downforcem then EVERYONE will condemn it and blame the FIA for allowing it.

What if their knee is knocked out of positions for a whole lap and the only consequence is a slower lap time? Maybe this idea isn't so bad....maybe it is...but what-ifs won't tell us that.

So I can see it staying despite the fact that it - legally - is no different to Ferrari'swing deflection. That was not "moveable", but did move affecting air flow.

Well it probably goes without saying but I think the flexible wing design is ingenious. Understanding that nothing is perfectly rigid and using that to make the car go faster, that is IMO great engineering. Well great spiritless engineering anyway ;-)

[TheScrutineer]

I think its an innotive interpratation of the rules. There is no moving mechanical device involved, simply the position of the drivers knee. If he can still operate the controls fully that there are no grounds for safety issues. If any criticising team had thought of it themselves they would not be moaning.

[Matra et Alpine]

I repeat my simple premise. If it was Ferrari the cries for ban would be immediate

Having been involved in the development of international standards and patents I had first hand experience of the problems in trying to convey a capability and getting the wording so everyine reading it understands it fully. AND in patents how to find a way around paying a royalty. It happens. The rules get modified, patents get added to for exactly that reason. I think the safety points raise enough of an issue. We REALLY think one handed driving in a car with 7g capab ility is a good idea ?

I'll put my hand up (!) and say I'm NOT a fan of the NASCAR mentality that lots of overtakes and crashes is what makes a sport. So I understand we may be coming from different positions on the wide range of motorsport

RM, I'd say we're discussing F1 and in it, minimum weight is BIG issue and items lasting the duration of a race is enough ( except for the parts coverd by rules ) and so comparisons on what other industries doesn't give us much insight. I gave the BT55 example as it knackered the driver much more so that ANY other car then or since. The team and designer were taking risks with the driver there and the more standardised cockpit controls are a positive I'd hate to see being taken a step back on.

I think we can agree to disagree. I'm not a single team supporter so dont' have vested interests or pro-Ferrari

Especially as Sepang possibly shows the point is moot and McLaren may realise that this innovation may not be returning as much benefit as the "within rules as far as we can tell so far" innovations of the other teams are giving better results -- Force India REALLY surprised me !

The beauty of F1 is the other designers will have reviewd the math, CFD computer junk and wind tunnel. Perhaps THEY realised it has flaws and their other solutions give better results. By NOT compalining then McLaren aren't forced into changing and can't then claim a release to have a new tub design. If true ( it's pure conjecture ) then THAT would be REALLY impressive design strategy

I was lucky to meet Harvey Postlethwaite and learn the intrigue going on in the teams when Tyrrel first put out the high wing. He said it took others 4-5 races to realise WHAT worked and it was NOT a direct act on the front wing but instead the ability to HALF the size of the side pod openings. Similarly Williams continued with the dihedral rear wing even though they KNOW it made no difference, but by continuing they knew they were tying up expensive time consuming wind tunnel testing by other teams testing it

So until a high speed, lower temperature race in Europe I'll hold quiet and see if it gets dropped

[Randy Mitchell]

sorry. this is a test

[group c n b man]

I think that Perhaps LMP1 vs F1 is the wrong comparison. Most LMP1 cars are designed for high speed, low downforce tracks like Monza, Spa, Silverstone and of course, La Sarthe. Therefore high downforce is not a premium. LMP2 cars probably have quite a bit more, especially ones designed for the ALMS like the Porsche RS Spyder and Acura ARX 01. Back in 2007/2008 they used to beat the R10s at some tracks, so I think this must be due to downforce. Unfortunately, Mulsannes Corner never got round to releasing downforce figures for the Porsche and Acura on "the race car aerodynamics database" but I'd expect the Acura to be well over 7000lbs.

[henk4]

I think that Perhaps LMP1 vs F1 is the wrong comparison. Most LMP1 cars are designed for high speed, low downforce tracks like Monza, Spa, Silverstone and of course, La Sarthe. Therefore high downforce is not a premium. LMP2 cars probably have quite a bit more, especially ones designed for the ALMS like the Porsche RS Spyder and Acura ARX 01. Back in 2007/2008 they used to beat the R10s at some tracks, so I think this must be due to downforce. Unfortunately, Mulsannes Corner never got round to releasing downforce figures for the Porsche and Acura on "the race car aerodynamics database" but I'd expect the Acura to be well over 7000lbs.

Apart from the engine and the weight LMP1 and LMP2 cars are mostly exactly the same. One Pescarolo chassis has run both as LMP1 and LMP2. The reason that the Porsches could take the Audis at some tracks was mostly the micky mouse nature of some of those where the power difference was less of an issue.

[RacingManiac]

I think on power-to-weight ratio(and that power is engine power and cornering/grip "power), P2 car has the potential of being equal or better than P1. The LMP675 car, the forerunner of the current P2 was definitely the case. And to a lesser extent, the current 750+(or is it 780 or 800kg car now?) Can do as well. In Europe it was never that apparent since the teams tend to be the kind of the team the rules was written for, the small private team who can't afford to race the bigger car. But in ALMS the Acura and the Porsche were developed with the same level of knowhow as the big cars and were purpose built for the class(much like the MG Lola EX257/B01/60 were in LMP 675) that it was able to get really close to the weight limit and have plenty of power.

R10 and 908 were plenty competitive to the True LMP2s in their first year until ACO clamp down their tank size. At Le Mans(and most of European tracks) the P2 won't bother the big cars. Its too much of a power track and knowing drag quadruples with speed horsepower is critical since P2 car shares much of the same aero qualities as the P1. But on shorter/slower track the 2 classes(that is, diesel P1 vs gas P2) are probably operating in very similar performance envelope, with initial rule package on diesel with the 90 liter tank giving it an edge over the P2 on range. But once the P1's tank size got down to 81 liter, and with slight power reduction and P2's engine technology caught up(RS Spyder's DI v8), they now are as fast as the P1 and have a fuel economy advantage in ALMS. So many races in 2007 were due to P1 car had to pit more times than P2 car and gave Penske the win over Audi. 2008 it was reversed because P2 cars got heavier so tipping the balance back towards the diesels.

Its pretty clear though there is a huge difference is the purpose built P2s vs the privateer effort. The Paul Ricard race was pretty telling, and so was during RS Spyder's stint in LMS.

[Artur]

Hello guys, I'm a new member! Got in this forum by a chance and I really liked it.

Regarding Formula1 downforce, in the end of 2008 where the old rules were about to change, I saw a video of the Williams team and they said that a 2008 Formula 1 front wing generated about 800kg of downforce in the end of Barcelona's circuit straight(speed between 300-320kmh something about 200mph) while the rear wing generated about 1200kg. He also said that the underbody downforce was responsible for 40% of the overall downforce despite all ground effects restrictions that F1 regulations impose.

Doing the math, the total downforce of a 2008 F1 car was in about 3300kg at the mentioned speed range(something close to 7500lbs). It's incredibly impressive how, despite all restrictions to ground effect and movable wings, F1 cars still equals the Group C ones who had no restrictions at all as far as I'm aware.

Fujimori said that the Eagle MKIII generated 7000lbs of downforce at 200mph and that is quite few given the area of the car, the free use of ground effects and wings. The eagle's rear wing is much wider than F12008(not to mention the nowdays ones), so the car has a lot more area of pressure and no restrictions but still is slower than a F12008 car?!!!!!!

To show how much F1 lost with the restrictions in ground effect, grooved tyres etc..... throughout the years, here is one quick analysis I made:

1991 was the last year where FIA still allowed substantial ground effects and in this year F1 cars had made the fastest lap ever(in that time) in Suzuka and it kept untill 2001:
Pole laps in Suzuka
1987 - 1:40.042
1988 - 1:41.853
1989 - 1:38.041
1990 - 1:36.996
1991 - 1:34.700
1992 - 1:37.360
1993 - 1:37.154
1994 - 1:37.209
1995 - 1:38.023
1996 - 1:38.909
1997 - 1:36.071
1998 - 1:36.293
1999 - 1:37.470
2000 - 1:35.825
2001 - 1:32.484

But still this pictures taken from my personal videos archive denotes how the cars lost speed through turns.

Senna at Degner curve in Suzuka in 1991 (210kmh)

Schumacher at Degner curve in 1999 (125mph ~ 200kmh)

Hakkinen at Degner in 2001 (192kmh)


In 2006, I think the Ferraris were carrying 260kmh through Degner based on a FIA's map diagram prior to 2009 season. In this year Schumacher made the fastest lap ever in Suzuka in 1.28.9 and back then, the F1 cars still had more wing aera than what they have now since 2009, but used grooved tyres.

Last year, the cars were going around 245kmh through Degner


In 91 the wings were much more simpler than what they are now but ground effect restriction cost F1 more than a decade to regain and surpass it's car's speed through turns with the use of much more sophisticated wings.

An F1 car with no restrictions, i.e, possibility of full ground effects such as skirts, venturi tunnels, fans etc.... movable wings with no area restriction, could easily achieve 15000 or 20000lbs of downforce

[TheScrutineer]

Interesting. I read an article a few years ago in F1Racing magazine were Williams attempted design and predict the performance of a fantasy F1 car. I believe it was 2004. They used the same 3 litre V10 as the then current car, and changed the regs to allow ground affect, slick tyres and unlimited wheels. The car ended up having six wheels (4 at rear) and an indycar style front wing and very low rear wing. I believe the car was capable of up to 14g though the corners, therefore un driveable without a modified G-suit!

[Artur]

Interesting. I read an article a few years ago in F1Racing magazine were Williams attempted design and predict the performance of a fantasy F1 car. I believe it was 2004. They used the same 3 litre V10 as the then current car, and changed the regs to allow ground affect, slick tyres and unlimited wheels. The car ended up having six wheels (4 at rear) and an indycar style front wing and very low rear wing. I believe the car was capable of up to 14g though the corners, therefore un driveable without a modified G-suit!

On autosport.com forums, people said similar things about articles they read in F1racing but the guy who mentioned it said it was in 99

Do you have that article to share? I'm desperately looking for things like that. One other guy said that in an article in the official program for the 2004 British GP they said something on this same matter.

This 14G number was said on the article or is it your guess?? Because the other people mentioned 8/9Gs or something like that.

[Artur]

Ok, I found some scans of the french version of F1racing Magazine(which I don't undertand, if someone has it in english please post it) and it claims that the max latteral acceleration would be at 5.9 but today's cars already almost have this cornering force.

Does anyone has any book of Peter Wright??? In the abstract of one of his books, it says that he could design a car with over 8 gs of cornering acceleration, is that correct or it can be even more???? I suppose with fans, skirts, venturi tunnels, movable wings and etc it can be much more.

Please guys, share any material on this matter, here are the french F1racing magazine scans:
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/8169/img04820qn.jpg
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/4341/img04839bj.jpg
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2391/img04842ip.jpg
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6237/img04907nm.jpg

[Commodore GS/E]

I believe the car was capable of up to 14g though the corners, therefore un driveable without a modified G-suit!

This may be foolish...but isn't the maximum horizontal g a trained man could take around 40 g? Vertigal g is lower (14 g), maybe you confused that.

[RacingManiac]

The G-LOC problem maybe, but neck muscle and others might be more of a problem then...

Besides, thats hinging on someone can actually make tires that can sustain that kind of lateral load.

[Commodore GS/E]

Not to mention how ugly those high-downforce-cars would be...just think F1 a few years ago, with all those wings and wents and spoilers evreywhere... but think worse, and you may get the picture. Besides, the drivers of those ultra-grippy-cars need to be perfict because there's no room for any mistake (because of the huuuge grip, the cars would have such a nervous handling that every normal human would die at high speeds just because of the unbelievable concentration they need to keep the car in a straight line).