Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 91

Thread: F1 car vs LMP1 car - downforce levels

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,457
    Well that definitely is true. Most categories now are pegged back on safety ground(actually, sometimes I think its sanity ground). But as the tools used to not only make race car, but design and analyzing it gets more sophisticated, they are still making up a lot of ground working with much less variable....
    University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
    Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
    www.fsae.utoronto.ca

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    why would I tell you?
    Posts
    108
    I read about this recently & thought it was interesting: The Mclaren F1 car can stall it's spoiler to increase straight line speed.
    "Conventional racecar design theory does not apply when you go supersonic."

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Was talked about last week on TV.
    CLEARLY it's a "movable" aerodynamic device and as usual the F1 designers have found a way to get around the regulations.
    Nothing on the vehicle "moves" is their argument.
    EVERYBODY knows it's against the spirit and hopefully they'll close it down asap.
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    IA
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    Was talked about last week on TV.
    CLEARLY it's a "movable" aerodynamic device and as usual the F1 designers have found a way to get around the regulations.
    Nothing on the vehicle "moves" is their argument.
    EVERYBODY knows it's against the spirit and hopefully they'll close it down asap.
    I really don't see what is wrong it, I think it is novel.

    How is it a 'movable aerodynamic' device...it is no different than the driver holding there arm outside of the cockpit and using their hand to redirect the air while driving down the straight.

    And "against the spirit" of the rules is just ‘pie-in-the-sky’ garbage. The reality is that one can’t design around some pie-in-sky concept you have to have well defined requirements. Because people have different ideas of what the spirit really means, and therefore will arrive at different solutions.

    The spirit of the rules is for the governing body so that they can change the rules at a whim because they don’t have the knowledge or resources to think of every possible interpretation of the rules.

    The rules as defined are there for the designers, and it is the designers job to make the car as fast as possible without breaking the rules as they are explicitly stated.
    "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,315
    ^^
    No other team has launched a protest so far.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Alastor, the point of rules that caused MUCH consternation for years was the clear breakign of them.

    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.

    The no movable aero device has existed for 30 years.
    FOR a reason.

    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.

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

    Like this is.


    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.

    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.

    THUS why it SHOULD be banned .... OR ..... let them go free moveable aero

    Motorsport managers are too scared right now to demand or enforce too much for fear of F1 completely losing audience.

    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.
    Last edited by Matra et Alpine; 04-02-2010 at 12:59 PM.
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,315
    The only moving device here is the driver's leg. Should that be banned?
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    THis is why I come back to the "spirit" problem.
    THe removal of movable devices was a safety issue.
    THey then have to construct words which ensure designers dont use them.
    THEN, as F1 is best at, the designer tries to find a way around the rules.

    As I said, it's no different to the argument Ferrari put about "manufacturing tolerances" for the size of things failing regs and the "deflection under load" ending up a moveable aero DEVICE.

    Thus as with then the terminology in the WRITTEN word has to be tightened to prevent this.

    In one respect I smile as their is a "ban" on drivers legs already - again brought in because drivers were receiving SERIOUS injuries. They added the driver had to be contained behind the front axle mounting points. Would anyone suggest that that shoudl only be done at one point in the race and "if the driver wishes" he/she can push their legs out, move their seat forward ?? Stretching the physical capability there I know but beign devils advocate on the point of the regs and working around them.

    So yes, we end up discussing the "spirit" and the original GOAL of a regulation.
    A handful of designers help draft these and then once published THOUSANDS of designers and engineers try to find the holes to exploit. So of course it's necessary at times to come "back" to "what we had wanted to say included that" responses about "spirit" etc etc.

    I suspect - ME? CYNICAL ?? - that if this had been Ferrari the cries of BAN BAN BAN would have resounded far and wide

    So, lets imagine this approach is now fully accepted.
    How many designers and engineers do we think are NOW tryign to imagine ALL ways they could get the driver to "do something" that affects air flow and jsut as worryingly, weight balance ? Some of us will remember the Brabham with the driver forced to lay almost flat and chin on chest ? WHat could happen now ? Maybe someone WILL realise that by getting the driver to stick a hand in the air at 200mph they can go fast ... that they can't keep it in a straight line if someone slip streams them coudl be a minor point only relised in a major crash.

    Despite what some may think of the FOCA and FIA they ARE trying to have rules that work When a loophole is found then it should be considered and as I say, if they had known about the idea when writing the reg, do we think it woudl ahve been written in to prevent it ? yes. THus it should now .... EXCEPT having accepted the McLaren tub at start of season they've got a problem if they force a change their coudl McLaren sue them for the cost of new tub development ? I'm guessing it's the shyster lawyers who are deciding what happens here ... yes I'm a CYNIC about F1
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    ^^^^^^^^^ THE only saving grace on the BT55 was it screwed up the engine SO badly that it was a complete failure and so nobody else thought it brought much advantage. IF BMW had an oil system that coped with the angle and it was winning lots of races, imagine the rush to copy and the subsequent issues with driver fatigue. I always did wonder of the number of engine seizures might not have been driver induced to save their physical discomfort
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,315
    let's simply call it a cooling device for the driver's legs...
    others use the side of the tub to cool their ellbows (this is a rather senior driver in a Brabham FJ), and nobody was surprised that his race ended in a spin of which you see the opening scene here.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Yeah old single seaters are scary. We've a couple of classics do our hillclimb. NO protection.
    BUt, do we want to go back to those dangers ??
    Murphy's Law ... if something is movable then at some point it WILL be in the wrong place at the wrong time with bad consequences
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,457
    Personally the idea of banning movable device on the ground of safety is out dated. Back in the 60s when Lotus and whatnot mount their wing to the uprights, the idea is forward thinking, but technology and engineering has not caught up to that level yet, both in Automotive and Aerospace. Nowadays, the technology exists for stuff to be done much more effective and fail-safe. Airplanes uses movable aero since day one, and now much standard and regulation exists inplace to govern them such that flying with 400 people can be done relatively safely. Its silly that in racing it is still considered a safety issue. Speed can be pegged back, but not embracing a field of development thats even being used by production car maker for ages(how long has Porsche used deployable spoiler?) is yet another area why F1 is less and less relavent....Its because of that kind of thinking that McLaren needs to go to this length to make the F-duct type deal on their car. Where as in the "real" world no one in their right mind would do such a thing.
    University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
    Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
    www.fsae.utoronto.ca

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wishing I was in Moscow, Idaho
    Posts
    2,585
    I seem top be behind on the technical understanding of this and all I can find is either " it will ruin the sport for us all and cost thousands of lives zomg" or "it's good creative thinking, let it go" I've yet to find out how they're effecting the airflow without a "moveable device." Since we seem to have all the senior technical fellows in this thread could one of you explain to me how they're doing this, besides moving the drivers knee?
    Big cities suck

    "Not putting miles on your Ferrari is like not having sex with your girlfriend so she'll be more desirable to her next boyfriend." -Napolis

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    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.

    The other issue - reflecting back to the early turbo days - is overtaking becomes risky as drivers vie to adjsut things to take advantage.

    WHen the driver moves his/her knee it affects the partial air pressure at that point in the "pipework", now allowing the air to pass thorugh and "bleed" on to the rear wing, thus reducing downforce, drag and increasing speed. Blow hard through a recorder and feel the air at the end as you cover/uncover the finger holes. That's it
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wishing I was in Moscow, Idaho
    Posts
    2,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    WHen the driver moves his/her knee it affects the partial air pressure at that point in the "pipework", now allowing the air to pass thorugh and "bleed" on to the rear wing, thus reducing downforce, drag and increasing speed. Blow hard through a recorder and feel the air at the end as you cover/uncover the finger holes. That's it
    Ahh. Bloody hell that's clever. Thank you matra.
    Big cities suck

    "Not putting miles on your Ferrari is like not having sex with your girlfriend so she'll be more desirable to her next boyfriend." -Napolis

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Favorite James Bond Automobile
    By toyota_trevor in forum Car comparison
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 02-07-2020, 12:54 AM
  2. Mercedes-Benz C111 Research Car 1969-1979
    By Matt in forum Matt's Hi-Res Hide-Out
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-21-2015, 10:35 PM
  3. ****ing McLaren F1
    By milad_ferrari in forum General Automotive
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 10-02-2010, 01:11 AM
  4. GT4 whole car list!!!!
    By Mustang in forum Gaming
    Replies: 247
    Last Post: 07-07-2010, 08:06 AM
  5. Car of the Year Awards 2008 [PLEASE READ FIRST]
    By fisetdavid26 in forum Awards
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-04-2008, 02:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •