General Chat
Q:
I was a bit skeptical of the rumoured changes but everything seems to be promising to me. The changes may seem extreme to some fans. However, I think the ban on turbocharging and AWD was even more extreme than this!
The most interesting is the final point made in this quotation taken from F1. It seems like there's going to be privateers and works teams racing with the same cars!
- New technologies which give a team an advantage for one season but which are then adopted by all teams for subsequent seasons at significant expense will be banned after the end of the first season (Article 2.5).
Reason: To reduce costs. This allows a team which discovers a new technology to benefit from it, but prevents Formula One as a whole then spending money on the same technology only to leave all the teams in exactly the same (relative) positions as before.
- The rear wing is split in two.
Reason: Research indicates that this will produce a wake in which the car behind will perform much better, thus facilitating overtaking.
- Changes to the bodywork regulations to reduce downforce while maintaining drag levels so as to avoid an increase in cornering speeds over 2006 levels (Article 3).
Reason: Safety
- Changes to the bodywork regulations at the front of the car to make the car behave better in traffic (Article 3).
Reason: To facilitate overtaking.
- Limitations on possible “interesting” areas of aerodynamic research (Article 3).
Reason: To reduce costs.
- The minimum weight is reduced from 605 to 550kg (Article 4).
Reason: To eliminate the cost of purchasing 55kg of very expensive high density ballast for each car and transporting it all over the world. Cars will also be safer without this extra weight.
- Engine to be subject to a rev limit of 19,000 rpm, with a possible increase to 20,000 rpm in consultation with the competing teams (Article 5.1.3).
Reason: To reduce costs and to redirect engine research towards road-relevant technologies.
- A standard electronic control unit for engine and gearbox to be used at all times in Formula One (Article 8.2).
Reason: To reduce costs, eliminate driver aids such as traction control and allow the FIA to check engine use and testing mileage.
- Gear ratios to have a minimum thickness of 12mm (Article 9.3.3).
Reason: To reduce costs by making gearboxes more robust.
- Tyre pressures may be adjusted by the driver while the car is moving (Article 12.5).
Reason: Safety, particularly during safety car periods.
- Maximum wheel diameter increased to 640mm front and 710mm rear, with maximum widths of 365mm front and 460mm rear (Article 12.4) with slick tyres.
Reason: To increase "mechanical" grip to compensate for reduced aerodynamic downforce to facilitate overtaking.
- Only permitted materials may be used to construct the car (Article 15.1).
Reason: To reduce costs.
- At least 5.75% (m/m) of fuel must be from biological sources (Article 19.4.5).
Reason: To keep ahead of developments in fuel for road cars.
- 2009:
From 2009 each team may make only two changes of bodywork after the start of the season (Article 3.15).
Reason: To reduce costs.
It is intended to allow systems for energy storage and recovery (hybrid systems) from 2009, provided this can be done without causing budgetary difficulties for any of the competing teams.
In addition to the proposed 2008 Technical Regulations it is intended to make changes to the Formula One Sporting Regulations for 2008. These will be submitted to the World Motor Sport Council on March 22, 2006 and will include:
- arrangements for a single tyre supplier in 2008;
- three - Event engines;
- four - Event transmissions;
- weight penalties for early replacement of engine or gearbox;
- testing restrictions;
- a limit of two cars per team at an Event;
- the date for the opening and closing of entries for 2008.
It is not intended to renew the Concorde Agreement provisions which prevent teams selling components or complete chassis to other competitors. It is proposed to allow an entirely free market in this area.
1971 240Z
"Fear is exciting for me." -Ayrton Senna
A:
Yeah, road relevant technology....20Krpms?
What did those old Renault and Honda 1.5L Turbo Engines Spin to back in the 80's again?
Road Relevant my a$$!
People Are Idiots, Just look around here and you will see!
Tony D: "Knowledgeable but Caustic"... rationull
My brother from another mother calls himself "Willie D"
A:
Variable cam timing? Paddle shifters on steering wheels? Controls built into steering wheels? Active suspension? Traction control? Anti lock brakes?
No, we're not talking about a F1 car, or a Champ car, or an LMP. All these things can be found on production vehicles, and they all came from racing ventures.
Ken
'82ZX n/a 2+2
'02 Sportster XL1200C
A:
I saw those last night..... I thought it was pretty sobering to read that one particular company spent like half of it's revenue on F1.
Sustainable? I think they are right, the answer is no. The sport will collapse on itself if something isn't done. What I don't know......
Ken
'82ZX n/a 2+2
'02 Sportster XL1200C
A:
most of the reasons seem to be "to reduce cost and road adaptable".
yea, right. like racing will ever be cheap or open wheel race cars have a place on busy crowded slow potholed roadways.
can anyone explain "To eliminate the cost of purchasing 55kg of very expensive high density ballast for each car and transporting it all over the world". will transporting a 1200 pound car be that different than transporting a 1300 pound car? Seriously?
A:
So they have to run a spoiler that helps the guy behind them pass them.
SAY WHAT?!
Faster than a Motorola
A:
What they can't do is run a spoiler that "hurts" the guy behind them. The aero package can be designed such that the air behind the car is so dirty that the other guys aero package doesn't work, making it hard to position yourself for a pass. They are trying to encourage passing and mechanical grip. Less dependency on aero grip will slow the cars down, at least until they manage to make up the difference in mechanical grip.
Ken
'82ZX n/a 2+2
'02 Sportster XL1200C
A:
ken, "wake" turbulence is dirty. i'm curious as to what kind of spoiler cleans it up so the guy behind acts like he's in clean air (and runs slower).
A:
- The rear wing is split in two.
Reason: Research indicates that this will produce a wake in which the car behind will perform much better, thus facilitating overtaking.
Sorry your excellency if I didn't use proper terminology. I'll just cut and paste from the statement issued by the FIA so you will feel better (see above....if that's possible for you).
It's ok trk.....one day I will tire of your constant negativity, and go away......like many MANY that use to be here already have. You add so much to this forum.....what did we ever do before you got here?
Ken
'82ZX n/a 2+2
'02 Sportster XL1200C
A:
no, not negative at all, i just really wanted to know HOW you make a spoler that hurts someome behind you since the only way to run slower is in clean air, not turbulent air.
am i missing something?
A:
tkr,
You have totally lost me, especially with your last sentence of running slower in clean air, not turbulent. I'm sure you have driven behind an 18 wheeler just far enough to where you feel their wake (I know if you get close enough to the semi, you can ride in smooth air and almost let it 'pull' you. It's called drafting, isn't it?). I dont' know about you but I really don't want to be going fast whilst my vehicle is shaking like a carnival ride behind the semi. I could only imagine trying to keep an F1 car straight behind wake like that.
Ken,
Did the article you read about this go into any detail, physics-wise, about how the split wing makes the wake air behind it more stable? I'm very curious about this now. I bet it's a vaguely similar concept to the empennage on the A-10 Warthog. Since the engines on that are located towards the back, they caused a huge wake on a normal 't' empennage and they had to split it and make two vertical stablizers.
God must love stupid people, he made SOOOOO many of them!
A:
Absolutely!
About 5 positive, helpful, posts for every a$$hole comment you post.
While I may be a dickhead OCCASIONALLY, you sir, are continually negative, as Ken stated.
You spend no time helping much of anyone that I can observe. From what I see, you exist, mainly, as a parasite on this forum, poking and making things miserable.
Just a personal observation of the tactics you and your alterego use continually.
People Are Idiots, Just look around here and you will see!
Tony D: "Knowledgeable but Caustic"... rationull
My brother from another mother calls himself "Willie D"
Post Edited (Dec 22, 11:06am)
A:
you guys are acting like i'm talking trash about your mom or something.
i just wanna know WHAT ken means by a spoiler that slows a following car. WHAT is wrong with asking that? is there such a thing? i don't race so i'm curious.
sorry if you guys become offended by simple questions.
79 280ZX -The best selling sports car of all time
Post Edited (Dec 22, 4:39pm)
A:
I think the A-10's twin is for battle redunancy and overall stability increase for engine out/gone conditions, asymetrical thrust conditions. Two smaller vert stabs also present a smaller target. The engines a placed apart to help prevent a blow out affecting both engines and the farther they are apart the more vert stab you need, one big rudder is a big target.
I think the F1 wing will form two big vortices from a gap in the middle?
Good times, let us discuss over a cold bev and a doob*e
82 zxt 5-spd, oil cooler!
96 240sxes
78/81 jeep j-20
A:
The article didn't specify exactly, Z draci cut and pasted the whole thing, but there are some good links (that I haven't checked) at formula1.com, there may be some explainations there, but I can't say for sure.
I wish I knew more about aero than I do, and (soon hopefully) I'll get the time to order up some books I found at Amazon on aero.
F1 is an aero mans dream come true...little tabs here, for this track, little tabs there for another.... It's all about the air to those guys and it's facinating as hell.
Ken
'82ZX n/a 2+2
'02 Sportster XL1200C
A:
yea, i'm a pilot, not a racer. i'm curious what they were doing (or think that they are doing) with airflows.
A:
What are you flyin there tkr514, besides a Z/ZX?
82 zxt 5-spd, oil cooler!
96 240sxes
78/81 jeep j-20
A:
Tony! You forgot about Nissan's FJ20DET! We wouldn't have gotten that magnificent engine if Nissan did not invest in an F1 program in the early 80's. The information gathered from that brief venture gave birth to not only the FJ but also to the advance of Nissan's turbocharging technology in general.
BMW's turbocharged engine was based off the same block as the 2002 too!
More recent F1 technology in road cars: carbon ceramic brakes, carbon fiber monocoque, aerodynamic ground works, and autoshift manual gearboxes. You'll only find these things in the cars of companies actually participating in F1 though.
1971 240Z
"Fear is exciting for me." -Ayrton Senna
A:
If you follow F1, you would have seen Kimi Raikonnen's McLaren heavily understeer while chasing down other cars on the track. He was unable to pass on many occasions because his car got caught in the turbulence behind other cars. F1 cars rely so heavily on aerodynamics that they handle horribly in large slip angles. That is why a dual wing that reduces rearward air turbulence is going to be implemented.
Here are the images used at the actual presentation:
So are you guys happy now???
1971 240Z
"Fear is exciting for me." -Ayrton Senna
A:
it looks in that digram that the new "downwash generating" wing is shown producing lift (the airflow is now re-directed downward so it's lifting the rear of the car). is that right?
79 280ZX -The best selling sports car of all time
Post Edited (Dec 23, 5:36am)
A:
I don't think there is any positive lift, up, that would be. The horizontal wing is still a heavy(huge) undercamber airfoil that will make big lift.
Your(Z Draci) posting of a velocity profile shows a cross section of the vortices. From the rear I think they would look like two doughnuts next to each other.
Visible on the top down pic are the inner plates of the wing(s). These have a flat bottom airfoil cross section. I think it is this feature that generates the vortices. Possibly pulling the vortices off the heavy undercamber and rolling into the vortices off the vertical section?
My two cents, from an amatuer aero dude/aircraft nut and mech engineer/ Z/XZ lover.
Great pics, thank you.
82 zxt 5-spd, oil cooler!
96 240sxes
78/81 jeep j-20
A:
Isaac Newton says there should be lift if you force air downwards.
yea, maybe there is still more to it since it would be better to leave the whole thing off than run it like that illustration...
A:
There are alot more elements to lift and downforce than just the direction the air spills off the wing. Aircraft wings do not generate much lift from the downwash they create, it is the pressure differential that produces the lift. Look at the shape of a wing, usually flat on the bottom, and curved on the top. The air is forced to move quicker over the top than the bottom, forming a low pressure area on top of the wing, high pressure underneath the wing. If the F1 wing can build a high pressure above the wing and a low pressure below it, youve got a vacuum effect. Even if the air is flowing downward after the wing your generating positive downforce...
Which makes me wonder why they didn't just get rid of the wings alltogether and use ground effects as the primary aerodynamic aid on the cars. It would solve the issue of turbulent wakes all-together. Yes I know its banned, but it seems like a better solution than re-engineering the wings. It already exists, and it would be cheap to implement.
'73 Turbo, not much stock. Sold now... :-(
A:
Hey clutchman83, it might be cheaper to do a wing redesign than implement a ground effect F1? It should be an interesting year, those double wings look cool. The ricers should have fun with them, no offense if there are any on this board.
82 zxt 5-spd, oil cooler!
96 240sxes
78/81 jeep j-20
A:
"Aircraft wings do not generate much lift from the downwash they create"
actually, wings create more lift by downwash (and precious little lift comes from any pressure differential). come fly with me and i'll show you what's wrong with that old wives tale. that's why you rotate on takeoff or you will just roll off the end of the runway waiting for "lift" from differential pressure to do anything.
downwash IS lift. if that flow diagram is correct, the tail will lift the tail at speed.
A:
I see your point, but what happens to the amount of low pressure on top when you rotate, it increases as does the, "downwash", flat plate lift.
A symetrical airfoil has a pressure differential due to angle of attack, as I'm sure you know. From a pressure calc one can find the max weight the wing will fly.
Bernouli did not have wives, and the rear of the F1 cars is going to stay on the ground. That flow diagram is most likely correct, F1 fluid simulations are done by proffessionals.
Look at the undercamber airfoil on the wing, how is that going to yeild positive lift? Downwash whatever. Come you are a pilot, the flow diagram is a result of the interaction of the vertical surfaces with the vortices coming off the heavy undercamber section it does not tell anything about," downwash".
Look at some polar airfoil plots and tell me. Airfoil sections make lift due to there shape. Flat plate lift is for rubber band planes.
82 zxt 5-spd, oil cooler!
96 240sxes
78/81 jeep j-20
A:
unfortunately, most schools still teach bernoili in the undergrad levels. flat plates sure work well in military aircraft (or even not at all in a harrier in vertical flight) undercamber planes are extreemly light and low/no powerd so they need minimal drag (and the curved profile "channels" the air down efficiently while maintaining a slight pressure differencial (it's slow speed so minimal pressures exist).
i was flying today and played with my flat flaps. funny how lowering those flat flaps directs the slipstream down at a 15 degree angle and increases lift to shorten my takeoffs... or pointing that prop skyward acts like a helicopter to soften landings with a vertical vector to the thrust.
any air forced down (see f1 diagram above) HAS to create lift. it's a simple action-reaction physics.
i just know what i see when i fly. here is a more upper-level discussion on the subject:
http://www.aa.washington.edu/faculty/eberhardt/lift.htm
A:
Centerline down wash gerating wing pic looks as if it would give the trailing car in a nose to gearbox situation additional down force on it front end, so that going in to an apex the trailing car would have greater tire adhesion and could turn in harder and faster. Like tapping the breaks to give the car a good set before haveing to turn in, except its free, no loss of monentum to gain tire adhesion.
Which could lead to more passing in the corners and/or more defensive lines.
Thats my two bits o bench racing.
Cheers
78 stockish
82 partish
A:
Having been in the Marine Corps air wing, I'll tell you there are no flat plate foils in those planes, Harriers included!? You are sooo far off base there it is funny.
Do you know what a airfoil polar is? It shows lift due to profile changes, sailplanes would not fly with flat plate wings, nor would your cessna. Nor does any real life aircraft in existence.
Why build a complex airfoil section when if your idea worked you could get away with a flat plate? It would be so much cheaper but it would not fly.
Your flaps are only flat on the bottom.
That is a circular velocity profile, how much lift does that make, none. It is a totally different sit than the flap on a plane. Do you see the heavy undercamber on the horizontal wing? Where did that wash go in 05 up. Where is it going now? Down, due to the airfoil section visible in the down view! It is being rotated by the vert foil. THIS IS THE SPOILER THAT CLEANS THE AIR FOR THE NEXT CAR. If you had passed UG fluids you might get it.
Your 15 degree flap is causeing a partial vacume on the top surface, it is part if the same reason bees fly. the same reason the F1 cars will not fly in 06.
You are not assimilating information in that picture. There is no torque reaction either forceing the front down.
How much more angle of attack would you need to fly your cessna upside down? Why? It is a simple fluid pressure problem out of your grasp.
Keep U'm flying
82 zxt 5-spd, oil cooler!
96 240sxes
78/81 jeep j-20
A:
"the same reason the F1 cars will not fly in 06." let me clarify this point, the vort is acting on the next car, increasing it's down force,lift down, cleaner that turbulence. With a bee the force is acting on the bees wing increasing it's lift up.
The F1 designers know WTF they are doing, you just fly a plane. big difference.
82 zxt 5-spd, oil cooler!
96 240sxes
78/81 jeep j-20
A:
"that's why you rotate on takeoff or you will just roll off the end of the runway waiting for "lift" from differential pressure to do anything."
The rotation is altering the angle of attack. If the wing was completely flat, your flight surfaces wouldn't even work. The pressure differential allows the aircrafts mass to lift relative to the attitude of the wing. An aircraft wing is designed to suspend the airplane in the air, not pull it up. A cars wing is a very different animal, you can only alter your cars angle of attack in small increments, and this is dependent on weight transfer and a soft suspension. Since soft suspensions and aerodynamic speeds don't go together so well, all downforce must be achieved by a higher pressure differential.
"i was flying today and played with my flat flaps. funny how lowering those flat flaps directs the slipstream down at a 15 degree angle and increases lift to shorten my takeoffs... "
Flaps are designed to alter the camber of the wing. The downwash generated is merely auxiliary to the primary lifting mechanism. As previously stated by Huilo; when the flaps come down, the air moving over the top of the wing is forced to travel a longer distance, while air is trapped under the wing forming a higher pressure differential. Some aircraft, like the C-17 that I fly uses very large flaps to deflect engine thrust downward, but this is very different than merely channeling airflow.
tkr, please stop floundering, your aviation knowlege is not translating to this argument.
'73 Turbo, not much stock. Sold now... :-(
A:
Draci, you have made my case!
The cars of F1 were FAR more direct technology to the streets than they are now!
Most everything else is also concurrently used in WRC and other high-end racing series.
The stuff coming out of WRC is more apt to show up on the street next year than the F1 Technology of 10 years ago!
20Krpm engines aren't road relevant.
The F1 Turbo 1.5's WERE!
People Are Idiots, Just look around here and you will see!
Tony D: "Knowledgeable but Caustic"... rationull
My brother from another mother calls himself "Willie D"
A:
I get your point Tony. However . . .
Even if road cars don't rev to 20krpm, Ferrari does have a new 4.3 litre V8 that revs easily to 9krpm. This engine in their current F430 produces more power than the 3.5 litre V8 twin turbo in the nearly 20 year old F40! And it produces horsepower by revving high and not with raw low end torque. It's the exact same philosophy used in the limited displacement NA F1 engines. The new BMW M5's engine is also a 8000+rpm V10 engine that comes with a peaky powerband called the "P500."
After the ban of turbocharging in F1, we've seen a surge in the development of highly tuned NA engines with peaky horsepower curves. The ban on AWD saw the end of Ferrari's project to develop an AWD system for road use.
With the end of the V10 formula, Toyota has decided to go with a V8 in their new supercar.
1971 240Z
"Fear is exciting for me." -Ayrton Senna
A:
"You are not assimilating information in that picture"
forcing air downward is what is shown in the diagram.
by the laws of physics the thing that forces the air downward experiences lift. that's what's shown so that diagram shows the wing lifting the rear of the car.
"like the C-17 that I fly uses very large flaps to deflect engine thrust downward, but this is very different than merely channeling airflow" well, i think that is an acurate term for what it's doing.
"If the wing was completely flat, your flight surfaces wouldn't even work" sure they do, you are still moving through a fluid (air).
"Flaps are designed to alter the camber of the wing..when the flaps come down, the air moving over the top of the wing is forced to travel a longer distance, while air is trapped under the wing forming a higher pressure differential."
it depends on the flaps. mine on a grumman are better for drag creation than lift. ask any light plane driver what happends when you try to use full flaps on takeoff, that big old camber increase does NOT mean extra lift!
A:
Newton was right.
Bernoulli was also right.
Lift is not generated without differential pressure between the upper and lower surfaces on the wing, which is created by accelerating air over the cambered upper wing surface (lower surface for a race car), and also by angle of incidence. Thank you Mr. BERNOULLI.
The result of this is that the wing coming over the top is thrown downward (upward for a race car) aft of the wing, thank you Mr. NEWTON.
A:
FIA *STILL* have no sober, coherent, workable plan that will ensure competitiveness and low cost.
Idiots.
A:
That picture is a CROSS section, the air is moving in a circle, like the pic of the gulfstreamV in your link pic. Tip vorts. Net lift, ZERO! Half is going up, half is going down.
Like a winglet keeps the flow attached untill the tip of the wing.
That pic does not in any way show the car being lifted.
Large flaps deflect air, true. What is the pressure on the top of the flap when the thrust is directed over them, very very low. Lots of lift. A momentum balence, air movement vs aircraft movement would not equate to flight. Air does not weigh that much. The difference is Pressure. Include the energy in a tip vort and you have flight.
On a cat launch the flaps are down, lots of power, lots of lift. LOOK at the F1 wing, it is huge undercamber. Full flaps on small planes are not used because there is not a lot of power, even a 747! Relative. Build a big catapult for a 747, full flap, it would get off the ground in 500ft. Big camber means big lift, LOOK at the picture. HOw in the hell is that wing going to lift the car? Do you think they have it backwards? You do.
Light planes have what, 200hp? not enough power to get full flap lift. An f-18 on a carrier cat launch, **** load of power, **** load of lift. Period.
Lots of flap on a plane with less than 2 to 1 power to wieght ratio will not allow you to accelerate to the point of v1. Behind the power/ lift curve.
Your control surf would not work if you had a flat wing, the l flow would become detached in the partial, vacume and not effective, the reason behind a full flying stab in supersonic aircarft. Shock wave blanket .
That is it for me, keep your light plane away from my airspace.
82 zxt 5-spd, oil cooler!
96 240sxes
78/81 jeep j-20
A:
And after all the arguing, I took a second look at that diagram, and I think it is just showing the air flowing off the body of the car and not taking the wash from the wings into account.
Thanks anyways for the dose of crazy though.
'73 Turbo, not much stock. Sold now... :-(
A:
Hey there, that is one dimensional plot. To get a good picture of what is happening, multiple plots, at progressive distances from the center line need to be done. I think it is a total wash though. Attached flow, like a winglet vs no winglet.
Kick a** aircraft, that C-17. Thanks for the input.
82 zxt 5-spd, oil cooler!
96 240sxes
78/81 jeep j-20
A:
"Full flaps on small planes are not used because there is not a lot of power"
that's my point, no energy, no lift. with lot's of power, bernouli approaces irrelevency (as on the harrier, f18 cat launches, rockets, etc).
hey there, that f1 plot is obviously a 2 dimensional plot, but an overhead plot (horizontal slice) will not show vertical lift.
A:
bernouli approaces irrelevency (as on the harrier, f18 cat launches, rockets, etc).
No, no, no. NO! Velocity is a parameter in bernouli. It must be magic to you. I understand.
82 zxt 5-spd, oil cooler!
96 240sxes
78/81 jeep j-20
A:
you can skip any rock on a pond if you throw it at the right angle and speed. same with fluid dynamics in heavier-than-air planes. power and angle alone will support them. no bernoili needed.
A:
arugh, ponds are made of water, 100%. It is not the Same, ergo, bernouli's eq won't work, go to the pond.com site, ...............
82 zxt 5-spd, oil cooler!
96 240sxes
78/81 jeep j-20
A:
arugh, strike that, my bust it is all bernoulli, all bernoulli, none needed my as*, it is work and energy, still go to pond.com, they can help you, I don't want to.
82 zxt 5-spd, oil cooler!
96 240sxes
78/81 jeep j-20
A:
YOU were the one that keeps brining up "fluid simulations", not me.
since you do, i gave you a simple example of dynamic lift that any 6 year old can demonstrate. denying dynamic lift is denying nature.