Yes he did do the 126C2 for the 82 season, i meant to say the 126c designed by Forghieri and the 126KK by another Italian, the brit designed car was much better.
Phil. Sorry but i dont agree, the fundamentals of F1 aerodynamics are quite simple, the add ons are just tinkering at the edges. Real performance gains are from those that fully understand the real concept / principles of how a modern f1 car works and how to exploit it. i.e. those that just copy an idea dont really understnad how to dovetail it into their design. Look at Vettel, lost best part of his front wing but didnt stop him overtaking most of the field. Front wing accounts for about 1/3rd of downforce, the rear wing about 1/3rd and the remainder from the diffuser and add ons. Dont confuse the principles of aero work and the actual design of components, which is highly complicated and very time consuming in both production, testing and Wind tunnel work. Making a car as slippery as possible is not the the best way to approach good aerodynamics. Best Tony
Where did Vettel do all his overtaking? - in a straight-line on the fastest straight. You don't need the front wing for that manoeuvre! (in fact the extra loss of drag probably helps very slightly). Look at the panic that's caused in a team when a driver loses an end-plate off a front wing, the team straight away look at the aero data, the heat generation data, the down force data etc., etc., to check if the car can carry on without it. Martin Brundle has said during past races where end-plates have been lost and the car carried on just as fast: "It makes you wonder why they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on end-plate designs only to announce to the driver that losing one has no effect on the cars performance! They must be wondering what they're paying the designer for!" I agree that you can't just take an idea from another car and apply it to your own as it will most likely not suit your design concept, but that merely shows how complex the aerodynamics have become. These cars are incredibly (almost unbelievably), aero- sensitive. You have to take into account how the car reacts to cars ahead of it, cross winds, heat dispersal, generated vortices and their effects elsewhere on the car, high pressure areas, low pressure areas, how the air leaves the car, even the atmospheric pressure on the day plays a part in how well the car is working the air. Yes the basic principal of F1 aerodynamics are still the same and fundamentally quite simple: create the most down-force for the least amount of drag, but the actual design, integration and application of aerodynamics on a modern F1 car are far from simple, otherwise every Tom, Dick and Harry would be doing it. Look at Mercedes' double DRS system for bleeding off aero from the front wing by using captured air from the rear wing and sending it forward - a very clever idea executed in a remarkably simple manner (with unfortunate car balance issues at times). Look at the previous the previous "F-duct" devices: remarkably simply systems to manipulate and make better use of airflows over the cars. Look at the double diffusers and how by the end of 2009, if you didn't have one then you stood no chance in a race! Look at Renaults attempts at utilising the hot gases from the exhausts by directing them forwards and back under the side-pods (had they got it to work correctly, other teams would have spent a fortune looking into it, just like the double diffusers and F-ducts). All of these ideas were from beyond the normal principals of F1 aerodynamics. No longer are teams looking at how they can use the airflow, they're looking at how they can use the airflow twice! As for confusing "the principles of aero work and the actual design of components", these days more than ever, on all parts regardless of purpose, the two are inextricably linked. If you want to change a component, even if it sits under the bodywork, you have to take into consideration it's effect on the aerodynamic airflow. Look at Red Bulls KERS system. It is smaller than everyone else's and prone to overheating because Adrian Newey didn't want a bigger KERS device upsetting the aerodynamics of his car! Here's the FIA's take on Aerodynamics: http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/understanding_the_sport/5281.html And here's there section that explains all the tweaks (not just aero), for each race: http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/ F1 aerodynamicists do not earn the amounts they do because their jobs are simple, they get paid an awful lot of money because their jobs are complex.
Phil I agree with all you say and more, my original statement was exactly that. You have to understand [ie have a huge knowledge] aerodynamics and thus are able to design / invent the next quantum leap. Double diffusers etc where not conjured up by the tea boy, but that doesnt mean to say that they dont follow the principles of F1 aerodynamics. Rule changes have sorted out the men frrom the boys when it comes to making your car work properly, however someone always seems to have gained that small advantage because of something minor. That small thing that someone else hasnt got is the difference which is why these guys are paid huge sums, there is no where else to gain a edge because of engine rules, tyres etc etc. The new engine era may be a turning point though Cheers Tony
