This has been on my mind for a while now. Up until last year, the cars had hundreds and hundreds of little wings cleverly placed which disrupted the air behind the cars so others wouldn't be able to overtake. They gave a slight amount of extra downforce and the F1 engineers kept reassuring the team that the extra drag the winglets gave weren't noticeable. Now we're in 2009 and the winglets aren't allowed anymore, nor are various other larger 'wings' designed to make the car quicker. The maximum revs are now 18000 instead of the 19K of last year. However, the new cars are all almost a second quicker than last years car. Now some of that speed comes from the new tires but not all of it. perhaps 4-6 tenths maximum. Then we have the extra 1000 rpm cars had last year, easily worth over 6-8 tenths... Cars this year still have as much trouble overtaking as they did last year because of the clever diffuser (same one they could have designed last year). Hasn't one designer at all said to the team ''hold on guys, if we actually take all the winglets and stuff off, and put the car in the tunnel like that...maybe the air will flow much quicker?''? It baffles me. I personally think the engineers got so caught up in designing clever little wings that they completely forgot that all those little things added together actually do cause a lot of drag...
You must be forgetting one other major change to the rules - no more grooved tires in F1. That adds a lot to grip levels improving speed through corners and overall lap times. >8^) ER
I'm not doubting that at all. Just find it quite funny how they could possibly have over looked this.
...and how I could have overlooked your own comment about tires. Sorry. Still I think the tires are making up for a lot of the losses as cornering speeds are higher this year. >8^) ER
How do you come up with that estimate? The difference just between new and old tires can be an entire second.
Another difference is the reduced drag from the smaller rear wing and simpler front wing. Also, they can flatten the front planes even though I heard that was a bust.
IIRC the BBC said that at the start of the year. It could have been a bit more. The actual contact patch of the tires aren't that big after all. Wings only have a maximum dimension, teams can make their rear wings smaller than the maximum. As you said, the front wings being able to go flatter didn't make a big difference, if any. I remember a conversation between Massa and Rob Smedly and they didn't really feel a difference. the 1000RPM difference is huge though, that would make up for a lot of speed. almost a second a lap on most tracks.
2004 cars are still faster. You also need to take into account weather at the tracks when comparing lap times both on the same day and one year prior.
Seriously? I generally think when you have 10 teams searching for the fastest way to do something you are gonna be pretty close to optimal. It's called competition.
Because my theory is so simple, these things are often overlooked. I for one think that the F1 designers/engineers are some of the most clever people around.
While every team has the same set of rules, the smart teams will look for the gray areas in the rules. This is why there was such an uproar about the double decker diffuser 3 teams saw the grey area the other 7 did not. Clever not really just looking for an advantage anywhere they can.
So how else do you explain the cars going so much quicker apart from the slicks? Turning down the engine revs by even 200rpm has a big impact on a laptime, let alone 1000rpm, which is essentially short shifting in an F1 car.
You are making a dismissive point. People make dismissive points when they are in denial. In contrast, my point was about aerodynamics. Riding a bicycle while sitting straight upright is less aerodynamic than riding a recumbent bicycle. Likewise, solar racers lay their drivers down because laying down is more aerodynamic than sitting upright. F1 engineers are getting paychecks for applying their educations, but that's not the same thing as being clever or creative. If they were *clever* they would lay the drivers down to improve aerodynamics. That would make 2010 cars faster than 2004 cars, something that otherwise is unlikely to occur.
Great thread, hope my post is taken in the best way possible. So my take is, in terms of downforce, you have to remember that the thing that disturbs the air the most in an F1 car are the tires. So you need to create elements to divert the air form hitting them and making that air land somewhere safe to regain the lost path and transform it into downforce. Thing is that behind the from tires you have the radiators and you need those to work efficiently. These are banned for this year and other innovations have to be made. I cannot agree more in the subject of engine performance and tire thread, in 2004 Rubens Barichello set the lap record in Monza with a time of 1:21.046 and the F2004 had an engine capable of over 19,000rpm and more than 900hp. Today the best lap was done by Sutil (Mercedes power) and it was 1:23.924 with an engine capable of 18,000 but slicks. Another thing is that Bridgestone did provide Ferrari with outstanding compounds developed for the Scuderia. All of this said, I think they are cleaver, would love to work for any team, let alone the SF!!. Wow this reminds me how much I love F1!! Hope Kimi keeps the podium finishes alive in Monza!!!
So which design will influence future aerodynamic shapes more? Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I've always wondered why if all the areo-appendages are needed the cars don't seem that much slower (if at all) when they lose a winglet etc. during a race?
I'am in denial about zip rest assured!. The engineers come up with the best interpretation they are allowed to within the given parameters of the rules laid. So given that like you said if they could lay their drivers down for better areodynamics they would. They cannot be as creative as I would like, because of the restriction of the rules, but on the same count you cannot say they are not being creative or clever within the rules. In fact I would say that makes them even more inventive, pushing the boundarys within the limits they are allowed.
