F1 car vs LMP1 car - downforce levels

[culver]

I think we are talking about different points. Mechanical grip is in a sense how much grip can you get for a given load on the tires. That load includes both the weight of the car and the aero based downforce.

The trade off we are seeing is the decision to choose (and I am making up numbers for illustration purposes) a suspension design that is say 3% less efficient when it comes to turning the normal load on the car (weight +aero) into lateral grip but the designers chose it because it allows for 4% more total load via an increase in aero based downforce.

F1 cars, can get away with running what is realistically VERY screwy suspension geometry in large part because so much of the real "suspension" action occurs in the tire sidewalls, not in what we would normally call the car's suspension.

I would say that the days of F1 on high profile tires are these days. The last groved tires were positively balloons in comparison to what Indy and other top open wheel and LMP cars are running. In part because so much of the suspension action occurs in the tires the F1 cars can run such screwy geometries.

Here was an interesting thread that at least started out on just this topic.
[ame=http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38233]F1 front suspension geometry - ApexSpeed[/ame]

You certainly could move the front wings further forward and have more underbody aero without serious consequences. Indy and CART were that way for years. I understand not wanting to go back to the all underbody aero days but they seem to have go far in the other direction.

Nascar flying issues weren't about loosing underbody aero. They were about the shape of the upper body becoming winglike at 200mph. Underbody aero does have some advantages for racing. It's less sensitive to the cars around it. The wake problem as you get behind another car isn't as bad so it has the potential to produce closer racing.

[Matra et Alpine]

I think we are talking about different points. Mechanical grip is in a sense how much grip can you get for a given load on the tires. That load includes both the weight of the car and the aero based downforce.

The trade off we are seeing is the decision to choose (and I am making up numbers for illustration purposes) a suspension design that is say 3% less efficient when it comes to turning the normal load on the car (weight +aero) into lateral grip but the designers chose it because it allows for 4% more total load via an increase in aero based downforce.

Problem with "making up numbers" is it can prove or disporive anything
SImpler is "Logic" .. if a designer can make a care faster by better suspension and worse aero then they will. They don't. SO the trade of ipso-facto for more aero is beneficial. WHY woudl a designer chose otherwise ?
If you try to make rules to stop them then they will (as they are paid to do) reevaluate the compromises and come up with othjer solutions.
The end-game of where that woudl head would be the necesity to have "standard suspension" !
That's Formula Ford solution. Good racing, fun sport ... but NOT F! and even LESS innovation

F1 cars, can get away with running what is realistically VERY screwy suspension geometry in large part because so much of the real "suspension" action occurs in the tire sidewalls, not in what we would normally call the car's suspension.

OR ... given what they have the designer seeks to optimise it.
Change one part and they'll still try to optimise -- and as we've come to fully understand airflow in computer modelling and the availability of wind tunnels then todays designer is going to again work on IT.

In part because so much of the suspension action occurs in the tires the F1 cars can run such screwy geometries.

Again, I think missing the point of what the role of design in F1 is.
Force them on to lower profile and MORE movement is not then a prerequsite to return to "old school" simple suspension mounting points and pivot vectors.
Arguably, take an extreme on movement and you got in rallying multi-link suspension and LARGE amounts of travel. It gets MORE "insane" eg old school Escort Atlas rear axles and 5 point multilink in the 70s
THe F1 designer will STILL come back and try to win on aero in some way. Being banned from using active components then damper and springs are whre it's at and now cars are usign tech bikes deployed 10 years ago there's not a lot to go.
I tihnk a stronger argumetn for active ride control can be made ... but then BANG goes costs again

Here was an interesting thread that at least started out on just this topic.
F1 front suspension geometry - ApexSpeed

Not clear what that adds ?
It reads that they are viewing F1 with a mind to applying it to a lower forumla ? and then all rules are off
Other than a group of people saying "aero is god in F1" ... the reason that is the case is because they really HAVE reached a peak in all the other areas and either have the (near-)best solution or had the solution banned

You certainly could move the front wings further forward and have more underbody aero without serious consequences.

As I'd said. The Tyrrel design work tells you that you will have much larger side pods OR have cooling issues. SO more aero issues and more difficult overtakes.

Indy and CART were that way for years.

Ovals ? Longer wheelbase ? Not comparable to F1 cars on F1 circuits

Nascar flying issues weren't about loosing underbody aero. They were about the shape of the upper body becoming winglike at 200mph.

I was talking about when the cars got sideways/backwards and all underbody aero was lost ( ie towardsLIFT ) and flipping cars. SOlved simple and crudely with the raising flaps on the roofs. Hard to do an a single seater open body

The wake problem as you get behind another car isn't as bad so it has the potential to produce closer racing.

That has too many variables and is dependant on HOW MUCH downforce is being genreated underneath.
As was shown before, the detachment at the rear of the venturi in the excessive days was large. THE advantage back then was the front wing was not as critical as it is now. So the nett effect was not so severe. Based on the simple physics of that level of low pressure, meeting higher pressure MUST introduce disturbance. Check out wing vertices from jet planes

[culver]

Mantra,

I think our conversation is two ships passing in the night. I am saying with a different set of rules the suspension geometry might evolve back into something that looks more conventional. You are saying with the current rules the suspension geometries make sense because the gains in aero are greater than the losses in mechanical grip due to the suspension. Both are true.

Just a few things that you mentioned:
I'm not sure about FF in Europe but in the US FF suspension is definitely not standardized. The cars run a large range of tires, and suspension designs.

The F1 car's suspension is mostly in the tires. I'm not sure if you were agreeing or not but part of the reason why I included that thread was because the designers on it state as much. F1 can use screwy geometries that wouldn't work for Indy, CART or any of the other top racing series in large part because the tire is so much of the total vehicle suspension.

Don't think that more conventional means simpler. More conventional means conventional geometries rather than geometries which clearly compromised for aero.

I would not claim that F1 represents the best in race car design thinking. I would say it represents the best in design thinking based on a particular set of rules, nothing more. Change the rules and the solution will have to change as well.

I'm not sure what Tyrell example you are referring to. The CART cars used a layout more like what I am describing. They didn't have many of the issues that you seem to feel would result. Remember that CART not only raced on ovals they also raced on road courses and street circuits.

Nascar never had significant underbody aero. They might have achieved 700lbs or so but given the 3000+ lbs of race car that wasn't significant. What got the car's in the air was the wing like lift as the air went over the car laterally. That picked the car up enough to get a rush of air under the bottom. That wasn't due to underbody aero features. That was simply the result of getting a car sideways at 200mph.

Finally, you are looking to exclusively at what was happening in F1. F1 isn't the only place to look. CART before it died showed a great deal of original thought. They had the sort of rules which I think made more sense. They didn't have many of the problems you are talking about. I'm not suggesting that F1 should simply adopt the old CART rules and call it a day. However, there is something to be learned there.

And my point to the CART aero bit was because those cars were less dependent on the front wing, the car was less sensitive to the wake of the car in front of it. That meant that as you got closer to another car you didn't lose as much front downforce as you might with a car that was largely dependent on clean airflow over the front wing to keep front end grip together. The this means that your center of pressure doesn't shift as much when the car approaches another. This makes following and passing other cars easier. You seem to agree with all this. This is a good argument for allowing more underbody aero and while reducing, via rules, the downforce of the front wing.

[Matra et Alpine]

CAR "originality" - care to list, as when I followed some of it ( Franchitti is from next village to us ) It was all "old tech".
Maybe I've been aroudn too long, but it really is the case that most of what "is strived for" has been done and dusted and tried before.

Agree with you on front wing, but that's not comparable to a much lighter race car with a much shorter wheelbase ( though F1 is now stretching out there ) CART designer compromises were all swwayed by the close running at high speed on oval with little need to turn. Thus not the best looking cars on "real" tracks. Just as F1 cars suspension tends to want to disintegrate faced with the additoinal forces an oval adds Horses for courses.

Tyrrel invented the raised front nose.
EVerybody then thought it was so many other things it did ... some I remember ..
- the dihedral wing added side forces adn stability
- the lower wing plane gave ground effect increased downforce
- the raised nose produced less drag over the top
- the raised nose meant more air underneath for increased downforce, meaning less wing on top and less drag

I was lucky enough to meet lead designer the following season where he explained the fun they all had over it. In reality the raised wing meant their was more air availabel to then be split and fed to the side pods unaffected by suspension arm airflow disturbances. THey side pod was HALF the size. It took the other teams 6 races to realise WHY it worked. They'd all built cars with raised noses and coudlnt' get the performance -- because they did NOT reduce the side pod size

I wasn't taking convential to mean simpler, just that it was "the same".
WHcih I think avoids the key point that IF a design compromise produces LOWER speed then it's rejected. So if "conventional" slows the car then it's not goign to be adopted by RBR

Re FF I wasn't specific enough, my apologies.
I meant that by virtue of the limits on costs, size compbined to the control on materials it ends up "the same". eg new cars all have pushrod double A front once dampers became good enough at the price to do the job in such a small package - because you're not allowed remote reservoirs on FF.
See it now ??
Attached is a test of 5 of the chassis ... compare the setups
EDIT: Ok not attached ( Wouter , how about BIGGER pdf support ? ) ... http://www.britishformulaford.co.uk/...d/mn200110.pdf

[culver]

Cart chassis did have to deal with high speed ovals but remember they also ran most of their races on street or road courses. They were not designed only for speedway tracks.

US FF cars are allowed remote reservoirs as well as a full complement of bump stops, travel limiters etc. I think in some ways the US FF series is more open than what you have in Europe. However, in the US only in the last year has an alternative to the Kent motor been introduced. In this case it's the motor from the Honda Fit/Jazz.

Thanks for the FF link. I'll have to give it a good read. In the US the top cars seem to be the primarily evolutions of the Swift DB-6 (an F2000 converted to FF spec). The DB-1 can still be competitive but they aren't as good as the later pushrod versions. The Van Diemen, Piper and Citations are also good cars. Last year's Runoffs winner was driving a Citation. The Citations have perhaps the stiffest chassis of the bunch. Part of that is because like the Swift, they were designed to the US rules rather than being an imported FF. I must say I think the Swift and the Citations are perhaps the best looking FFs as well.
The DB-1 is perhaps the most stand out FF of modern times. It certainly was in the US
http://spbcar.ru/news/en/i/2009-07-2...acecar-630.jpg
Many of the design ideas of the car are no longer followed but it was simply a great design and even with a rear mounted radiator and rocker suspension it's still competitive.
This is the Citation that won last year. Personally I think it looks great.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3139058...7622454097538/
I don't think either of these cars would meet the UK rules. The Citation's driver's opening is too small. Also I think the Euro rules require more sidepod than the US cars. Both of the above cars have very minimal sidepods (the Swift has none).

[Matra et Alpine]

Yeah different
This years Van Diemen chassis is running MUCH wider side pods and more aero dev than we normally see and the Juno whilst a little "ugly" is playing a VERY different game with topside aero.

But Mygale are still in the ascendency and the French manufacturer is doing well in many different forumlas. WHereas the likes of VanDIemen are struggling a little (imho)

oh and I'm "Old school" -- FF1600 was wehre my track open seater started (and ended). NOt up for these "modenr" FF2000 with more wings and aero

From the UK FF site ....

This is why Formula Ford continues to resist aerodynamic aids such as wings and their resulting downforce giving drivers the only chance in their careers to master the mechanical grip that a car and tyre will produce when driven and set up properly. If a driver misses this crucial stage of learning (such as by choosing a one-make junior series with aerodynamic downforce), then they may never get a chance to regain this critical learning.

QFT

[Matra et Alpine]

You got links to FF in the US culver ?
Can only find F2000 adn it all seems Van Diemen and DESIGNED to move everyone on to a Mazda engine ?? Odd

[Artur]

TheScrutineer, why you don't answer me?

[culver]

You got links to FF in the US culver ?
Can only find F2000 adn it all seems Van Diemen and DESIGNED to move everyone on to a Mazda engine ?? Odd

What you found was the USF2000 site. USF2000 is hoping to be a feeder series to IRL. However it's a dumbed down version of FC/F2000. The Van Diemen designed car made by Elan has been cheapened yet given a more powerful motor in order to ensure it doesn't get passed by driver's sticking to either cars powered by either Ford motor allowed in SCCA's F2000 class. In the US we have FF and CFF which is Formula Ford and Club Formula Ford. Club is basically for older cars with outboard shocks. I can't say there are any great links to check out. ICP-Citation is making cars but their website isn't very up to date.
ICP Citation/Variloc: General Information
Citation F1000 update - ApexSpeed A lot of the pictures won't show unless you sign up.
This one has a few additional Citation pictures as well as a picture of a white Swift DB-6
[ame=http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39292]Citation Pictures - ApexSpeed[/ame]
This thread has a number of pictures of the Citation chassis. In this case it's being used in an F1000 car but all the Citation chassis are the same between FF, FC and FB classes.
Piper seems to be a bit more on top of the website:
Piper Race Cars - Home

This guy has a lot of general FF history and talks about several US makes.
http://www.thekentlives.com/

Swift is still around and building cars. The original designer left a while back. The seem to do spec based formula cars but they have branched out of just race cars. They still do design race cars but such is the world market that most cars these days are either spec or somewhat production based sports cars. In the US and likely in much of the world the middle or semi-professional ranks of racing seems to be infused with one make series.
Swift Engineering, Inc. | Welcome
Here's a road test of the DB-1, the car that made the company.
http://www.apexspeed.com/community/_...t_roadtest.pdf

I think that's the best I can do for links.

I think the US FF rules require the car to be a bit narrower than what's allowed in Europe. When ever I look at pictures of modern European FF's they always seem to have very long suspension arms. One other difference, I think you guys have a larger and more powerful engine. In the US we have just three choices, the really old Ford motor, the newer Kent motor or the Honda motor. The reason for the Honda motor was it happens to fit into the same space as the older Kent motor. Most newer 1.6L motors are a good bit bigger than the old pushrod Kent. That makes conversions difficult.

Another difference is that in the US FF isn't really a feeder series anymore. For better or worse, Nascar is the top of the US ladder thus the best feeder series focus on ovals and the like. Since the fall of Indy we haven't had a good feeder system in the US. Actually you could argue that part for the fall is because we don't have a good feeder system. Our open wheel ranks are very fragmented and we no longer have a good place for old seasoned amateurs to fight it out with young up and coming drivers. US FF used to be a good mix of hobbiest and drivers looking to go pro. The hobbiest were a valuable part of the mix because they were a consistent reference point that driver's could used as a gauge year after year. A new driver might have youth and reflexes but the old hands usually had well sorted cars with and great skill and experience on their side. For what ever reasons (and I'm sure there are many) that has fallen apart. Formula cars seem to be an after thought at SCCA races (mostly production cars now). The ladder guys don't bother to spend time in the SCCA club circuit. At the same time, the pro series organizers such as the one running the USF2000 series are typically out to make money by selling cars and the series to participants. They aren't interested in a series where an old timer in a home built or small make car (Piper, Citation etc) or just a better sorted out version of a larger make (VD) would come in and beat all the rich kids.

This is pretty much what happened in one of the Pro F2000 series. They allowed all SCCA legal FC/F2000 cars to run. They happened to run at a track that a guy who wasn't part of the pro series knew really well. It also happened that even though the average Ford Zetec 2L was more powerful than the average old iron Pinto motor, a really really good Pinto would have more power thanks to the rules. So this guy who wasn't part of the pro series cam out and just smoked all the rich kids and ladder climbers. The organizer didn't like having to explain to the rich dads that SCCA rules would allow a faster car than his series. That's why the later series had specific make rules and got a far more powerful motor. It's all politics even at that level

[Matra et Alpine]

UK FF1600 is the Kent or the more modern Duratec engine.

The UK Swift chassis was a big success 15-20+ years ago, but has been bypassed a bit.
Now a much smaller team at Castle Combe circuit .... Swift Cooper

[culver]

I never did figure out the story behind the Euroswift chassis. Some made it to the states but really FF in the US was starting to decline in the late 80s and early 90s. The DB-1 was so popular that most people found it better to just buy a used one and go for all the upgrades rather than buying a newer chassis.

I don't know how the Euroswift and US Swift designs are related. It's clear the cooling system is different.

I asked a race engineer why the Swift was so good. His take was two fold. First the car was easy to setup. Or more truthfully, the long rocker arm suspension made the car rather forgiving of things like friction in the dampers and suspension pivots. The aerodynamics were good but not quite as good as one might think. The radiator in front of the motor wasn't more aerodynamic than a pair of sidepod mounted radiators. However it did have two perks. First it let the car draw in air that was higher off the track. In some cases that could make a big different in ambient air temperatures. The other advantage was it forced a lot of air through the engine bay. Cars that were just as quick at the beginning of the race would slow down as their carbs became heat soaked. The large space around the engine and all the radiator air flowing in the engine bay ensured that the engine didn't have any local hot areas. However, that was also one of the car's failings when the FC version was released with wings. In addition to not having much in the way of an under tray, the exhaust and radiator air exited into the rear wing thus reducing it's effectiveness.

[TheScrutineer]

The purity of Formula Ford is immense. I paid some money last year to drive one on an experience day and it was one of the best experiences of my life. Even though I was driving a Nissan GTR earlier in the day and hitting 150mph at the end of the straight compared to the FF's 100, NOTHING compares to the purity and sensation. Special.

Here I am!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBkw-CeJSFo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBkw-CeJSFo[/ame]

[Matra et Alpine]

DAMMIT.
You added a music track --- and Warner Music have had the vid pulled
Can you get the "raw" ??

[TheScrutineer]

haha! oops. i thought the 23 views was just a reflection of my mediocre driving ability. i will try and upload again raw tommrow

[culver]

The purity of Formula Ford is immense. I paid some money last year to drive one on an experience day and it was one of the best experiences of my life. Even though I was driving a Nissan GTR earlier in the day and hitting 150mph at the end of the straight compared to the FF's 100, NOTHING compares to the purity and sensation. Special.

Here I am!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBkw-CeJSFo

Big thumbs up there! My old man used to race decades back. He always said if you want a race car, get a race car. Don't try to make a street car into a race car. That was true if you want to drive on the road or on the track. I tend to agree. That's why I'm critical of cars like the Ferrari 599xx. It's not a purpose built race car and thus isn't nearly as quick as say an F3000/Formula Atlantic despite costing many times as much. At the same time it's no longer a functional street car. I've even hear people who felt the same way about the Lotus Elise vs the Exige. Also sometimes there is something cool about a good racing story.

This is a bit off topic but hey this is a forum. Another reason why I like race cars vs road cars is sometime you just end up with really great stories. This is perhaps my favorite amateur racing story:
The Road to the Runoffs - Page 2 - ApexSpeed
It's about how a whole internet forum comes together to help an all around nice guy finish his dream of competing in the SCCA national championships. It is also the only time I've ever heard of a web forum being granted the best sportsmanship award!

It was a beautiful late summer morning in the hilly central Ohio farmland. Fall would not officially start on astronomer’s calendars until sometime tomorrow. The sun had just risen brightly on the horizon and was penetrating in bright shafts between the long almost black shadows cast by the hardwood trees. There is a special silence when one sits in a quiet racecar. The engine is not running and the radio earplugs in your ears prevent the sounds of corner worker’s whistles and other cars from penetrating your private environment. Neither would my crew break the silence with radio chatter, for they knew I was on the backside of the course and didn’t expect to see me for at least another ten seconds. I turned my head to the right until the tethers on the HANS device stopped my effort. Looking back up the hill towards the crest of turn 11 I could see another racecar hurtling at me. Its brightly colored polished livery was flashing strobe-like as it passed rapidly through the alternating panels of bright sun and dark shadow. This was going to be the big one…

Sorry, off topic but I thought I would share!