quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse but the inherent physics of bikes allows for this kind of racing. Cars are too easily upset aerodynamically and thus have reduced overtaking possibilities.

double you tee eff? thats a load of shit. Bikes are way more upset aerodynamically than cars are. not to mention way less aerodymanic and much less grip.

quote:

If F1 were to allow flat bottoms

they are flat.

___________________
Trance in my pants

I beg to differ. The skid plank is flat, and this is the lowest part of the car. From there, the floor steps up an inch or two in the floor of the sidepods.

F1 mandated this stepped bottom in the 80's or early 90's to try and keep the cornering speeds down due to a reduction in downforce.

If the cars ran flat, or externally stepped bottoms, it would create more of a venturi effect which would result in a huge low pressure vaccum under the car, effectively sucking it to the ground.



This is the 1978 Brabham BT46. Note the fan on the back that spins off an output shaft from the gearbox. The fax sucks air out from beneath the car, and the sliding side skirts prevent more air from getting back under the car. This car won it's one and only race before it was banned.

Now, getting back to the bike comparison, the bikes obviously have less grip, both mechanical and aerodynamic. More attention is paid to reducing drag on the GP bikes, and not generating downforce. They get upset aerodynamically when they're in traffic for sure, but this only buffets them from side to side. The GP bikes are now being tuned with a falling torque curve which acts as a kind of traction control. The engine is mapped in such a way to produce peak torque fairly low in the rpm range so that the driver car open the throttle wider, sooner than the old carburated GP bikes.

When I say that F1 cars are more upset aerodynamically than the bikes, I mean that an F1 car needs smooth clean air to work most efficiently. If you're behind another car, you're in dirty air and your wings and other aero bits aren't working as well as they should, thus reduicing your overall grip. Because a bike doesn't rely on aero to generate grip, being tucked in behind somebody doesn't cost you in terms of peak cornering speed.

Disclaimer: this post was not meant to sound preachy or knowitall-y. Apologies if it came across that way

Paul

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse I beg to differ. The skid plank is flat, and this is the lowest part of the car. From there, the floor steps up an inch or two in the floor of the sidepods. F1 mandated this stepped bottom in the 80's or early 90's to try and keep the cornering speeds down due to a reduction in downforce. If the cars ran flat, or externally stepped bottoms, it would create more of a venturi effect which would result in a huge low pressure vaccum under the car, effectively sucking it to the ground.

In terms of being flat, I stand with Euphorica. Although they may have a lowerd wooden plank, bellow the rest of the body, the bottom of the car is still not shaped to give a tunnel effect. That is the real point. Whether there is a step or not, I do not think, it makes as much of a difference.

The fact is, that the bottoms of the cars are not artificially producing less pressure. They are not increasing the speed of the air, or channeling it in any way, other than just going around the wooden plank.

quote:

Originally posted by klago If Fernando can make MacLaren fast, there is no question who I will be supporting next season.

Kimi went to Mclaren thinking he could do a Hakkinen. But what happened ? 4 year of frustrations and blown engines.

Nobody really questions his talent. The car just ain't good enough. Unless Mclarens up their standards, Alonso is in for some hard time.

___________________

Download and review ! Omega_M - In the Mix (Beta Version)

Originally posted by twilightki : It feels like something you'd listen to at 4 in the morning, or listen to in your car while you're going in a tunnel.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko In terms of being flat, I stand with Euphorica. Although they may have a lowerd wooden plank, bellow the rest of the body, the bottom of the car is still not shaped to give a tunnel effect. That is the real point. Whether there is a step or not, I do not think, it makes as much of a difference. The fact is, that the bottoms of the cars are not artificially producing less pressure. They are not increasing the speed of the air, or channeling it in any way, other than just going around the wooden plank.

True enough I guess.

I still don't understand why the FIA doesn't allow the venturi style undertrays in order to increase non-wing downforce which would give us more passing.

Teams are still dumping vast sums of money into their aero, why not change direction slightly and improve the breed at the same time?

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse True enough I guess. I still don't understand why the FIA doesn't allow the venturi style undertrays in order to increase non-wing downforce which would give us more passing. Teams are still dumping vast sums of money into their aero, why not change direction slightly and improve the breed at the same time?

The real problem is the pace of development, which is too quick. The FIA has introduced many new rules to limit the pace of the cars, but year after year the engineers are able to over come these hinderences and make up time:
- grooved tires
- fewer tires per weekend, one set of tire for the race and quali
- smaller engines (3.0L V10s down to 2.4L V8s)
- a hole host of aero restrictions (2005)

The problem with the venturi tunnels, is that the faster you go, the more downforce you develop without a corresponding increase in drag, as is the case with normal aero. So its almost like free downforce, where as with wings, you have to balance the trade off between drag and downforce.

If they allowed the tunnels, and limited aero work, the teams would just claw back the amount of downforce in no time. In 2005, it only took them 5 or so races to get their lap times back to 2004 levels.

If more tracks were as modern as the newest tracks, then cornering speeds would not really be of concern to the FIA. With such high cornering speeds, any failure mid-corner would cuase a huge accident, and if it is an older curcuit, then the run off areas will not be able to cope, or help. A lot of the old tracks are being replaced for the race season, but cars are still testing on courses which are not up to the full FIA standards.

The driver's association has been locked in a battle with the FIA to get better support, improved facilities for their testing, because they felt it was not safe enough. They wanted more marshals, better run off areas, and more medical staff on hand. Most of the biggest accidents in my recent memory, have all come during testing (except ofcourse Ralf's huge accidents at Indy).

^^^ Agreed.

My venturi idea would have to be coupled with a serious reduction in winged downforce. At least with the venturi's, you run less risk of getting all aero-out of shape mid-corner.

You're right about the older tracks. It's a shame, because other than a few exceptions, the new tracks lack soul.

I'm so gutted that they're running at Fuji of all places for the Japanese GP. Suzuka is a mighty circuit. The fans there are mad! I sat on the entrance to Spoon corner two years ago

Paul

here's a good pic i took of the mclaren showing the plank at montreal's gp

___________________