German Car Zone

The are 3 main reasons as to why there's less overtaking:

When trailing another car
1] front wing loses downforce
2] rear wing loses downforce
3] engine loses power


current car vs. early 1990s car






Notice:

1] lower front wing (more ground effects downforce/less sensitivity)
2] higher rear wing and higher airbox (more clean air/less winglets needed/less sensitivity)
3] slicks (18 inch in the back pre 93) and widetrack (2.0 meters vs. 1.8) better mechanical grip and more predictability and better airflow
unseen here:
4] a more agressive and more potent diffuser (= more ground effects downforce = less reliance on the wings with all its consequences)
5] lower ground clearance and a true flat bottom (more ground effects downforce but quite bad for safety)
6] higher sidepods, more nose and higher cockpit for safety reasons (this is good)


So to improve the show, I say bring back 1] 2] 3] and 4]




Popular (internet) myths:

1] current F1 cars have record downforce

WRONG
- the 1979/80 top ground effects cars had a lot more downforce and a lot less drag (that's why they were banned, they were criminal; )
- ditto for the 1993/94 pre Imola 94 cars
- ditto for the 2004 car
- so in conclusion there were 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and pre 2005 cars with more downforce then today


2] it's the downforce
WRONG

- it's the LOSS of downforce when trailing another car coupled with loss of power (turbulent air hits the airbox reducing the engine's power)
- in other words it's how you produce the downforce not how much


SO

a 1979 car produced more downforce ?!
Yes.


Why ?!
Venturi undertrays + sliding skirts + much lower ground clearance.


Which was the first downforce monster ?!
The Lotus 78 of 1977, but really more like the Lotus 79 of 1978.


The first downforce world champion ?!
Mario Andretti in the Lotus 79 in 1978.


How much downforce did his car produced ?!
4450 lbs./2022 kg @ 200 mph/320 kmh, with 1380 lbs./627 kg of drag
Witch is more than today.
The 450 hp of his V8 however meant his car could never reach 200 mph/320 kmh.


Why was there more overtaking ?!
Excluding tires and brakes:
The ground effects cars (1977 to 1982) were "clean" from an aerodynamical point of view (the used the underbody to produce downforce).
While the turbos (also cleaner and less sensitive then today's cars) had "push to pass" turbo boost and then from 1987 a big diffuser (= ground effects downforce 2.0).


Did Prost/Senna/Piquet/Mansell's cars had downforce ?!
Yes some of then even more/a lot than today.


How come ?!
Bigger wings + bigger diffuser + lower ground clearance.


So why did they have more accidents, excluding electronics ?!
Lower ground clearance = more bottoming + more take-offs on the bumps = their cars lost the ground effects downforce and thus control.


Why was ground clearance so important in generating downforce ?!
To give you an explanation, if the car is lowered by just 1 mm, just 1 mm, the extra downforce gained would give the car up to 0.5 seconds per lap !!!


Why were the record downforce monsters banned then ?!
Their design faults (low ground clearance in particular) have "only" killed Patrick Depallier, Gilles Villeneuve, Ayrton Senna ...


What's so great about today's expensive lower downforce aerodynamics then ?!

Excluding overtaking problems, a lot really:
- variable lift drag ratio, speed increases = downforce increases but not so much the drag, speed decreases the drag is used as an aero brake to allow for last moment braking
- even some form of aerodynamical stability control
- Renault F1 have in fact gave their partner Boeing a solution to reduce drag on upcoming planes by 3%; so while the F1 aero is useless on production cars it's quite good on airplanes

Another thing that should be re-instated is the V10's. More power means that the drivers actually have to lift in the high speed corners like Eau Rouge and turn 8 in Istanbul. Now they don't even lift and the slow corners are deciding. With more power all corners could be deciding because the driver's skill becomes more important in more of the corners.

Amazing facts, thanks for sharing this.

True, the V10s could overcome the drag/aero-brake nanny, but the V8s are really wimpy.

Very nice read. Great for us to who don't have the same technical knowledge as you, Flavio should take a look at it too.

It'd be very unpopular, but steel brakes would increase the _opportunity_ to overtake by about 1000%.

Let's face it, today's drivers have, even at the biggest braking corners less than 50 metres to overtake. They can't even contemplate such a move.

Increasing the braking distances would provide such an opportunity. It would also bring back into relevance all those 100, 150 and 200 metre braking signs!

Some people have been suggesting that, but that idea never gain enough momentum. The teams and FIA probably won't allow it because of safety concerns. It will be interesting to see how these tiny steel brakes perform under the full course of the F1 weekend. This might also has an aerodynamic consequence because the engineers will always be running the maximum size brake ducts to cool the brakes.

Great stuff. I know a bit about the technical side of F1, but still a lot of new information in there for me.

I think F1 should at least experiment with the ground effects cars, if only in simulation. I'm interested to know if the advances in safety will allow a rethink the possibility of bringing back the aerodynamically clean cars. The ground effects cars will never be the safest possible car on the grid, but with the inroads made toward driver safety, surely it's worth an experiment/simulation.

As far as I know, the bottoming and takeoff problems for the ground effects cars cannot be engineered out. Rightly or wrongly, I liken it to rollovers caused by vehicles with a high(er) center of gravity. Again, as far as I know, there is no engineering solution, i.e. a SUVs will always have higher COG, short-and-narrow wheelbase SUVs higher still. You can make the modern SUVs safer and better protect them from rollovers by widening plus lengthening the wheelbase and adding electronics, but they will still have that higher COG.

I would argue that the ground effects cars' risk, like the SUVs gravity problem, can never be truly solved by engineering because they will always be more dangerous. However, the risks can be balanced. Tracks can and have taken out the bumps. Interlagos looked as flat as my first girlfriend's chest this year. Perhaps emergency electronic measures can somehow kick in when sensors recognize a looming loss of the ground effects downforce.

Well, that is probably not strictly true. With the smaller V8s if a driver makes a mistake, they loose momentum that the V8 can't claw back immediately and the driver who dares to carry more speed through the corner will have an opportunity to pass. With a more powerful engine, it becomes a point and shoot affair with the lead driver taking a defensive line through the corner.

You're right, it could be more dangerous. And you know what? Teams would have to make allowance for that. They'd need to look after their brakes on high-use tracks, they may even have to figure a way to change brakes mid-race. New pad materials may need to be developed.

But steel brakes are not necessarily more dangerous a rule change than many other rule changes.
Are wings dangerous? What if they come off at top speed?
Are underfloor venturies dangerous? What happens over a curb or bump?
Are spindly suspension parts dangerous? What happens in an accident - like Senna's?
Aren't narrower tyres more dangerous? They don't grip as well.
Are grooved slicks dangerous? Aren't full slicks safer? etcetera, ad nauseum...

The point is that as long as rules are the same to everyone, teams will adapt. The IndyCar series in the US uses combinations of steel and carbon discs in addition to regulations over duct size and number of caliper pistons to allow braking opportunities for competitors on different tracks. The governing body has stated outright that the best brakes available (those that F1 teams are want to use) will make overtaking impossible. A car can go so deep into a corner that the following car finds no opportunity at all to pass. In addition, their heat-soak recovery time is so short that they can repeat such braking all day long.

IMO it's the cheapest, fastest, simplest change that could be made. It could be argued that EVERY rule change they make to slow the cars down is potentially dangerous. But for the sake of the sport, these things have to be done from time to time.