The F1 Technical Developments Thread

I would show you calculations but I'm not entirely convinced you'd understand them.

If by "calculations" you mean numbers that you just pulled out of your ass then yes, I would not understand them.

I'm genuinely curious about your "numbers" as when I was at the Melbourne GP last year, the cars were much closer than "90m" on the straight. And it correlates with what otispunkmeyer said:

150 mph is 67ms^-1 so if you are a second behind a specific point then it means you are 67m away from that point.

I'd say that the average speed of most straights is about 150- 180 mph so the 1 sec gap difference would only be 67-80m.
 
Last edited:
If by "calculations" you mean numbers that you just pulled out of your ass then yes, I would not understand them.

I'm genuinely curious about your "numbers" as when I was at the Melbourne GP last year, the cars were much closer than "90m" on the straight.

Does he need an engineer to certify his post or something?

Assume two cars are travelling at 300km/hr (83.33 metres/second). If the second car is trailing one second behind the first, then it's going to cross a given point on the track exactly one second after the first car. Because it is covering 83.33 metres every second, the second car must be 83.33 metres behind the first. Physics doesn't really get any more simple...
 
Does he need an engineer to certify his post or something?

No, the point I'm merely trying to make is that unless you're at Monza or one of the two big straights at Korea, the 1 second distances between the cars is usually less than those figures.
 
If by "calculations" you mean numbers that you just pulled out of your ass then yes, I would not understand them.

Go to to the formula 1 site, and work out for your self what the average speed is for each race. You will find that it is roughly 200km/h, which is 55.5 m/s. This means that on average for the entire year, a car 1 second behind is in this 50-60m gap. On the straights the cars are doing over 300km/h (you can go check for yourself on the f1 website), which is an 84m gap. At Monza, the cars are topping out between 330km/h-350km/h, which is a 92-97m distance for a 1 second gap.

Apology not accepted.
 
What's 1 second?

Seriously though, it's taken a fucking page to explain this? Also, he said up to 90m, stop being a pedantic prick and complaining about less than 10m (or probably 5 in some cases)
 
:lol:

For 250 km/h (which is reasonable speed in the middle of the straight) 1s means 70m. I don't remember exactly how long are cars, but 4.5m-5m is about right. That means 14-15.5 car lengths.

Allowing more than 1s would be stupid. Also remember what drivers said. From simulator (I think it was some McLaren test driver) they said it could be even to easy. And for example, after first tests Kubica said that it is much more powerful than f-duct and KERS.
 
Ok so is a car 1 second behind the other in it's "cone" or not?
If it is, then why need an extra aerodynamic aid to lower the drag, you're already on his cone, speed up and try to lunge to the inside on the next corner.
If it isn't, then the system would activate the rear wing movable thing and indeed the trailing driver would get an advantage. If your rhythms are matched then nothing exciting will happen. If you're moving faster than him, you'll soon get into his turbulent air and have that speed advantage anyway, so why need the movable flap at all?

:lol:

For 250 km/h (which is reasonable speed in the middle of the straight) 1s means 70m. I don't remember exactly how long are cars, but 4.5m-5m is about right. That means 14-15.5 car lengths.

Allowing more than 1s would be stupid. Also remember what drivers said. From simulator (I think it was some McLaren test driver) they said it could be even to easy. And for example, after first tests Kubica said that it is much more powerful than f-duct and KERS.

That's my point entirely. What they should have done is do away with the movable front wing, do away with any kind of f-duct or system that will actively change the drag/downforce generated by the rear wing, and make the playing field even for who's leading and who's trailing. We've had aerodynamics in F1 for 50 years and there always have been overtakings. I just don't see the logic behind this.
 
Last edited:
Ok so is a car 1 second behind the other in it's "cone" or not?
If it is, then why need an extra aerodynamic aid to lower the drag, you're already on his cone, speed up and try to lunge to the inside on the next corner.
If it isn't, then the system would activate the rear wing movable thing and indeed the trailing driver would get an advantage. If your rhythms are matched then nothing exciting will happen. If you're moving faster than him, you'll soon get into his turbulent air and have that speed advantage anyway, so why need the movable flap at all?

At 1 second behind, the trailing car is out of the effective slipstream or on the very fringes of it, the moveable wing allows the car to get into the slipstream to give them a chance at overtaking.
 
Last edited:
At 1 second behind, the trailing car is out of the effective slipstream or on the very fringes of it, the moveable wing allows the car to get into the slipstream to give them a chance at overtaking.

If he was being faster, he would get there nonetheless, so this saves what, 1 lap of "chasing"?
 
I'm not entirely sure you'll ever really understand this. I think my explanation was almost overly clear. Only thing I'm gonna add is that the turbulence effect through corners dtracts from the guy behind's downforce at a much larger distance than the advantage he would get from slipstreaming. Turbulent air and slipstream are not the same "cone" you're talking about.
 
If he was being faster, he would get there nonetheless, so this saves what, 1 lap of "chasing"?

Yes but he is faster when he hasn't got turbulent air flowing over the wings. Once he gets to around 1 second, the turbulent means the wings on the cars don't produce anywhere near as much downforce as they normally would, so unless they are a lot faster than the car in front, they don't have the grip to get much closer.
 
The turbulence effect through corners dtracts from the guy behind's downforce at a much larger distance than the advantage he would get from slipstreaming. Turbulent air and slipstream are not the same "cone" you're talking about.
Yes but he is faster when he hasn't got turbulent air flowing over the wings. Once he gets to around 1 second, the turbulent means the wings on the cars don't produce anywhere near as much downforce as they normally would, so unless they are a lot faster than the car in front, they don't have the grip to get much closer.

And how would reducing the rear wing's efficiency even more help in this department?
 
Last edited:
And how would reducing the rear wing's efficiency even more help in this department?

Because drag is drastically reduced by opening up that slot and decreasing one of the wing planes' angle of attack. That's the whole reasoning behind the system. Less drag => potentially higher top speed and a chance to get alongside for the following corner.
 
Last edited:
That's why the logic is "only activate it in a straight line". You don't need the downforce that much to stay in a straight line. And that's why the wing pops back into place when the brakes are applied.

If you're affected by turbulent air in the corners then you're gonna be almost in the slipstream in the main straight so I ask yet again, whats the need for this?
 
If you're affected by turbulent air in the corners then you're gonna be almost in the slipstream in the main straight so I ask yet again, whats the need for this?

It eliminates the "almost" element and allows the car behind to get closer to the car in front by giving it a boost of straight line speed larger than what the slipstream currently is able to give. F1 cars nowadays produce behind them mostly dirty air, and not a real "tow" as they used to.
 
Last edited:
It eliminates the "almost" element and allows the car behind to get closer to the car in front by giving it a boost of straight line speed larger than what the slipstream currently is able to give.

50 years of downforce and suddenly we need this why?
Stupid gimmick. Expect it to be changed for something else next year, if it even remains allowed for the whole championship.
 
Top