'09 aero may not improve show

[ioan]

I wasn't aware that KERS was optional, that teams could tactically choose to use it or not use it.

Yeah it is optional, and teams have to do their calculations to see if a more balanced KERSless chassis would give better or worse times that one with KERS added and most importantly 100% functional.

So I believe that at the start of the season most teams will not use any form of KERS unless they have a very good unit who's performance gain will offset the loses at chassis performance level.

[ioan]

Well if the faster cars were at the back it would be much easier for them to come through the field.

No way.

If the fastest cars are at the back of the grid they will have to fight their way through the field and they will always have first of all to pass cars that are close in terms of performance before getting to those that are in poorer shape.
This means that the fastest cars will rarely manage to position themselves better than 3rd at the end (and this if everything goes along their most ambitious plans).

Just take a look where the top cars finished this season after starting in the middle of the pack, not even at the very back of it!

[ShiftingGears]

No way.

If the fastest cars are at the back of the grid they will have to fight their way through the field and they will always have first of all to pass cars that are close in terms of performance before getting to those that are in poorer shape.
This means that the fastest cars will rarely manage to position themselves better than 3rd at the end (and this if everything goes along their most ambitious plans).

Just take a look where the top cars finished this season after starting in the middle of the pack, not even at the very back of it!

Easier for them to come through the field relative to this year. I think you misunderstood.

[Sleeper]

That might be the case. The wider front wing and higher rear means that both will be producing more downforce than before and the smaller diffuser means that the cars will be relying on the wings more than before. I'm rather worried that the cars will be worse at following in the wake of another than they already are.

[wedge]

The rear diffuser is smaller but slightly longer

[Sleeper]

The rear diffuser is smaller but slightly longer

No its not, it starts at the rear wheel centre line now.

[MrJan]

It's not passing that's the problem, it's getting close to each other after the first 10 laps. Very rarely do we see drivers running together for long periods and we almost never see a driver get overtaken but then retake the place and hold it for any substantial time.

Battles for positions have long been dead in F1 IMO.

[PolePosition_1]

Well if the faster cars were at the back it would be much easier for them to come through the field.

I've long time believed a reverse grid is the way forward.

People complain about lack of racing and overtaking. But at end of the day, having in place a system where the fastest car starts first, and slowest last. Its common sense that we're not going to get much overtaking.

If I had my way, I'd scrap qualifying all together, and the grid would be in reverse to current championship standings.

[wedge]

No its not, it starts at the rear wheel centre line now.

Really?!

I'm sure I've read before they've wanted to free up the undertray somewhat to compensate bodywork aero so they could get closer whilst following the wake of a car infront.

[Andrewmcm]

That might be the case. The wider front wing and higher rear means that both will be producing more downforce than before and the smaller diffuser means that the cars will be relying on the wings more than before. I'm rather worried that the cars will be worse at following in the wake of another than they already are.

Well this is where the Technical Working Group came in and did some studies using both CFD and wind tunnel testing. A fairly full run-down can be found here - http://grandprix.com/ft/ft20831.html.

The upshot is that recent problems with overtaking and aerodynamics have shown up the deficiencies in the testing that is done by the teams (both in the wind tunnel and on computers). Wind tunnels all have lovely uniform onset flow that optimises the car's aerodynamics for when the car is in undisturbed air, hence why they all work wonderfully when on their own. Stick the car behind another car and everything changes - we all know the air is turbulent behind the car and this causes a loss in downforce for the following vehicle, leading to the inability of the car behind to follow closely.

Now that teams have been able to afford big computers they are all turning their attention to CFD. In all honesty the methods they use to simulate the flow around the car are primitive at best and a lot of the detail about the turbulence coming off of the back of the car is lost using the modelling techniques. The CDG is a very good example of this as the computer model predicted almost exactly the opposite of what would happen in reality - a direct consequence of the lack of accuracy in the computer modelling.

I think my point is that what may appear to be a bad idea - a low front wing and a high rear wing - may actually be the best solution to the problem. Turbulence is the last unsolved problem in classical physics and there is a good reason why F1, Aerospace, Industrial and Petroleum companies invest so much in R&D (both commercial and academic) to find solutions to the problems turbulence causes.

I guess we'll find out how good the TWG's research is next year....!