Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49
  1. #41
    Senior Member Duncan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Oregon, US
    Posts
    290
    Like
    358
    Liked 84 Times in 63 Posts
    I went back and watched the onboard from Lewis for the first couple of laps, and it was pretty crazy, much more so than it looked like from the world feed. Charles' car was dropping bits of carbon fibre all over the place, and there was an active back and forth between Lewis and Bonno, with warnings about flying debris. One of the front elements on Lewis' car was broken off right after the initial collision. Going down the start/finish straight at the start of lap 2, Lewis moved out of the slipstream because it was just too dangerous; hard to see what was happening but there was a stream of sparks coming from the left side, and presumably some fragments of carbon. There was a message from Lewis that sounded like "this is dangerous as f***", but it was a bit indistinct.

    Then the endplate finally came off going up the hill to 130R, and it was pretty scary; it just hit and sheared the wing mirror clean off. It didn't just damage it and it fell off later, just *bam* and it was gone. I couldn't even freeze frame it in the video replay.


    The FIA might be taking a look at their procedures here. Apparently they "expected" Charles to come in at the end of lap 1, and when he didn't, asked what was going on. Ferrari said that he was coming in at the end of lap 2, but after the endplate came off they decided that was unnecessary, prompting the FIA to go back to them again and actually demand that he come in.

    Really should have been an immediate meatball. After seeing the damage inflicted by the endplate, I'm fairly confident we'll see new procedures sooner rather than later.

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    5,402
    Like
    336
    Liked 274 Times in 208 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Duncan View Post

    Really should have been an immediate meatball. After seeing the damage inflicted by the endplate, I'm fairly confident we'll see new procedures sooner rather than later.
    Agreed on your entire post.

    But personally I think the bolded is what resulted in the penalty that was given. Race control dropped the ball.
    When it comes to safety matters they shouldn't play games. By not throwing the flag immediately they left an option to the driver and team.

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,553
    Like
    68
    Liked 162 Times in 121 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Black Knight View Post
    Actually, I think this was ridiculous and that he should be banned for the rest of the season. Pieces of carbon fibre flying off his car could easily have hit Hamilton and killed him. Or even gone into the spectators and killed one of them. Thereís no room for this kind of nonsense in F1 when it comes to what is very clearly a safety issue for drivers and spectators. That the stewards didnít black flag him after he refused to come in is disgraceful. And what, he gets a measly 10seconds timed penalty? Pathetic! Send him home until Oz and guaranteed he wonít do it again. Safety first.
    I completely agree. But what will it take for the stewards to act? Another dead or maimed driver? I hope it won't get that far.

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    1,785
    Like
    0
    Liked 413 Times in 335 Posts
    How do ground effect differ from downforce generated from aerofoiled rear wings? Both generate downforce from the movement of the car forward. The faster the the car is travelling, the higher the downforce generated. They both lose downforce when the car decelerates. The effects of sudden elevation of the car from the ground may have different effect on the two systems. I suspect the aerofoiled rear wing would dampen the landing of the car such that it does not bounce along the track but lands and stick back to the tarmac and continues with little loss of grip and speed.

    I doubt ground effect would have the same outcome. As the venturi effect would be lost when the car elevates off the ground. When it lands, l wonder if the venturi effect would immediately re-initialize. I suspect it would only re-initialize when the car regains stability and is level on the tarmac again. Hence, how the car would behave when it lands on the tarmac would be more turbulent than in the case od the aerofoiled rear wing. That said, l have not taken into account what role the smaller rear wing on the new car would play in this circumstances. There is some downforce generated by this new rear wing, hence the landing of the car would be more controlled and would serve to help re-engage the venturi effect and consequently re-establish some level of downforce on the car.

    Just thinking out loud, people :-)
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    375
    Like
    0
    Liked 30 Times in 17 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    How do ground effect differ from downforce generated from aerofoiled rear wings? Both generate downforce from the movement of the car forward. The faster the the car is travelling, the higher the downforce generated. They both lose downforce when the car decelerates. The effects of sudden elevation of the car from the ground may have different effect on the two systems. I suspect the aerofoiled rear wing would dampen the landing of the car such that it does not bounce along the track but lands and stick back to the tarmac and continues with little loss of grip and speed.

    I doubt ground effect would have the same outcome. As the venturi effect would be lost when the car elevates off the ground. When it lands, l wonder if the venturi effect would immediately re-initialize. I suspect it would only re-initialize when the car regains stability and is level on the tarmac again. Hence, how the car would behave when it lands on the tarmac would be more turbulent than in the case od the aerofoiled rear wing. That said, l have not taken into account what role the smaller rear wing on the new car would play in this circumstances. There is some downforce generated by this new rear wing, hence the landing of the car would be more controlled and would serve to help re-engage the venturi effect and consequently re-establish some level of downforce on the car.

    Just thinking out loud, people :-)
    Hmm - aerodynamics of cars in the air - shouldn't this be on the rally pages?

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    5,402
    Like
    336
    Liked 274 Times in 208 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    How do ground effect differ from downforce generated from aerofoiled rear wings? Both generate downforce from the movement of the car forward. The faster the the car is travelling, the higher the downforce generated. They both lose downforce when the car decelerates. The effects of sudden elevation of the car from the ground may have different effect on the two systems. I suspect the aerofoiled rear wing would dampen the landing of the car such that it does not bounce along the track but lands and stick back to the tarmac and continues with little loss of grip and speed.

    I doubt ground effect would have the same outcome. As the venturi effect would be lost when the car elevates off the ground. When it lands, l wonder if the venturi effect would immediately re-initialize. I suspect it would only re-initialize when the car regains stability and is level on the tarmac again. Hence, how the car would behave when it lands on the tarmac would be more turbulent than in the case od the aerofoiled rear wing. That said, l have not taken into account what role the smaller rear wing on the new car would play in this circumstances. There is some downforce generated by this new rear wing, hence the landing of the car would be more controlled and would serve to help re-engage the venturi effect and consequently re-establish some level of downforce on the car.

    Just thinking out loud, people :-)
    In F1, current downforce has a lot to do with the flow over the front of the car. Since this flow is grossly disturbed when a car lifts off the ground, all aero goes to crap regardless once a car gets air. The same applies to yaw and such, and is the reason you sometimes see cars travel quite a way once airborne, when you would think they would get slammed back to the ground fairly quickly if the wings were still running the show.

    I'm not sure how this ended up on the Suzuka thread, but I'm bored so.......

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    7,752
    Like
    63
    Liked 425 Times in 340 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    How do ground effect differ from downforce generated from aerofoiled rear wings? Both generate downforce from the movement of the car forward. The faster the the car is travelling, the higher the downforce generated. They both lose downforce when the car decelerates. The effects of sudden elevation of the car from the ground may have different effect on the two systems. I suspect the aerofoiled rear wing would dampen the landing of the car such that it does not bounce along the track but lands and stick back to the tarmac and continues with little loss of grip and speed.

    I doubt ground effect would have the same outcome. As the venturi effect would be lost when the car elevates off the ground. When it lands, l wonder if the venturi effect would immediately re-initialize. I suspect it would only re-initialize when the car regains stability and is level on the tarmac again. Hence, how the car would behave when it lands on the tarmac would be more turbulent than in the case od the aerofoiled rear wing. That said, l have not taken into account what role the smaller rear wing on the new car would play in this circumstances. There is some downforce generated by this new rear wing, hence the landing of the car would be more controlled and would serve to help re-engage the venturi effect and consequently re-establish some level of downforce on the car.

    Just thinking out loud, people :-)
    As I understand it , the negative pressure under the car is largely created by opening up the diffusers out the back of the car .
    It has powerful effect , and so is regulated strictly , partly because of this potential negative effect of making the car flutter like a leaf in the wind , if that wind gets underneath it .

    I don't think the regs will be any less strict , but will allow a certain percentage more , in order to offset a loss in "top-side" downforce .

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    1,785
    Like
    0
    Liked 413 Times in 335 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Boyd View Post
    Hmm - aerodynamics of cars in the air - shouldn't this be on the rally pages?
    Steve, l think you exergurate somewhat. By elevated, l am talking about those moments when the car goes over the crest of hilly parts of some tracks or over quite bumpy tracks. My use of the word do not extend to cars being airborne.
    Last edited by Nitrodaze; 23rd March 2020 at 20:42.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    375
    Like
    0
    Liked 30 Times in 17 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    Steve, l think you exergurate somewhat. By elevated, l am talking about those moments when the car goes over the crest of hilly parts of the some tracks or over quite bumpy tracks. My use of the word do not extend to cars being airborne.
    You're right - I was joking, though I am old enough to remember F1 at the old 'Ring when the wheels did leave the ground.
    You may well have a valid point. We have seen issues with DRS when the airflow has taken time to shift and re-establish full downforce when the flap closes. There was an issue in the days of skirts that could re-appear - porpoising caused by movement of the centre of pressure as ride height changes at either end of the car. This could be an issue that designers will have to solve with the new rules.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •