here is an interesting read about F1 and the problems with over taking due to aerodynamic interactio
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 1
From: mother russia
here is an interesting read about F1 and the problems with over taking due to aerodynamic interactio
http://www.ensight.com/nov2004...2.pdf
the article is written by simon mac beath who is kind of a new found hero of mine.
here is kind of the cliffs notes version if you dont want to read all 7 pages:
(if you do want to read it all then dont let my crappy description ruin it for you
)
we all know that f1 cars are having trouble overpassing one another because the wake produced by the lead car, produces an inefficient environment for the trailing cars aerodynaimcs to function as designed, and the end result is that the trailing car has less downforce and can not handle on the same level.
some tests were conducted and the information shows that the trailing car is efffected as a result of the air flow leaving the leading vehicle and then approaching the trailing vehicle at a steeper angle, which is essentially the same thing as lowering the angle of attack on the spoilers of the trailing vehicle.
the part that suprised me is that the leading car is effected as well resulting in a small loss in downforce(only about 5%)
the author says that in the near future this data may be used so that cars that are expected to start in a lower position, and therefore be stuck in the wake of numerous vehicles, can change the angle of thier spoiler and take a hit in the drag department at the expense of generating more downforce when trailing a vehicle. the drawback to this idea is that when in an open stream of air the vehicle will experience too much front downforce and therefore will OVERsteer at high speeds.
he also mentions that proper use of this data could result in a car being modified to deliberately efffect the aerodynaimcs of the car in front of them
that sounds interesting to say the least.
i really wish that they would allow the teams to use adjustable or active aerodynamics. it would be pretty interesting to see the results.
warning: i edited my post because as captain smartass pointed out, i mistyped a few things.
Modified by Mr.E.G. at 4:41 AM 11/26/2005
the article is written by simon mac beath who is kind of a new found hero of mine.
here is kind of the cliffs notes version if you dont want to read all 7 pages:
(if you do want to read it all then dont let my crappy description ruin it for you
)we all know that f1 cars are having trouble overpassing one another because the wake produced by the lead car, produces an inefficient environment for the trailing cars aerodynaimcs to function as designed, and the end result is that the trailing car has less downforce and can not handle on the same level.
some tests were conducted and the information shows that the trailing car is efffected as a result of the air flow leaving the leading vehicle and then approaching the trailing vehicle at a steeper angle, which is essentially the same thing as lowering the angle of attack on the spoilers of the trailing vehicle.
the part that suprised me is that the leading car is effected as well resulting in a small loss in downforce(only about 5%)
the author says that in the near future this data may be used so that cars that are expected to start in a lower position, and therefore be stuck in the wake of numerous vehicles, can change the angle of thier spoiler and take a hit in the drag department at the expense of generating more downforce when trailing a vehicle. the drawback to this idea is that when in an open stream of air the vehicle will experience too much front downforce and therefore will OVERsteer at high speeds.
he also mentions that proper use of this data could result in a car being modified to deliberately efffect the aerodynaimcs of the car in front of them
that sounds interesting to say the least.
i really wish that they would allow the teams to use adjustable or active aerodynamics. it would be pretty interesting to see the results.
warning: i edited my post because as captain smartass
pointed out, i mistyped a few things. Modified by Mr.E.G. at 4:41 AM 11/26/2005
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,350
Likes: 1
From: Cerritos, CA, USA
Re: here is an interesting read about F1 and the problems with over taking due to aerodynamic intera
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mr.E.G. »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">http://www.ensight.com/nov2004...2.pdf
...... can change the angle of thier spoiler and take a drag loss at the expense of generating more downforce when trailing a vehicle. the drawback to this idea is that when in an open stream of air the vehicle will experience too much front downforce and therefore will understeer at high speeds.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
First of all, an increase in downforce will result in increased drag (called induced drag). Secondly, too much front downforce will result in aero or high speed oversteer - not understeer as you mentioned. The idea of active aero would be fascinating and unfortunately uber expensive. You could get changes in downforce from both ride height adjustments and, as you mentioned, through changes in angle of attack of various wing elements. Don't expect any of those F1 curmudgeons such as Bernie Ecclestone to accept these ideas without a fight.
...... can change the angle of thier spoiler and take a drag loss at the expense of generating more downforce when trailing a vehicle. the drawback to this idea is that when in an open stream of air the vehicle will experience too much front downforce and therefore will understeer at high speeds.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
First of all, an increase in downforce will result in increased drag (called induced drag). Secondly, too much front downforce will result in aero or high speed oversteer - not understeer as you mentioned. The idea of active aero would be fascinating and unfortunately uber expensive. You could get changes in downforce from both ride height adjustments and, as you mentioned, through changes in angle of attack of various wing elements. Don't expect any of those F1 curmudgeons such as Bernie Ecclestone to accept these ideas without a fight.
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 1
From: mother russia
Re: here is an interesting read about F1 and the problems with over taking due to aerodynamic intera
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Johnny Mac »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">First of all, an increase in downforce will result in increased drag (called induced drag)</TD></TR></TABLE>
right thats why i said
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mr.E.G. »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">can change the angle of thier spoiler and take a drag loss at the expense of generating more downforce when trailing a vehicle.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
i meant that they would take a hit in terms of drag not that they would reduce drag on the vehicle. a loss is usually bad in racing terms. i should have said they would take a hit in the drag aspect of the vehicle. i freaking know that you wouldnt get more downforce and less drag. i misused the word loss here. i meant it to mean they would suck it up in terms of drag for the sake of getting more downforce. you see what i'm trying say.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Johnny Mac »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Secondly, too much front downforce will result in aero or high speed oversteer - not understeer as you mentioned</TD></TR></TABLE>
you are right, i just said the wrong thing. i have understeer on the brain as a byproduct of owning a honda
but obviously it would cause over steer. i will edit my post so that it makes more sense.
i need to ******* go to sleep....
right thats why i said
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mr.E.G. »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">can change the angle of thier spoiler and take a drag loss at the expense of generating more downforce when trailing a vehicle.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
i meant that they would take a hit in terms of drag not that they would reduce drag on the vehicle. a loss is usually bad in racing terms. i should have said they would take a hit in the drag aspect of the vehicle. i freaking know that you wouldnt get more downforce and less drag. i misused the word loss here. i meant it to mean they would suck it up in terms of drag for the sake of getting more downforce. you see what i'm trying say.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Johnny Mac »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Secondly, too much front downforce will result in aero or high speed oversteer - not understeer as you mentioned</TD></TR></TABLE>
you are right, i just said the wrong thing. i have understeer on the brain as a byproduct of owning a honda
but obviously it would cause over steer. i will edit my post so that it makes more sense.
i need to ******* go to sleep....
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 1
From: mother russia
Re: here is an interesting read about F1 and the problems with over taking due to aerodynamic intera
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Johnny Mac »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Don't expect any of those F1 curmudgeons such as Bernie Ecclestone to accept these ideas without a fight.</TD></TR></TABLE>
i dount it will happen. they are prett opposed to active anything in most forms of racing. **** i remeber reading how the maclaren f1 had to disable the fans across the diffuser to race. i think inventive craplike that couldnt possibly hurt anything.
i am curious about what they will change because i think that a lot of people are getting pissed about the fact that no one ever passes each other.
heres my solution... they should allow all teams to use a timed device that will give them x number of seconds of active aerodynamic control and it can be limited to wing angle adjustments only. so if you want to pass you flick the switch and you have twenty seconds(just pulling a number out of my ***) in which your aerodynamics are altered. after the time is up the system resets back to normal. you only get one chance to use it once per x number of laps.
this would be relativley cost effective when compared to the alternative of altering the cars to reach a compromise between best in open airflow or best when travelling in someone elses wake. that will get really expensive really fast, and the more the cost of racing goes up the more the series will suffer in general. at least thats the story i hear.
i dount it will happen. they are prett opposed to active anything in most forms of racing. **** i remeber reading how the maclaren f1 had to disable the fans across the diffuser to race. i think inventive craplike that couldnt possibly hurt anything.
i am curious about what they will change because i think that a lot of people are getting pissed about the fact that no one ever passes each other.
heres my solution... they should allow all teams to use a timed device that will give them x number of seconds of active aerodynamic control and it can be limited to wing angle adjustments only. so if you want to pass you flick the switch and you have twenty seconds(just pulling a number out of my ***) in which your aerodynamics are altered. after the time is up the system resets back to normal. you only get one chance to use it once per x number of laps.
this would be relativley cost effective when compared to the alternative of altering the cars to reach a compromise between best in open airflow or best when travelling in someone elses wake. that will get really expensive really fast, and the more the cost of racing goes up the more the series will suffer in general. at least thats the story i hear.
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 1
From: mother russia
Re: here is an interesting read about F1 and the problems with over taking due to aerodynamic intera
by the way, i was saying all of that kind of just screwing around. i dont actually expect any of that to actually happen.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 0
From: Between Willow, and Button Willow, CA, USA
Re: here is an interesting read about F1 and the problems with over taking due to aerodynamic intera
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mr.E.G. »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
heres my solution... they should allow all teams to use a timed device that will give them x number of seconds of active aerodynamic control and it can be limited to wing angle adjustments only. so if you want to pass you flick the switch and you have twenty seconds(just pulling a number out of my ***) in which your aerodynamics are altered. after the time is up the system resets back to normal. you only get one chance to use it once per x number of laps.
this would be relativley cost effective when compared to the alternative of altering the cars to reach a compromise between best in open airflow or best when travelling in someone elses wake. that will get really expensive really fast, and the more the cost of racing goes up the more the series will suffer in general. at least thats the story i hear.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Cost effective? Yeah, right. It would require the same costs, but only used part of the time.
I personally don't like idea's like this. Why stop there? Why not allow them a bottle of "NOS". That could make the passing happen much easier? The it would be like IRL with the "push to pass" button. I hate things like that. Maybe some people are into idea's like that, but I'm sure not.
heres my solution... they should allow all teams to use a timed device that will give them x number of seconds of active aerodynamic control and it can be limited to wing angle adjustments only. so if you want to pass you flick the switch and you have twenty seconds(just pulling a number out of my ***) in which your aerodynamics are altered. after the time is up the system resets back to normal. you only get one chance to use it once per x number of laps.
this would be relativley cost effective when compared to the alternative of altering the cars to reach a compromise between best in open airflow or best when travelling in someone elses wake. that will get really expensive really fast, and the more the cost of racing goes up the more the series will suffer in general. at least thats the story i hear.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Cost effective? Yeah, right. It would require the same costs, but only used part of the time.
I personally don't like idea's like this. Why stop there? Why not allow them a bottle of "NOS". That could make the passing happen much easier? The it would be like IRL with the "push to pass" button. I hate things like that. Maybe some people are into idea's like that, but I'm sure not.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,788
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte, NC
Re: here is an interesting read about F1 and the problems with over taking due to aerodynamic intera
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by prkiller »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Cost effective? Yeah, right. It would require the same costs, but only used part of the time.
I personally don't like idea's like this. Why stop there? Why not allow them a bottle of "NOS". That could make the passing happen much easier? The it would be like IRL with the "push to pass" button. I hate things like that. Maybe some people are into idea's like that, but I'm sure not.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Jeremy thats Champ car that had there finger on the button
lol dont debate Aero with the mac you might get served
Cost effective? Yeah, right. It would require the same costs, but only used part of the time.
I personally don't like idea's like this. Why stop there? Why not allow them a bottle of "NOS". That could make the passing happen much easier? The it would be like IRL with the "push to pass" button. I hate things like that. Maybe some people are into idea's like that, but I'm sure not.
</TD></TR></TABLE>Jeremy thats Champ car that had there finger on the button
lol dont debate Aero with the mac you might get served
Trending Topics
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 0
From: Between Willow, and Button Willow, CA, USA
Re: here is an interesting read about F1 and the problems with over taking due to aerodynamic intera
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Casey@Burns »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Jeremy thats Champ car that had there finger on the button
lol dont debate Aero with the mac you might get served </TD></TR></TABLE>
HAHA. Shows how much I know about american open wheel stuff. oops... 
After they split the series, I lost all insterest.
Jeremy thats Champ car that had there finger on the button
lol dont debate Aero with the mac you might get served
</TD></TR></TABLE>HAHA. Shows how much I know about american open wheel stuff.
oops... After they split the series, I lost all insterest.
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 1
From: mother russia
Re: here is an interesting read about F1 and the problems with over taking due to aerodynamic intera
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by prkiller »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Cost effective? Yeah, right.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
it would be cheaper for them to rig up a wing assembly that just changes the angle of attack than it would for them to completley redesign the cars with a compromise to both clean air and the wake of the leading vehicle.
obviously just changing the angle of attack isnt the best situation but redesigning the whole cars aerodynaimcs will cost a **** ton of money.
i'm not saying they wont do that, but people are allwasy bitching about how the more expensive racing gets the less likely it is to fail because only the super rich can play and not just the moderatley rich
if they would rig up a system sort of like i mentioned they would have the ability to pass and once the passing happened they would return to thier normal aerodynaimc settings that they have allreads spent a kings ransom figuring out.
again, i dont actually think it is going to happen, but fans are bitching because there is no overtaking. once someone is in the lead everybody else is pretty much fucked, and that is just going to drive spectators away.
these arnt my words, i'm just paraphrasing the stuff i have read. i dont pretend to know that much about formula racing.
</TD></TR></TABLE>it would be cheaper for them to rig up a wing assembly that just changes the angle of attack than it would for them to completley redesign the cars with a compromise to both clean air and the wake of the leading vehicle.
obviously just changing the angle of attack isnt the best situation but redesigning the whole cars aerodynaimcs will cost a **** ton of money.
i'm not saying they wont do that, but people are allwasy bitching about how the more expensive racing gets the less likely it is to fail because only the super rich can play and not just the moderatley rich
if they would rig up a system sort of like i mentioned they would have the ability to pass and once the passing happened they would return to thier normal aerodynaimc settings that they have allreads spent a kings ransom figuring out.
again, i dont actually think it is going to happen, but fans are bitching because there is no overtaking. once someone is in the lead everybody else is pretty much fucked, and that is just going to drive spectators away.
these arnt my words, i'm just paraphrasing the stuff i have read. i dont pretend to know that much about formula racing.
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 1
From: mother russia
Re: here is an interesting read about F1 and the problems with over taking due to aerodynamic intera
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Casey@Burns »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
lol dont debate Aero with the mac you might get served </TD></TR></TABLE>
lol nobodies debating anything, he just misunderstood my first statement and then he pointed out that i was wrong with my second statement when i said understeer instead of oversteer. it was just a wording problem not an understanding problem.
and i am not butt hurt that he pointed out my mistake. i would only be pissed if he didnt corect me because everyone would be reading a bunch of wrong info, and thats a lose lose situation.
so in other words, its all good
lol dont debate Aero with the mac you might get served </TD></TR></TABLE>
lol nobodies debating anything, he just misunderstood my first statement and then he pointed out that i was wrong with my second statement when i said understeer instead of oversteer. it was just a wording problem not an understanding problem.
and i am not butt hurt that he pointed out my mistake. i would only be pissed if he didnt corect me because everyone would be reading a bunch of wrong info, and thats a lose lose situation.
so in other words, its all good
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,690
Likes: 88
From: Rancho Relacso, CA, USA
Re: here is an interesting read about F1 and the problems with over taking due to aerodynamic intera
Just add underbody tunnels and reduce the surface area of the front and rear wings. Most of the downforce will be from the tunnels, with the wings used as tuning devices. It worked for late 90s Champ Cars.
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 1
From: mother russia
Re: here is an interesting read about F1 and the problems with over taking due to aerodynamic intera
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Casey@Burns »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">lol i was kidding we do that alot in this forum 
</TD></TR></TABLE>
i know. sorry for the confusion
</TD></TR></TABLE>i know. sorry for the confusion
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 1
From: mother russia
Re: here is an interesting read about F1 and the problems with over taking due to aerodynamic intera
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Outrun »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Just add underbody tunnels and reduce the surface area of the front and rear wings. Most of the downforce will be from the tunnels, with the wings used as tuning devices. It worked for late 90s Champ Cars.</TD></TR></TABLE>
why exactly dont they allow underbody tunnels in most racing series. of if they do they can only have a limited distance of underbody tunnels.
why is that?
meaning why did they make the rules that way, i understand what the effect is, i just dont understand why the rule makers want that effect
why exactly dont they allow underbody tunnels in most racing series. of if they do they can only have a limited distance of underbody tunnels.
why is that?
meaning why did they make the rules that way, i understand what the effect is, i just dont understand why the rule makers want that effect
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,690
Likes: 88
From: Rancho Relacso, CA, USA
Re: here is an interesting read about F1 and the problems with over taking due to aerodynamic intera
I think they wanted to slow down the cars, especially on ovals. The Champ Cars' cornering speeds kept getting higher.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
They don't allow underbody tunnels anymore because a tunnel only creates downforce when there's air flowing through it creating a vacum and it's drag free to boot! The less air that enters the diffuser the more downforce generated, but there has to be some air. This of course is the normal operating mode but when a car bottems out it stops the airflow to the tunnel and suddenly there's no air to create a vacum and there's no downforce.
This causes the driver to lose 1000lbs or whatever of downforce on the car instantly and there's a wreck. Also, the faster the car is moving, the more downforce is produced, meaning in those 180mph sweepers if you hit a bump and bottem it's over. Things like active suspension had a big part in preventing botteming but it still happened. I can't remember exactly but I beleive that's part off what happened in '94 to Senna.
This is also why we have the plank in F1 and we have all these problems with dirty airflow and overtaking. Ground effect is cool and all but it can be fickle.
Modified by sdcivic549 at 8:14 PM 11/26/2005
This causes the driver to lose 1000lbs or whatever of downforce on the car instantly and there's a wreck. Also, the faster the car is moving, the more downforce is produced, meaning in those 180mph sweepers if you hit a bump and bottem it's over. Things like active suspension had a big part in preventing botteming but it still happened. I can't remember exactly but I beleive that's part off what happened in '94 to Senna.
This is also why we have the plank in F1 and we have all these problems with dirty airflow and overtaking. Ground effect is cool and all but it can be fickle.
Modified by sdcivic549 at 8:14 PM 11/26/2005
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,350
Likes: 1
From: Cerritos, CA, USA
Re: (sdcivic549)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by sdcivic549 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">They don't allow underbody tunnels anymore because a tunnel only creates downforce when there's air flowing through it creating a vacum and it's drag free to boot! The less air that enters the diffuser the more downforce generated, but there has to be some air. This of course is the normal operating mode but when a car bottems out it stops the airflow to the tunnel and suddenly there's no air to create a vacum and there's no downforce.
This causes the driver to lose 1000lbs or whatever of downforce on the car instantly and there's a wreck. Also, the faster the car is moving, the more downforce is produced, meaning in those 180mph sweepers if you hit a bump and bottem it's over. Things like active suspension had a big part in preventing botteming but it still happened. I can't remember exactly but I beleive that's part off what happened in '94 to Senna.
This is also why we have the plank in F1 and we have all these problems with dirty airflow and overtaking. Ground effect is cool and all but it can be fickle.
Modified by sdcivic549 at 8:14 PM 11/26/2005</TD></TR></TABLE>
No air is a vacuum, but you mean high speed and hence lower pressure air (see Bernoulli's law). The other problem with tunnels has to do with the sealing off of the sides of the tunnels. In the old days of F1, sliding skirts were used to seal the sides of the tunnels off to minimum air ingress to the tunnels. Sometimes these skirts either got stuck or undulations in the track caused air to enter the tunnels. When this happens, the downforce changes erratically from high downforce (when sealed) to much lower downforce when the skirts unsealed again. Drivers lacked much confidence in the system and as a result, the fearless drivers either crashed or won. (There is a picture of an F1 car with skirt stuck open in Katz' book)
This causes the driver to lose 1000lbs or whatever of downforce on the car instantly and there's a wreck. Also, the faster the car is moving, the more downforce is produced, meaning in those 180mph sweepers if you hit a bump and bottem it's over. Things like active suspension had a big part in preventing botteming but it still happened. I can't remember exactly but I beleive that's part off what happened in '94 to Senna.
This is also why we have the plank in F1 and we have all these problems with dirty airflow and overtaking. Ground effect is cool and all but it can be fickle.
Modified by sdcivic549 at 8:14 PM 11/26/2005</TD></TR></TABLE>
No air is a vacuum, but you mean high speed and hence lower pressure air (see Bernoulli's law). The other problem with tunnels has to do with the sealing off of the sides of the tunnels. In the old days of F1, sliding skirts were used to seal the sides of the tunnels off to minimum air ingress to the tunnels. Sometimes these skirts either got stuck or undulations in the track caused air to enter the tunnels. When this happens, the downforce changes erratically from high downforce (when sealed) to much lower downforce when the skirts unsealed again. Drivers lacked much confidence in the system and as a result, the fearless drivers either crashed or won. (There is a picture of an F1 car with skirt stuck open in Katz' book)
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 30,826
Likes: 0
From: RIP Craig Jones
Re: (sdcivic549)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by sdcivic549 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Things like active suspension had a big part in preventing botteming but it still happened. I can't remember exactly but I beleive that's part
off what happened in '94 to Senna.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Senna's death was after the days of active suspension and monster turbo engines - had nothing to do with aero.
off what happened in '94 to Senna.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Senna's death was after the days of active suspension and monster turbo engines - had nothing to do with aero.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
I meant that the fact that things like active suspension prevented botteming and that botteming played a part in his death. But not that active suspension had anything to do with it directly.
Kinda had to rush the edit and take off earlier so I didn't make sense.
Kinda had to rush the edit and take off earlier so I didn't make sense.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 30,826
Likes: 0
From: RIP Craig Jones
Re: (sdcivic549)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by sdcivic549 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I meant that the fact that things like active suspension prevented botteming and that botteming played a part in his death. </TD></TR></TABLE>
The only thing that played a part in his death was a broken steering column at 160 mph - the car did not have active suspension on it.
The only thing that played a part in his death was a broken steering column at 160 mph - the car did not have active suspension on it.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,690
Likes: 88
From: Rancho Relacso, CA, USA
Re: (.RJ)
I'm wondering what happened to Senna's FW16. Supposedly it's been sitting in an Italian police warehouse for over a decade. Williams was supposed to take it back but I don't know what happened.
http://www.ayrton-senna.com/s-files/start.html
http://www.ayrton-senna.com/s-files/start.html
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
I know senna's car did not have active suspension, it was banned the year before. It played a big role in keeping the car from botteming and maintaining proper ride hight for the aero package IN PREVIOUS YEARS. Adapting to the ban made the williams a touchy car.
I'm not really a fan of the steering column theory, I place more blame with a car that was twitchy to begin with and likely taken over that razors edge from twitchy fast to twitchy dangerous botteming on the bumps at tamberello. There's alot of support and evidence for both sides so no point in argueing it here.
Supposedly Williams destroyed the car completely, either way it's not around today.
I'm not really a fan of the steering column theory, I place more blame with a car that was twitchy to begin with and likely taken over that razors edge from twitchy fast to twitchy dangerous botteming on the bumps at tamberello. There's alot of support and evidence for both sides so no point in argueing it here.
Supposedly Williams destroyed the car completely, either way it's not around today.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post