Technical Moveable rear wings (DRS)
- Thread starter sportsman
- Start date
ATL11
Pole Sitter
So let me get this, @ the corner before the Over Taking zone, @ the predetermined line the trailing car has to be within 1 second to allow him to then have a shot @ a later Wing Assisted move. 
But then the Accordion effect will kick in and by the time to two cars hit the start of the 600m over taking zone, the lead car will be greater than the previous 1 second (the 1 second check is done under breaking & the 600m start will be under acceleration).
If you assume the @ 600m start line the gap is still 1 second, the gap between the 2 cars is 2 metres* and in the example they are both doing 300kph with the trail car in the zone accelerating to 312kph. The trailing car can gain .28 seconds or 24 metres by the end of the 600m zone. The trailing car therefore has to travel the:
2 metre gap
5 metre car it is over taking
5 metre to cover it's own car length
4 meter gap to allow it return to the racing line with a lead
This means the potential 24 metre gain, 16 of this is taken in the move itself, leaving a delta of just 8 metres. So with some maths (not sure if the theory is right here) if @ the 600m line the trailing car is 1 second + 8 metres then the trailing car doesn't have enough time/distance to overtake. The 8 metres I'm calculating 600m @ 312kph of around .1 second, so in theory....
If the Accordian effect means that the original 1 second gap has increased to 1.1 seconds by the start of the 600m zone the trailing car doesn't have enough space to make the FULL move.
Oh have realised the theory is based on some assumptions:
*2m gap for the overtaking, believe the only way you can calculate this gap is by understand the length of the track, e.g. a car will travel 86 meters in 1 second @ 312 kmh, but the gap between the cars wouldn't be 86 metres, would it.....
But then the Accordion effect will kick in and by the time to two cars hit the start of the 600m over taking zone, the lead car will be greater than the previous 1 second (the 1 second check is done under breaking & the 600m start will be under acceleration).
If you assume the @ 600m start line the gap is still 1 second, the gap between the 2 cars is 2 metres* and in the example they are both doing 300kph with the trail car in the zone accelerating to 312kph. The trailing car can gain .28 seconds or 24 metres by the end of the 600m zone. The trailing car therefore has to travel the:
2 metre gap
5 metre car it is over taking
5 metre to cover it's own car length
4 meter gap to allow it return to the racing line with a lead
This means the potential 24 metre gain, 16 of this is taken in the move itself, leaving a delta of just 8 metres. So with some maths (not sure if the theory is right here) if @ the 600m line the trailing car is 1 second + 8 metres then the trailing car doesn't have enough time/distance to overtake. The 8 metres I'm calculating 600m @ 312kph of around .1 second, so in theory....
If the Accordian effect means that the original 1 second gap has increased to 1.1 seconds by the start of the 600m zone the trailing car doesn't have enough space to make the FULL move.
Oh have realised the theory is based on some assumptions:
*2m gap for the overtaking, believe the only way you can calculate this gap is by understand the length of the track, e.g. a car will travel 86 meters in 1 second @ 312 kmh, but the gap between the cars wouldn't be 86 metres, would it.....
So let me get this, @ the corner before the Over Taking zone, @ the predetermined line the trailing car has to be within 1 second to allow him to then have a shot @ a later Wing Assisted move.
If you assume the @ 600m start line the gap is still 1 second, the gap between the 2 cars is 2 metres* and in the example they are both doing 300kph with the trail car in the zone accelerating to 312kph. The trailing car can gain .28 seconds or 24 metres by the end of the 600m zone. The trailing car therefore has to travel the:
A one second gap at 300kph equals 83 metres.I have no idea where the 2 metres came from.This has nothing to do with the accordion affect.
The trailing car can ONLY use its additional 10/12 kph after it has passed the 600 metre line.
So it only has .28 seconds advantage for 600 metres.
The line in Australia is on the straight following turn 16 which is a 180 kph corner.One second at 180 kph is 50 metres.
The trailing car has no acceleration advantage until after it passes the 600 metre line.
So irrespective of the wing the trailing car has to close that one second gap before its speed advantage is of any benefit.
I think ATL11 has a good point.
Taking Silverstone as an example, the only straight longer than 600m (I think, as I can't find any figures for the length of Wellington) is the Hangar straight, at 738m. So presumably this must be the designated 'passing' straight. The line denoting the start of the 'wing activation' zone would therefore be 138m after the exit from Chapel Curve. The two 'one second gap' lines would apparently be in the braking zone of the bend leading onto the straight, which would be Chapel. But does this have a braking zone?
And which part of the Maggots/Beckets/Chapel complex is in reality the start of Chapel anyway? Is it the final left-hander onto the straight, or the right-hander preceding that (or is that part of Beckets?)? Or would the complex be treated as one entity, with the lines at the braking zone into Maggots?
Wherever the two 'one second gap' lines were painted, the following car would have to be within one second of the leading car as it crossed these lines in order to be able to use the adjustable wing within the 600mm zone at the end of Hangar Straight. But it might have lost a considerable amount of ground to the car it was hoping to overtake, in that first 138m following the exit from Chapel, due to the 'accordion' effect that ATL11 refers to above. So, much of the advantage available from operating the wing would be used just catching back up again.
Also, I note that Technical Regulation 3.18.2 states that "the FIA may, after consulting all competitors, adjust the above [1sec] time proximity in order to ensure the stated purpose of the adjustable bodywork is met".
Is this or is this not a recipe for an almighty mess?
Taking Silverstone as an example, the only straight longer than 600m (I think, as I can't find any figures for the length of Wellington) is the Hangar straight, at 738m. So presumably this must be the designated 'passing' straight. The line denoting the start of the 'wing activation' zone would therefore be 138m after the exit from Chapel Curve. The two 'one second gap' lines would apparently be in the braking zone of the bend leading onto the straight, which would be Chapel. But does this have a braking zone?
And which part of the Maggots/Beckets/Chapel complex is in reality the start of Chapel anyway? Is it the final left-hander onto the straight, or the right-hander preceding that (or is that part of Beckets?)? Or would the complex be treated as one entity, with the lines at the braking zone into Maggots?
Wherever the two 'one second gap' lines were painted, the following car would have to be within one second of the leading car as it crossed these lines in order to be able to use the adjustable wing within the 600mm zone at the end of Hangar Straight. But it might have lost a considerable amount of ground to the car it was hoping to overtake, in that first 138m following the exit from Chapel, due to the 'accordion' effect that ATL11 refers to above. So, much of the advantage available from operating the wing would be used just catching back up again.
Also, I note that Technical Regulation 3.18.2 states that "the FIA may, after consulting all competitors, adjust the above [1sec] time proximity in order to ensure the stated purpose of the adjustable bodywork is met".
Is this or is this not a recipe for an almighty mess?
It is indeed.But just A word about the accordion effect.This is very simply the direct result of of this equasion.
Time x speed = distance. So depending on the speed that you are travelling at equals the amount of distance you travel in any given time
The accordion effect is simply that.So one second is still one second.The distance changes according to the speed.
If both cars take the corner at the same speed the one second gap will still be one second as they get onto the straight.
Much of the advantage of the activated wing could be negated if the leading car had a faster top speed than the chasing car with the wing in its normal position.
Trap speeds can vary from car to car by as much as 20 kph even last year.
If you enter any given speed and time in this calculator it will clearly show how speed x time = m/s.
http://www.csgnetwork.com/csgtsd.html
Time x speed = distance. So depending on the speed that you are travelling at equals the amount of distance you travel in any given time
The accordion effect is simply that.So one second is still one second.The distance changes according to the speed.
If both cars take the corner at the same speed the one second gap will still be one second as they get onto the straight.
Much of the advantage of the activated wing could be negated if the leading car had a faster top speed than the chasing car with the wing in its normal position.
Trap speeds can vary from car to car by as much as 20 kph even last year.
If you enter any given speed and time in this calculator it will clearly show how speed x time = m/s.
http://www.csgnetwork.com/csgtsd.html
But the maginitude of the accordion effect will, clearly, vary considerably depending on the entry speed of the corner preceding the relevant straight. For instance at Silverstone, where drivers would be entering Chapel at around 137mph (according to the CTA circuit map) or at Spa, assuming that the 'Kemmel' straight following Eau Rouge were used, the effect would be much smaller than at circuits with a hairpin preceding the straight, such as either the main or back straight at Sepang, where entry speed would be 50 or 60 mph. There the lead driver, with his ability to get on the throttle first, might open quite a gap before reaching the 600m line, negating the following driver's advantage from the djustable wing before he even gets a chance to use it.
This is actually, I think, one of Tilke's big mistakes in circuit design; his over-use of the hairpin/long straight/hairpin combination. My belief is that a faster, more flowing corner onto a straight would afford better overtaking opportunities at the braking zone into the next corner, such as at Spa (Eau Rouge/Kemmel/Les Combes) or even at Barcelona before the final chicane was added.
Ironically, it seems to me that Silverstone have made the opposite mistake with their changes to Stowe Corner over the years. How many times have we seen a driver able to follow another quite closely out of Chapel and get a tow down the Hangar Straight, but unable to make use of it because Stowe is nowadays almost a flat-out bend? Would Mansell have been able to pull off his 1987 move on Piquet if the corner was configured then as it is today?
This is actually, I think, one of Tilke's big mistakes in circuit design; his over-use of the hairpin/long straight/hairpin combination. My belief is that a faster, more flowing corner onto a straight would afford better overtaking opportunities at the braking zone into the next corner, such as at Spa (Eau Rouge/Kemmel/Les Combes) or even at Barcelona before the final chicane was added.
Ironically, it seems to me that Silverstone have made the opposite mistake with their changes to Stowe Corner over the years. How many times have we seen a driver able to follow another quite closely out of Chapel and get a tow down the Hangar Straight, but unable to make use of it because Stowe is nowadays almost a flat-out bend? Would Mansell have been able to pull off his 1987 move on Piquet if the corner was configured then as it is today?
Yes it will.But the one second time difference in the actual corner speed is the differentiator.Depending on the actual corner speed and a one second time gap the distance between the cars will equate to the corner speed.
As you point out the car leading gets on the power one second quicker than the chasing car and consequently start acclerating faster.
At this point the leading car will increase its distance until the chasing car accelerates to same speed at the same exact point as the leading car.In reality nothing has really changed.The one second gap is still the same.
Visually it looks different.Mathematicaly nothing has changed.But the leading car will still hit the activation line one second earlier than the chasing car and the distance between them in metres will be decided by the speed which speed each car reaches it.
If each car does hit the line at 300kph one second apart the distance between them will be 83 metres.
For calculation purposes you have to accept that both cars have indentical performance in the wings down position and that the drivers are equal.
True some cars will have faster corner speeds.Some cars will acclerate faster.
But I am treating this as a purely mathematical equasion without speculation.
As you point out the car leading gets on the power one second quicker than the chasing car and consequently start acclerating faster.
At this point the leading car will increase its distance until the chasing car accelerates to same speed at the same exact point as the leading car.In reality nothing has really changed.The one second gap is still the same.
Visually it looks different.Mathematicaly nothing has changed.But the leading car will still hit the activation line one second earlier than the chasing car and the distance between them in metres will be decided by the speed which speed each car reaches it.
If each car does hit the line at 300kph one second apart the distance between them will be 83 metres.
For calculation purposes you have to accept that both cars have indentical performance in the wings down position and that the drivers are equal.
True some cars will have faster corner speeds.Some cars will acclerate faster.
But I am treating this as a purely mathematical equasion without speculation.
As sportsman has intimated, the "accordion effect" is entirely irrelevant here. The time gap is all that matters, and if two cars are lapping at the same rate that time gap will remain constant.
I'm not sure that the DRS wings will actually be used during an overtaking move itself, they seem to be more about removing the 1 second buffer that exists between two cars of similar performance. As things stand, where two cars have only minimal lap time differences the trailing car finds it very hard to get closer than 1 second to the car in front because of performance losses running in dirty air (less downforce, poorer cooling, etc.). Hence, nobody ever gets close enough to really get a tow on a long straight, which usually requires a car to be 0.5s or closer behind the car in front. Think of Alonso behind Petrov in Abu Dhabidoo last season. As people have pointed out (very interestingly, thank you!) the actual speed and time that the drivers will gain on the straight with the wing deployed (retracted??) will not allow them to overcome a 1 second deficit on the track. However, over 5 or 6 laps perhaps it will allow them to get into a position where conventional straightaway drafting is possible. I think the effect of this movable element may well be so subtle that we, as spectators sitting on the sofa, won't really notice much difference.
I'm not sure that the DRS wings will actually be used during an overtaking move itself, they seem to be more about removing the 1 second buffer that exists between two cars of similar performance. As things stand, where two cars have only minimal lap time differences the trailing car finds it very hard to get closer than 1 second to the car in front because of performance losses running in dirty air (less downforce, poorer cooling, etc.). Hence, nobody ever gets close enough to really get a tow on a long straight, which usually requires a car to be 0.5s or closer behind the car in front. Think of Alonso behind Petrov in Abu Dhabidoo last season. As people have pointed out (very interestingly, thank you!) the actual speed and time that the drivers will gain on the straight with the wing deployed (retracted??) will not allow them to overcome a 1 second deficit on the track. However, over 5 or 6 laps perhaps it will allow them to get into a position where conventional straightaway drafting is possible. I think the effect of this movable element may well be so subtle that we, as spectators sitting on the sofa, won't really notice much difference.
Andyoak
Champion Elect
I'm inclined to agree...
I want to remain open minded until this has been 'race tested' over a number of circuit styles but if it brings cars closer together then that will be an improvement. The biggest concern is that it allows overtaking 'without skill' (for want of a better phrase); that and it should be free to use wherever you want... if only becaue it will encourage mistakes.
I don't know if I'm being naive but don't most overtakes come as a result of the guy in front's mistakes?
snowy
Champion Elect
Unfortunately the DRS is incapable of removing the "dirty air" that stops cars maintaining close proximity. It is through the turns, particularly quick ones that all the time is lost as the downforce from the car following is reduced.
The DRS may allow the car behind to catch and overtake at one specific point on any given circuit. But it does not - and the people who dreamt it up do not - address the problem of dirty air and cars running in close proximity. It is a fudge and a not particularly clever one. Even if it works it will reduce the number of inventive, creative and opportunistic overtaking manoeuvres, since drivers will be waiting for their opportunity down the one designated overtaking area.
It will have the same effect as refuelling, in that it will numb the driver's urgency and sense of "I've got to get on with this!ness".
The DRS may allow the car behind to catch and overtake at one specific point on any given circuit. But it does not - and the people who dreamt it up do not - address the problem of dirty air and cars running in close proximity. It is a fudge and a not particularly clever one. Even if it works it will reduce the number of inventive, creative and opportunistic overtaking manoeuvres, since drivers will be waiting for their opportunity down the one designated overtaking area.
It will have the same effect as refuelling, in that it will numb the driver's urgency and sense of "I've got to get on with this!ness".
I wasn't suggesting that it would solve dirty air. What I was saying is that where you have one car that is catching another by 0.1-0.2 seconds per lap, at present the losses running in dirty air mean that that lap time advantage disappears once they get about a second behind their quarry. I lost count of the number of times last year where you'd be looking forward to a decent scrap as one driver bore down on another, only for it to evaporate as the trailing chap couldn't get closer than one second. If you then give them back 0.2-0.3 seconds advantage then perhaps they can hold on to some of it and keep gaining on the lead car? I say perhaps as we haven't seen it in action yet, so the jury is still out.
The overtake may or may not then come at the same place as the wing is operational (most overtaking happens on the long straights anyway) but they should be close enough to force an error or try a move elsewhere on the track. People seem to be seeing this DRS system as a simplistic push-to-pass button, but I really don't think it will be. It's all about compensating the trailing car for the losses it will experience running behind another. As more experience is gained with the system the distances and times can be tuned to even things out, without having to rewrite the rules or introduce new technology. I think it is actually quite a clever and subtle system. Ultimately you are right, it is a solution to a problem that only exists because of current aerodynamics. However, the reality is that wings are not going away. Running at the speeds they do isn't safe without a reasonable level of downforce.
As far as making drivers complacent, why should it? You still aren't going to have unlimited tyre life, but at least you have a fighting chance of getting close enough to have a go. Last season you saw drivers cruise easily up to the 1 second buffer and then just hold station, waiting for a pitstop. Shades of the Schumi years... Why did they hold station? Because they knew that pushing harder would just trash their tyres with no real prospect of overtaking; they would then be forced to stop first and bang goes their race (ask Mark and Fernando...). If you actually have a chance of closing the gap and gaining track position then you are more, not less, likely to go for it.
This is more designed to fit in with the 2013 rule changes, and will be out of place in the next two years. With the floor producing most of the aero, there will be much less dirty air, and DRS will come into play.
For once I agree with Bernie:
More here: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/89682
The text in bold will sum up this season I feel when it comes to these wings.
More here: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/89682
But Bernie's suggestions are give them medals (has he turned into General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett VC KCB DSO?) or to turn the taps on with a two minute warning.
I'm unsure yet of the virtues of the moveable rear wing but I believe that only Paul Ricard has a sprinkler system capable of providing the spectacle that Bernie wants. I wonder who owns Paul Ricard?
Answers on a poleaxe.
I agree with what Pyrope has said. We need to give these things a chance, and even a few weeks ago I was completely anti-ARW (I refuse to call them DRS because that's a broad term), but I'm slowly coming round to the idea that we do need to see them in action before we bitch about them, which is what is largely happening right now, and with the greatest respect to all our lovely members, we're no Mystic Meg. If it were the case that these ARWs just let you get past in a push-to-pass sense, then, I am pretty sure they will be scrapped or the rules heavily modified. I do actually believe that neither FOTA nor Bernie really wants to see cars passing each other down the straight every lap, because it'll look stupid (okay - maybe Bernie would like it.), and people will turn off.
I don't think the rules have been finalised, and why do we expect them to be? This is a very edgy idea in the sense that it could easily detract from "the show" (hyuk) or could really add some interest. You have to give it a little bit of time. First of all you need the drivers to get physically used to them, by the end of testing, they should have a reasonable handle on this. Secondly, you need to practice using them at different circuits, they have had only two opportunities to do that so far. Finally, they need to understand how they can use them in the race and how the 1s rule really operates and how it all relates to KERS, and, is it best to use KERS in conjunction with the ARW once per lap to get past or do you use KERS in other areas simply as an extra boost out of corners, as in 2009? The drivers don't know how they're going to use them yet, they may have ideas, but those may be wildly out of place.
You are not going to revolutionize the entire sport and it's rules overnight, so we can stop the rhetoric about getting rid of downforce blahdy blahdy blah. F1 people know this. They're not stupid. Honestly, they're not. It's just that as things stand, there is no motivation to create a good will of overtaking in F1. They're all out to help themselves, which is why the rules need to be created by someone who is not connected to a team, but someone who has the intelligence and understanding to see what is needed.
If the ARW produces what I would call the most desirable effect, I would be happy enough. That desirable effect would be a situation where if cars get into that 1s zone, the ARW gives them a chance to perhaps halve that on the straight. You do not want to create completely false overtaking but if it lets a driver who is obviously stuck behind a slower car, it may at least give more of an opportunity to create a decent overtaking maneuver. It could be a temporary solution, and while I have concerns about more than 2 cars following 1s behind each other and how that will work, those are the kinds of things that will be ironed out slightly. If, after 10 races, we get ridiculously easy passing down the straights, or no change whatsoever, then, yes, I will admit it as a failure. However, from now on I'm going to keep a more positive outlook on it and hope that others do as well. Don't kill it before it hasn't had a chance. If it becomes an aid to close the gaps up, I am happy for that, we could see more mistakes, more pressure, etc. That's what I'm hopeful for.
Cheer up fellas.
I don't think the rules have been finalised, and why do we expect them to be? This is a very edgy idea in the sense that it could easily detract from "the show" (hyuk) or could really add some interest. You have to give it a little bit of time. First of all you need the drivers to get physically used to them, by the end of testing, they should have a reasonable handle on this. Secondly, you need to practice using them at different circuits, they have had only two opportunities to do that so far. Finally, they need to understand how they can use them in the race and how the 1s rule really operates and how it all relates to KERS, and, is it best to use KERS in conjunction with the ARW once per lap to get past or do you use KERS in other areas simply as an extra boost out of corners, as in 2009? The drivers don't know how they're going to use them yet, they may have ideas, but those may be wildly out of place.
You are not going to revolutionize the entire sport and it's rules overnight, so we can stop the rhetoric about getting rid of downforce blahdy blahdy blah. F1 people know this. They're not stupid. Honestly, they're not. It's just that as things stand, there is no motivation to create a good will of overtaking in F1. They're all out to help themselves, which is why the rules need to be created by someone who is not connected to a team, but someone who has the intelligence and understanding to see what is needed.
If the ARW produces what I would call the most desirable effect, I would be happy enough. That desirable effect would be a situation where if cars get into that 1s zone, the ARW gives them a chance to perhaps halve that on the straight. You do not want to create completely false overtaking but if it lets a driver who is obviously stuck behind a slower car, it may at least give more of an opportunity to create a decent overtaking maneuver. It could be a temporary solution, and while I have concerns about more than 2 cars following 1s behind each other and how that will work, those are the kinds of things that will be ironed out slightly. If, after 10 races, we get ridiculously easy passing down the straights, or no change whatsoever, then, yes, I will admit it as a failure. However, from now on I'm going to keep a more positive outlook on it and hope that others do as well. Don't kill it before it hasn't had a chance. If it becomes an aid to close the gaps up, I am happy for that, we could see more mistakes, more pressure, etc. That's what I'm hopeful for.
Cheer up fellas.
Well, the breaking zone before Hangar is at about Luffield, doubt that'll be appropriate!
