Too much aero Options

[dick]

Does anyone else hope that the rule changes result in better looking cars? Man, these cars get uglier by the race. I thought the rule changes in '98, with the narrow track and grooved tires, made the cars about as ugly as they could get, but it's gotten worse. All these aero bits hanging off the car are atrocious. Especially the cooling chimneys. I found it interesting the even the Speed commentators were saying how great the cars looked in the F1 Decade series. I love the low, wide, short wheelbase look of that era car. Is it just me or have the wheelbases gotten longer? David Hobbs refered to them as looking too tall with the high nose and narrow track. I know I'd never buy a road car with all that junk hanging off it. Why would a long, narrow car be good on road courses?

[Rafaga]

I sure love the low profile of those turbo-charged champ-cars.

[rough_wood]

F1 is about technology not looks, and besides fast is beautiful anyway.

[red300zx99]

Agreed, fast is beautiful

[McGuire]

I don't care so much about the aesthetics. High downforce has destroyed the racing.

[dick]

Well call me superficial, but I do care how these cars look. F1 cars used to be the most beautiful racing cars on earth, now they just look like some kid scribbled them on his notebook. They actually had a '90 or '91 Ferrari F1 car at MOMA in New York as an example of beautiful design. Somehow I don't think you'd find this years' model in an art museum. As far as I'm concerned the '94 cars were pretty damn fast and they still looked good. They certainly looked more agile than the current cars. Stock cars are fast too, but they look like bloated pigs to me. Give me a good Gordan Murray design anyday.

[McGuire]

That stuff is all in the eye of the beholder. Frank Costin was arguably the first modern race car aerodynamicist. He used to say, "Lord, every day save me from what looks right."

[dick]

Good thing Frank Costin never designed airplanes. The rule of thumb for airplanes is " if it looks right, it flys right". Maybe why these ugly new fighters would fall out of the sky without computers controlling them. I'll take a Spitfire or F86.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by dick
Good thing Frank Costin never designed airplanes. The rule of thumb for airplanes is " if it looks right, it flys right". Maybe why these ugly new fighters would fall out of the sky without computers controlling them. I'll take a Spitfire or F86.

Frank Costin was indeed an aircraft designer, at De Haviland. (Where Colin Chapman recruited much of his early help. And where many of his aircraft design techniques came from, such as keeping running weight and CG estimates.)

The trouble with "what looks right, flys right" is that what looks "right" to the man on the street may not look nearly so attractive to someone with several hundred wind tunnel hours under his belt. Everything we see with our eyes is in fact all in our heads.

Early efforts toward truly aerodynamic race cars resulted in some astonishingly beautiful shapes -- take the Mercedes-Benz W196, which took its form from an imaginary, vaguely female marine animal. But these early experiments were in fact aerodynamic nightmares, virtually undrivable due to their high instability. Their eyes couldn't tell the designers that the real key was not minimal drag, it was the proper management and distribution of downforce. Only the cold, unblinking eye of experience could tell them that, and that's just what Frank Costin was talking about.

[ScottL]

Originally posted by dick
The rule of thumb for airplanes is " if it looks right, it flys right".

"Right", like "beauty", is subjective. The F-117 didn't "look right" to most of the engineers at Lockheed but it "flew right".

I'm not disagreeing with you about appearances. But unless you simply want to reminisce about the good ol' days, you're wasting your time complaining about it.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by ScottL


"Right", like "beauty", is subjective. The F-117 didn't "look right" to most of the engineers at Lockheed but it "flew right".

Exactly. Here the old canard "what looks right is right" has an especial and ironic irrelevance. The F-117 looks the way it does precisely because it was designed not to be "seen" at all.

[JwS]

Are you saying that the F-117 is so ugly that even radar ignores it?
The only thing that I don't like on the current cars are all the 'add on' bits that are used to get more downforce while skirting the holes in the regulation, they tend to look funky. I think the basic design is beautiful, and in many ways amazing when you look at the details like those little loop things everyone had a year or so ago below the air inlet. And when you see them close up you see how carefully everything is constructed, unlike many race cars that look like pieces of rivited together scrap close up. (to me)
JwS

[zac510]

This is kind of off-topic but it reminded me that the other day I was thinking of the silly camera pods on top of the airbox (that is Location 4 on Drawing 6). Now we have compact lens and what not, couldn't we remove the requirement for it and relocate the camera?

[dosco]

Originally posted by dick
I love the low, wide, short wheelbase look of that era car. Is it just me or have the wheelbases gotten longer?

Mostly an optical illusion, IMO, since the wheelbases are pretty much the same (within a few centimeters of one another).

The changes....

1. Smaller fuel tank to bring the driver further back from the front axle line. The cars of the early 1990s had much larger tanks, and the drivers were closer to the front axle line.

2. Side impact regulations. Older cars didn't have to meet today's standards. Thus the new cars have the higher sidepods and integral sidepod-monocoque side impact structure. And the higher cockpit sides.

3. Change in aero regs. The changes have resulted in higher front wings and lower rear wings, which aesthetically, have changed the aspect ratio of the car and as a result look IMO 'funny.'

4. The obvious wheel track change. The cars' wheel track are now narrower, changing the aspect ratio......

[dosco]

Originally posted by dick
Maybe why these ugly new fighters would fall out of the sky without computers controlling them. I'll take a Spitfire or F86.

Yeah, both the Spit and the Sabre were beauties. But neither of them could out-handle a modern combat fighter.....thus the need for the computer controls on today's aircraft. If you went up in an F-86 against an F-15 or -16, you would make a big smoking hole in the ground.

Plus IMO the F-15 A/C models were absolutely beautiful. As well as the Sukhoi Su-27. Wow. Sweet looking aircraft, the both of them.....

FWIW the trend in "Stealth" shapes have yielded some heinously ugly aircraft....funny, Kelly Johnson thought the F-117 demo (Have Blue) would never fly because it was so ugly....

[McGuire]

Originally posted by JwS
Are you saying that the F-117 is so ugly that even radar ignores it?
The only thing that I don't like on the current cars are all the 'add on' bits that are used to get more downforce while skirting the holes in the regulation, they tend to look funky. I think the basic design is beautiful, and in many ways amazing when you look at the details like those little loop things everyone had a year or so ago below the air inlet. And when you see them close up you see how carefully everything is constructed, unlike many race cars that look like pieces of rivited together scrap close up. (to me)
JwS

No, I am saying that a minimum radar signature as primary design mission resulted in an aircraft that you find ugly. If all airplanes had always looked that way, you would probably find it attractive.

Human values of aesthetics are predominantly social constructions. Even the genetic imperative of sexual reproduction, our most basic and primal instinct, is to large degree a matter of socialization and acculturation. For example, the advertising industry, those dirty, theiving, lying bastards, somehow managed to downsize the ideal of feminine beauty by about 10 kilos in only one human generation. These days a gal with birthing hips is the one least likely to find an ideal mate. A heinous crime, if you ask me.

That said, I agree with you about race cars 100%. If all the wings, tunnels, strakes, fluegels, vortex widgets and other aerodynamic appendages and doodads were outlawed today, it would be totally ok with me. High downforce levels have ruined racing.

[marion5drsn]

Originally posted by McGuire
I don't care so much about the aesthetics. High downforce has destroyed the racing.

These 14 words says it all! M.L. Anderson

[BRIAN GLOVER]

Don't agree. Just think about the driver who wants to advance to another skill level in his career. This is not F 3000. Let the John Alesis of the world drive FVs and the Michael Schumachers drive cars that take speed to another level around road courses. I want to see ambitious high tech drivers in this xtreme world where the testicals that have dropped are sorted out from those that have not. If you want to see Fangio type driving, go see drifting.
Piper J3 Cubs and F22s.

There was plenty of passing last week in Germany, (where passing is virtually impossible), as there has been since these crazy rules have been in place.
The problem is Michael Schumacher. He won't have a decent team mate that is allowed to challenge him. Raikenen was offered the job but he would not comply with Michaels stipulations for a team mate's duties.

It is a team thing at ferrari that the lackey gets the experimental car and is required to make it as difficult for other teams as possible. We can begin to improve the show by outlawing this type of nonsense.
For instance, at the last minute, the FIA can require the drivers to switch cars at another team's request.

If we had the Moss/Fangio or the Senna/Prost or the impending Raikenen/Montoya team mates with identical cars, there would be no talk of boring racing.

A few other things like slicks and limited front tire size, engine displacement limits and only two aero devices would be welcome. The wings may not be placed in the ground effect region. The two single element wings front and back must be of a given area in plan and have limited trim options such as Gurney flaps. Aspect ratios are optional. The end plates can only be flat. The wings can be adjusted in the pits. No other external lift creating aero devices may be permitted in the car even chimneys. The race must be at least 2 hours with no fuel stops.
There should be no budget limits so that stupid rules that move cars to the back if anything goes wrong can exist.
$300 million is not a lot for that kind of international advertising exposure. Heck, PhillipMorris's $175 million for Ferrari is chump change. There are plenty of huge corporations that could use this type of exposure. Jordan, Minardi and Sauber are the only ones complaining. Let them eat cake.
Where is Cadillac, Kia and VW?
Lets race.
Another thing: The drivers must compete in stock car races in the supporting program prior to the GP and each driver must compete in 3 international LMP car events during the year.

Originally posted by McGuire

That said, I agree with you about race cars 100%. If all the wings, tunnels, strakes, fluegels, vortex widgets and other aerodynamic appendages and doodads were outlawed today, it would be totally ok with me. High downforce levels have ruined racing.

[wegmann]

Originally posted by BRIAN GLOVER
There was plenty of passing last week in Germany, (where passing is virtually impossible)

C'mon, passing is virtually impossible at every track. I hear that phrase in every single Speed Channel broadcast.

The problem, as we've discussed before, is not exactly downforce. Rather, its the downforce sensitivity to drafting. Eliminate that and we have the best of both worlds ... drivers with huge balls and tracks where passing is a possibility.

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by dosco
FWIW the trend in "Stealth" shapes have yielded some heinously ugly aircraft....funny, Kelly Johnson thought the F-117 demo (Have Blue) would never fly because it was so ugly....

and the pilots first thought the plane was a joke... but I would imagine that the plane will be almost impossible to fly without its computer

[BRIAN GLOVER]

I was just being facetious. That's what the talking heads claimed before the race as you said.

Originally posted by BRIAN GLOVER
There was plenty of passing last week in Germany, (where passing is virtually impossible)

Another thing: Bring on the electronic doo dads. TC, LC, ABS, Active dampers, etc. Senna said that he didn't want to compete against some one else's computer, but he adapted very well didn't he? Peter Windsor asked the drivers if the cars were too fast and Schumacher said that a race car driver would never say that a car was too slow.. Raikenen said much the same, Alsonso said he will drive anything the rules suggest. Fisichello said that they are too fast.
control speed with power and tires and no refueling..
The Speed Merchants are on speed right now. Far out. 'The Autobahn' comes on the History Channel at 9pm eastern.

Originally posted by wegmann


C'mon, passing is virtually impossible at every track. I hear that phrase in every single Speed Channel broadcast.

The problem, as we've discussed before, is not exactly downforce. Rather, its the downforce sensitivity to drafting. Eliminate that and we have the best of both worlds ... drivers with huge balls and tracks where passing is a possibility.

[McGuire]

Germany only looked decent in comparison to other recent F1 races, not to the F1 of past years. I guess folks tend to have short memories. High downforce levels have destroyed what made racing truly exciting to the fans.

The more downforce the cars have, the greater their cornering speeds and the lower their straight line speeds (Due to the resultant drag -- A modern F1 car has over 850 hp but will barely do 200 mph in typical aero configuration, because it is hauling so much aero. That is absurdly slow for that much hp and so little frontal area.) These cars are now traveling closer to their average lap speed around an ever greater percentage of the track. Give the car enough downforce (and hp to pull it) and Monaco may as well be Texas Motor Speedway -- the driver can negotiate an entire lap at 100% WOT. (However, unlike on ovals there is typically only one good line around a corner.) What creates overtaking on a road course is cars traveling at different speeds at the same portion of the track at the same time -- under acceleration and braking, for example. High downforce reduces those speed differentials and the race becomes a single file parade.

High downforce has also greatly reduced the braking zones. Without downforce, a car's deceleration is essentially limited to its tires' longitudinal CF. Downforce effectively multiplies the tires' CF; the cars can brake at 4 and 5 g or more, and the braking zones have collapsed down into the corner entries. (Also, a modern F1 car carries so much aero that it will decelerate at 1+ g just by lifting off the throttle.) Most opportunities for overtaking are under braking...yet everyone wonders why there is so little overtaking anymore.

Finally, we have apparently forgotten why people pay to see motor racing. They want to see drivers fighting to keep their cars on the edge of control. With so little slip or yaw, high downforce cars do not impart that look to the fans. One day very soon Goodwood will be a bigger draw and a more valuable entertainment property than the British Grand Prix, and then everyone will finally realize where it all went wrong.

[hydra]

Originally posted by dosco

Plus IMO the F-15 A/C models were absolutely beautiful. As well as the Sukhoi Su-27. Wow. Sweet looking aircraft, the both of them.....

Su-35/37 & F-14 Baby...
Best looking planes EVER IMO

[dosco]

Originally posted by BRIAN GLOVER
The problem is Michael Schumacher. He won't have a decent team mate that is allowed to challenge him.

It is a team thing at ferrari that the lackey gets the experimental car and is required to make it as difficult for other teams as possible. We can begin to improve the show by outlawing this type of nonsense.

Bullocks. Bullocks, I say.

Eddie Irvine had the best years of his F1 career with Ferrari as MS teammate. And the same can be said for Rubinho.

If/when Rubens moves to be a "number 1" at a team, we'll all watch his slide into the crapper and subsequent retirement.

[dosco]

Originally posted by McGuire
Germany only looked decent in comparison to other recent F1 races, not to the F1 of past years. I guess folks tend to have short memories. High downforce levels have destroyed what made racing truly exciting to the fans.

I agree with your analysis, though, when would you place the cutoff on aero as the reason for bad racing?

1989?

1984?

The problem IMO with deleting aero is that the cars will be little more than Formula BMW or FV cars.

How can we structure the rules to make the cars "the best/most difficult to drive" without making the series so "dumbed down" that moving "up" to F1 becomes, in reality, a "move down?"

[McGuire]

Originally posted by dosco


I agree with your analysis, though, when would you place the cutoff on aero as the reason for bad racing?

1989?

1984?

The problem IMO with deleting aero is that the cars will be little more than Formula BMW or FV cars.

How can we structure the rules to make the cars "the best/most difficult to drive" without making the series so "dumbed down" that moving "up" to F1 becomes, in reality, a "move down?"

around 1980 is where it took the turn, and I don't really have a solution for the bigger picture. In the easily foreseeable future there will be road cars with superior performance to race cars, and then we will have to decide what the sport is truly about.

[wegmann]

Originally posted by BRIAN GLOVER
I was just being facetious. That's what the talking heads claimed before the race as you said.

Oh, I see.

Originally posted by BRIAN GLOVER
Another thing: Bring on the electronic doo dads. TC, LC, ABS, Active dampers, etc.

This is a whole new argument ... and has been covered in many other threads.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

How dare you?


[QUOTE]Originally posted by dosco
[B]

Bullocks. Bullocks, I say.

[Spunout]

"Finally, we have apparently forgotten why people pay to see motor racing. They want to see drivers fighting to keep their cars on the edge of control. With so little slip or yaw, high downforce cars do not impart that look to the fans."

And the funny thing is high downforce makes cars edgier and less forgiving. Same appplies to grooved tyres, actually. Have some oversteer and downforce will disappear, the car swaps ends and hits the wall before you realize what is going on. This means you have to be smooth, on the edge but not over the edge ;) Try Ronnie Peterson-style powerslides with current cars and you´ll spin in every corner It takes tremendous feel and skill to go fast, look at Schumacher or Fisichella. It looks easy for people who have no clue whatsoever. It looks smooth because these guys can feel where the limit is without going over it. This is a talent very few people have.

But I agree, especially with TC (and I HATE TC) it doesn´t look as cool as it used to, and certainly current aero makes passing way too difficult...

[BRIAN GLOVER]

F1 has record attendance and TV rating world wide despite the 'boring' parade. There has always been passing at the back of the pack with the current package. I don't buy this thing about not been able to pass because of downforce considerations. There is no need to take a chance because of 'Pit Stop Strategy' (PiSS). It PiSSes me off. This is what makes F1 boring when we sit on the edge of our chairs watching a frantic pit stop against the clock. This is what we have come to accept as good racing these days. To watch a bunch of hairy backs changing wheels in a hurry.
As my dear friend Dosco puts it," What a load of bollocks". Races are won in the pits these days. Stop that shit and all will be well in F1.
With no fuel stops and Montoya or Raikenen in the other Ferrari with no team orders and identical cars, we would then see some racing that would be akin to the Senna and Prost shows of yore. Except in this case, the imposter would be exposed for what he is. A dirty rotten, low down, double crossing SOB.(You like that, Dosco???) He'll go home crying to his mama, er dada.
What people want to see is lead changes like in MotoGP. Sometimes two or three times per lap. Good clean position changes is what it is all about. This is where MS comes short when his opponent has competitive equipment and has Mansell size balls.( Villeneuve, Hakkenen).
F1 cars have been on rails for 3 decades. It's all MS's fault that this show is sub standard.

Sides, like I said, very few drivers can transition to F1 cars from other forms of motosport because of the very rare skill levels required. There must be a place for these special human beings to go. F1 must provide this home. That's not to say that I don't enjoy the Goodwood festival or dirt tracks. I do.

QUOTE]Originally posted by McGuire

Originally posted by McGuire
[Finally, we have apparently forgotten why people pay to see motor racing. They want to see drivers fighting to keep their cars on the edge of control. With so little slip or yaw, high downforce cars do not impart that look to the fans. One day very soon Goodwood will be a bigger draw and a more valuable entertainment property than the British Grand Prix, and then everyone will finally realize where it all went wrong. [/B]

[McGuire]

Originally posted by BRIAN GLOVER
F1 has record attendance and TV rating world wide despite the 'boring' parade. There has always been passing at the back of the pack with the current package. I don't buy this thing about not been able to pass because of downforce considerations. There is no need to take a chance because of 'Pit Stop Strategy' (PiSS). It PiSSes me off. This is what makes F1 boring when we sit on the edge of our chairs watching a frantic pit stop against the clock. This is what we have come to accept as good racing these days. To watch a bunch of hairy backs changing wheels in a hurry.
As my dear friend Dosco puts it," What a load of bollocks". Races are won in the pits these days. Stop that shit and all will be well in F1.

The pit stop strategies are to a large degree dicated by the current difficulties in overtaking, which are a direct result of high downforce. If you can't pass on the track, outrun them on fuel load, pop off some flyer laps on low tanks and a clear track, pull out a margin and win the race. How many times has Schumacher done this? So many times that it has even been speculated here that he has special "light fuel," which is absurd of course, but it does undeline how the races typically play out these days.

In Champ Car, since the cars are all virtually identical and they typically run on tight street courses where overtaking is virtually impossible, this is essentially the entire ball game.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Spunout
And the funny thing is high downforce makes cars edgier and less forgiving. Same appplies to grooved tyres, actually. Have some oversteer and downforce will disappear, the car swaps ends and hits the wall before you realize what is going on. This means you have to be smooth, on the edge but not over the edge ;) Try Ronnie Peterson-style powerslides with current cars and you´ll spin in every corner It takes tremendous feel and skill to go fast, look at Schumacher or Fisichella. It looks easy for people who have no clue whatsoever. It looks smooth because these guys can feel where the limit is without going over it. This is a talent very few people have.

But I agree, especially with TC (and I HATE TC) it doesn´t look as cool as it used to, and certainly current aero makes passing way too difficult...

It's not high downforce that makes these cars edgy or "hard to drive." (They can run on the ceiling, so really, how hard can it be?) Properly developed, the aero is no more sensitive than the chassis (essentially they are one in the same -- a modern race car is in effect a platform for the aero.) What makes these cars so nervous are the narrow track and treaded tires.

That said, I don't believe the humans driving these cars are any more special than any previous generations. Any decent journeyman driver can turn representative lap times and give back useful feedback with these cars. Look at the current crop of test drivers. The so-called "degree of diffculty" is set not by the equipment but by the competition. Driving is easy, racing is hard. If they make the cars "easier to drive," the real race drivers will simply hang them out that much further for that much longer and put them back on the very same edge. Phil Hill won the WDC with around 180 hp while Piquet had around 875. Does this mean Piquet's were bigger? I don't think so.

[JwS]

"Phil Hill won the WDC with around 180 hp while Piquet had around 875. "
Wow, he was good!
JwS

[Spunout]

"(They can run on the ceiling, so really, how hard can it be?)"

This may be sarcasm but there are actually some (completely clueless) people who really think this way I mean if I push as hard as I can with 80s Mercedes 200 Diesel and manage to go trough a corner at 100 kph, I am as close to the limit as I can be. Now if I go trough the same corner at 100 kph with F1 car, it will be 10 times easier. That I guess means more grip makes cars easier to drive...



"Properly developed, the aero is no more sensitive than the chassis"

But it IS. One of the reasons is wings generate aero grip only when car goes STRAIGTH. Once you get SIDEWAYS, you lose the aero grip, and assuming you were going on the limit of grip you had before getting out of shape (and losing aero grip), you WILL spin

To make it really simple, you can have massive oversteer with road car and save it easily. But have you EVER seen anyone doing the same with modern F1 car? No, because it would be physically impossible ;) Plus when you are BEHIND other cars, there will be turbulence and loss of air, no matter how well the aero is designed.

Then again, I agree narrow track and grooved tyres are important reasons as well (although AFAIK current grooved tyres are no so far off from what slicks in terms of handling). Just compare 1997 & 1998.

"That said, I don't believe the humans driving these cars are any more special than any previous generations."

Well - different times, different challenges. This will always be a matter of opinion. But IMO it has always been about responding to the challenge of YOUR era. Jim Clark wasn´t as fit as Michael Schumacher because there was no need to be. Michael Schumacher isn´t as brave as Jim Clark because there is no need to be. Still, both Clark and Schumacher are F1 legends. Apples and oranges...

[dosco]

First:

Originally posted by Spunout
Now if I go trough the same corner at 100 kph with F1 car, it will be 10 times easier.

Then:

One of the reasons is wings generate aero grip only when car goes STRAIGHt. Once you get SIDEWAYS, you lose the aero grip

Care to reconcile your two statements? Or explain why it would be 10 times easier to drive an F1 car through a turn rather than your Merc?

I expectantly await your reply.....

[Spunout]

First of all I don´t have Merc (and if I ever will have, it won´t be 80s 200 Diesel ).

Well to be honest I don´t understand what parts of my post I should "reconcile"?

"Care to reconcile your two statements? Or explain why it would be 10 times easier to drive an F1 car through a turn rather than your Merc?"

Because if I go trough the turn AT THE SAME SPEED, with Merc I am going as fast as I can go without spinning off, with F1 car I am going 10 times SLOWER than Michael Schumacher would go ;)

Of course, if I tried to go as fast as possible with both cars, I would get much closer to the limit with Merc. That is why F1 car is more challenging.

The other part of my post is about situations where you have oversteer. Going straigth/sideways is not referring to the track (obviously), but the position of the car. Even in the corners the car is travelling more or less to the direction where the nose is pointing to - except when you get sideways, that is ;)



And last but not least, I hope you DID notice the "Merc part" of my post was sarcasm...?

[dosco]

Originally posted by Spunout
Well to be honest I don´t understand what parts of my post I should "reconcile"?

OK. Explain your statement "wings generate aero grip only when the car goes straight."

[Spunout]

I assume you understand my (sarcastic) Merc remark now?

"OK. Explain your statement "wings generate aero grip only when the car goes straight."

Ok I´ll try. Let´s say you turn the wheels of aeroplane in a way that instead of going nose first, it goes right or left side first. You think it will lift off? In the same way if you go right or left side first with F1 car (instead of going nose first = straigth), you won´t have downforce. Very simply - the more sideways you get, the less downforce you get.

So, literally speaking obviously you can say my statement was wrong, because even if you get a little bit sideways, you will still have downforce - although LESS. But to be honest I expected everyone to understand what I meant. My fault, I guess. I should have been more articulate. But I hope this post clarified my previous ones...?

[dosco]

Originally posted by Spunout
Let´s say you turn the wheels of aeroplane in a way that instead of going nose first, it goes right or left side first. You think it will lift off?[

Yes, I would fully expect it to take off.

It's called "sideslip" or "crabbing."

In the same way if you go right or left side first with F1 car (instead of going nose first = straigth), you won´t have downforce. Very simply - the more sideways you get, the less downforce you get.

Yes and no. Your latter statement is "more correct." The sideslip angles are generally pretty small (angle of attack is like 5 degrees or so). So the downforce may be reduced a bit, but not a radically huge amount.

Besides, how do you think the fast laptimes are achieved? Not with low downforce/low drag setup. It's a tradeoff between drag and downforce. Another way to look at it - how do you think they're pulling 4Gs in the turns?

Also - look at MotoGP laptimes and compare them the F1. The downforce in the corners makes all the difference.

[Spunout]

"Yes, I would fully expect it to take off."

Really? That´s interesting. How about if it goes backwards?

"The sideslip angles are generally pretty small (angle of attack is like 5 degrees or so). So the downforce may be reduced a bit, but not a radically huge amount."

You are missing my point. You are talking about sideslip angles when everything goes well. I was referring to situations where you get too much sideways, experience massive loss of downforce and spin out.

"Besides, how do you think the fast laptimes are achieved? Not with low downforce/low drag setup. It's a tradeoff between drag and downforce. Another way to look at it - how do you think they're pulling 4Gs in the turns?"

This all is obvious. Why are you explaining this stuff to me?

"Also - look at MotoGP laptimes and compare them the F1. The downforce in the corners makes all the difference."

Of course (in addition with 4 wheels vs 2, better brakes etc).