Adrian Newey says banning double diffusers won’t help overtaking

Adrian Newey gave this year's Watkins Lecture

Adrian Newey gave this year's Watkins Lecture

Red Bull designer and top F1 aerodynamicist Adrian Newey believes the proposed ban on double diffusers in 2011 won’t make it easier for F1 cars to overtake.

Speaking at the Watkins Lecture at Autosport International he said:

I don’t think [double diffusers] affected the overtaking. It gave us more downforce and made the cars about a second a lap quicker. That doesn’t change whether the car’s going to overtake or not, there’s no difference in the aerodynamic wake which is what affects the ability of the car behind to overtake.
Adrian Newey

He said F1 should not slip back into the practice of introducing piecemeal changes to the regulations as it had during the “narrow track” era of 1998-2008:

The regulations we had for 2009 were the subject of a lot of research by the Overtaking Working Group. It’s questionable whether they worked or not, but the process, I think, was correct.

What’s now happening is we’ve gone back to these piecemeal modifications – banning double diffusers or getting rid of barge boards. For me, it’s very frustrating that it’s not being thought out. [It needs] a clear goal and proper research.

So often in Formula 1, things are changed with very little research.
Adrian Newey

He echoed the view of Sam Michaels and Paddy Lowe that the role of circuit design needs to be looked at.

Newey has similar concerns about the ban on refuelling during races:

I think the ban on refuelling is another example of that where… maybe it will be good for the racing, but it was not thought out. Some people thought “we could save a ??100,000 here by cutting the cost of flying the refuelling rigs around the world. But if that destroys the spectacle and the racing becomes more boring as a result of that and people start turning their televisions off, then that wasn’t ??100,000 well saved.
Adrian Newey

Read more

Advert | Go Ad-free


59 comments on Adrian Newey says banning double diffusers won’t help overtaking

  1. nixon said on 15th January 2010, 13:20

    Great article Kieth. I do agree with Newey about the diffuser thing, but i think its banned to make the cars slower. But the no-refueling ban certainly wont make races boring.

    • Aaron said on 16th January 2010, 1:28

      I will have to disagree.
      The fact and look at any CFD data you will clearly see how the DD diffusers wake interferes with the front wind of cars behind.

      The flow of air is downward and because its so focused it is also very long wake.

      Now to compare that to the wake of a car with no diffuser and a rear wing you will see VERY clearly how the wings wake / drag turbulence is an UPWARD flow and not that long. This wake or disturbance has very little to NO effect on the cars front wing. It may how ever alter the complete flow over the body of the car following.

      So to put it simply a high upward flow is more desirable than both a very focused long and low turbulence wake added to a high upward flow off the rear wing.

      While you will never fix ‘dirty’ air fully anybody who knows anything about ‘ sitting in the draft ‘ will know the car behind can use the advantage of the front car or bike to cut the air while escaping the majority of the drag by sitting close enough to the rear of the thing in front and allow that turbulence/drag to go over the top of them.

      If a f1 car is flowing another f1 car and doesnt have the ability to get with in the buffer zone to sit in the draft and gain the toe will of course still feel the effects of the wake to a degree.

      The degree is what we want fixed…DDD cause more than if there was NO DDD SIMPLE.
      Newey I love ya but how you can say this is beyond me………….

      • Aaron said on 16th January 2010, 2:26

        Great short video on the rear wing.

        Over the car

        under car (not as good)
        But you can see how it becomes focused.
        While everyone carries on about no drag…you can not escape the fact the same amount of air you drag out from under the car HAS to go some where it just doesn’t evaporate!!!!

        if you design it right you can make the wake do stuff like this…
        Now tell me do you think that fia should mandate that there be a certain level of wake…registered by raw data and wind tunnel testing???
        As a designer I would want to make as much DF as I could but I would also not like to be over taken and would add a few bits to cause havoc behind me in my wake.

        Let the teams run any diffuser thy like but it can ONLY produce a certain level of wake…simple F1 is suppose to be cutting edge yer…plus the wisdom learned can be used on road cars to reduce emissions and fuel use.

        • Accidental Mick said on 16th January 2010, 10:12

          I agree with you completely. Designers will always be looking for loop holes in rules to get an advantage. That is, after all, why they are there. A simple measurement in a wind tunnel together with rigidly mounted rears wings (so they couldn’t be altered after the measurement was taken) would be transpaent and easily monitored.

  2. Icthyes said on 15th January 2010, 13:24

    I’m sorry, but I simply don’t believe Newey here. This is like an American private health insurer saying a public option wouldn’t bring healthcare costs down; regardless of whether he’s right or not, he’s always going to be biased.

    Newey is an aerodynamicist (if that’s the correct term), so of course he doesn’t want the DDDs banned, because it’s an area of development he can show off in and potentially make his worth greater.

    Also, the evidence from last year is very much against Adrian. In the first few races, we had quite a bit of overtaking. You might say that was down to the tyre rules, except that rule stayed constant; the diffuser’s didn’t. We ended up with almost no overtaking, except for Interlagos which has always been a great aid to it.

    On refuelling, I fail to see how it will destroy the spectacle in the name of cutting costs. Newey has no special interest in this area though (before I paint a critical picture of the guy and imply he’s self-interested in everything), he probably just thinks it won’t work and is using the opportunity to air his view. Which is fair enough, but we won’t know anything until this year is over. I’m not sure why he says it “wasn’t well thought-out”, as the rationale behind it (even if flawed) makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.

    • I don’t think Newey would be biased in favor of the DDD. You can easily argue he lost the title partly because of the gap Brawn built partly with the DDD, while RBR and others didn’t have it…

      In races, you can argue that the more teams adopted it, the less overtaking we saw as well.

      As for refuelling, while I do agree with you that refuelling is not a good idea, I can see why he may think that the ban “wasn’t well thought out”. More than a few F1 fans are saying the same thing as well…

    • Kester said on 15th January 2010, 13:41

      I’ve always sided with Newey on this point, being a Motorsport Engineering student I’ve looked into the aero side before and the whole idea of a diffuser is to better balance the fast moving, low pressure air flowing under the car to the ambient speed and pressure behind the car.

      If anything it probably improved the wake slightly.

      • sumedh said on 15th January 2010, 20:32

        Yes, thats what I gleaned from the limited number of articles regarding DDD.

        The DDD was a win-win solution. The wake remained undisturbed, and downforce increase a lot.

        I also agree with Newey regarding the piecemeal changes. Small changes give teams a lot of time to find a solution and to perfect it.

        Infact, in 2004, any keen observer could see that half the updates brought by teams were introduced so that the wake disturbed and made the car behind slower (and did nothing to improve the speed of the car).

        A wholesome change allows for imperfect solutions. Thus at the start of 2009 we saw that the entire field (apart from Brawns) was bunched up in less than 1.5 seconds. Reason: Nobody knew what was the best solution.

        I disagree with his views on track design though. Car designs are fundamental to overetaking. While Herman Tilke’s tracks may lack character, and fail to draw crowds, it is his tracks which produce most action in the GP2 racing (where all chassis are same).

        • Aaron said on 16th January 2010, 1:32

          absolute bolocks….
          Improved the wake and the wake undisturbed….

          This is a complete and utter lie.

    • Robert McKay said on 15th January 2010, 13:56

      ” In the first few races, we had quite a bit of overtaking. You might say that was down to the tyre rules, except that rule stayed constant; the diffuser’s didn’t. We ended up with almost no overtaking, except for Interlagos which has always been a great aid to it.”

      In the first few races there were multiple mitigating factors though.

      (1) Very heavy rain in Malaysia
      (2) Reasonably heavy rain in Shanghai
      (3) One tyre compound that was simply hopeless (Melbourne)
      (4) The most amount of KERS cars, before they started dropping that system
      (5) Most unfamiliarity with the new cars/regs.

      It’s very difficult to make a comparison given these factors.

    • Mahir C said on 15th January 2010, 13:58

      We usually see more overtaking in the early races of the season.

      Drivers are not thinking about the championship, teams havent optimized their cars so lap times vary a lot from stint to stint, some teams cannot qualify well because they dont fully understand their cars on low fuel quaifying setup etc. In short, the cars havent been perfected.

      Overtaking in the early races last season doesnt mean that double diffusers hindered overtaking. Also bear in mind that tracks in the early season are more overtaking friendly.

    • I don’t think Newey is saying the ban on refuelling will make the races worse just that the reasons behind it were the wrong ones and that it was not thought out properly, he is saying refuelling was banned to reduce costs rather than thinking how it would affect racing.

    • Icthyes said on 15th January 2010, 21:23

      After researching it a bit more, I climb down from my previous argument about the DDDs. I’m man enough to admit being wrong. Still, if people in the know say it won’t change anything, why did they ban it anyway? After all, the change must have come about from some kind of knowledge base. Or was it merely a cost-cutting exercise (I imagine a SDD, being simpler, has less scope for development)?

      I still think the ban on re-fuelling has a sound rationale behind it though. It’s annoying that these kinds of statements (“wasn’t well-thought out”) are made or selectively quoted without a reason for it being given or also included with it.

  3. Scribe said on 15th January 2010, 13:26

    Neweys right, while i personally think that both devices needed to be banned their should be a dedicated team of aero guys, mechanics and cheif technical blokes working on new regulations together with an eye to improving the racing. Every five years or so they present their findings to the FIA and the teams and the regs get changes enmass.

    • Ned Flanders said on 15th January 2010, 13:46

      The Overtaking Working Group only had a budget of $1 million or something tiny like that. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that theiur ideas didn’t work.

      In an ideal world, CVC and Bernie E would forsake 5% of their share of the TV money to put towards some proper research on aerodynamics. But F1 is never that sensible.

  4. MuzzleFlash said on 15th January 2010, 13:35

    I don’t see why the didn’t go with the idea of building two modular cars on which they could test this stuff and get actual drivers to provide the feedback. They could test any size or shape of wing, different sized engines, turbos, hydrogen fuel cell powered cars, cars with “turbo” buttons like Knight Rider that make them jump over cars in front… I hope Bernie Eccelstone doesn’t see that last one.

  5. Hairs said on 15th January 2010, 13:36

    This is bad news for Vettel, who will now have to come up with a new reason for only being able to win from pole.

    • John H said on 15th January 2010, 13:37

      He still has the “I don’t have a magic button” one. Although, it won’t wash so much this year seen as nobody else has either $:)

  6. John H said on 15th January 2010, 13:36

    I don’t get it? Wasn’t the diffuser reg set out by the OWG after analysing the turbulent effects of higher stacked options (hence the critical horizontal line being defined for a diffuser).

    What’s Newey on about? He’s basically saying the OWG didn’t know what they were doing at all.

    • Vince said on 15th January 2010, 13:49

      Yes, I thought the OWG had originally designed the regulations to prevent double diffusers and barge boards but some teams found the diffuser loop hole while others found barge board loops holes, like using them as mirror mounts.
      How easy we forget? or am I just mad?

  7. Maciek said on 15th January 2010, 14:15

    The problem with the OWG or any other similar future efforts in F1 is that teams are so secretive about their developments that will NEVER fully participate in common development initiatives. They’ll share some stuff, but then no matter what gets decided, they’ll find loopholes in it to try to gain an advantage….

  8. Hakka said on 15th January 2010, 14:24

    I thought the reasoning was:
    Ban DDD => Lower downforce => cars go slower while relying more on mechanical grip => wake won’t matter as much while trying to pass.

    Don’t see Newey refuting that.

    • Tango said on 15th January 2010, 15:33

      On the other hand: Lower downforce means lower grip in high speed turns and incidentally, less capacity to keep a non optimal line on the track (the man on the best line will be quicker, anybody beside him won’t make it)

      • Hakka said on 15th January 2010, 16:19

        True, the cars will now be more sensitive to small changes in mechanical grip.

        Excellent point. Guess we can’t make the right tradeoffs here unless we can see the numbers then.

  9. It will be interesting to see what effect the refuelling ban has on the season. It wont be boring.

    • Robert McKay said on 15th January 2010, 15:01

      Or maybe, to be more accurate, it won’t be any more boring than still having refuelling, which I had begun to find seriously dull anyway.

  10. Steve said on 15th January 2010, 15:12

    Adrian Newey… What does he know?

  11. Macca said on 15th January 2010, 16:05

    Finally, someone of importance has spoken up about the circuit design.

  12. Has anyone actually stuck 2 identical F1 cars on a track and bolted on different configurations of front and rear wings e.t.c. to see what configuration would best assist a car behind to overtake – I’m not saying to the degree whereby a car half a second a lap slower would be able to pass a faster car but at least equally fast cars should be able to at least have the ability to draw level on a straight with the use of slipstreaming – then it’d be down to the “Balls” of the drivers to see who brakes latest e.t.c. Ah la Mansell/Senna at Brcelona ’91

    or the little spoken about Mansell move on Berger in the same race: :)

    I don’t know why the FIA or Ecclestone don’t insist on additional testing days for the specific purpose only of improving the racing/spectacle – no body can be happy with the situation whereby a car that is half a second to a second a lap quicker cannot pass the car in front (unless your names Jenson Button of Course and you at Interlagos :) )

    Surely the Overtaking Working Group (OWG) could fiddle around on these days with pairs of identical cars and play with wings & tyres or bolt on steel brakes to see how that affects things or start with no wings at all so it’s all mechanical grip then gradually add wing(s) to increase downforce but without overly disturbing the air behind.

    I remember watching a CART race on Eurosport the Michigan 500 a the the Superspeedway oval some years back back when the CART “authorities” mandatedly introduced a rear wing update to all teams and they were passing each other 5 or 6 times per lap – now that was a little over the top and we wouldn’t want that in F1 but it did prove that it could be done – even if not to that extreme degree.

    Hey ho it’ll probably never happen but that’s my rant for the day (unless your reading this of course Bernie as we know you do ! :) )

    • I’ve always thought that they should also think about re-introducing the Titanium skid blocks to the bottom of the F1 cars – the sparks they used to produce were always great to watch especially on overcast days – and with the current crop of day/night & night races on the calender it would look fantastic ! – I know the originals were gotten rid of on safety grounds because the cars bottomed out and lost all their down force causing them to fly off the track but they could be re-fitted to the cars and be “spring loaded” with recesses they could retract into as the cars porpoise to stop this happening. Again it would increase the spectacle although admittedly they would not increase car performance but if they were mandatory in the rules it would be the same for everyone and could be utilised as a way of adding ballast as well as fun – they have an additional 20kgs to play with this year as no teams will be using KERS which is what the extra 20kgs was added for in this years regs.

      • John H said on 15th January 2010, 17:52

        Pat, you’re practical testing of elements, whilst being an excellent idea is far too sensible for the likes of F1!

        I’m not so sure of ‘manufacturing’ cars so that they produce more sparks however. This falls firmly into the show improving category for me I’m afraid. :)

      • Gusto said on 16th January 2010, 3:15

        Hmm, a car that bottoms out for entertainment value, Iam sure Ayrton would have a think or two to say about that if he was still here comment.

        • I may not have made it clear enough – although I thought I had – I do not subscribe to re-introducing cars that bottom out because that is plain crazy as… as I said.. “it causes cars to fly off the track” what I am suggesting is fitting the Titanium blocks that are spring loaded and can withdraw into recesses as the cars move on the vertical plane – so we get the sparks back but without the danger :)

  13. Oliver said on 15th January 2010, 16:57

    Expert opinion if you ask me. He also has the data to back up his point, unlike some here who don’t agree with him. :-)

  14. James said on 15th January 2010, 17:14

    Newey generally knows what he is talking about, so I find it hard to doubt him on this one…

    It’s great that loads of people who know literally nothing about the sport believe that banning DDD will work, and yet when someone with such great experience, knowledge and ingenuity as Adrian Newey says it wont make much of a difference who knows the RBR and most F1 cars inside out, we all think he’s a loony?

    Back to your arm chairs people, I’m pretty sure Newey knows what he is talking about considering he made what was probably/arguably the best car on the grid this season…

    • Ilanin said on 15th January 2010, 17:21

      It is worth noting that the car that seemed to be able to follow closest behind another car last year was the Brawn – which, by everybody’s account, had the most effective underfloor.

      With everyone redesigning their cars around this concept for this year I believe we may see cars able to follow much closer than has been the case for the last couple of years.

    • Hephaestus said on 15th January 2010, 23:19

      No saying that he doesn’t know what he is talking about but he might be biased on this.

  15. Hallard said on 15th January 2010, 17:45

    Adrian Newey is the man…

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.