2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Paul]

Bhall stated that there is immutable connection between drag and downforce. I cannot see how this can be applicable when this thread is about increasing downforce due to vast regulation changes. So I quoted some articles to try and clarify his idea. I mentioned circumstances when I would completely agree with his statement, but this thread, as far as I can tell, is discussing different circumstances. I read many of his thoughts on racecar aero with much interest, but this one just doesn't make sense to me in the context of this thread. I can be wrong, but I need to understand why.

[godlameroso]

Because the whole premise behind creating downforce involves adding kinetic energy to the airstream, that energy has to be displaced by the object inducing the downforce otherwise there's no lift(all aerofoils have skin drag). All objects moving through the air have skin drag, impossible to remove drag without either removing air, or removing the body traveling through the air.

If you can't understand this, watch some nascar, the reason there is passing is because the following car has less drag.

[henra]

Because the whole premise behind creating downforce involves adding kinetic energy to the airstream, that energy has to be displaced by the object inducing the downforce otherwise there's no lift(all aerofoils have skin drag). All objects moving through the air have skin drag, impossible to remove drag without either removing air, or removing the body traveling through the air.

The problem is, both @bhall and @Paul are right in their own way.
Creating a higher downforce will invariably increase drag. For a given design with given basic parameters. That said there are different ways to create downforce. A wide shallow wing and a narrow steep one can both create the same amount of downforce. The drag to achieve this will be massively different between the two. Because adding kinetic energy is only one part of the drag that is created when creating downforce. And these other 'side- effects' can and do produce more drag than the pure downforce producing part of the deflection of the air. A big part of it are vortices. Although they can be used in certain areas to achieve certain effects, vortices in general are drag 'expensive'.
But for each given way of creating downforce (i.e. width and profile of the wing) increasing it means increasing drag.
Induced drag also depends on the parameters/design of the downforce producing device. For a wing the span and the spanwise distribution of lift is the determining factor for induced drag as a function of lift.

If you can't understand this, watch some nascar, the reason there is passing is because the following car has less drag.

Aside from insulting: What news do you want to tell with this???

[godlameroso]

It means exactly what it says, you cannot displace air and not induce drag, creating lift displaces air hence drag. I'm trying to keep it simple.

Vortex always occurs when there's lift, the stronger the lift the stronger the vortex. Now what you can control is the shape and path of the vortex, but to imply that vortex is somehow separate from lift is a misconception, and almost a common one.

[Gerhardsa]

I was watching some reruns of the 2003 French and Canadian GPs last night, and something struck me almost immediately

The racing is actually bloody good. It not as bad as we all "remember" it to be, or the boring procession we get nowadays. Those cars are running nose to tail and flat out! Ferrari's mixed up with Williams, Mclarens, Renaults and the odd Honda/BAR
I found it refreshing and quite frankly incredible. DRS back then would have done wonders, but the simple fact that those cars could run right behind each other (im talking 0.2-0.6) the whole race is just amazing.
You didn't have to change tires. You could choose whatever tires you wanted to run in a race (no compulsory tires), refuelling etc.

No, "drop back about 2 seconds to cool the engine" crap we have today, or impossible to follow another car closely nonsense.
Its flat out attack back then. And you had cowboys like Montoya !
I was checking the two Schumacher brothers running nose to tail almost the whole race of the Canadian 2003 GP.
Overtaking might take place these days but in my opinion the racing was actually a bit better back then.
Oh, and I don't need to mention the V10's in the back of those cars right?

So, maybe it might be a good thing going for more down force next year ? I dunno.
Just thought id share that with you lads and gals

[mclaren111]

Agree. Some good racing.

Don't like the high noses !! Great Engine sound !!!!!

[godlameroso]

I think they took a lesson from WEC the LMP1 cars have no problem following because most of the downforce comes from the floor. Next year's regs are putting far more emphasis on the floor than wings.

In fact with next year's extra weight and 105kg of fuel, the cars will start weighing closer to LMP1 cars. Except LMP1 cars carry around half the fuel. A fully loaded F1 car is going to be 827kg up from 802kg, LMP1 cars weigh in at just under 1,000kg with full tank and driver, figure 875kg for the car ~65kg for the average driver + ~60kg of fuel.

[PlatinumZealot]

It means exactly what it says, you cannot displace air and not induce drag, creating lift displaces air hence drag. I'm trying to keep it simple.

Vortex always occurs when there's lift, the stronger the lift the stronger the vortex. Now what you can control is the shape and path of the vortex, but to imply that vortex is somehow separate from lift is a misconception, and almost a common one.

Blown diffuser.
F-duct.
Batwing
Finger endplates
Better downforce to drag ratio.
You can add downforce and not increase drag. You just have to be smart about it.
There is no object with zero drag of course.. But increasing aerodynamic efficency is an important goal of the aerodynamicist. RedBull at Monza is a good example..remember those redbulls? Cars that were usually gear limited than drag limited! By no means where they draggy as people suspected at first... I dont think they were...

[PlatinumZealot]

Anyway. I made this as a frustrated fan back when Vettel was tearing it up in 2012.

It's a bit ironic now isn't it? Lol

[godlameroso]

Haha! You're right of course, the trick is to create the correct amount of lift at the correct amount of speed. Like you said, if you're smart about it, you can have more downforce at 220kph but less at 300kph, than the guy that only has linearly increasing downforce that's lower than yours are 220kph but higher at 300kph.

[godlameroso]

How many different variations of floors will we see next year?

[seezung]

Shark fins to make their return next year?

https://twitter.com/andihaupt1/status/8 ... 5793563648

Translation;

The reason for the return of the sails are the new rear wing regulations. The 2017 rear wing is just 80cm instead of 95 cm above the reference plane. It's also 95cm instead of 75cm wide. Because of its position the rear wing gets hit by the turbulent air from the front axle. With the current wings the turbulent air passes under the wing. This is less of a problem for cars running with high rake angles like the Red Bull, Force India, or McLaren, than it is for a Mercedes, Renault, or Sauber, which are running with just half as much rake. This is because depending on the rake angle the turbulent air reaches the rear at a different height relative to the rear wing. With 1.9° of rake the wing sits higher above the road than with exactly one degree. This makes it easier to push the turbulences under the wing as before.
The airbox sail helps to push the turbulences away from the rear wing while cornering. We are hearing from teams that practically all teams will use this airbox variant in 2017. It will certainly be used on those cars, which don't run with as much rake as Red Bull. As everyone is aware of the issue, Red Bull tried to convince the FIA of banning the sail for aesthetic reasons during a meeting of the technical working group. This was obviously just a pretext, because in Milton Keynes they knew very well that a ban would hurt their main rival Mercedes the most.

[Pierce89]

Shark fins to make their return next year?

https://twitter.com/andihaupt1/status/8 ... 5793563648

Translation;

The reason for the return of the sails are the new rear wing regulations. The 2017 rear wing is just 80cm instead of 95 cm above the reference plane. It's also 95cm instead of 75cm wide. Because of its position the rear wing gets hit by the turbulent air from the front axle. With the current wings the turbulent air passes under the wing. This is less of a problem for cars running with high rake angles like the Red Bull, Force India, or McLaren, than it is for a Mercedes, Renault, or Sauber, which are running with just half as much rake. This is because depending on the rake angle the turbulent air reaches the rear at a different height relative to the rear wing. With 1.9° of rake the wing sits higher above the road than with exactly one degree. This makes it easier to push the turbulences under the wing as before.
The airbox sail helps to push the turbulences away from the rear wing while cornering. We are hearing from teams that practically all teams will use this airbox variant in 2017. It will certainly be used on those cars, which don't run with as much rake as Red Bull. As everyone is aware of the issue, Red Bull tried to convince the FIA of banning the sail for aesthetic reasons during a meeting of the technical working group. This was obviously just a pretext, because in Milton Keynes they knew very well that a ban would hurt their main rival Mercedes the most.

Sorry but the tail fin or sails only prevent span wise flow migration. They will not help keep tire turbulence from the rear wing. It does work best in the turns, though that's about all the truth in that article.

[godlameroso]

Sails do help to stabilize flow.

[zztopless]

I've read a lot about how the increased drag from the wider tyres (and to a lesser degree the wider car width) will lead to lower top speeds. I haven't heard many people discuss how the fact that the 2017 cars should be able to produce downforce more efficiently with the wider wings, taller & longer diffusers and much larger barge boards will have in off-setting the increased drag from the tyres. Thoughts?