2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[henry]

Someone, I think it was turbof1, asked if beam wings are excluded in 2017.

I had an idle few hours so I tried sketching out the rear geometries. It would appear that it might be possible to have a beam wing.

There are some slight oddities about the regs which may have caused the rule writers to "allow" this.

In the 2016 regs there is an explicit paragraph, 3.9.2 that essentially restricts geometry between the end plates and from the top of the diffuser to the top of the wings to two closed sections. That is the two wing sections.

However in 2017 the geometry is more complex. The top end plates at either side of the wing stop at 450 mm above the reference plane and a lower end plate is defined from the top of the diffuser to 450mm. I think this is done to allow space for the "brake duct" since the wing end plate is only 60-75 mm from the tyre and the brake ducts are 120mm wide.

This offset means that the simple box used before does not suffice. So they have defined the inner and outer face of the lower end plate, and a box to put the wing in but from 450 above the reference plane to the underside of the wing at 600 mm I can find no wording to restrict having geometry. There is a restriction in the centre area associated with the centre wing support and that might make supporting the inside of a beam wing tricky.

So I think there is scope for beam wing functionality. At the very least there is a 50mm wide section at each side where the lower endplate has to connect to the upper.

Apologies for a rather wordy post but I'm not quite sure how to illustrate this. Nor am I sure that my interpretation is right.

[Cuky]

I have stumbled up on this render of a possible 2017 car on facebook.



I actually quite like how it looks minus HALO.

[henry]

I have stumbled up on this render of a possible 2017 car on facebook.
http://i.imgur.com/TTHp8Ca.jpg


I actually quite like how it looks minus HALO.

The rear wing end plates are wrong.

As I said in my post immediately above the end plate permissible area is nearer the car centreline from the diffuser roof to 450mm above the reference plane. So the end plates have to be different. Whether they will be split or kinked remains to be seen.

[FPV GTHO]

I think the return of the beam wing has been confirmed from the start, plenty of attention was made to it in most illustrations as IIRC it's maximum width is considerably less than that of the rear wing main elements.

[j2004p]

Whether they will be split or kinked remains to be seen.

On a purely aesthetic point I really hope they dont go with the 'lean back' rear wing end plates. Far too reminiscent of A1GP!

[henry]

I think the return of the beam wing has been confirmed from the start, plenty of attention was made to it in most illustrations as IIRC it's maximum width is considerably less than that of the rear wing main elements.

I don't see that in the regulations. What people thought was going to happen and what the regulations say aren't always the same thing.

[henry]

Whether they will be split or kinked remains to be seen.

On a purely aesthetic point I really hope they dont go with the 'lean back' rear wing end plates. Far too reminiscent of A1GP!

The lean back is in the regulations and the side view area of the side plates is pretty closely controlled. So they will appear pretty much like all the renders. Sorry.

[henry]

On the subject of as-written versus expected.

The front wings can't run to a nice arrowhead because the neutral section definition is exactly the same as for 2016. It stops well short of the pointy front. So the nose will go to the point and then spread out to catch up with the wing outboard of the neutral section. Or maybe it will just hover above the wing. A bit like a hammerhead shark biting a boomerang.

[BanMeToo]

Whether they will be split or kinked remains to be seen.

On a purely aesthetic point I really hope they dont go with the 'lean back' rear wing end plates. Far too reminiscent of A1GP!

I agree the 'swept back' rear wing looks pretty lame.

[domh245]

On the subject of as-written versus expected.

The front wings can't run to a nice arrowhead because the neutral section definition is exactly the same as for 2016. It stops well short of the pointy front. So the nose will go to the point and then spread out to catch up with the wing outboard of the neutral section. Or maybe it will just hover above the wing. A bit like a hammerhead shark biting a boomerang.

The profile of the neutral section is the same, however it isn't defined in the same way. They've added a point to article 3.7.3 which states:

Forward of a point lying 450mm ahead of the front wheel centre line and less than 250mm from the car centre line and less than 125mm above the reference plane, only one single section may be contained within any longitudinal vertical cross section parallel to the car centre line.

Furthermore, with the exception of local changes of section where the bodywork defined in Article 3.7.2 [Which I think are the pylons?] attaches to this section, the profile, incidence and position of this section must conform to drawing 7. This section may not contain any closed channel the effect of which is to duct air directly or indirectly to or from the extenral air stream for any purpose other than data acquisition

**New bit below**

When viewed from above, the forward periphery of the bodywork in this area must follow a profile defined by:

a) A diagonal line from a point 1200mm forward of the front wheel centre line and on the car centre line to a point 1000mm in front of the front wheel centre line and 900mm from the car centre line

b) A 500mm radius tangent to this line and perpendicular to the car centre line at the the car centre line with its centre less than 1200mm forward of the front axle centre line. Once the 500mm radius is defined, the the diagonal line is trimmed to the intersection point with the radius, retaining the outboard section

Which should give something like this:



And with the profile applied

[ojlopez]

I have stumbled up on this render of a possible 2017 car on facebook.
http://i.imgur.com/TTHp8Ca.jpg


I actually quite like how it looks minus HALO.

I agree with you. The Halo looks out of place. A truly hideous solution.

[f1316]

Boullier:

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/boull ... er-793397/

Surprised people are saying you won't see the difference. My perception of speed with the current cars is lower than when grip/downforce was higher, so I expect we'll see cars traveling through corners noticeably quicker.

[henry]

On the subject of as-written versus expected.

The front wings can't run to a nice arrowhead because the neutral section definition is exactly the same as for 2016. It stops well short of the pointy front. So the nose will go to the point and then spread out to catch up with the wing outboard of the neutral section. Or maybe it will just hover above the wing. A bit like a hammerhead shark biting a boomerang.

The profile of the neutral section is the same, however it isn't defined in the same way. They've added a point to article 3.7.3 which states:

Forward of a point lying 450mm ahead of the front wheel centre line and less than 250mm from the car centre line and less than 125mm above the reference plane, only one single section may be contained within any longitudinal vertical cross section parallel to the car centre line.

Furthermore, with the exception of local changes of section where the bodywork defined in Article 3.7.2 [Which I think are the pylons?] attaches to this section, the profile, incidence and position of this section must conform to drawing 7. This section may not contain any closed channel the effect of which is to duct air directly or indirectly to or from the extenral air stream for any purpose other than data acquisition

**New bit below**

When viewed from above, the forward periphery of the bodywork in this area must follow a profile defined by:

a) A diagonal line from a point 1200mm forward of the front wheel centre line and on the car centre line to a point 1000mm in front of the front wheel centre line and 900mm from the car centre line

b) A 500mm radius tangent to this line and perpendicular to the car centre line at the the car centre line with its centre less than 1200mm forward of the front axle centre line. Once the 500mm radius is defined, the the diagonal line is trimmed to the intersection point with the radius, retaining the outboard section

Which should give something like this:

http://i.imgur.com/i3NhmSn.png

And with the profile applied

http://i.imgur.com/yRL0PX8.png

Thanks for your detailed response. I think this is what people expect.

However, it is not what the regulation says. Drawing 7 defines the neutral section as a set of coordinates referred to the front axle centre line and the reference plane. And those coordinates are identical for this year and next.

So the furthest forward coordinate is 1000 mm ( actually 999.999) which means it doesn't come forward to the 1200 extent required by the further most extremity of the bodywork. So to meet the plan view requirement they will need a section of nose above the neutral section that sweeps back and to the side until the wing section can join to the neutral section and continue the job.

No doubt this is not what is intended, and maybe there's a way round it, or perhaps my interpretation is entirely wrong. I haven't looked closely at the regs on nose width. It may be that they will prevent any legal implementation of the lovely new swept back look.

[McMrocks]

I have heard somewhere that the bodywork width will be the same as this year, only the floor width will change. In that render it looks like both parts have the same width

[domh245]

Thanks for your detailed response. I think this is what people expect.

However, it is not what the regulation says. Drawing 7 defines the neutral section as a set of coordinates referred to the front axle centre line and the reference plane. And those coordinates are identical for this year and next.

So the furthest forward coordinate is 1000 mm ( actually 999.999) which means it doesn't come forward to the 1200 extent required by the further most extremity of the bodywork. So to meet the plan view requirement they will need a section of nose above the neutral section that sweeps back and to the side until the wing section can join to the neutral section and continue the job.

No doubt this is not what is intended, and maybe there's a way round it, or perhaps my interpretation is entirely wrong. I haven't looked closely at the regs on nose width. It may be that they will prevent any legal implementation of the lovely new swept back look.

One thing I did note was that in article 3.7.3, "Drawing 7" had been Magenta-ed, which is the sign of a change. This would lead me to expect that there is an updated version of drawing 7 with the corrected coordinates (or possibly using the leading edge as the datum point instead of the FWCL, which has been distributed to teams, or otherwise noted in one of the unpublished appendixes to the rules.

As for the nose rules, the only thing that has changed from this year to next year is that the tip of the nose must be at least 1050mm forward of the FWCL instead of 850 - the rules about cross sections remain the same.