2021 Aero Thread

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
mzso
15
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post by mzso » Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:57 am

strad wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:16 am
Besides F1 cars only started to be low height in the late eighties.
What????
What is your definition of "Low Height?
I'm afraid you're a few decades off. Engineers have understood the need of getting the center of gravity low since almost the beginning of auto racing.
In 1912 Peugeot showed the way when it's leaner, lighter, tauter car beat the more powerful, slightly faster very much bigger Fiat in the Targa Florio and again in 1913.
It was 1921 when beautiful and clean lined Fiats were the first racers to have wind tunnel proof of drag and lift abatement.
Certainly you'll admit the die was cast in 1923 by Bugatti' "Tiny Tank" streamliners. Very low and light cars were they.
It has been a constant evolution then to where we are now.
Yet in F1 low cars only really started with the Brabham BT55 that had the engine tilted by necessity, in which the driver had to be in a lying position essentially. Later the idea became successful with the MP4/4 and became universal.

mzso
15
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post by mzso » Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:02 pm

henry wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:44 am
Probably not. The key point of the structure is not absorption of the energy but control of the rate of absorption. The G forces. Shorter, thicker, structures would absorb the energy at the expense of higher loads on the driver.
You may be right about the loads on driver, difficult to say. But you're self-contradictory by saying it's not the key point to absorb energy.

henry
239
User avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post by henry » Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:29 pm

mzso wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:02 pm
henry wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:44 am
Probably not. The key point of the structure is not absorption of the energy but control of the rate of absorption. The G forces. Shorter, thicker, structures would absorb the energy at the expense of higher loads on the driver.
You may be right about the loads on driver, difficult to say. But you're self-contradictory by saying it's not the key point to absorb energy.
OK, the structure must absorb the energy at impact. But that’s not the only criterion that determines if the success of the test. The other criterion is the rate of energy absorption which leads to peak decelerations or forces. It is this that would be affected by increased thickness, stiffer, construction.

There are two tests with differing impact energies. Test 2 explicitly mentions the driver, or his proxy dummy.
The maximum deceleration in the chest of the dummy for a cumulative 3ms shall be reported, this being the resultant of data from the three orthogonal axes.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

ENGINE TUNER
8
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:07 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post by ENGINE TUNER » Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:15 pm

mzso wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:36 am
ENGINE TUNER wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:31 pm
The PUs don't add weight, the lower amount of fuel makes up for the extra mass. V6PU+ fuel<V8+ kers+fuel.
I don't think you're right. The engines have the two MGU-s added which both add weight. As does the battery that come with them.
The v8 with kers already had an mguk and the battery, all that was added was the mguh which has a minimum mass of
5kg I believe and of course the turbo,

strad
261
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:57 am

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post by strad » Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:26 pm

mzso are you conflating low with drivers being laid back in the car as opposed to how low the cars were or the size of the hole they punched in the air?
Motorsport without danger is like cooking without salt
Sir Stirling Moss

Capharol
38
User avatar
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:06 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post by Capharol » Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:17 pm

While F1's chiefs have said they believe that wind tunnel and CFD restrictions will limit scope for spending in 2020, Red Bull boss Christian Horner thinks there are still enough areas of freedom to mean that it is worth investing more.

"You have an unrestricted and uncontrolled amount of money that you can spend on research and development across other areas," said Horner. "For me, I stand by what I said previously.

"It would have been better to have introduced the cap first and then the regulations a year down the line, because then the budget cap would have constrained the amount of spend.

"Next year looks to be our most expensive ever year in F1."
Horner said Red Bull had already got personnel devoted to working on the 2021 regulations, and faced the prospect of needing two separate groups focusing on cars next year.

"Now the 2021 regulations are clear, we have an advanced team starting to investigate those regulations," he said.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... 0/4594278/
Strive for continuous improvement, instead of perfection.
"Most people seem to turn off their brain when they turn on the computer and log in to social media."

mzso
15
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post by mzso » Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:56 pm

ENGINE TUNER wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:15 pm
The v8 with kers already had an mguk and the battery, all that was added was the mguh which has a minimum mass of
5kg I believe and of course the turbo,
A teeny mgu-k.
strad wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:26 pm
mzso are you conflating low with drivers being laid back in the car as opposed to how low the cars were or the size of the hole they punched in the air?
No. They're laid back because the car is low.

Just_a_fan
484
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post by Just_a_fan » Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:07 pm

mzso wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:57 am

Yet in F1 low cars only really started with the Brabham BT55 that had the engine tilted by necessity, in which the driver had to be in a lying position essentially. Later the idea became successful with the MP4/4 and became universal.
You're at least 20 years too late there. Lotus had their drivers lying down in the 1960s.

Image
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

strad
261
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:57 am

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post by strad » Sat Nov 09, 2019 3:22 am

Just a fan.. You beat me to it. :wink: My wife's cousin used to have a 60s Lotus and the driving position was reclined. Though not as drastic as todays cars where the feet are above the butt.
I am afraid maunde is correct and I am at least partially to blame. :oops:
Motorsport without danger is like cooking without salt
Sir Stirling Moss

Blackout
656
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:12 am

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post by Blackout » Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:27 am

And 2010 vs 2017
Image
Gear-box is suspect n°1 and is a weak link. So rules can easily force teams to reduce its length to really shorten the cars IMO...
And don't you think that the sidepod "entrails" will have to move upwards in 2021 because of the new tunnels? weight and space saving and COG lowering (for the cooling system, electronics etc) might attract "renewed" interest...

Maplesoup
17
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:25 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post by Maplesoup » Sat Nov 09, 2019 10:44 am

Capharol wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:17 pm
While F1's chiefs have said they believe that wind tunnel and CFD restrictions will limit scope for spending in 2020, Red Bull boss Christian Horner thinks there are still enough areas of freedom to mean that it is worth investing more.

"You have an unrestricted and uncontrolled amount of money that you can spend on research and development across other areas," said Horner. "For me, I stand by what I said previously.

"It would have been better to have introduced the cap first and then the regulations a year down the line, because then the budget cap would have constrained the amount of spend.

"Next year looks to be our most expensive ever year in F1."
Horner said Red Bull had already got personnel devoted to working on the 2021 regulations, and faced the prospect of needing two separate groups focusing on cars next year.

"Now the 2021 regulations are clear, we have an advanced team starting to investigate those regulations," he said.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... 0/4594278/
I think Horner is correct. Brawn is only thinking about the aero testing being limited. These guys needs to completely start from scratch on suspension as well. No more hydraulics, plus all the extra load from having lower profile tires.

Teams are going to spend so much money building and testing new suspension systems.

izzy
26
User avatar
Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post by izzy » Sat Nov 09, 2019 11:20 am

Maplesoup wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 10:44 am
I think Horner is correct. Brawn is only thinking about the aero testing being limited. These guys needs to completely start from scratch on suspension as well. No more hydraulics, plus all the extra load from having lower profile tires.

Teams are going to spend so much money building and testing new suspension systems.
infrastructure is the big one i think. Ferrari have already said they're buying a new simulator, and they'll all be updating their wind tunnels and virtual test tracks, chassis dynamometers and everything they can think of. it's all very well FIA limiting the wind tunnel hours and cfd teraflops, it just increases the value of getting more and better data in that time

edit there's a great article on VTT's by Matt Somerfield if you haven't seen it, a bit old now but gives an idea of what they spend money on
http://www.somersf1.co.uk/2016/10/the-t ... sting.html

ENGINE TUNER
8
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:07 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post by ENGINE TUNER » Sat Nov 09, 2019 3:05 pm

Blackout wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:27 am
And 2010 vs 2017
https://i.imgur.com/aQJ6vXO.jpg
Gear-box is suspect n°1 and is a weak link. So rules can easily force teams to reduce its length to really shorten the cars IMO...
And don't you think that the sidepod "entrails" will have to move upwards in 2021 because of the new tunnels? weight and space saving and COG lowering (for the cooling system, electronics etc) might attract "renewed" interest...
Has nothing to do with the gearbox, the gearbox is the effect, not the cause. They lengthened the gearbox so that they could have more floor surface area for more down force. Adding an additional gear into the gearbox did not lengthen it very much at all. Also they lengthened the cars after they were widened in 2017 to reduce drag.

mzso
15
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post by mzso » Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:05 pm

Blackout wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:27 am
Gear-box is suspect n°1 and is a weak link. So rules can easily force teams to reduce its length to really shorten the cars IMO...
Suspect of what?
Blackout wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:27 am
And don't you think that the sidepod "entrails" will have to move upwards in 2021 because of the new tunnels? weight and space saving and COG lowering (for the cooling system, electronics etc) might attract "renewed" interest...
Don't think so. The venturi tunnel needs to be down low in the middle of it to produce downforce:
Image

Also, renewed interest for what? It's far from clear...

Blackout
656
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:12 am

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post by Blackout » Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:37 pm

ENGINE TUNER wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 3:05 pm
Blackout wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:27 am
And 2010 vs 2017
https://i.imgur.com/aQJ6vXO.jpg
Gear-box is suspect n°1 and is a weak link. So rules can easily force teams to reduce its length to really shorten the cars IMO...
And don't you think that the sidepod "entrails" will have to move upwards in 2021 because of the new tunnels? weight and space saving and COG lowering (for the cooling system, electronics etc) might attract "renewed" interest...
Has nothing to do with the gearbox

Has much to do with the geabox.
They lengthened the gearbox so that they could have more floor surface area for more down force.
That's what I'm saying.
They make the gbox and the car, longer solely for aerodynamic (and packaging) purposes. For a longer floor, a thin coke bottle, a thin gbox at the bottom, an easier weight distribution etc.
That's what I mean. if the rule makers want to shorten the cars, they should limit the gbox length...