2022 Aero Thread

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
User avatar
jjn9128
402
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Wed Nov 04, 2020 11:05 pm
It would be a single line in the regs: Max lenght 4.3 meters. And just be done with it.
I see few data about car length, but on this website both the 1986 (bulky turbo) Ferrari and the 1993 (pre re-fuelling, but a lot slimmer) is claimed to be just under 4.3 meters.
I can't see why would present day cars need to be longer, when they could carry around a huge tank 220 liters of fuel (like a 100 liters more) with a 4.3 meter car. The present ones are getting close to 6 meters...
I think that's a bit short. The drivers used to sit with their knees much closer to their chests than they do now (more folded up) - so the difference from the front bulkhead to the rear of the cockpit opening between 1993 and now is about 0.4-0.5m. Pre-1988 the drivers feet didn't have to be behind the front axle line which is an essential safety reg.

That said, the V10-12 engines also used to be over 600mm long while the current V6 is 480mm so you get some length back there. The fuel cell is smaller but you do have a battery and inverter inside it taking up volume.

The current cars don't need to be long, but it makes it easier to meet the weight distribution rule, makes the car more stable, and makes more downforce. I still agree with the idea of a severe length cut, but I think 4.8-5m is more realistic.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

User avatar
jjn9128
402
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

User avatar
djos
144
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 5:09 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:40 am
This is troubling if true - racefans
What’s new about this? They said from day 1 they would keep DRS and phase it out if the evidence showed them it was not required.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

6 of 12
6 of 12
6
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:02 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

djos wrote:
Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:44 am
jjn9128 wrote:
Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:40 am
This is troubling if true - racefans
What’s new about this? They said from day 1 they would keep DRS and phase it out if the evidence showed them it was not required.
Well, they could just keep it and allow it at all times or maybe limit use to 30% of the laps of the driver's choice. In terms of efficiency it makes sense to reduce drag. These rule changes can be introduced mid-season if needed.
Also, many modern super- and hypercars have moveable aero.
No, Kimi, no. You will not have the drink.

mzso
mzso
20
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:01 am
Pre-1988 the drivers feet didn't have to be behind the front axle line which is an essential safety reg.
So that's not really a factor, since the 1993 car was also less than 4.3 meters.
jjn9128 wrote:
Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:01 am
The drivers used to sit with their knees much closer to their chests than they do now (more folded up)
Are you sure about that for 1993? By that time the cars already had nose-lift. Seems rather similar to me but without the high sidewalls.
jjn9128 wrote:
Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:01 am
The current cars don't need to be long, but it makes it easier to meet the weight distribution rule, makes the car more stable, and makes more downforce.
Less downforce is a gain. The FIA otherwise relies on clumsier ways of controlling downforce. And the weight distribution rule should always be set for an expected lenght, shouldn't it?
As for stability, if you mean by "less stable", more agile, then we really need that. Let the drivers work a bit to turn the car, and maybe not drive into each-other that much, as with the current bus-cars.
BTW isn't it easier easier to balance the car when it's shorter? It also seems like it would be better for tall/heavy drivers, because the extra ballast tiny drivers have would be less effective at a more modest lenght.

mzso
mzso
20
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:40 am
This is troubling if true - racefans
Ross Brown claimed a number of times that they keep it as a failsafe. Hopefully it won't be needed. And if that's proven, all the dead weightcan be thrown out the second year with an unanimous vote.

User avatar
jjn9128
402
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Sun Nov 08, 2020 1:33 am
I wasn't disagreeing i just think 4.3m was a bit short. I've actually looked at the rules and it would be possible without having to change the wording to get down to a wheelbase of ~3m which would make the car just over 5m long. I'm actually going to try and model it to show what it would look/perform like.

There was an article in motorsport magazine about this topic recently which I thought was appallingly written. It makes claims like the cars have doubled in size in the last 20 years? Says the W11 is "at least" 5m long when it's over 5.7m long. Anyway, in there Smedley claims the length gain is the tyres and safety? But since 2000 the monocoque has had to be 1.8m from front bulkhead to the rear of the cockpit entry template - same as now. The drivers feet also had to be 300mm behind the front bulkhead and behind the front axle line.

If we detail changes looking at the spine of the car:
  • Engines - the V10s shrank from ~650mm long to 575mm long by the end of that era. The V8s were 500-525mm long, while the V6s are regulated to 480mm long. [smaller now but not accounting for battery and ERS]
  • Fuel - tanks in the 90s were ~220li while now 105kg or ~135li [smaller now]
  • Gearbox - Number of forward ratios has grown from 5 to 8 in 30 years for a nominal increase in gearbox length, assuming gear face widths are similar, but gearbox case and bell housing have grown to >1m for aerodynamic reasons.
  • Monocoque - pre-2000s was up to the teams but post '88 drivers feet have to be behind the front axle, post-2000s 1.8m long [longer than 30 years ago, but unchanged for 20years]
  • Front overhang - the maximum front overhang of the nose was 1.2m for 30+ years but in the late 80s/early 90s the front wing could only be <1m and then 0.9m ahead of the front axle and noses didn't overhang the wing leading edge by much. The maximum nose length was used by teams around 2010 with the really high noses. Since 2017 with the swept front wings teams have used the minimum allowed nose length 1075mm from the front axle, but the biggest overhang is the apex of the front wing, ~1.225m ahead of the front axle [overhang has grown but mainly driven by aesthetic of swept wing]
  • Rear overhang - In '88 the maximum bodywork was allowed behind rear axle was 600mm, this shrunk to 500mm in '94 but when the rear impact structure was introduced the overhang was increased to 600mm, then 650mm and now 710mm. But again since 2017 the biggest overhang is the swept back rear wing endplates which can be up to 810mm behind the rear axle [longer for safety but also driven by aesthetics]
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

mzso
mzso
20
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Sun Nov 08, 2020 10:33 am
Gearbox - Number of forward ratios has grown from 5 to 8 in 30 years for a nominal increase in gearbox length, assuming gear face widths are similar, but gearbox case and bell housing have grown to >1m for aerodynamic reasons.

Rear overhang - In '88 the maximum bodywork was allowed behind rear axle was 600mm, this shrunk to 500mm in '94 but when the rear impact structure was introduced the overhang was increased to 600mm, then 650mm and now 710mm. But again since 2017 the biggest overhang is the swept back rear wing endplates which can be up to 810mm behind the rear axle [longer for safety but also driven by aesthetics]
Even with the ludicrous gearbox it seems to me that the rear crash structure hangs out a lot more. I see no good reason for them to stick out that much, or at all. It can just as well absorb energy if it's mostly inboard.
jjn9128 wrote:
Sun Nov 08, 2020 10:33 am
I wasn't disagreeing i just think 4.3m was a bit short.
In what way? Why would it be negative thing?
I was thinking 4.5 would be ample enough. The cars would be nice and nimble, drivers less likely get into stupid looking collisions like they do today, with the overlong cars dragging their back (though giving back peripheral vision would help more). I think it would have positive effect on balance, and sensitivity to driver weight. Also some mass savings with if you chop off 1.2 meters of the car (in Mercedes' case).
The teams would obviously have to rethink the position of stuff, maybe some regulations for overhangs would have to change, or perhaps removed totally with a maximum length specified. I don't see these as negatives though.
Downforce would decrease somewhat, but that's totally neutral, they could alleviate some of the limitations with the venturi tunnels if more is desired.

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
656
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Sun Nov 08, 2020 1:02 pm

Even with the ludicrous gearbox it seems to me that the rear crash structure hangs out a lot more. I see no good reason for them to stick out that much, or at all. It can just as well absorb energy if it's mostly inboard.

The protruding crash structure does two things.
1. It protects the rear suspension in a minor rear impact
2. It increases the protection to a following driver if they run into the rear of the car in front.

Having it protrude means it works before any other component is involved in the impact. It also ensures the energy absorption is in the controlled manner of the crash structure rather than some random other component that won't meet the necessary limits of g loading to the drivers.
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

mzso
mzso
20
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

Sometime during the Turkish GP I was thinking: I wonder if the 2022 aero regs will much improve visibility in wet races?

If their claims that the new cars will create great up-wash to not disturb the air behind, it sounds logical that it would blow up all the atomized moisture high in the air and leave it rather clearer at car level.

User avatar
jjn9128
402
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Mon Nov 16, 2020 11:16 am
Sometime during the Turkish GP I was thinking: I wonder if the 2022 aero regs will much improve visibility in wet races?

If their claims that the new cars will create great up-wash to not disturb the air behind, it sounds logical that it would blow up all the atomized moisture high in the air and leave it rather clearer at car level.
Tricky to say. Water is heavier than air so won't perfectly follow the aero wake. It may produce a bigger rooster tail which disperses the water further. I can't imagine a significant difference.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica