2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
Andres125sx
277
User avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by Andres125sx » Mon May 08, 2017 10:11 am

JonoNic wrote:
Sun May 07, 2017 4:49 pm
Andres125sx wrote:
ME4ME wrote:
Fri May 05, 2017 6:33 pm

If you know that you don't know, you can account for it through design choices. For example running less close to the stalling limit, putting more emphisis on guiding air rather than creating downforce producing surfaces etc. I'm no aerodynamicist but i'm sure there are sufficient tools to make it work. Problem is, while doing so teams get further and further away from the optimal config for running in clean air.
Exactly, and no team will do this, ever, as no car ca go in dirty air the whole race (cooling, brakes...) so that would be configuring your car for a situation wich will never be the most frequent.

Also, doing that would mean you´re assuming your starting grid will be much lower than possible as in saturdays your perfomance (clean air) will be lower than possible, so you´re condemning yourself to overtake on sundays, and no F1 car will ever be so good overtaking wise to make this sort of strategy worth it.


An assumption again :mrgreen: , but to me this would be complete nosense
Can I throw a spanner in the works? What if you qualify in tandem with your teammate?

Sent from my SM-A700F using Tapatalk
I think some of you are getting confused about that concept of a car "optimized for dirty air".

Even if they could do it, a car fully optimized for dirty air will ALWAYS be much slower than a car optimized for clean air. Period, and this is not an assuption :wink: Clean air is the condition where aero can get its full potential, any other condition is reducing DF potential

So if you qualify in tandem, the first car will qualify as always, and the second car will qualify several positions behind because he made his qualifying run in dirty air, wich means his lap was with severly compromised downforce, even if its design was optimized for dirty air.

A car designed for dirty air will only be faster than a car designed for clean air, running into dirty air. But no team/driver will ever make his qualifying run in dirty air on purpose, so it will acually beat none

Andres125sx
277
User avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by Andres125sx » Mon May 08, 2017 10:15 am

JonoNic wrote:
Sun May 07, 2017 6:40 pm
PhillipM wrote:Then you've just built one car to specifically come second. Provided it doesn't just get jumped in the pitstops by the cars behind which are faster because they haven't been deliberately compromised.
Maybe 2nd and 3rd or even 1st and 2nd (if both cars help each other). I do though get what you are saying about optimising the car for clean air.
Probably 1st and around 8th supposing it´s a top team :wink:

This is not MotoGP, here the slipstream in slightly helpful at the straights, and very very harmful at the braking points and corners.

JonoNic
8
User avatar
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 2:54 pm

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by JonoNic » Mon May 08, 2017 10:48 am

Andres125sx wrote:
JonoNic wrote:
Sun May 07, 2017 4:49 pm
Andres125sx wrote: Exactly, and no team will do this, ever, as no car ca go in dirty air the whole race (cooling, brakes...) so that would be configuring your car for a situation wich will never be the most frequent.

Also, doing that would mean you´re assuming your starting grid will be much lower than possible as in saturdays your perfomance (clean air) will be lower than possible, so you´re condemning yourself to overtake on sundays, and no F1 car will ever be so good overtaking wise to make this sort of strategy worth it.


An assumption again :mrgreen: , but to me this would be complete nosense
Can I throw a spanner in the works? What if you qualify in tandem with your teammate?

Sent from my SM-A700F using Tapatalk
I think some of you are getting confused about that concept of a car "optimized for dirty air".

Even if they could do it, a car fully optimized for dirty air will ALWAYS be much slower than a car optimized for clean air. Period, and this is not an assuption :wink: Clean air is the condition where aero can get its full potential, any other condition is reducing DF potential

So if you qualify in tandem, the first car will qualify as always, and the second car will qualify several positions behind because he made his qualifying run in dirty air, wich means his lap was with severly compromised downforce, even if its design was optimized for dirty air.

A car designed for dirty air will only be faster than a car designed for clean air, running into dirty air. But no team/driver will ever make his qualifying run in dirty air on purpose, so it will acually beat none
I understand now. Thanks
Always find the gap then use it.

zac510
33
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:58 am

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by zac510 » Mon May 08, 2017 1:28 pm

When I say "aerodynamic testing in dirty air" I am also not saying optimize purely for dirty air. I'm thinking of searching for a great gain in dirty air for as little compromise in clean air as possible. If you get 20% better performance in dirty air for 5% loss in clean air, this might be a worthwhile compromise for a mid-pack team.

J.A.W.
76
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by J.A.W. » Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:50 pm

Check this - still currently relevant - radiator diffuser bypass duct/slot research from 3/4's of a century ago..

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00669.html

(& amazingly, its a translated Nazi-science aero-tech period piece published in wartime!).
Dr Zachary Smith sez..
"Yes.. spare us your ridiculous remarks, you insensitive idiot!"

wesley123
197
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:55 pm

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by wesley123 » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:38 am

zac510 wrote:
Mon May 08, 2017 1:28 pm
When I say "aerodynamic testing in dirty air" I am also not saying optimize purely for dirty air. I'm thinking of searching for a great gain in dirty air for as little compromise in clean air as possible. If you get 20% better performance in dirty air for 5% loss in clean air, this might be a worthwhile compromise for a mid-pack team.
Don't think so as the midfield is very close. A .2s slower laptime mean multiple places lost on the grid and you then have to question if that further performance is enough to overtake those extra places.

Not that that really matters, though. You still keep some distance between you and the car and you still require the draft and a speed difference on the straight to overtake. And then you have to question if you have enough performance to outbrake the guy in front, or to create a gap with the guy behind you as you have sacrificed 5% of your aerodynamic performance because if you don't the guy will just be in the DRS and overtake you the next lap.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by turbof1 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:33 pm

I was asked to sticky this topic again because regulations are quite stable into 2018. While the 2018 regulations have their own separate topic, this topic can still be used to discuss anything within the frame of the changes between 2016 and 2017.

turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post by turbof1 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:11 pm

So after some deliberation with Vyssion, we concluded we'll take a page out of the PU topics and change this into a general "era" topic. Given no significant changes are planned, it is rather good to keep discussion fluent about the base of these regulations. According to media outlets, F1 is looking to overhaul aero rules by 2021, just like the PU rules. Until then we are likely to have relative stable rules regarding aerodynamics. Changes for each year, like this year, will still have their own separate topic to discuss these things specifically.

godlameroso
220
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post by godlameroso » Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:07 am

2018 cars due to the lower T-wing loophole, we have the return of beam wings.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

Zynerji
34
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post by Zynerji » Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:46 am

godlameroso wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:07 am
2018 cars due to the lower T-wing loophole, we have the return of beam wings.
I love it when a good loophole is found. Interestingly, now with separate end-plates, it can induce vorticies!!

Also, Shark fins are STILL HUGE!!!. That, or the engine bump has way shrunk, and they can simply pinch it closer to the driver.

FPV GTHO
3
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:57 am

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post by FPV GTHO » Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:21 am

Zynerji wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:46 am
Also, Shark fins are STILL HUGE!!!. That, or the engine bump has way shrunk, and they can simply pinch it closer to the driver.
Would rather see the cutout in front of the rear wing remain as is, with mandated shorter cars.

djos
100
User avatar
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 5:09 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post by djos » Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:43 am

FPV GTHO wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:21 am
Would rather see the cutout in front of the rear wing remain as is, with mandated shorter cars.
Agreed, bring back the 92' season track width (2m) and a sensible wheelbase length (eg from the FW14B) and lock them in via the regs.

Last years Merc was just a stupidly long wheelbase @ 3.76m! (for reference a Chevy Tahoe only has a wheelbase of 2.94m)
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

J.A.W.
76
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post by J.A.W. » Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:59 am

That is looong..
No wonder the Merc' suffered from 'push-past-apex-turn-in' difficulties with past 'best-by' rubber, in slow/tight corners..
Dr Zachary Smith sez..
"Yes.. spare us your ridiculous remarks, you insensitive idiot!"

djos
100
User avatar
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 5:09 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post by djos » Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:22 pm

J.A.W. wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:59 am
That is looong..
No wonder the Merc' suffered from 'push-past-apex-turn-in' difficulties with past 'best-by' rubber, in slow/tight corners..
Mercedes claimed the wheelbase wasn't to blame, but I'm just not sure I believe them.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

Brenton
10
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:28 am

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post by Brenton » Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:20 pm

I was just skimming the bodywork regulations and struck by the amount of detailed limitations. What is the philosophy behind this? Is it to make the cars look as similar to each other as possible, like stock cars? Is it to try to performance equalize by making the cars so similar?

Many of the details don't appear to have anything to do with safety. It's hard to understand why the pinnacle of Motorsport has its cars designed by regulators instead of the best Motorsport engineers in the world. I wish there was more freedom for creative designs. But there must be a good reason here to be careful what you wish for?

The front nose for example. I didn't know the size and slope is exactly specified by the rules. Not just the end of the nose for crash safety purposes. I miss seeing a variety of front end shapes competing.