2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
GPR-A
120
User avatar
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:00 am

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by GPR-A » Thu May 04, 2017 8:24 am

wesley123 wrote:
Thu May 04, 2017 8:06 am
SR71 wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 11:01 pm
Does everyone really believe that had Sochi been another 5 laps Vettel wouldn't have made an overpass attempt or 2 because the air was too dirty?

Would he have made the pass work? Who knows, but FOR SURE he would have made an attempt once he and Valteri cleared traffic.
Valtteri got lucky with the traffic, Vettel lost just enough time to make it another lap.
"IF" there were more laps, the strategy from the beginning would have been different. Another 5 laps? Who knows it would have been a two stopper (57 laps) and could have played out totally differently? As much as Valtteri got lucky on the penultimate lap, Vettel was lucky that Valtteri was stuck behind Magnussen and Kvyat for far too long to lose 7 tenths a second for 4 laps, while Vettel was chasing him in clean air. As soon as Valtteri passed the back markers on blue flags, they continued to let Vettel go at the same pace. Vettel did not lose as much time behind backmarkers as Valtteri did. Mercedes was 8 MPH faster on the speed traps than Ferrari and throughout the race, Mercedes was faster in S1, so I doubt if Vettel could have come close enough to make a move. Even if Vettel would come side by side, I bet Valtteri would have gone on the inside line to cover the Corner 2.

It depends on which way you want to look at it and associate luck with. I think Vettel was lucky to come so close, while Valtteri made mistake and stuck behind backmarkers, while he had similar speed as that of Vettel.

What we have seen from last year, where the downforce levels were much lower than what they are today, even being half a second quicker wouldn't have allowed you to overtake, unless the pace difference was like 2 seconds. This year, though the downforce levels are higher, but the tyres seems to be having less thermal degradation characteristics than last year, allowing the cars to run closer. Then again, drag levels have increased and will continue to make the cars slower on the straight (relative to last year, not on absolute speed numbers), hence, unless the chasing car is around 2 seconds faster, I don't see how anyone can make a pass stick. Of course, other than dive bombs.

Andres125sx
253
User avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by Andres125sx » Thu May 04, 2017 10:09 am

CBeck113 wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 8:29 pm
Andres125sx wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 5:12 pm
CBeck113 wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 1:27 pm


But why should passing be easy? The fight makes it interesting, not the pass itself.
Who said it should be easy???
Ummm...you?
False, you´d have noticed if you´d have bothered to read my post again, but looks like you do prefer to assume your prejudices like the truth, despite my previous post clarifying :roll:

Andres125sx
253
User avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by Andres125sx » Thu May 04, 2017 10:14 am

shady wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 6:16 pm
Ill no longer address the fan, as I have presented rationalization as to why it is both illegal and illogical.
It´s a pity you can´t keep a normal discussion where people reply comments from other members. I guess a filter and a canalized exhaust are too bizarre for you to consider it... :roll: :lol:

Andres125sx
253
User avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by Andres125sx » Thu May 04, 2017 10:22 am

wesley123 wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 6:42 pm
Andres125sx wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 10:29 am
wesley123 wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 10:23 am


It's good that you use indy as an example of how it should be, considering those cars(together with all of Dallara's current open wheelers) run barn door rear wings.

There is very little evidence confirming that relying on wings for downforce hampers overtaking. Sure, you are being affected by dirty air, but so is your floor, and thus, both will most likely lose similair percentages of downforce.

Really? Based on what?
Vettel got increasingly close and due to DRS did not lose much on the straights. It would very well be plausible that Vettel would have outbraked Bottas into T2, or considering Vettels superior pace in the corners thereafter.
Based on the three previous races. How many overtakes did you see between cars with similar pace this 2017 season?

Drivers struggle to lap cars, so overtaking a car with a similar pace is today more difficult than ever, even when some people do prefer to assume F1 drivers complain without reason :roll: , facts and statements from the principal actors show this season overtaking is more difficult than ever before
I really don't care how much forced overtaking there is or isn't, if you want to see overtaking go to your local highway. I want to see racing, not some event where drivers are forced to overtake each other, acting like that is the sole thing that has ever counted when racing.
Please, don´t take my post to the absurd!! :roll:

I even clarified, but some people enjoy mocking any argument they don´t agree #-o

Who said anything about drivers being forced to overtake? None, I talked about drivers who must be able to overtake a slower car.
Who said ovetaking must be the sole thing that ever counted? None, I said overtaking must be part of racing, nothing more and nothing less
Who said overtaking must be easy? None, I said it should be easier, if you don´t grasp the difference between easier and easy then I can´t help you

This looks like when some of you run out of arguments, then you can only try to mock my posts :roll: :lol:



You want to see racing, ok. How many racing have you seen in your life with a total lack of overtakes between cars fighting for same positions? #-o

Andres125sx
253
User avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by Andres125sx » Thu May 04, 2017 10:25 am

George-Jung wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 8:54 pm
Overtaking should only be difficult because they guy in front defends his position realy well, not because it is utterly difficult to follow the car in front..
+1

Andres125sx
253
User avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by Andres125sx » Thu May 04, 2017 10:28 am

SR71 wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 11:01 pm
Does everyone really believe that had Sochi been another 5 laps Vettel wouldn't have made an overpass attempt or 2 because the air was too dirty?

Would he have made the pass work? Who knows, but FOR SURE he would have made an attempt once he and Valteri cleared traffic.

Attempts cannot be made if you cannot close the gap, clearly the gap is able to be closed AND that's with two cars that most would say are fairly even in performance.

I declare the rules a success, we have F1 back (factoring in tires that can be pushed in dirty air).
Sorry SR, but it´s funny to see how you assume what you want to see, to then state that´s proving F1 is ok :mrgreen:

After watching some cars struggling to lap a much slower car, I wouldn´t assume Vettel could have tried a pass to Bottas

Andres125sx
253
User avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by Andres125sx » Thu May 04, 2017 10:45 am

djos wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 11:39 pm
Andreas, you accuse the champ cars of being simple in aero, outwardly that is true however you ignored the picture I posted of the 2000 era Lola under-wing, they are anything but simple and are orders of magnitude more advanced than anything ever seen in F1 or even allowed in Le mans prototypes.
Andres please, not Andreas :wink:

That´s a bold statement Djos. Pretty bold. I´m afraid you´re confusing the design wich is dependand only on the rulebook, with the development.

F1 rulebook does not allow for those big tunnels (yes I watched your pic), but the solutions wich are allowed have been developed MUCH further. That does not mean they´re a better design, but that design is optimized further.

That is the main factor here, when a design has been optimized its using any particle of air reaching that part and that will happen with the whole downstream elements because the design is very developed, it´s been studied in detail and it´s optimized. But optimization is done with an initial hypothesis, wich is clean air. Any difference in the initial hypothesis will make the whole design to fail, because it was optimized for clean air and dirty air acts differently, so the whole downstream elements will drop efficiency dramatically.

But when a design is not that optimized, then a difference in the initial hypothesis will not be that big, because the initial efficiency was already low.

Think it this way, in dirty air any aero efficiency will be low, independently of any other parameter. If the aero design has been developed and in clean air efficiency is high, the difference when in dirty air will be huge (cars will struggle to follow), while if the aero design has not been developed that much, efficiency in clean air will be low too, so the difference when in dirty air will be much closer, the DF drop will be much smaller, allowing cars to follow each other easily

This is not my opinion, this is what Bhall II convied me some time ago. If 70´s and 80´s F1 cars were able to fight closer it was not due to the ground effects as most of us assume, but because of the early stage of development of their aero designs. Their aero efficiency was low, so when they were in dirty air the efficiency drop was not that severe. Inventing the numbers here but let´s say the aero efficiency of Champ cars or F1 80´s cars go from 50% (early stage of development) to 30% when in clean or dirty air, while today in F1 it goes from 75% (very developed elements) to 30%. Obviously a 45% drop is way more noticeable than a 20% drop, that´s the reason Champ cars of F1 in the 80´s could follow each other much closer than current F1

CBeck113
100
User avatar
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:43 pm
Location: Regensburg, Germany

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by CBeck113 » Thu May 04, 2017 11:37 am

Andres, if you need 6 separate posts to explain yourself, then I won't start looking for the error in my prejudice, it's pretty obvious that it's your communication skills...
We're actually saying the same, or want to say the same, and that's what George-Jung said: it must be easier for the trailing car to follow the leading car closely without performance loss.

A diffusor itself will never create more turbulance, if it does it isn't working properly. A diffusor is a volume flow increase, which leads to a deceleration of the flow through that volume, which stabilizes this air (laminary flow).
The designers are creating the vortices all over the car, starting with the front wing, to stipulate how the air flows around the car, for instance to use energy rich flow to separate two different flows (under car and outside the wheels for instance).
One direct task of the vortices is to increase the volume of the diffusor even further, which helps improve the aerodynamic properties of the car (which is why it is considered free DF). The sealing is responsible for the problems of following the leading car, not the diffusor itself, it actually makes it easier (damn aero engineers! :mrgreen: ). They are too far, and the vortice generators should be banned, but that won't be easy to formulate without leaving huge loopholes.
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!” Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Andres125sx
253
User avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by Andres125sx » Thu May 04, 2017 4:38 pm

CBeck113 wrote:
Thu May 04, 2017 11:37 am
Andres, if you need 6 separate posts to explain yourself, then I won't start looking for the error in my prejudice
So if I want to reply 6 different members that instantly means I´m wrong? :shock:

C´mon Cbeck, I know you can do much better :wink:

CBeck113 wrote:
Thu May 04, 2017 11:37 am
it's pretty obvious that it's your communication skills...
That´s obvious, my comunication skills are far from perfect in spanish, in english it just sucks. Sorry for that :oops:
CBeck113 wrote:
Thu May 04, 2017 11:37 am
We're actually saying the same, or want to say the same, and that's what George-Jung said: it must be easier for the trailing car to follow the leading car closely without performance loss.

A diffusor itself will never create more turbulance, if it does it isn't working properly. A diffusor is a volume flow increase, which leads to a deceleration of the flow through that volume, which stabilizes this air (laminary flow).
The designers are creating the vortices all over the car, starting with the front wing, to stipulate how the air flows around the car, for instance to use energy rich flow to separate two different flows (under car and outside the wheels for instance).
One direct task of the vortices is to increase the volume of the diffusor even further, which helps improve the aerodynamic properties of the car (which is why it is considered free DF). The sealing is responsible for the problems of following the leading car, not the diffusor itself, it actually makes it easier (damn aero engineers! :mrgreen: ). They are too far, and the vortice generators should be banned, but that won't be easy to formulate without leaving huge loopholes.
Ok, I agree with this, but I can´t get what´s the relevance of this to the discussion :?:

If you mean the bigger diffusor idea was good but all the rest is what is increasing dirty air, then I fully agree with you. I never said the bigger diffusers are a bad idea, I was commenting about the whole 2017 aero rules wich have obviously increased the dirty air problem, even if the bigger diffusers are a good idea

wesley123
178
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:55 pm

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by wesley123 » Thu May 04, 2017 8:40 pm

Andres125sx wrote:
Thu May 04, 2017 10:22 am
I even clarified, but some people enjoy mocking any argument they don´t agree #-o

Who said anything about drivers being forced to overtake? None, I talked about drivers who must be able to overtake a slower car.
Who said ovetaking must be the sole thing that ever counted? None, I said overtaking must be part of racing, nothing more and nothing less
Who said overtaking must be easy? None, I said it should be easier, if you don´t grasp the difference between easier and easy then I can´t help you

This looks like when some of you run out of arguments, then you can only try to mock my posts :roll: :lol:



You want to see racing, ok. How many racing have you seen in your life with a total lack of overtakes between cars fighting for same positions? #-o
The general opinion I read in your post is that the 2017 rule set sucks because there isn't enough overtaking, and in effect you seem to ignore everything else that is F1. So thats why I used those words; it is the other extreme.

I never did mocked your post, nor do I have any intent to do so
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

George-Jung
33
User avatar
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:39 pm
Location: Anthony, Texas

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by George-Jung » Thu May 04, 2017 9:41 pm

What creates the biggest turbulance ?
I think it is the rearwing, but not sure..

So what if we ban the rearwing and allow a huge diffuser together with a flat floor with air ducts/ venturi tunnels?

Just_a_fan
259
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by Just_a_fan » Thu May 04, 2017 10:29 pm

CBeck113 wrote:
Thu May 04, 2017 11:37 am


A diffusor itself will never create more turbulance, if it does it isn't working properly. A diffusor is a volume flow increase, which leads to a deceleration of the flow through that volume, which stabilizes this air (laminary flow).
The designers are creating the vortices all over the car, starting with the front wing, to stipulate how the air flows around the car, for instance to use energy rich flow to separate two different flows (under car and outside the wheels for instance).
One direct task of the vortices is to increase the volume of the diffusor even further, which helps improve the aerodynamic properties of the car (which is why it is considered free DF). The sealing is responsible for the problems of following the leading car, not the diffusor itself, it actually makes it easier (damn aero engineers! :mrgreen: ). They are too far, and the vortice generators should be banned, but that won't be easy to formulate without leaving huge loopholes.
The diffuser uses/creates strong vortices and these are unlikely to be helpful for a following car, irrespective of any other flow structures created by the car.
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools."

djos
82
User avatar
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 5:09 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by djos » Fri May 05, 2017 12:46 am

Andres125sx wrote:
Thu May 04, 2017 10:45 am
Andres please, not Andreas :wink:

That´s a bold statement Djos. Pretty bold. I´m afraid you´re confusing the design wich is dependand only on the rulebook, with the development.

F1 rulebook does not allow for those big tunnels (yes I watched your pic), but the solutions wich are allowed have been developed MUCH further. That does not mean they´re a better design, but that design is optimized further.

That is the main factor here, when a design has been optimized its using any particle of air reaching that part and that will happen with the whole downstream elements because the design is very developed, it´s been studied in detail and it´s optimized. But optimization is done with an initial hypothesis, wich is clean air. Any difference in the initial hypothesis will make the whole design to fail, because it was optimized for clean air and dirty air acts differently, so the whole downstream elements will drop efficiency dramatically.

But when a design is not that optimized, then a difference in the initial hypothesis will not be that big, because the initial efficiency was already low.

Think it this way, in dirty air any aero efficiency will be low, independently of any other parameter. If the aero design has been developed and in clean air efficiency is high, the difference when in dirty air will be huge (cars will struggle to follow), while if the aero design has not been developed that much, efficiency in clean air will be low too, so the difference when in dirty air will be much closer, the DF drop will be much smaller, allowing cars to follow each other easily

This is not my opinion, this is what Bhall II convied me some time ago. If 70´s and 80´s F1 cars were able to fight closer it was not due to the ground effects as most of us assume, but because of the early stage of development of their aero designs. Their aero efficiency was low, so when they were in dirty air the efficiency drop was not that severe. Inventing the numbers here but let´s say the aero efficiency of Champ cars or F1 80´s cars go from 50% (early stage of development) to 30% when in clean or dirty air, while today in F1 it goes from 75% (very developed elements) to 30%. Obviously a 45% drop is way more noticeable than a 20% drop, that´s the reason Champ cars of F1 in the 80´s could follow each other much closer than current F1
Andres, your logic is completely flawed - you are basing all your reasoning on the 80's FFS - I was specifically talking about the late 90's and early 2000's. If you cant be bothered to pay proper attention to arguments/information others present, be prepared for others to immediately dismiss your arguments as null and void and then ignore you from then on. =D>
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

zac510
28
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:58 am

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by zac510 » Fri May 05, 2017 8:18 am

We don't even know for sure that the teams perform all of their modelling, wind tunnel and CFD testing in perfectly clean air either. That's just an assumption we make in the absence of any evidence from the teams themselves.

Andres125sx
253
User avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post by Andres125sx » Fri May 05, 2017 10:37 am

djos wrote:
Fri May 05, 2017 12:46 am
Andres, your logic is completely flawed - you are basing all your reasoning on the 80's FFS -
Sorry but what do you mean with 80´s FFS?


djos wrote:
Fri May 05, 2017 12:46 am
I was specifically talking about the late 90's and early 2000's. If you cant be bothered to pay proper attention to arguments/information others present, be prepared for others to immediately dismiss your arguments as null and void and then ignore you from then on. =D>
Hey Djos I paid attention, and even replied that specifically so maybe it´s not me who should pay more attention :roll:

This was my reply, try paying more attention next time :mrgreen:
Andres125sx wrote:
Thu May 04, 2017 10:45 am
djos wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 11:39 pm
Andreas, you accuse the champ cars of being simple in aero, outwardly that is true however you ignored the picture I posted of the 2000 era Lola under-wing, they are anything but simple and are orders of magnitude more advanced than anything ever seen in F1 or even allowed in Le mans prototypes.
Andres please, not Andreas :wink:

That´s a bold statement Djos. Pretty bold. I´m afraid you´re confusing the design wich is dependand only on the rulebook, with the development.

F1 rulebook does not allow for those big tunnels (yes I watched your pic), but the solutions wich are allowed have been developed MUCH further. That does not mean they´re a better design, but that design is optimized further.

(continue but not relevant)
So if I follow your reasoning, should I dismiss your arguments now as null and void and then ignore you from then on? :roll:


As I said considering 00´s Champ cars aero more advanced than anything else seen in F1 (your statement in that post you accuse me of not paying attention) is a pretty bold statement I simply cannot buy for a simple reason, wich is F1 is the most expensive motorsport and aero has always been free to develop. If we take into account aero is the aspect of F1 cars wich make them quicker, teams can invest all they want, and they have more money to invest than any other category, I simply cannot believe your statement

That´s the reason I cannot believe Champ cars aero is more developed than F1 aero. I paid attention, but didn´t buy it :wink:
Last edited by Andres125sx on Fri May 05, 2017 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.