2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
Brenton
1
Joined: 17 Dec 2017, 07:28

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

The road course at Indianapolis does use the banked turn 1 of the oval as part of the front stretch. A very memorable corner in F1 history because its banking was the whole reason why there was the debacle 12(?) years ago at the US gp... The Michelin tires couldn't handle it.

User avatar
jjn9128
769
Joined: 02 May 2017, 23:53

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

Brenton wrote:
12 Apr 2018, 02:26
The road course at Indianapolis does use the banked turn 1 of the oval as part of the front stretch. A very memorable corner in F1 history because its banking was the whole reason why there was the debacle 12(?) years ago at the US gp... The Michelin tires couldn't handle it.
They don't go up the banking any more, there's an extra complex of turns before the S/F straight.


IIRC the banking was diamond cut between 2004 and 2005 - a more abrasive surface - which Bridgestone were aware of through their Firestone arm from NASCAR and Indycar.
#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
JonoNic
4
Joined: 05 Mar 2015, 15:54

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

Maybe this is not the best question to ask here... However, which of these teams current aerodynamic philosophies would gain the most from active suspension if it could be implemented immediately?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Always find the gap then use it.

User avatar
jjn9128
769
Joined: 02 May 2017, 23:53

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

JonoNic wrote:
14 Apr 2018, 11:39
Maybe this is not the best question to ask here... However, which of these teams current aerodynamic philosophies would gain the most from active suspension if it could be implemented immediately?
Good question. Short answer is it's impossible to tell, however, how active suspension helps for F1 is by maintaining a consistent ride height for the aero. So teams can design a narrower band on their aero-maps, where now they have to compromise peak downforce to prevent sudden changes in balance as the attitude changes. This would more likely help the lower teams more than the top teams, as a lot of the complexity in the design is to get this consistent downforce as the car squats/dives/rolls.

If it were implemented immediately... probably the top teams would steal a march on the lower teams just because they can react faster to changes. They also have suspension which more closely mimics active suspension than the lower teams :lol: so they probably have to change less.
#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

NL_Fer
82
Joined: 15 Jun 2014, 09:48

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

Looking at the current f1 car, it looks like an evolution starting in 1998 with narrow cars and grooved tyres, to 2008 big front wing, small rear wing, to 2014 no diffusor. Again in 2017 going up in DF with all sorts of little added wings.

Can we not continue from 1997 with the current track width and tyres. Narrower less fragile frontwing and get rid of the fragile barge boards and winglets and underfloor sticking out under the sidepods.

CriXus
95
Joined: 01 Feb 2014, 19:09

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” - George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
jjn9128
769
Joined: 02 May 2017, 23:53

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

NL_Fer wrote:
24 Apr 2018, 21:31
Looking at the current f1 car, it looks like an evolution starting in 1998 with narrow cars and grooved tyres, to 2008 big front wing, small rear wing, to 2014 no diffusor. Again in 2017 going up in DF with all sorts of little added wings.

Can we not continue from 1997 with the current track width and tyres. Narrower less fragile frontwing and get rid of the fragile barge boards and winglets and underfloor sticking out under the sidepods.
The problem is you can't force teams to unlearn what they've learned. In the late 90's CFD was still in relative infancy, so the majority of aerodynamic testing was performed in wind tunnels or on track (testing was unlimited back then). The advantage of CFD is being able to visualize the flow field around the car - which is where teams started playing with vortices to influence the rest of the car. Having that extra detail is when the car's started to sprout the extra aerodynamic features - as the teams really started manipulating and controlling the air around the car for net gains. The regulations between 2016 and 2017 weren't all that different really, conceptually, basically the car's were stretched to make them wider - the longer diffuser and wider rear wing were the main differences (for the design concept).

This for me is one of the problems when it comes to following another car - the flow field is so finely tuned that any disturbance will negatively impact performance. On top of the base effect of the wake - which is a dynamic pressure effect. Cleaner cars are generally easier to follow as spec series show - F2, Indycar, Superformula, Formula E... etc all have lower downforce than F1, but also cleaner aerodynamic surfaces.

It would be relatively easy to define a wing and a strake in the rules and fix those in specific volumes on the car - to clean up the aesthetic of the cars. e.g.
an aerofoil is a surface defined by a cambered pair of arcs whose intent is to generate a force perpendicular to the direction of travel (vertical or horizontal). Aerofoils can only be present in the boxes defined in section ... as 'front wing' and 'rear wing', each consisting of a maximum of 2 elements named the 'mainplane' and 'flap'.
I'm yet to be convinced an in-wash wing endplate is inherently better for following than an out-wash endplate - every other open-wheel series used out-wash and following is easier than F1. My understanding of the proposal is a standardised endplate - which of course is going to be better for following if it's simpler in design. (I will add I prefer the look of the car when the front wing is the same width as the bodywork behind!)
#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
godlameroso
309
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 21:27
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

The biggest problem with the outwash FW is it makes it really hard to race side by side. Verstappen tried to overtake Hamilton and was caught out in his outwash, and lost all downforce. I agree with you though, I'm not sure inwash design would really change much as you'd still have the turbulence coming off the tire. The only real solution is to shroud the tire entirely.

The vortecies surrounding the car amount to virtual bodywork.
Saishū kōnā

User avatar
jjn9128
769
Joined: 02 May 2017, 23:53

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

godlameroso wrote:
30 Apr 2018, 15:21
The biggest problem with the outwash FW is it makes it really hard to race side by side. Verstappen tried to overtake Hamilton and was caught out in his outwash, and lost all downforce.
Hmmmmm... not sure about that. Even if the wing isn't doing it then the bargeboards still have to create outwash - because you don't want the front wing or tyre wake under the floor or in the sidepod inlets. A wide front wing is inherently better aerodynamically because the low pressure under and behind reduces the pressure on the front face of the tyre (put another way the circulation (negative) from the front wing cancels the circulation (positive) of the wheel). There's also how the FWEP and lower tyre vortices merge, which is again better with a wide front wing - the outer tyre vortex merges with the wing tip which helps pull the tyre wake outboard.
godlameroso wrote:
30 Apr 2018, 15:21
The vortecies surrounding the car amount to virtual bodywork.
Yes it's called the "effective frontal area", which for an F1 car is significantly wider and taller than the car's frontal area.
#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
Zynerji
111
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 16:14

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

I know this is going to sound awful to the people here, but I would love to see what happens to the cars in dirty air if the were mandated to fit re-laminators to the front and rear.

My idea is a rectangular box that is slightly larger than the front wing in plan view from the front. If this box was 150ish mm deep, and mounted to the leading edge of the front wing, and filled with the aluminum honeycomb (so air passes through), I believe it would negate most of the dirty air effects under the following cars floor.

Also, a similar device from the bottom edge of the rear diffusor, to the beam-wing position.

I understand that it's about maximizing kick up after the diffusor in the current formula... Having a spec part that drives aero development to horizontal extraction instead of vertical extraction, coupled with the leading edge piece should lead to much cleaner air (passively), and much closer racing.

User avatar
Noetiepoerker26
1
Joined: 29 Mar 2017, 19:21

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

Two stroke: a little more than half the power, twice as often.

CriXus
95
Joined: 01 Feb 2014, 19:09

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

  • Simplified front wing, with a larger span, and low outwash potential
  • Simplified front brake duct with no winglets
  • Wider and deeper rear wing
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” - George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
jjn9128
769
Joined: 02 May 2017, 23:53

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

hahahaahahaah... all the talk of in-wash over out-wash and they've increased the front wing span. Those fecking motorsport journo's and their 'knowledge' of aerodynamics. Unfortunately we have to rely on their reporting for our info.
#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
FrukostScones
162
Joined: 25 May 2010, 17:41
Location: European Union

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13571 ... h-for-2019

Merc Williams sauber force india. Voted for it. Betrayed us . hopefully Ferrari can veto this crap.

More powerful DRS will get some one killed apart from being stooooopid.

Anyway this stupid kneejerk makes my blood boiling.
Finishing races is important, but racing is more important.

User avatar
MtthsMlw
1033
Joined: 12 Jul 2017, 18:38
Location: Germany

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

So no more FW outwash. Could this lead to the teams trying to work the Y250 vortex even harder? So even more complexity in that area?

Post Reply