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.
User avatar
subcritical71
90
Joined: 17 Jul 2018, 20:04
Location: USA-Florida

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

F1NAC wrote:
07 Nov 2018, 13:17
Apparently teams reached early 2018 DF levels with 2019 regulations in their sims. From RB they've said that it won't do any better.

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/1060125987587981312
This frankly makes sense to me. The teams were so concentrated on outwash that a good portion of the wing was dedicated to push the air sideways. It would be interesting to see if the surface area of the wings in the new rules are roughly the same as the surface area of the wing which was dedicated to outwash in 2018.

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

subcritical71 wrote:
07 Nov 2018, 13:55
F1NAC wrote:
07 Nov 2018, 13:17
Apparently teams reached early 2018 DF levels with 2019 regulations in their sims. From RB they've said that it won't do any better.

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/1060125987587981312
This frankly makes sense to me. The teams were so concentrated on outwash that a good portion of the wing was dedicated to push the air sideways. It would be interesting to see if the surface area of the wings in the new rules are roughly the same as the surface area of the wing which was dedicated to outwash in 2018.
Unless there are loopholes, I do think the regulations will have a positive effect. There are very stringent rules in place, even for the 5 element wing profiles, including minimum radii to ensure wing profiles can't have an agressive outwash profile built in. Basically we are close to a standardarized front wing at this point, because the little freedom that is left will be converged through the competitive nature.

I think the concerns for anything nullifying have to be looked into the bargeboard area.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
Holm86
243
Joined: 10 Feb 2010, 03:37
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

2019 cars will probably still have a lot of outwash, just look at Ferrari and RedBull's new floor concepts.
They will just shift focus to create more outwash in front of the rear tires.

FIA should rather focus on stopping the Y250 vortex area, because that vortex is probably very sensitive when following another car, and thats the reason so much downforce is lost when following

PhillipM
385
Joined: 16 May 2011, 15:18
Location: Over the road from Boothy...

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

turbof1 wrote:
07 Nov 2018, 14:38
I think the concerns for anything nullifying have to be looked into the bargeboard area.
I'm not sure if the bargeboards will be better or worse, with them being pushed forwards they can be much more aggressive for turning out the dirty air from the front wheel, which you assume would make things worse....but then on the other hand they should also be better at pushing dirty air outboard when following a car...

Gut feeling is still slightly worse than this years, to be honest, as you say, definately something that want's looking at, as they've been so aggresive there already this year at pushing wake outboard.

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

Holm86 wrote:
07 Nov 2018, 15:13
2019 cars will probably still have a lot of outwash, just look at Ferrari and RedBull's new floor concepts.
They will just shift focus to create more outwash in front of the rear tires.

FIA should rather focus on stopping the Y250 vortex area, because that vortex is probably very sensitive when following another car, and thats the reason so much downforce is lost when following
They actually helped that by creating a wider rear wing. That will allow the turbulent flow from the diffuser being swepped up higher.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
henry
324
Joined: 23 Feb 2004, 20:49
Location: England

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

turbof1 wrote:
07 Nov 2018, 15:36
Holm86 wrote:
07 Nov 2018, 15:13
2019 cars will probably still have a lot of outwash, just look at Ferrari and RedBull's new floor concepts.
They will just shift focus to create more outwash in front of the rear tires.

FIA should rather focus on stopping the Y250 vortex area, because that vortex is probably very sensitive when following another car, and thats the reason so much downforce is lost when following
They actually helped that by creating a wider rear wing. That will allow the turbulent flow from the diffuser being swepped up higher.
The rear wing is 70mm higher. Might that not reduce the coupling of the wing to the diffuser and so not pull an increased flow higher?
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

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

henry wrote:
07 Nov 2018, 16:15
turbof1 wrote:
07 Nov 2018, 15:36
Holm86 wrote:
07 Nov 2018, 15:13
2019 cars will probably still have a lot of outwash, just look at Ferrari and RedBull's new floor concepts.
They will just shift focus to create more outwash in front of the rear tires.

FIA should rather focus on stopping the Y250 vortex area, because that vortex is probably very sensitive when following another car, and thats the reason so much downforce is lost when following
They actually helped that by creating a wider rear wing. That will allow the turbulent flow from the diffuser being swepped up higher.
The rear wing is 70mm higher. Might that not reduce the coupling of the wing to the diffuser and so not pull an increased flow higher?
I asked that question myself a long while ago. I was told a lower rear wing decreases the "angle of pull" the rear wing has. Meaning it will influence it better, but the angle the rear wing has on the diffuser is less steep, so less upwash of the turbulence. In reverse a higher wing means the angle on the diffuser is steeper, and thus a higher upwash.
#AeroFrodo

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

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

The 2019 changes to the rear wing and their influence on the diffuser is complex... the wing is wider - which makes the tip vortices slightly weaker, because the induced drag is inversely proportional to the aspect ratio (in plan view the chord will be constant). However, the rear wing box is 20mm taller, which means the wing should be able to produce more downforce, a greater camber on the wing, which in turn will make the induced drag bigger because it is directly proportional to the lift. The rear wing is then placed higher by 50mm at it's lowest point which moves it away from the diffuser.

The span of an F1 rear wing is so short that really most of the up-wash is driven by the interaction between the counter-rotating tip vortices. But the diffuser interaction is not just about up-wash but also the low pressure field created under the rear wing, which helps to suck air through under the car - helping the diffuser.

I think the total of all these effects will be minimal - induced drag will be around the same - i.e. the tip vortices will be around the same strength, and the pressure field under the wing will be slightly stronger, but as it's placed higher the interaction with the diffuser will be broadly similar.
#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

Just_a_fan
591
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

Am I correct in thinking that Mercedes are the only team that currently runs a 5 element front wing? At least for the inboard portion - everyone runs silly numbers of elements in the outer portion.

One wonders if that gives Mercedes a bit of a head start with the new front wing - they've been happily running what others don't seem able to judging by the number of elements others use.

Just a thought, really.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

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

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
22 Nov 2018, 22:02
Am I correct in thinking that Mercedes are the only team that currently runs a 5 element front wing? At least for the inboard portion - everyone runs silly numbers of elements in the outer portion.

One wonders if that gives Mercedes a bit of a head start with the new front wing - they've been happily running what others don't seem able to judging by the number of elements others use.

Just a thought, really.
Doubt it. Inboard isn't changing that much - it's the tip and wheel interaction which is where the significant change is.
#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

Just_a_fan
591
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

Presumably the other teams run extra elements (and therefore slot gaps) for a reason. My understanding is that more elements gives lower total downforce but that it is more consistent. So do the other teams have an issue keeping the flow happy on their wings? Is it, perhaps, to do with running the wing slightly closer to the ground due to high rake angles? If so, will teams have to wind down the rake a bit to compensate? Or is it just "trendy" to have lots of flap elements?

Some teams run extra slot gaps in the Y250 vortex generating section. Will they lose some of their Y250 as a result of being limited to 5 elements in total?

I know the obvious big change is at the endplate end of the wing, but often the obvious "OMG, it's all changing!" stuff ends up being the easy bits to sort and other stuff creeps up and kicks one in the butt!
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

User avatar
godlameroso
309
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 21:27
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

In my 2018 aero developments thread, I've highlighted the area that will become even more important next year. Just like a balloon if you squeeze all the development out of the front and rear wings, the teams will just pour that development elsewhere. The effort and energy that money buys has to go somewhere, and this area now has greater surface area than in either previous season.

Ferrari was smarter than everyone else and straight up made that area modular, and as a result made big gains through the year until they started focusing on other parts of the car.

The Red Bull style diffuser and work on the bargeboards and side pods will be the main development points, and if the other teams are smart will make their bargeboards modular so they can upgrade them throughout the year.

The front wings are pretty much spec save for the inboard area, and the only thing possible will be small iterative changes to make airflow more consistent. Ditto for the rear wing, these surfaces are still sensitive enough where a few mm here and there can make a difference.

Getting everything to gel together and developing the bargeboards and diffuser will be the plan of action in 2019.
Saishū kōnā

User avatar
henry
324
Joined: 23 Feb 2004, 20:49
Location: England

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

We have multiple reports of teams being back to current downforce levels with the changed aero configurations. Maybe this is not surprising given the restrictions on CFD and wind tunnel use. Once teams found common ground in the out wash designs pursued for the last few years it would have been a very brave individual who would stick their neck out and suggest spending some of that precious resource on exploring an alternative. Now they’ve been forced to do something different and hey presto it turns out there are other ways to get the same, or better, performance.

I think this highlights the bravery of the folks at Ferrari in pursuing their radical mid wing approach to the side pods, barge boards. If it hadn’t worked there’d have been a lot of senior folk seeking redeployment.
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

User avatar
godlameroso
309
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 21:27
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

henry wrote:
08 Dec 2018, 12:00
We have multiple reports of teams being back to current downforce levels with the changed aero configurations. Maybe this is not surprising given the restrictions on CFD and wind tunnel use. Once teams found common ground in the out wash designs pursued for the last few years it would have been a very brave individual who would stick their neck out and suggest spending some of that precious resource on exploring an alternative. Now they’ve been forced to do something different and hey presto it turns out there are other ways to get the same, or better, performance.

I think this highlights the bravery of the folks at Ferrari in pursuing their radical mid wing approach to the side pods, barge boards. If it hadn’t worked there’d have been a lot of senior folk seeking redeployment.
The downforce loss was supposed to be somewhat compensated for by increased surface area of the front rear and mid wings. However no one predicted that losing the cascade elements would be so insignificant in the big scheme of things. One need only look at Barcelona this year, when Verstappen damaged his front wing, lost his cascade elements and still managed to gap Riccardo. That wouldn't happen if those bits were so critical.
Saishū kōnā

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

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

godlameroso wrote:
10 Dec 2018, 16:08
henry wrote:
08 Dec 2018, 12:00
We have multiple reports of teams being back to current downforce levels with the changed aero configurations. Maybe this is not surprising given the restrictions on CFD and wind tunnel use. Once teams found common ground in the out wash designs pursued for the last few years it would have been a very brave individual who would stick their neck out and suggest spending some of that precious resource on exploring an alternative. Now they’ve been forced to do something different and hey presto it turns out there are other ways to get the same, or better, performance.

I think this highlights the bravery of the folks at Ferrari in pursuing their radical mid wing approach to the side pods, barge boards. If it hadn’t worked there’d have been a lot of senior folk seeking redeployment.
The downforce loss was supposed to be somewhat compensated for by increased surface area of the front rear and mid wings. However no one predicted that losing the cascade elements would be so insignificant in the big scheme of things. One need only look at Barcelona this year, when Verstappen damaged his front wing, lost his cascade elements and still managed to gap Riccardo. That wouldn't happen if those bits were so critical.
Well... aerodynamically critical... but the current Formula is so tyre limited they can't use all the potential of the aero in cornering for a whole lap anyway. So if the driver can adjust some input to counteract the aero loss, so long as the tyres aren't being overheated, lap-time isn't going to be significantly affected. You need to remember F1 teams are working to the 3rd or 4th dp on coefficients when incrementing downforce onto their cars.
#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

Post Reply