2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[jjn9128]

I think shorten the cars would solve a few issues all round.

1. It would reduce the dependence on rake and make it more difficult to set up vortexes to seal the defuser. While amazing they can do it. The aero is so complex the fun has gone out of trying to figure out what each part does.
2. It's easier to get a shorter car around and other short car. So should help overtaking.
3. It will make the cars bulkier. Without the length it will make it more difficult to package everything in such a sleek fashion. While this should make the cars a bit draggier I think they would find it difficult to steer vortexes and the like around the bulk and rely on more simple aero that would not be as badly impacted by wake of the car in front.

Not a silver bullet but I really think it would help

They could certainly do with being shorter and more agile!! I reckon they would save a few kg from the minimum weight as well.

When TurboF1 illustrated this for our feature on how weight affects performance and I initially thought he'd made a scaling mistake. (Top is 2017 car, bottom is 2005)


The cars will look even longer this year because the RWEP is 100mm longer and the front overlap is 25mm longer.

[Dipesh1995]

Another image showing the extent of change in the past 10 years or so. Pretty crazy I think

[jumpingfish]

Another image showing the extent of change in the past 10 years or so. Pretty crazy I think

IMO different scale. I tried to measure the size and McLaren is smaller. If W08's wheelbase is 3.726m then MP4-22 must be near 3.12m.

[mzso]

Oh and more drag/longer lap times would lead to higher fuel usage and more lift and coast. Nobody likes that.

You speak as if it's impossible to change the fuel quantity or the fuel flow limit. Of course whatever they come up with they'll calculate fuel usage changes.

You do understand regulations doing this very thing is why things are so expensive now, correct?

Make them share their designs and data at every race and see how quickly they stop burning millions for hundreths of a second.

Dysfunctional, inadequate regulation does.
Of course what you suggest would quickly lead to near identical cars. No way something like that will happen.

I think it's more that the regulations allow teams to go in search of laptime deep into the diminishing returns areas of aero development.

We don't have to see a 2019 car to know that the barge board area is going to be mahoosively complex yet it does nothing for me as a spectator. The designs are far too complex for even the most expert of armchair aerodynamicist to analyse beyond sweeping brush strokes.

They'll keep burning the money because the teams know their solutions only work on their own aero concept so I only see regulations as the answer. Regulate all the aero noise generators off the car and regulate body work onto the car which tidies up the wake for the following car.

Exactly! We just need competent regulation. Although that would be a first for several decades... But maybe with Brawn and the contracts running out it will happen.

[ENGINE TUNER]

There is only 1 way to solve this dirty air problem in F1, set a maximum downforce level and that will force the teams to develop only towards to reduced drag. This is the only solution that worked for the engines by setting a maximum fuel flow rate. The is the only sensible way forward.

[mzso]

When TurboF1 illustrated this for our feature on how weight affects performance and I initially thought he'd made a scaling mistake. (Top is 2017 car, bottom is 2005)
https://f1tcdn.net/images/news/2018/int ... s-2005.png
The cars will look even longer this year because the RWEP is 100mm longer and the front overlap is 25mm longer.

Another image showing the extent of change in the past 10 years or so. Pretty crazy I think

Ouch. Makes me think bjpower is spot on.

[mzso]

There is only 1 way to solve this dirty air problem in F1, set a maximum downforce level and that will force the teams to develop only towards to reduced drag. This is the only solution that worked for the engines by setting a maximum fuel flow rate. The is the only sensible way forward.

I'm certain it wouldn't work. In fact they wouldn't be working for more downforce but less drag AND more turbulence for the following car. It would be a big motivator to filthy up the air behind.

[jjn9128]

There is only 1 way to solve this dirty air problem in F1, set a maximum downforce level and that will force the teams to develop only towards to reduced drag. This is the only solution that worked for the engines by setting a maximum fuel flow rate. The is the only sensible way forward.

I'm certain it wouldn't work. In fact they wouldn't be working for more downforce but less drag AND more turbulence for the following car. It would be a big motivator to filthy up the air behind.

I'm not sure less drag and more dirty air equates... Obviously there are nuances but broadly speaking the lower the total drag the smaller the effect of the wake will be (Cpo deficit in the wake reduces with lower drag).

WEC are introducing a minimum frontal area, maximum downforce, maximum efficiency, and minimum drag in their 2020 rules. A similar rule in F1 could be quite effective.

[turbof1]

Should the knowledge of turbulent wake increase, we might actually just be able to create a maximum area wake regulation?

[jjn9128]

I think it would be possible now to specify minimum/maximum and mean values of certain wake quantities in boxes at key positions behind the car.

I'm pretty sure the FOM aero group have been investigating that possibility when they got wake data from teams last year.


He talks about the wake for about 5 minutes. You can go back ~5 minutes if you want to see everything he says on F1 aero.

[FPV GTHO]

There is only 1 way to solve this dirty air problem in F1, set a maximum downforce level and that will force the teams to develop only towards to reduced drag. This is the only solution that worked for the engines by setting a maximum fuel flow rate. The is the only sensible way forward.

I'm certain it wouldn't work. In fact they wouldn't be working for more downforce but less drag AND more turbulence for the following car. It would be a big motivator to filthy up the air behind.

I'm not sure less drag and more dirty air equates... Obviously there are nuances but broadly speaking the lower the total drag the smaller the effect of the wake will be (Cpo deficit in the wake reduces with lower drag).

WEC are introducing a minimum frontal area, maximum downforce, maximum efficiency, and minimum drag in their 2020 rules. A similar rule in F1 could be quite effective.

Problem is WEC are effectively freezing the bodywork aren't they? F1 could do similar but you would be looking in car advantages for 12 months. Then WEC are also going to basically BoP the cars as well which clearly you can't do in F1.

[jjn9128]

Problem is WEC are effectively freezing the bodywork aren't they? F1 could do similar but you would be looking in car advantages for 12 months. Then WEC are also going to basically BoP the cars as well which clearly you can't do in F1.

I did say similar rather than identical

WEC aero homologating bodywork for 5 years, but teams can homologate a 2nd car in that period if they get it wrong or for a new manufacturer car/facelift. I don't think F1 needs to lock in a bodywork package for a year for teams to prove they are under a maximum downforce as they produce full aero maps for every car configuration anyway. As with the new pre-race scrutineering rules, where teams will self police but are also randomly selected for FIA checks or will be checked if a rival highlights an issue as with Haas and Renault in Monza, it could be more relaxed - but with strict penalties for non-compliance which make the possibility of being caught cheating financially risky.

[Just_a_fan]

I think it would be possible now to specify minimum/maximum and mean values of certain wake quantities in boxes at key positions behind the car.

I'm pretty sure the FOM aero group have been investigating that possibility when they got wake data from teams last year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkqr8oit-Os#t=30m18s
He talks about the wake for about 5 minutes. You can go back ~5 minutes if you want to see everything he says on F1 aero.

At 15 minutes - 21 minutes he also discusses downforce/drag for lap times. Very interesting and agood refresher that even dropping huge amounts of drag does very little for lap time compared to sticking on lots of downforce.

[jjn9128]

At 15 minutes - 21 minutes he also discusses downforce/drag for lap times. Very interesting and agood refresher that even dropping huge amounts of drag does very little for lap time compared to sticking on lots of downforce.

I found the bit of the video relevant to the discussion - Willem is always incredibly insightful and entertaining but it is a 2hr lecture (I'd recommend the whole thing if you have 2hrs spare on top of a number of his other online lectures) and I didn't think people would want to sit through it to get to the point in question.

Drag may not impact laptime as much as downforce but the effect on fuel consumption cannot be ignored, especially at a time when fuel use is limited. Limiting drag could be a major variable if we want flat out racing rather than fuel saving races, on top of what I think would be a huge impact for following in races.

[Zynerji]

Oh and more drag/longer lap times would lead to higher fuel usage and more lift and coast. Nobody likes that.

You speak as if it's impossible to change the fuel quantity or the fuel flow limit. Of course whatever they come up with they'll calculate fuel usage changes.

You do understand regulations doing this very thing is why things are so expensive now, correct?

Make them share their designs and data at every race and see how quickly they stop burning millions for hundreths of a second.

Dysfunctional, inadequate regulation does.
Of course what you suggest would quickly lead to near identical cars. No way something like that will happen.

I think it's more that the regulations allow teams to go in search of laptime deep into the diminishing returns areas of aero development.

We don't have to see a 2019 car to know that the barge board area is going to be mahoosively complex yet it does nothing for me as a spectator. The designs are far too complex for even the most expert of armchair aerodynamicist to analyse beyond sweeping brush strokes.

They'll keep burning the money because the teams know their solutions only work on their own aero concept so I only see regulations as the answer. Regulate all the aero noise generators off the car and regulate body work onto the car which tidies up the wake for the following car.

Exactly! We just need competent regulation. Although that would be a first for several decades... But maybe with Brawn and the contracts running out it will happen.

Every regulation made adds cost by forcing the teams to "study" the regulation, and find its limits. Thus, no matter how "competent" the regulators, their package is always the most expensive part of F1.