2018 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[johnny comelately]

This should illustrate the evolution. Its got to be apparent: the influence of the animal form.
They have the most skin in the game, so to speak, and have evolved to be able to win the game of survival, and they are still here.
F1 has to pierce the air the most effectively and stick to the ground the most effectively in the machine tyre way.
Speed animals have to pierce the medium and turn and pull up. The turning is an area that i believe F1 has yet to advance as we have only just taken care of the exit air in recent years.
The difference is with F1 cars is that, yes there are rules / formulas, but we can add parts that aid air control on the peripheries that animals cant practically develop/grow/evolve because they wouldnt be able to walk or eat or fight or procreate.

[johnny comelately]

This is not a joke, but here you will see the relativity of animals, in this case the leading edge of the whale flipper!, to aero or hydro dynamics - https://newatlas.com/bumpy-whale-fins-s ... mics/9020/
To ignore what is an all too obvious lesson would be a major mistake.

[Vyssion]

This is not a joke, but here you will see the relativity of animals, in this case the leading edge of the whale flipper!, to aero or hydro dynamics - https://newatlas.com/bumpy-whale-fins-s ... mics/9020/
To ignore what is an all too obvious lesson would be a major mistake.

Kinda off topic a bit - I made a thread here if you wanna paste this stuff in it again:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=27145

[johnny comelately]

This is not a joke, but here you will see the relativity of animals, in this case the leading edge of the whale flipper!, to aero or hydro dynamics - https://newatlas.com/bumpy-whale-fins-s ... mics/9020/
To ignore what is an all too obvious lesson would be a major mistake.

Kinda off topic a bit - I made a thread here if you wanna paste this stuff in it again:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=27145

It might be off topic, but the title you gave the alternative is not correct either.
Would you mind editing it to something more appropriate, like "What drives aero design"
Thanking you.

[Vyssion]

This is not a joke, but here you will see the relativity of animals, in this case the leading edge of the whale flipper!, to aero or hydro dynamics - https://newatlas.com/bumpy-whale-fins-s ... mics/9020/
To ignore what is an all too obvious lesson would be a major mistake.

Kinda off topic a bit - I made a thread here if you wanna paste this stuff in it again:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=27145

It might be off topic, but the title you gave the alternative is not correct either.
Would you mind editing it to something more appropriate, like "What drives aero design"
Thanking you.

Done - I think given that most of these comments were about animals, I put that in there also.

[johnny comelately]

Vyssion, Thank you

[johnny comelately]

From Mario Andretti:
In the wake of Sunday's season opening Australian Grand Prix, which featured just 5 overtakes, Andretti believes F1 has missed up a golden opportunity by not following IndyCar's example and restricting the reliance on aero.

In a bid to reduce costs and improve the racing - both of which are seemingly on F1's 'to do' list - this season IndyCar has introduced its own Aerokit and done away with the teams' own versions. In addition to attracting a number of new teams this season, the first race of the year witnessed a record number of passes.

Meanwhile, the much-hyped new aero regulations for F1 last year resulted in 50% less overtaking than the previous year, and as fans and drivers call out for changes, the sport's technical boss, Ross Brawn warns it may take until 2021 before anything can be done.

[johnny comelately]

Further:
"I think the series, the management have done a great job in tweaking things," Andretti told Motorsport.com, referring to IndyCar. "They're doing the right thing with the aerodynamics of the cars and coming back to more of a pure-looking single-seater, open-wheel car which I think was something all of the open-wheel aficionados wanted to see.

"Unfortunately, last year's cars started looking more like a sports prototype with all the winglets and all the bullshit that was hanging over, but what they've done, I think is personally what Formula 1 missed out on.

"They reduced the downforce of the car which is an element," he added, "they still gave them good downforce with the ground effect because it does not create turbulence. But with the smaller wings, you can stay near the guy's gearbox and you can have a competitive overtake.

"I think personally that's where F1 missed it, they gave them more mechanical grip with wider tyres that gave them bigger weights which created more turbulence. And by doing bigger wings, they shorten the braking points even further which almost eliminates the chance of overtaking.

"You have DRS and all that, which you really need more than ever now, but at the same time even with the DRS, you've got to be able to suck up to somebody's gearbox coming off a corner and you cannot use DRS until you're on the straightaway."

A legend speaks, but is anyone listening?

[Maritimer]

I recall reading an article somewhere detailing the designs companies put forward when IndyCar were looking for their new car and lots of research was done looking in to ground effect as a way to allow the cars to race close by a number of the companies. It would seem to me that engineers have known since the 80s that GE is optimal in this respect, and it's just the FIA refusing to allow venturi tunnels to return on the basis of "it got too good too fast and we got scared". Surely with the advancements in design safety and strength they could allow teams to use the floor for 80/90+% of their lift and just have wings for trim. Standardized active suspension would make this even easier and, if the early 90s cars are any indication, reduce the aero rat race somewhat by chasing gains in setup.

[johnny comelately]

I recall reading an article somewhere detailing the designs companies put forward when IndyCar were looking for their new car and lots of research was done looking in to ground effect as a way to allow the cars to race close by a number of the companies. It would seem to me that engineers have known since the 80s that GE is optimal in this respect, and it's just the FIA refusing to allow venturi tunnels to return on the basis of "it got too good too fast and we got scared". Surely with the advancements in design safety and strength they could allow teams to use the floor for 80/90+% of their lift and just have wings for trim. Standardized active suspension would make this even easier and, if the early 90s cars are any indication, reduce the aero rat race somewhat by chasing gains in setup.

Yes, I agree.
Does this lead to parity, standardised aero? yes
Is this a bad thing considering reduced aero development costs and closer racing with potentially more overtaking.
When Indy cars brought this in there was a lot of conjecture about if it suited different teams better over others, that seems to have quietened down but i'm not that familiar with them.

[Just_a_fan]

It would seem to me that engineers have known since the 80s that GE is optimal in this respect, and it's just the FIA refusing to allow venturi tunnels to return on the basis of "it got too good too fast and we got scared".

The teams said "no" to a return to tunnels, not the FIA. The teams have too much invested in the current aero paradigm. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the top 3 teams that said "no". A total change in aero might mean they are midfield or worse for a year or two. Remember how Brawn snuck in and beat the big boys by seeing something unexpected in the rules? The big boys don't want that again.

With Ferrari's veto in place, the only way the FIA could force a change is on safety grounds. Or they wait until the current agreements end and say "here's the new rules, take 'em or leave".

[Just_a_fan]

Of course, to go down the Indy route also means standardized wheelbase, effectively a standardized PU and gearbox, standardized suspension. Anything that might have an aero benefit would have to be standardized. If not, you'd just have an arms race on the bolt-on bits to find extra downforce.

F1 isn't a spec series and never has been, although the ability to buy entire rear ends e.g. HAAS/Ferrari, puts that in doubt these days.

[Maritimer]

I didn't know teams refused to change the floors. Could you have a max volume for tunnels to allow varying length? We know the teams wikk shoot down everything under the sun given the choice so why not put it a few years out so there's no vote?

[trinidefender]

Of course, to go down the Indy route also means standardized wheelbase, effectively a standardized PU and gearbox, standardized suspension. Anything that might have an aero benefit would have to be standardized. If not, you'd just have an arms race on the bolt-on bits to find extra downforce.

F1 isn't a spec series and never has been, although the ability to buy entire rear ends e.g. HAAS/Ferrari, puts that in doubt these days.

The day F1 becomes a spec series is the day I stop watching and lose interest. A large part of this forum pretty much exists because it isn't a spec chassis and aero series.

Personally I am just as interested in the engineering of the cars as the racing.

[johnny comelately]

Of course, to go down the Indy route also means standardized wheelbase, effectively a standardized PU and gearbox, standardized suspension. Anything that might have an aero benefit would have to be standardized. If not, you'd just have an arms race on the bolt-on bits to find extra downforce.

F1 isn't a spec series and never has been, although the ability to buy entire rear ends e.g. HAAS/Ferrari, puts that in doubt these days.

The day F1 becomes a spec series is the day I stop watching and lose interest. A large part of this forum pretty much exists because it isn't a spec chassis and aero series.

Personally I am just as interested in the engineering of the cars as the racing.

The delta racing?