If a modern aerodynamicist went back to 1992

[PlatinumZealot]

This thread got me thinking:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23669&start=15


Why specifically 1992?

One could arguably say that it was the pinnacle of "free" F1 car evolution.
Every year prior to '92, F1 cars had gotten wider and lower and had the maximum width tires seen in F1. It went downhill after '92

1993: Car width reduced from 220cm to 200cm
1993: Tire width reduced from 18 to 15 inch
1993: Rear wing height reduced from 100cm to 90cm
1994: Rear wing height reduced from 90cm to 80cm
1994: Banning of electronic driving aid systems
1994: (At midpoint, post Senna fatality) Flat bottom replaced with stepped bottom and wooden plank (persists until today).
1995: Engine displacement limited to 3000cc
1995: V12 engines banned
1998: Car width reduced to 180cm (until extended back to 200cm in 2015)
1998: Banning of slick tires (until 2009)
2006: V10 engines banned
2014: V8 engines banned

If '92 had the widest, lowest F1 cars that have ever existed (including the widest tires), how would a modern aerodynamicist have interpreted those regulations?

Lets say the best car on that grid, the Williams FW14B.

How would that car have looked different with modern knowledge.

And aero expert care to take a shot?

Intelligence of mankind hasn't changed much over the millenia. What has changed is development in technology. Outside of bringing new ideas like F-duct, S-duct etc.. A modern day Aero guy would have to carry today's computers and today's white papers back to 1992 to really get the new ideas clicking.

[Big Tea]

This thread got me thinking:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23669&start=15

Intelligence of mankind hasn't changed much over the millenia. What has changed is development in technology. Outside of bringing new ideas like F-duct, S-duct etc.. A modern day Aero guy would have to carry today's computers and today's white papers back to 1992 to really get the new ideas clicking.

What about the length of development time and the ability to model on computer?

A model in a bath takes a long time to make, and is very limited in the way it can be altered, where as a computer model can be tweaked almost instantaneously just for a 'what if'.

Weeks of time in a model shop would probably mean there would be little variation from the original, and a stage where 'thats as good as we are going to get it' is ruled by cost and time.?

[krisfx]

Gone is the cigarette packet or bar napkin 'eureka moment'
How do you doodle these days? on a tab? or a spreadsheet?

One still doodles.

I doodle terribly, but somehow it translates well to design

[alesifan]

Back then Racing teams had limited technology to help them understand the risks versus rewards of aero changes, so they effectively had to take educated guesses while at the circuit. Found this out whilst researching for www.1994f1.com. “Aerodynamic experimentation in those days (1994) wasn’t sophisticated enough to understand the ride height sensitivity of aero,” explained Paddy Lowe who was at the heart of developing Williams active suspension in the early 1990’s.


“In the wind tunnel now we run ride height sweeps, steer sweeps, roll sweeps, and yaw sweeps, plus a load more. Back then, if a typical model was running different front and rear ride heights in a straight line, you were at the leading edge of sophistication. That would mean the impact of introducing a much wider range of ride heights on circuit (through not having active suspension) would be greater than people were perhaps able to deal with.” Meanwhile Pat Symonds who was with Benetton in 1994 claimed “we didn’t have aerodynamics that were super-critical on ride heights. Of course, they were critical, and always will be, but much less so than, say, the 1994 Williams."

[JordanMugen]

Are we assuming this modern aerodynamicist is taking a supercomputer loaded with the latest CAD and CFD packages with him/her?

No, just himself/herself. And knowledge gained throughout their career.

I think it's fascinating to see what that car would have been like (still according to 1992 regulations).

My point being that modern engineers aren't taught proper pencil/paper drafting anymore so without CAD they'd (we'd) be lost getting the geometries they want through the workshops. Then there's the CFD issue which is what makes it possible to create the cars we have now - visualizing what is happening in the flow field is what enables us to really push the aero to it's limit.

True.

But for example, engineers with modern ideas could take the failed 1992 twin-floor Ferrari and convert the same principle of channelling clean air over the top of the diffuser into (most likely) a very effective undercut sidepod. It only requires a redesign of the radiators and would be a relatively straight forward change to implement: raising the top of the sidepods higher and angling the radiators in the modern swept forward way with "cut-off" corners, instead of the classical upright way.


to..............................


Likewise when did teams start running a boat-tail rear-end and extra diffuser at the rear of the cars? This idea could be brought forward as it was already legal but just not implemented on the early 90's car if I understand right. [Unless this is only relevant on post-94 rules, in which case I apologise!!]


to..............................


It seems Williams & Benetton had already adopted a good implementation such a design in this region by 94/95, whereas the efforts of other constructors in this area (even the Ferrari 412T from a top team) were half-baked at best!

[JordanMugen]

1990's "square sidepod" cars seem to have a lot of empty space in the sidepods --- perhaps this could potentially be replaced with a more modern undercut design which may bring some aero benefit?

Williams 14B


Ferrari 643


So much empty space... Would an undercut design perform better!?

[zac510]

Wouldn't the engineers from 1992 just say "you don't know what you're talking about, go over there and design a new jack instead. And how did you get here inside the office anyway?"

[Just_a_fan]

The space in the sidepod is probably quite helpful in cooling the exhausts and preventing bodywork from catching fire. Those old engines would have been putting a lot of heat in to the sidepod - more so than today, at least. Perhaps they didn't have a better way to insulate things.

Or maybe they did but didn't see the need to create the tight rear ends we see today - the presence of the beam wing to help drive the diffuser probably meant you didn't need (or even want?) the rear floor air flows that we see today.

[Jolle]

The space in the sidepod is probably quite helpful in cooling the exhausts and preventing bodywork from catching fire. Those old engines would have been putting a lot of heat in to the sidepod - more so than today, at least. Perhaps they didn't have a better way to insulate things.

Or maybe they did but didn't see the need to create the tight rear ends we see today - the presence of the beam wing to help drive the diffuser probably meant you didn't need (or even want?) the rear floor air flows that we see today.

Well, the concept is different. In the nineties the whole idea of the upper body was to disturb the air as less as possible and to get it around the wheels, that why there is a nice channel in front of the rear wheels. The floor was flat and there was still no way to seal it with vortexes. They just understood the high nose! Undercuts, vortex generators, etc etc need a lot of computer work to be tuned, else you will end up with a disaster of a car like Ferrari did twice with their double floor. The idea is good, and all the teams use them for years now, but then... can't do it on a XT256...

[strad]

If a frog had wings.............