2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
Hoffman900
Hoffman900
70
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:02 am

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:31 pm
I hope they all screw it up, and we have a 10 team winning season, with frantic updates through the campaign with the WCC and WDC being a 5 way fight at the final race.

Sadly, there is too much lead time for such a beautiful season to unfold... :oops:
They should do it like Junkyard Wars (is that still a show?): A scrap yard full of old F1 parts, and the teams have a day to build a car using those parts. :lol:

User avatar
Zynerji
83
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

Hoffman900 wrote:
Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:37 pm
Zynerji wrote:
Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:31 pm
I hope they all screw it up, and we have a 10 team winning season, with frantic updates through the campaign with the WCC and WDC being a 5 way fight at the final race.

Sadly, there is too much lead time for such a beautiful season to unfold... :oops:
They should do it like Junkyard Wars (is that still a show?): A scrap yard full of old F1 parts, and the teams have a day to build a car using those parts. :lol:
Great idea! We can keep the 3 day weekend format tho! :lol:

User avatar
hollus
Moderator
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

hollus wrote:
Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:02 pm
Would it be technically legal not to have any sidepod inlet at all?
All cooling would have be central or at least with a central intake and the results might be horrible, but the regs do not force an actual front facing opening in the sidepods, do they?
Is there an volume defined for the opening where there would be scope for aero widgets?
Maybe on one side only?
Well there goes the "one side only" possibility:
→ The car centre line and plane of symmetry for the car, the car must ostensibly be symmetrical except for some cooling variation and front wing flap adjustment.
For the rest, maybe the jury is still out:
3.7 Rear Bodywork
3.7.1 Sidepod
Bodywork declared as “Sidepod” must:
a. Lie within RV-RBW-SPOD.
b. Form no more than two curves on its surface when intersected by any X or Y plane, each of which must be tangent continuous and open. Furthermore:
i. Assessed on any X plane, any such curve that is wholly or partially visible when viewed from the side of the car, is subject to the following requirements:
- Parts of this curve that are visible from the car centre plane (viewed parallel to the Y-axis) and not visible from the side may contain no concave radius of curvature (as defined by Article 3.1.4) smaller than 50mm.
- All other parts of this curve may contain no concave radius of curvature smaller than 200mm.
ii. Assessed on any Y plane, whenever two such curves are visible when viewed from the front of the car, no part of either curve may have a concave radius of curvature smaller than 200mm.
iii. Compliance with (i) and (ii) is not required within a single 50mm diameter sphere defined by the competitor.
c. In any Z plane, any cross section of bodywork must form a single curve on its surface which must be tangent continuous and open.
3.7.6 Apertures
Once the Rear Bodywork surfaces are fully defined in accordance with Articles 3.7.1 to 3.7.5, the following apertures may be added:
a. For the purpose of allowing suspension members and their fairings and driveshafts to protrude through the bodywork and provided that the result of adding the aperture does not subvert the intention of regulation 3.7.4, a single aperture may be added for each suspension member and driveshaft. No such aperture may have an area greater than 12,000mm2. No point on an aperture may be more than 200mm from any other point on the aperture. Individual apertures may adjoin or overlap each other. At the legality ride height defined in Article 10.1.4, the aperture must enclose the suspension member, including its fairing, or driveshaft for parts forward of XR= -55.
b. For the sole purpose of allowing cooling flow exits, apertures may be added provided they lie within RV-RBW-APERTURE. The total area (per side of the car) of such apertures may be no greater than 150,000mm2. Furthermore, any apertures added must be arranged such that, when viewed from above, no part of RS-RBW-APERTURE may be visible through the aperture and any underlying part of the car exposed by application of an aperture must lie no further than 50mm normal to the untrimmed surface. For the avoidance of doubt, no part of the car exposed by application of an aperture may lie external to the untrimmed surface.
c. For the sole purpose of allowing cooling flow exits, apertures may be added inboard of Y= 25. The total area of such apertures may not be greater than 30,000mm2 per side of the car.
d. For the sole purpose of cooling auxiliary components, (such as Electrical Components, etc.), apertures may be added forward of XF=1300 or below Z=100. The total area of such apertures may not exceed 5,000mm2 per side of the car.
e. For the sole purpose of giving tyre temperature sensors visibility of the tyres, a single aperture with an area no greater than 1500mm2 on each side of the car.
All areas mentioned in this Article will be measured on the untrimmed Rear Bodywork surface.
No mention of the front aperture, interesting sentences like "whenever two such curves are visible" (so it does not apply to a single curve?), and different radii depending on whether a part is visible from the side or from the center line of the car.
Also no mention of connectivity... I think the potential for a "faux sidepod" which is really aero work is there. Limited by 200 or 50 mm radii and limited to having no folds, but still with plenty of margin for directing air up or down or sideways in a diagonal, I think.

(more thinking needed...)

((unless the interpretation of this bans it all: "b. Form no more than two curves on its surface when intersected by any X or Y plane, each of which must be tangent continuous and open.")) What the hell does that mean, exactly?
¡Puxa Esportin!

User avatar
yelistener
2
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 2:55 am

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

BassVirolla wrote:
Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:36 pm
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... s-gedacht/

2022 cars nearly as fast as current cars, they say.
Didn't they expect the 2017 cars to be 5s quicker than 2016? 2017 ended up being just about 2s quicker on average, so they could be way off this time as well.

User avatar
Zynerji
83
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

I wish they went back to the nimble 2006 car-size when they moved to tunnels...😪

toraabe
toraabe
13
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:42 am

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

They also tried with sliding skirts. Then they were 3 seconds quicker than the current cars.......

User avatar
JordanMugen
52
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:43 am
I wish they went back to the nimble 2006 car-size when they moved to tunnels...😪
The width was only ever reduced from 2.15m to 2m and then 1.8m because of regulation changes. Many of the most iconic F1 cars like the Ferrari 640-643 and McLaren MP4/4 are the full 2.15m wide. IMO, the full width of a Grand Prix car should be restored, though 2m width is still better than 1.8m.

The wheelbase is obviously unrestricted from the beginning of the Grand Prix car regulations up to 2021 (as indeed the width was unrestricted until 1972 IIRC, and even the number of wheels was unrestricted until '81 IIRC!), and a wheelbase of 3600mm was obviously the minimum the teams were willing to agree to, for the purposes of minimising redesign work (presumably).

Edit -- Also the height was unrestricted until 1976 when Ligier came out with a massive airbox I think! :lol:

Reference: jjn9128's superb article on F1 bodywork regulations. =D> =D> =D>
Last edited by JordanMugen on Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:03 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
djos
81
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 5:09 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:43 am
I wish they went back to the nimble 2006 car-size when they moved to tunnels...😪
The issue is the added length needed by the hybrid systems and battery. But I agree with you, the current cars are stupidly long! The width is fine, just the length is an issue imo.
Last edited by djos on Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

User avatar
jjn9128
596
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 8:45 am
Zynerji wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:43 am
I wish they went back to the nimble 2006 car-size when they moved to tunnels...😪
The width was only ever reduced from 2.15m to 2m and then 1.8m because of regulation changes. Many of the most iconic F1 cars like the Ferrari 640-643 and McLaren MP4/4 are the full 2.15m wide. IMO, the full width of a Grand Prix car should be restored, though 2m width is still better than 1.8m.

The wheelbase is obviously unrestricted from the beginning of the Grand Prix car regulations up to 2021 (as indeed the width was unrestricted until 1972 IIRC, and even the number of wheels was unrestricted until '81 IIRC!), and a wheelbase of 3600mm was obviously the minimum the teams were willing to agree to, for the purposes of minimising redesign work (presumably).
I think the 3.6m wheelbase works better for the Pirelli fixed weight distribution.
#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
jjn9128
596
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

djos wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 8:58 am
Zynerji wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:43 am
I wish they went back to the nimble 2006 car-size when they moved to tunnels...😪
The issue is the added length needed by the hybrid systems and battery. But I agree with you, the current cats are stupidly long! The width is fine, just the length is an issue imo.
The hybrid system doesn't add length. It's all empty floor space in planview.
#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
djos
81
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 5:09 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 8:59 am
djos wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 8:58 am
Zynerji wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:43 am
I wish they went back to the nimble 2006 car-size when they moved to tunnels...😪
The issue is the added length needed by the hybrid systems and battery. But I agree with you, the current cats are stupidly long! The width is fine, just the length is an issue imo.
The hybrid system doesn't add length. It's all empty floor space in planview.
Oh ok, good to know. Thanks.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
557
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 8:45 am
.... The wheelbase is obviously unrestricted from the beginning of the Grand Prix car regulations up to 2021 .....
there was a minimum wheelbase for F1
afaik in the 1951-announced 1954 rules to keep out of GPs the 500cc motorcycle-engined cars that became F3 cars
(such cars with bigger motorcycle engines had competed in 1950 Monaco GP and other 'F1' races _ eg Schell and Moss)
and eg in the 1962 South Africa (WDC/WCC) GP - also concurrently a round of the SA DC
(the SA DC was restricted to 4 cylinder 'obsolete' F1 and F1-compliant cars)
Nieman's Lotus 7 (famously slipstreaming Clark's V8 Lotus 25) had been lengthened to meet the F1 wheelbase rules

(btw presumably to keep out F Junior cars the 1961 1500cc F1 had a 1300cc minimum engine size)

EDIT and N.B. TO SELF !!
Nieman's Lotus had to be SHORTENED by 2" to comply with F1 wheelbase requirements
and 140 lb of ballast added
https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum ... 225/page1/
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Sat Oct 23, 2021 7:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
jjn9128
596
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 10:08 am
JordanMugen wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 8:45 am
.... The wheelbase is obviously unrestricted from the beginning of the Grand Prix car regulations up to 2021 .....
there was a minimum wheelbase for F1
afaik in the 1951-announced 1954 rules to keep out of GPs the 500cc motorcycle-engined cars that became F3 cars
(such cars with bigger motorcycle engines had competed in 1950 Monaco GP and other 'F1' races _ eg Schell and Moss)
and eg in the 1962 South Africa (WDC/WCC) GP - also concurrently a round of the SA DC
(the SA DC was restricted to 4 cylinder 'obsolete' F1 and F1-compliant cars)
Neuman's Lotus 7 (famously slipstreaming Clark's V8 Lotus 25) had been lengthened to meet the F1 wheelbase rules

(btw presumably to keep out F Junior cars the 1961 1500cc F1 had a 1300cc minimum engine size)
Have you any link to anything about that? I can't find anything in the FIA historic rules database. Which is incomplete at best.
#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

mzso
mzso
42
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

BassVirolla wrote:
Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:36 pm
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... s-gedacht/

2022 cars nearly as fast as current cars, they say.
The english translation starts with "contrary to all fears". Is that something to be feared? I thin they're already too fast with too little margins, too high cornering speeds, too short brake distances for proper on-track racing. Especially with the clumsiness of today's bus F1 proportions.

Chopping off meter and a half of the car length would help with both.
hollus wrote:
Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:34 pm
Half a second slower by season’s start… And that is year 0! We typically see a 2 second improvement in the first year of any regulation set, and about 1 second the year after, don’t we?
If it turns out like that, I wonder if any effect whatsoever will remain of the increased ability to follow.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
557
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 11:43 am
Tommy Cookers wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 10:08 am
JordanMugen wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 8:45 am
.... The wheelbase is obviously unrestricted from the beginning of the Grand Prix car regulations up to 2021 .....
there was a minimum wheelbase for F1
afaik in the 1951-announced 1954 rules to keep out of GPs the 500cc motorcycle-engined cars that became F3 cars
(such cars with bigger motorcycle engines had competed in 1950 Monaco GP and other 'F1' races _ eg Schell and Moss)
and eg in the 1962 South Africa (WDC/WCC) GP - also concurrently a round of the SA DC
(the SA DC was restricted to 4 cylinder 'obsolete' F1 and F1-compliant cars)
Neuman's Lotus 7 (famously slipstreaming Clark's V8 Lotus 25) had been lengthened to meet the F1 wheelbase rules
(btw presumably to keep out F Junior cars the 1961 1500cc F1 had a 1300cc minimum engine size)
Have you any link to anything about that? I can't find anything in the FIA historic rules database. Which is incomplete at best.
the link re the 'Brausch' Nieman Lotus 7 I've now put in the previous post
(AND I WAS WRONG- F1 had a MAX WHEELBASE)

yes my opinion of 1950s F1 is speculation (yes some basic checks of the cars mentioned might have helped)
and fwiw Ferrari's first F1 (1950 1.5 litre supercharged) had a particularly swb but this was soon lengthened

from early on 500cc Cooper types had F2 lwb versions with 1000/1100cc JAPs
(lwb for engineering reasons or rule-compliance reasons I don't know)
driving such Moss finished 3rd at 1950 F1 Lake Garda - and so Ferrari gave him a job offer
1100cc supercharged versions did exist (not F2 legal) - as in the Moss/Pomeroy book
then Lampredi designed and Ferrari built a 180+bhp 2.5 litre 2 cylinder 8 valve engine (for what kind of car ??? !!!)

the WCC was for (2 litre) F2 cars in 1952 and 1953
so the many non-WCC GPs etc in Italy and GB wanted (2.5 litre) F1 cars in 1954 not 1952/3 F2 cars
F2 was in limbo till the new 1.5 litre rules iirc in 1956
but then Ted Davis (Davies) appeared in GB with a 150+mph 1150cc Vincent motorcycle-engined 'F3/F2' Cooper
summarily rejected to prevent motorcycle-engined F2 taking over as motorcycle-engined 500cc F3 had in 1950
(eg Bueb's factory Cooper-Norton 500cc weighed under 500 lb)
https://loosefillings.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_Mark_IV
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Sat Oct 23, 2021 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.