2022 Aero Thread

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
User avatar
strad
271
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:57 am

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

so you think that top speed is what makes an exciting or quality race? :?
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

ENGINE TUNER
ENGINE TUNER
21
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:07 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

Wass85 wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:12 pm
Why are they making them so heavy, what is the lightest they could make them carrying these engines whilst being safe enough for today's era?
The tires have 3x mass now as they did in 2010(Bridgestone slicks). The tires are bigger and heavier, which then requires bigger heavier rims, which in turn requires heavier brake rotors and then wheel hubs all of which required the front wheel tethers to be doubled up for safety and heavier suspension and steering components followed ultimately by stronger pickup points for the suspension to maintain stiffness, and then multiply that by 4 corners. Add in the ever increasing front and rear impact test requirements and then the big kicker the halo(and its beefier chassis requirements) and you have major mass increases.

The PU is not the reason for the mass increase from 2014 to 2019. The 2014 cars with full fuel weighed less on the start grid than the 2013 cars.

The FIA believes that the increased safety test standards are necessary, who has the data to say otherwise?

Even with the large increase in mass, these are the fastest F1 cars over 1 lap and even over the entire Hungarian gp race distance OF ALL TIME. With that being the case, why are so many people making a big deal about the mass?

If they want to lower the mass, they need a better tire provider, then they can go to smaller tires and narrower cars while maintaining cornering speeds.

mzso
mzso
20
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 2:07 pm

The front wing is always a flow conditioner for what follows, get it wrong and you can stall suspension/sidepods, prevent cooling, even destroy rear wing performance. Even when optimised, if you got rid of the front wing you'd gain more downforce at the rear of the car - however that car would be fundamentally unbalanced. Going back to the pre-83 cars firstly the wheelbase was really short, plus the car's were ~150kg lighter and the centre of gravity was free to play with. So you could engineer a balanced car by moving the floor's centre of pressure forward, so could often run without a front wing or just a small flap.

A key part of these rules is the role the rear wing plays in helping the wake to pass over another car - so you need a front wing to balance it. Team bosses also want a big surface to stick logos on :lol:
How and why is the center of gravity not free to play with?

Not sure having lighter cars is interesting ultimately, but I would prefer them being much shorter and responsive. They have the proportions of buses these days.
I think it was you who shared a picture how much longer today's cars are to even what they were some 10-12 years ago.
Image Image

Wass85
Wass85
-1
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:11 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

Going off topic here but can anyone provide the tyre demensions and weight from the past and current era tyres?

mzso
mzso
20
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

Wass85 wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:24 pm
Going off topic here but can anyone provide the tyre demensions and weight from the past and current era tyres?
Not completely off topic. They are still horrible big cylinders that are being dragged along at 300+ km/h, for no good or intelligent reason.

User avatar
jjn9128
402
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:20 pm
How and why is the center of gravity not free to play with?

Not sure having lighter cars is interesting ultimately, but I would prefer them being much shorter and responsive. They have the proportions of buses these days.
I think it was you who shared a picture how much longer today's cars are to even what they were some 10-12 years ago.
https://abload.de/img/2017-vs-2005aoky6.png https://abload.de/img/47452650_21161733151104jc8.jpg
The left image was one we (turbof1) produced. I agree that cars are too long now, but I've always been a fan of the Gordon Murray mantra of "add lightness". Making a car shorter does do that to a small extent!

The COG these days is fixed to within 1% along the wheelbase length, it's just one of the rules. It was done because it means if you want a stable car then the aerodynamic centre has to be in the same vicinity and rearwards, which basically fixes where the heaviest bits of the car go and the proportions of downforce from wings and floor. In the 80s they could shift the weight a bit by moving things about, e.g. the drivers mass could be moved forward (because there was no rule about having to have feet 30cm behind front axle or an 1850mm long monocoque).

An example of an extreme car was the deltawing. Only ~550kg (with driver) but all the mass and therefore aero was at the rear. A really interesting, if rather ugly, car.
#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
strad
271
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:57 am

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

Isn't part of it making room for more radiators and other ancillaries?
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

Wass85
Wass85
-1
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:11 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:47 pm
Wass85 wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:24 pm
Going off topic here but can anyone provide the tyre demensions and weight from the past and current era tyres?
Not completely off topic. They are still horrible big cylinders that are being dragged along at 300+ km/h, for no good or intelligent reason.
So are these tyres much bigger than what was on the cars in the 80's?

ENGINE TUNER
ENGINE TUNER
21
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:07 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

strad wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:05 am
Isn't part of it making room for more radiators and other ancillaries?
Nope, these vastly more efficient engines require less cooling than the v8+kers, possibly even less than pre kers v8s. Even with the "charge coolers" the radiator surface area is less. Even with bigger cars look how much smaller the radiator inlets are. Wasted energy has been massively reduced with the v6PUs.

The extra size is mainly from the rear of the driver opening to the rear axle line, primarily to increase the surface area of the floor ultimately to increase total down force. When the cars were made wider, they also had to get longer in order to reduce drag.

Wass85
Wass85
-1
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:11 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

I've just read that tyres in 92 were over 400mm in diameter, the cars though were still much smaller and lighter than today's behemoths.

mzso
mzso
20
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

Wass85 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:45 am
So are these tyres much bigger than what was on the cars in the 80's?
Wass85 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:58 am
I've just read that tyres in 92 were over 400mm in diameter, the cars though were still much smaller and lighter than today's behemoths.
Aerodynamically they were always horrible. But while everything else became aerodynamic tires are still the horrible drag generators that they were in the fifties. Because: "We must have open wheels, no reason for it, but we must!"
As such they were also the major reason following/racing got so horrible. Teams started to create vortices to guide the front tire wake away from the rest of the car.
Yet it's the one thing they didn't touch aero-wise... How comical.

Wass85
Wass85
-1
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:11 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:28 pm
Wass85 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:45 am
So are these tyres much bigger than what was on the cars in the 80's?
Wass85 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:58 am
I've just read that tyres in 92 were over 400mm in diameter, the cars though were still much smaller and lighter than today's behemoths.
Aerodynamically they were always horrible. But while everything else became aerodynamic tires are still the horrible drag generators that they were in the fifties. Because: "We must have open wheels, no reason for it, but we must!"
As such they were also the major reason following/racing got so horrible. Teams started to create vortices to guide the front tire wake away from the rest of the car.
Yet it's the one thing they didn't touch aero-wise... How comical.
What I'm trying to say is surely the cars don't have to be this big and heavy to cater for these tyres and such as cars of the past did so whilst being much smaller.

User avatar
FW17
232
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

Does the wide front wing cause the length of the car to be longer?

DOes the wing have to be be further ahead of the front wheel to be efficient that in th regulations call for a increassed distance from the front wheel axis in comparison to the 2008 regulations ?

Image

User avatar
Holm86
230
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:37 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

FW17 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:35 pm
Does the wide front wing cause the length of the car to be longer?

DOes the wing have to be be further ahead of the front wheel to be efficient that in th regulations call for a increassed distance from the front wheel axis in comparison to the 2008 regulations ?

https://www.auto123.com/ArtImages/10419 ... ri-lat.jpg
I think most of the lenght gained the past years are from the driver to the rear wheels, not the front.
Try and look at modern day engine covers, they are sooooo much longer.
And it makes sense as they try to increase the floor area

User avatar
FW17
232
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

Holm86 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:42 pm
FW17 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:35 pm
Does the wide front wing cause the length of the car to be longer?

DOes the wing have to be be further ahead of the front wheel to be efficient that in th regulations call for a increassed distance from the front wheel axis in comparison to the 2008 regulations ?

https://www.auto123.com/ArtImages/10419 ... ri-lat.jpg
I think most of the lenght gained the past years are from the driver to the rear wheels, not the front.
Try and look at modern day engine covers, they are sooooo much longer.
And it makes sense as they try to increase the floor area

I know that, but the length of the car is not only in that area but in front too

Image