I don't think anyone's enthused about the 2022 regulations from a design perspective.
It's difficult to describe how standard it is. Unlike the current rules there's a volume where there cannot be bodywork (except at the front where they can have 3 vanes per side). At the front the leading edge radius will take up quite a bit of the height where bodywork is allowed. Towards the middle and rear there's a bit of freedom to play with height above the ground and radii of curvature, but mostly it'll converge towards a fairly standard shape because there's not a huge amount of leeway.
I made the car Vyssion runs the cfd. We use CFX because it's what we have.
Nice work,what PC(specs) do you use for run CFD and how long was softwear run this job?
CzS is lift cofficient x frontal area, 3.75 x 1.47m2=5.5
One tends not to express downforce in absolute because it's dependent on atmospheric conditions and the square of speed, but it's ~7500N at 50m/s.
And the front fences assembly! They are quite overlooked in the medias, but as far as I understand they'll play a big role by creating a big low pressure area around the center of the car and by sucking a big amount of air there.
I guess these fences will also create vortexes but how the latter will work? and wont these fences also create a big outwash?"The pressure distribution of the floor is reversed from a 2019/20 style car, with the greatest and largest region of suction generated towards the centre of the wheelbase, with a comparatively small low pressure spike at the diffuser kick. This is by design as the floor contributes to the balance shift experienced in another cars wake - shifting the centre-of-pressure to the middle of the floor should reduce the understeer effect when following another car, which should in turn help reduce some of the tyre overheating issues experienced over the past few seasons."
Downforce (2021 car at 180km/h) = 3.36 x 1.225kg/m3 x 50m/s (square) x 1.47m2 x 1/2 = 7563N = 770kgjjn9128 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:57 am
In automotive and motorsport drag and downforce are non-dimensionalised by frontal area - and a fixed frontal area for all cases at that rather than calculating for every new geometry. Normally ~1.5m^2, though there is a legacy number of 1.47m^2 used a lot in F1, it really depends in the internal practices of a given team, some will even use the area coefficient (CzS) because it's more accurate.
It will be interesting to see how the teams approach ride height. Trying to run the floor as low as possible would seem to be sensible, or will a bit of rake still be beneficial?
Probably fully dependent on edge sealing. If they can rake, they probably will, as I expect the cleanliness of the bodywork will probably lose several points of DF from the top side, so they would maximize what they have available on the bottom.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:26 pmIt will be interesting to see how the teams approach ride height. Trying to run the floor as low as possible would seem to be sensible, or will a bit of rake still be beneficial?
Seeing it like that, those venturi tunnels are tiny! Do you think the FIA should been more ambitious with specifying much larger venturi tunnels?jjn9128 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 5:40 pmhttps://qd1nqw.by.files.1drv.com/y4m617 ... pmode=none
There's a misunderstanding that the floor will be producing more downforce - it'll be around the same as now. The rear wing design considerable tidying of bodywork (and loss of Y250 vortex) is doing the job of helping the racing.
You see why we don't quote absolute? You've mixed mph and kph in two calculations, not compared at the same velocity, then converted the force to a mass. So you have force (then mass) at a particular speed..