FW17 wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 08, 2021 2:39 pm
You seem to have some inside knowledge into what was happening in development of the rule.
The front wheels has a device on top of the tyre to reduce the turbulance of the tyre. Would it not have been better to go for the full set up as done by Formula e gen2evo? That is with a element on top of the front wing end plates and turning vane behind the tyre. Also why no such device for the rear tyre?
https://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/s ... ba6688.jpg
I have no inside knowledge but I did my phd on wake effects of f1 cars and interviewed for the fom job. A lot of what I said in said interview ended up in the drafts though so I feel somewhat vindicated
The job of the wheelarch is to downwash the separated flow from the top of the tyre whereas, as far as I can tell, the formula e winglet is creating downforce and upwashing flow. This makes the tyre wake bigger but moves it up and away from the rest of the car. The high pressure in front is being reduced by the pod ahead so the vorticity around the sidewall is reduced. I think the formula e solution is an aesthetic one more than necessarily solid aero foundations though.
I suggested a wheel cover more like the mudguard on a caterham to have a similar effect of removing the sheer at top of the tyre which moves the separation point forward and increases the size of the tyre wake.
The issue with f1 is being forward thinking vs maintaining traditions. F1 is an open-wheel formula and there’s been backlash against the arches and 18” wheels already. I can imagine more when less on it fans catch a glimpse of 2022 cars. Pods in front of the wheels would be too much for some fans.
As for the rear. The shape of the rear tyre wake is fundamentally different because of all the preceding bodywork but also the separation region is less critical for subsequent parts. The front tyres wakes affect almost everything, especially if badly optimised.