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
jjn9128
522
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

SiLo wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 1:11 pm
With the raised inlet for the floor in front of the sidepod, will the undercut be as powerul/useful as it has been in the past?
Good question. The undercut allows the outwash on the top of the floor to assist outwash under the floor. But the big vanes under the car are doing that job. That said it will allow a clean path to the diffuser. So less powerful but just as useful would be my guess.
#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
SiLo
116
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:09 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 1:39 pm
SiLo wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 1:11 pm
With the raised inlet for the floor in front of the sidepod, will the undercut be as powerul/useful as it has been in the past?
Good question. The undercut allows the outwash on the top of the floor to assist outwash under the floor. But the big vanes under the car are doing that job. That said it will allow a clean path to the diffuser. So less powerful but just as useful would be my guess.
I'm wondering if it will see a slight change in how the radiators are mounted, they could be more upright and forwards to reduce the area behind it more. Potentially the radiators could be reduced in size (and weight) because of more effective airflow through them. Obviously I don't know the figures for what a lower drag but heavier and larger radiator does on car performance. I just think that area right behind the venturi tunnel entrance will be interesting for development.
Felipe Baby!

User avatar
FW17
237
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

jjn9128

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?

Image

Zynerji
Zynerji
105
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

FW17 wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 2:39 pm
jjn9128

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
That car has soooo much yuck, its abominable... :oops:

User avatar
jjn9128
522
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

FW17 wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 2:39 pm
jjn9128

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.
#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
El Scorchio
43
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:41 am

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 2:42 pm
FW17 wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 2:39 pm
jjn9128

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
That car has soooo much yuck, its abominable... :oops:
A thousand times yes. It belongs in a toy box rather than a garage.

mzso
mzso
28
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

El Scorchio wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:15 pm
Zynerji wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 2:42 pm
FW17 wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 2:39 pm
jjn9128

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
That car has soooo much yuck, its abominable... :oops:
A thousand times yes. It belongs in a toy box rather than a garage.
This sophisticated opinion of "EWWW!" is highly relevant, not just to F1 but the whole world.

User avatar
godlameroso
511
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

Alpine I guess is getting a head start on 2022 by placing their floor inlet as high as possible.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

User avatar
FW17
237
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:48 pm
El Scorchio wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:15 pm
Zynerji wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 2:42 pm


That car has soooo much yuck, its abominable... :oops:
A thousand times yes. It belongs in a toy box rather than a garage.
This sophisticated opinion of "EWWW!" is highly relevant, not just to F1 but the whole world.
Image
What is so wrong these 2 element. JJ explained the front wing element does not serve the purpose. I am not a big fan of that winglet on top of the front wheels. To me the FE element looks better than F1 solution.
But the one behind should certainly help.

mzso
mzso
28
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

FW17 wrote:
Wed Mar 10, 2021 5:11 pm
What is so wrong these 2 element. JJ explained the front wing element does not serve the purpose.
I was being sarcastic. Ewwwing is ridiculous and senseless.
FW17 wrote:
Wed Mar 10, 2021 5:11 pm
What is so wrong these 2 element. JJ explained the front wing element does not serve the purpose. I am not a big fan of that winglet on top of the front wheels. To me the FE element looks better than F1 solution.
But the one behind should certainly help.
And I think these work a lot better:
Image

And the sort should be used since the importance of aerodynamics became clear to designers in the late sixties.

User avatar
JordanMugen
72
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:39 pm
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 😂
=D> =D> =D>

Bravo!

User avatar
FW17
237
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:39 pm
FW17 wrote:
Mon Mar 08, 2021 2:39 pm
jjn9128

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.
How is it that the element over the front tyre is not being track tested by any team so far or introduced in F2?

mzso
mzso
28
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

FW17 wrote:
Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:27 am
How is it that the element over the front tyre is not being track tested by any team so far or introduced in F2?
It's illegal as of now, so it would be hard to test. Also its effect may be obvious, no need to test.
As far as I know F2 doesn't need help with following, so no point in introducing there.

User avatar
jjn9128
522
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

2022 rule have had another update :lol: :lol:

For the most part it seems to be clarification of wording but we now have a specific rule for bodywork blisters (or "sexy bulges" if they're on a Mercedes).
3.7.5 Bodywork Blister
Once the Rear Bodywork surfaces are fully defined in accordance with Articles 3.7.1 to 3.7.4, a single Bodywork Blister may be added per side, which must:
a. Exist entirely between XR =-50 and XR = -600, below Z=550 and inboard of Y=250.
b. Lie entirely between the Rear Bodywork surfaces and a 50mm external offset of them.
c. In side-view, lie entirely within an axis-aligned rectangle which is 350mm long and 120mm high.
d. Intersect the Rear Bodywork surfaces around its entire periphery.
e. Only comprise convex curvature, with a minimum radius of 20mm.
f. At no point on its surface have a normal with a negative X component that subtends an angle greater than 20deg to an X plane.
Once the Bodywork Blister surfaces are fully defined, the Bodywork Blister and Rear Bodywork must be trimmed to each other, such that no overlapping surfaces remain. A fillet radius, no smaller than 20mm, must be applied along the periphery of where these surfaces intersect.
#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

Zynerji
Zynerji
105
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2022 Aero Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 10:15 pm
2022 rule have had another update :lol: :lol:

For the most part it seems to be clarification of wording but we now have a specific rule for bodywork blisters (or "sexy bulges" if they're on a Mercedes).
3.7.5 Bodywork Blister
Once the Rear Bodywork surfaces are fully defined in accordance with Articles 3.7.1 to 3.7.4, a single Bodywork Blister may be added per side, which must:
a. Exist entirely between XR =-50 and XR = -600, below Z=550 and inboard of Y=250.
b. Lie entirely between the Rear Bodywork surfaces and a 50mm external offset of them.
c. In side-view, lie entirely within an axis-aligned rectangle which is 350mm long and 120mm high.
d. Intersect the Rear Bodywork surfaces around its entire periphery.
e. Only comprise convex curvature, with a minimum radius of 20mm.
f. At no point on its surface have a normal with a negative X component that subtends an angle greater than 20deg to an X plane.
Once the Bodywork Blister surfaces are fully defined, the Bodywork Blister and Rear Bodywork must be trimmed to each other, such that no overlapping surfaces remain. A fillet radius, no smaller than 20mm, must be applied along the periphery of where these surfaces intersect.
These rules 🙄🙄🙄

I think they make them ambiguous -on purpose- just to justify their salaries during the clarification process...

Just define the maximum box, set a minimum team investment, and run whatever you like, but you must upload the parts to a shared cloud for other teams to ponder.

No spending war, no secret tech (can put in road cars), no cheating possible.

It would unemploy a vast number of FOM personnel, but dat close, sustainable racing..😈😈