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.
Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
582
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Sun Apr 24, 2022 7:24 pm
Tommy Cookers wrote:
Sun Apr 24, 2022 5:27 pm
mandatory open wheels were introduced with the 1961 F1 1.5 litre rules
Where do you get this from? I find no trace of it.
why are you so bloody (c)rude ?
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arch ... -formula-2

and Prost's screen https://postimg.cc/v44pGWYK

vorticism
vorticism
78
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Nice time capsule there.
Point 6 says that the driver’s cockpit shall be open at the top and that the wheels of the car shall remain uncovered. On this point I differ with the F.I.A. very strongly. for aerodynamics applied to the racing car are an obvious line of development and have been the subject of numerous interesting, though not convincing, experiments by most of the leading Grand Prix designers. The new rule is plain enough, but I disagree with it, and no doubt will many other people. On the other hand, those people intent on making racing safe have good reason in demanding open cockpits, for I doubt whether Moss could have got out of the experimental Vanwall in a hurry during the Monza practice this year, and you never know when you might want to leave in a hurry. As far as enclosure of the wheels is concerned, the banning of this will ensure that the cars continue to look like racing cars as we know them traditionally, and there are many people who like a racing car to look like one, even if it is an unscientific design. For those who want to reduce the cost of Grand Prix racing this rule should appeal, for it cuts out the cost of aerodynamicist and the wind tunnel, to say nothing of the cost of building streamlined bodies.

mzso
mzso
49
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Sun Apr 24, 2022 7:40 pm
mzso wrote:
Sun Apr 24, 2022 7:24 pm
Tommy Cookers wrote:
Sun Apr 24, 2022 5:27 pm
mandatory open wheels were introduced with the 1961 F1 1.5 litre rules
Where do you get this from? I find no trace of it.
why are you so bloody (c)rude ?
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arch ... -formula-2

and Prost's screen https://postimg.cc/v44pGWYK
How so? I was merely asking.

Edit:
Interesting article.
  • 5 gallons of oil refueling. That's something. :D
  • Well, the safety fuel tanks didn't really pan out until decades later.
  • Also, wow. Already in the fifties it was this foolishness about tradition about open wheels. At least the writer of the article was critical of this and quite forward thinking about aerodynamics.
  • The criticized minimum weight of 500kg looks funny in light of recent developments.

User avatar
JordanMugen
68
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Sun Apr 24, 2022 7:40 pm
and Prost's screen https://postimg.cc/v44pGWYK
Interesting! Would that have reduced drag significantly?

vorticism wrote:
Sun Apr 24, 2022 8:28 pm
Nice time capsule there.
...For those who want to reduce the cost of Grand Prix racing this rule should appeal, for it cuts out the cost of aerodynamicist and the wind tunnel
Well that aged well!

Is is true that wings were actually banned until 1967 and that is why they were not fitted to Grand Prix cars before? Or am I thinking of USAC/Indy, or indeed both series had banned wings until they changed their minds for whatever reason?

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
582
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Mon Apr 25, 2022 6:36 am
Is is true that wings were actually banned until 1967 and that is why they were not fitted to Grand Prix cars before?
no afaik
Michael May had a wing amidships on his Porsche spyder c.1955 (Nurburgring 1000k) - but wasn't allowed to use it
Jim Clark's mechanics made a small wing (from a helicopter rotor blade) in Tasman 'winter 1967/8' series Lotus 49
iirc the series that Ferrari won
then Ferrari and Brabham had wings in the 1968 Belgian GP - Brabham having had front (anti-lift ?) in the 67 race
(did Ferrari get net DF from their earlier greatly ducktailed sports prototype so-called spoilers of Ginther era ??)

pre WW2 an obscure LSR car (Sunbeam ??) and an 'Opel' (Sander) rocket car, both had novel airfoil 'all-aspect DF' wings


btw
the 1961-65 (1.5 litre) F1 weight limit was of course reduced to 450 kg before the 1961 season
so when these cars eg 2 litre BRM & Lotus ran in the 1966 etc 3 litre F1 they were ballasted to 500 kg
but handily not ballasted in the Tasman series as that had no weight limit

also ballasted to 500 kg were 450 kg 1966/7 F2 or F2 -derived cars in F1 eg McLaren, Matra (ie Tyrrell's team), etc
(eg their Cosworth FVA making the pre-DFV F1 cars look stupid)
though at some tracks unballasted F2 cars ran concurrently with F1s but started behind
... the mechanics could be removing or installing 50 kg of ballast - maybe they 'got it wrong' on some big occasion !

closed cockpits of the past ?
https://forums.autosport.com/topic/2013 ... prix-cars/

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
109
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Sat Apr 23, 2022 4:58 am
vorticism wrote:
Sun Apr 10, 2022 4:30 pm
They sweat when there are more variables, not fewer. That's what drives some of the bodywork regs; the teams know they can spend fewer hours on conceptualizing and validation if you're only allowed to shape something like an egg rather than a chicken.
I disagree, it seems trivial to throw 13 vanes at the problem when you are allowed to do so. It's just brute force. So why allow it?!

https://i.imgur.com/mDaX3KV.jpg

They are unrestricted there and want to work the air as hard as possible in that tiny span. So they do it and go to town with a level of detail that would be basically impossible for a DIY race car builder making a Formula Libre hillclimb car in their shed. It would even be unthinkable in the 1980's when the bodywork drawings for the entire F1 car (both the wind tunnel model and the actual one) were done by less than five people.

So OK, fine, they do it now because they have well over a hundred people working on it and they can. But it doesn't mean that what they are doing is genuinely anything sophisticated IMO.

IMO, it is not desirable that the whole car look like that!

https://i.imgur.com/OdI8c7W.png

IMO, details like the above are not "clever" but instead are "silly" and show that Grand Prix teams have way too much money to spend on infinitesimal gains! [Interestingly, whether by regulation or because it's just as good, most teams seem to use a simple ducktail spoiler flick-up or Gurney on the crash structure nowadays rather than a separate aerofoil.]

I wonder if the engineers evaluated a two- or three-element flapped arrangement on the crash structure to see if it was better... :lol:

On closer inspection, the Williams does have a little bit of a ducktail leading into the aerofoil, so it is indeed something of a flapped arrangement!
Actually, if you check the factory race-team cars gunning for a win at the Le Mans 24 hour races of
the mid `60s you'll see a similar ad-hoc sprouting of vanes/strakes/fins/vents to ensure aero-flows
at the 320+ km/h speeds they were reaching way back then, add-ons to otherwise 'clean' aero-shapes.
"Well, we knocked the bastard off!"

Ed Hilary on being 1st to top Mt Everest,
(& 1st to do a surface traverse across Antarctica,
in good Kiwi style - riding a Massey Ferguson farm
tractor - with a few extemporised mod's to hack the task).

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
52
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Is it time to discuss that the new aero formula has been a failure?
The move to more ground effects and less downforce combined with the suspension change has produced a lousy race car.
Add in the weight increase and there is a healthy discussion to be had.

Just one question, are the full tanks reducing the porpoising?

User avatar
jjn9128
735
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

There have been positives and negatives for sure.
#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
chrisc90
8
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:22 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Absolutely nothing at all wrong with the regulations. Its for the teams to build a car to work well within them. Look at the Red Bull and the McLaren. Hardly any porpoising at all. The red bull actually looks about the same, if not better than last year down the straight.

I really dont think drivers/teams should be calling for rule changes because their team isnt capable of making the car work well on the track. if others can do it, sucessfully, then work harder at finding a solution within the scope of the rules.
No Mikey Noo! No! Nooo Mikey! That was sooo not riiight!!

clownfish
clownfish
0
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 12:14 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

chrisc90 wrote:
Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:38 pm
if others can do it, sucessfully, then work harder at finding a solution within the scope of the rules.
Work harder how?

The wind tunnel is useless as the scale of the model/ air speed limit is too low to initiate the problem.
They have hardly any testing/free practice time
They have limited cfd
They have heavily restricted budgets so cannot make loads of different part variants to test solutions

Props to RB for getting it right but due to the above it's extremely difficult for those who didn't to fix the issues during the season.

trinidefender
trinidefender
311
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:37 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

If porpoising is the entire reason why you consider it a failure then this entire problem can be solved by allowing one single make spec interter on the cars with adjustability for the porpoising frequency. The frequency that it is set to dampen can be open source for all teams if they choose to run it. It will have a performance benefit for sure but it will get around the issue of costs and developing it to have effects other than the purely proposing phenomenon.

There. Problem solved fairly easily.

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
52
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

trinidefender wrote:
Fri Jun 10, 2022 10:57 pm
If porpoising is the entire reason why you consider it a failure then this entire problem can be solved by allowing one single make spec interter on the cars with adjustability for the porpoising frequency. The frequency that it is set to dampen can be open source for all teams if they choose to run it. It will have a performance benefit for sure but it will get around the issue of costs and developing it to have effects other than the purely proposing phenomenon.

There. Problem solved fairly easily.
Inerters are banned under this Formula, arent they?
So that solution is sort of what I am saying anyway (that the formula is not successful)
Doing that only solves the symptom not the cause.

User avatar
djos
99
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 5:09 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Fri Jun 10, 2022 7:30 pm
Is it time to discuss that the new aero formula has been a failure?
The move to more ground effects and less downforce combined with the suspension change has produced a lousy race car.
Add in the weight increase and there is a healthy discussion to be had.

Just one question, are the full tanks reducing the porpoising?
I’ve been watching F1 since 1986 and this is the first big regulation change that has actually improved the racing. So IMO it’s been a big leap forward.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

User avatar
Zynerji
104
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

clownfish wrote:
Fri Jun 10, 2022 10:10 pm
chrisc90 wrote:
Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:38 pm
if others can do it, sucessfully, then work harder at finding a solution within the scope of the rules.
Work harder how?

The wind tunnel is useless as the scale of the model/ air speed limit is too low to initiate the problem.
They have hardly any testing/free practice time
They have limited cfd
They have heavily restricted budgets so cannot make loads of different part variants to test solutions

Props to RB for getting it right but due to the above it's extremely difficult for those who didn't to fix the issues during the season.
I've probably asked before, but don't they still have straight-line testing, and if so, can't they trade for a day in a full scale tunnel?

User avatar
Zynerji
104
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:27 pm
There have been positives and negatives for sure.
I think the negatives were planned😉