Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
TimW
TimW
35
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:07 pm

Apart from the outwash, does the raising of the floor edge not also make the wake worse?

Higher edge = less sealing = more air being sucked in and processed by the diffuser = more air being affected by the car = bigger wake / worse following?

Of course this is not all 1:1, but as a general trend

jjn9128
762
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

TimW wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:57 am
Apart from the outwash, does the raising of the floor edge not also make the wake worse?

Higher edge = less sealing = more air being sucked in and processed by the diffuser = more air being affected by the car = bigger wake / worse following?

Of course this is not all 1:1, but as a general trend
No.
#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

JordanMugen
82
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

vorticism wrote:
Sun Mar 26, 2023 4:27 pm
The floor edge was raised for this year as you all know. +15mm iirc. That's about how tall the ice skate was. I read discussion of this rule change being directed at Merc, at Ferrari. Wasn't it more directed at RB to get rid of the ice skate? Considering the dimension involved.
I dunno, in any case the ice skate is gone.

MIKEY_!
6
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 2:07 am

I've been looking at the aperture regulations (3.7.6) and I'm a bit confused. The regs define the maximum area of these apertures (e.g. 150,000mm^2 per side of the car for the sidepod cooling apertures) but the regs don't seem to say what plane this is measured in.

Does anyone know how these are measured? Is it in a specific plane? Or maybe defined when viewed normal to the surface?

AR3-GP
AR3-GP
289
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:22 am

MIKEY_! wrote:
Fri Apr 14, 2023 10:03 am
I've been looking at the aperture regulations (3.7.6) and I'm a bit confused. The regs define the maximum area of these apertures (e.g. 150,000mm^2 per side of the car for the sidepod cooling apertures) but the regs don't seem to say what plane this is measured in.

Does anyone know how these are measured? Is it in a specific plane? Or maybe defined when viewed normal to the surface?
All areas mentioned in this Article will be measured on the untrimmed Rear Bodywork
surface.
This is at the end of Article 3.7.6 but I agree with you that this can be rather ambiguous depending on how the surfaces are created in the CAD model.

Looking at the Ferrari, these apertures tend to be planar:

MIKEY_!
6
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 2:07 am

AR3-GP wrote:
Fri Apr 14, 2023 1:50 pm
All areas mentioned in this Article will be measured on the untrimmed Rear Bodywork
surface.
This is at the end of Article 3.7.6 but I agree with you that this can be rather ambiguous depending on how the surfaces are created in the CAD model.

Looking at the Ferrari, these apertures tend to be planar:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fo7TD2lWcAI ... ame=medium
I'm not sure I fully understand. Do you mean planar to the bodywork surface before the apertures are defined? Does that mean they define the sidepod surface, and then define the 2D area on that surface where they want to circumvent the minimum radius rules?

I must be missing something, because some of these louvres areas look a lot bigger than 150,000mm^2 (about 387mm x 387mm), especially last year's sauber.

AR3-GP
AR3-GP
289
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:22 am

MIKEY_! wrote:
Sat Apr 15, 2023 1:54 am
AR3-GP wrote:
Fri Apr 14, 2023 1:50 pm
All areas mentioned in this Article will be measured on the untrimmed Rear Bodywork
surface.
This is at the end of Article 3.7.6 but I agree with you that this can be rather ambiguous depending on how the surfaces are created in the CAD model.

Looking at the Ferrari, these apertures tend to be planar:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fo7TD2lWcAI ... ame=medium
I'm not sure I fully understand. Do you mean planar to the bodywork surface before the apertures are defined? Does that mean they define the sidepod surface, and then define the 2D area on that surface where they want to circumvent the minimum radius rules?

I must be missing something, because some of these louvres areas look a lot bigger than 150,000mm^2 (about 387mm x 387mm), especially last year's sauber.
I thought I replied at some point, but article 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 require you to draw a closed, untrimmed, rear bodywork surface. So basically what you said in your post here is correct:
Does that mean they define the sidepod surface, and then define the 2D area on that surface where they want to circumvent the minimum radius rules?
Only then are these louver cut outs permitted and the surface area attributed to them is simply the measurement from the CAD model. To make the cut outs in CAD, they are probably using 2D extrusions to intersect the side pod. Then this interior intersection area is the area which is regulated.

I was incorrect previously. These are not planar surfaces. The surface is the untrimmed bodywork which contains curvature.

organic
786
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:24 am
Location: Cambridge, UK

Nice thread (about 10 posts long) about flow visualization and its application to speculations about 2022 cars on track, and the pitfalls that come with this

The image showing the titanium shards following the flow behind the RB is a nice visualization

Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Over that last couple of months it has occurred to me that the use (mandatory??) of DRS prevents the teams from making the kind of small rear wing adjustments that they were able to carry out before the introduction of the damned device.

From a budget perspective this forces the teams to commit to a low drag rear wing assembly that is only really suitable for Monza (and perhaps Spa).
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

organic
786
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:24 am
Location: Cambridge, UK

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-e ... /10517669/

Tombazis:
"If we take the 2021 F1 cars, based on being two lengths from the car in front, they were losing more than 50% of the [aero] load," he explained.

"With the 2022 single-seaters, there was only a 20% reduction in load. But now we are at about 35%. Surely there has been a worsening and, on this point, Carlos is right. We have identified what we should act on."
"We are studying solutions for 2025," he explained. "We have identified some parts of the cars to act on, such as the endplate of the front wing, the side of the floor and the fins inside the wheels (around the brake ducts). We could lay down somewhat more restrictive rules in these areas.
Last edited by organic on Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

djos
108
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 5:09 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

organic wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:12 pm
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-e ... /10517669/

Tombazis:
"If we take the 2021 F1 cars, based on being two lengths from the car in front, they were losing more than 50% of the [aero] load," he explained.

"With the 2022 single-seaters, there was only a 20% reduction in load. But now we are at about 35%. Surely there has been a worsening and, on this point, Carlos is right. We have identified what we should act on."
Raising the floor edges for this season likely didn’t help either!

It was such an unnecessary change too, the sporting regs change (if your cars bounce more than X we’ll penalise you), was all that was needed.
"In downforce we trust"

mzso
mzso
60
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

djos wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:15 pm
organic wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:12 pm
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-e ... /10517669/

Tombazis:
"If we take the 2021 F1 cars, based on being two lengths from the car in front, they were losing more than 50% of the [aero] load," he explained.

"With the 2022 single-seaters, there was only a 20% reduction in load. But now we are at about 35%. Surely there has been a worsening and, on this point, Carlos is right. We have identified what we should act on."
Raising the floor edges for this season likely didn’t help either!

It was such an unnecessary change too, the sporting regs change (if your cars bounce more than X we’ll penalise you), was all that was needed.
I think it's more about the craplets they still allowed to have on the floor edges, all that vortex generation and guiding front wheel wake outside.

bartez1000
bartez1000
0
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 6:26 pm

Hello.
I have a few questions regarding the matter of radiator regulations in the 2023 Formula One technical regulations.
Firstly, the radiators are defined as "heat exchangers". Heat exchangers have some limitations regarding manufacturing techniques, shapes of core, tubes etc. This is defined in the chapter "7.4 Heat exchangers"
"primary heat exchangers" are also considered to be "bodywork", as defined by the 3.1.1.a.iv rule.
Now, bodywork is tightly defined by the 3.1 to 3.16 rules that define each part of bodywork using maximum curvatures, volumes, tangents and other such limitations.
I used to be wondering, how a radiator, with sharp, complex metal bits can be legal as a bodywork? Then I noticed rule 3.12 "Bodywork not defined in Articles 3.5 to 3.11" that states

Code: Select all

``````In addition to the bodywork defined and regulated by Articles 3.5 to 3.11, the following
components are permitted:
``````

Code: Select all

``````...
3.12.4 Ducts (as specified in Article 3.1.1) and primary heat exchangers provided they are not visible
when viewed from the outside of the car, at any angle perpendicular to the X-axis. This is
assessed with the bodywork defined in Articles 3.5 to 3.11 present but prior to the
application of apertures permitted in Articles 3.5.8, 3.6.1.f, and 3.7.6.
``````
So heat exchangers are an exception, regulated by the 3.12.4 rule.
From what I understand, the regulation tells that heat exchanger must be hidden when viewing from top, bottom, sides and any point of view in between. X axis is from front to back of the car.
Heat exchangers can be seen from the front of the car, what is expected, as we see radiator inlets from this point of view.
The regulations make it so that Heat exchangers must be placed inside the bodywork, but the positioning inside is quite free. It is possible to move the radiators to the "spine" of the car, for example.

Therefore, my question is: Can primary heat exchanges can be placed in between the planes of front wing, (a bit like in the Toleman TG183) or under rear wing planes (like in the BRM P180).
Front wing furniture and rear wing makes have a cylinder like shape, if the cylinder is parallel to the X axis. This would hide the heat exchangers when looking from angles perpendicular to the X-axis, as required by 3.12.4
Unfortunately, placing heat exchangers in between wishbones seems illegal, as these, along with other wheel bodywork, is defined in 3.13 and 3.14

Placing heat exchangers in this location may be detrimental to structural, weight distribution, cooling, and a variety of other factors, but it may be beneficial for aerodynamics. Bits in the area around the front wing planes could produce outwash or vortices.

vorticism
280
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Would you say the cars looked more or less advanced fifteen years ago?

bartez1000 wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2023 7:36 pm

I have a few questions regarding the matter of radiator regulations in the 2023 Formula One technical regulations.
The shapes of bodywork in the front wing and rear wing area is restricted to what you currently see: smooth airfoil shapes, two in the rear, four in the front. So no way to place in a trad multi element heat exchanger. Radiators as part of the PU are iirc required to be located within a certain distance of the PU which would prevent making aluminum wings elements with coolant running through them (to form a heavy, inefficient heat exchanger out of a wing.)
𓄀

Zynerji
107
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

bartez1000 wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2023 7:36 pm
Hello.
I have a few questions regarding the matter of radiator regulations in the 2023 Formula One technical regulations.
Firstly, the radiators are defined as "heat exchangers". Heat exchangers have some limitations regarding manufacturing techniques, shapes of core, tubes etc. This is defined in the chapter "7.4 Heat exchangers"
"primary heat exchangers" are also considered to be "bodywork", as defined by the 3.1.1.a.iv rule.
Now, bodywork is tightly defined by the 3.1 to 3.16 rules that define each part of bodywork using maximum curvatures, volumes, tangents and other such limitations.
I used to be wondering, how a radiator, with sharp, complex metal bits can be legal as a bodywork? Then I noticed rule 3.12 "Bodywork not defined in Articles 3.5 to 3.11" that states

Code: Select all

``````In addition to the bodywork defined and regulated by Articles 3.5 to 3.11, the following
components are permitted:
``````

Code: Select all

``````...
3.12.4 Ducts (as specified in Article 3.1.1) and primary heat exchangers provided they are not visible
when viewed from the outside of the car, at any angle perpendicular to the X-axis. This is
assessed with the bodywork defined in Articles 3.5 to 3.11 present but prior to the
application of apertures permitted in Articles 3.5.8, 3.6.1.f, and 3.7.6.
``````
So heat exchangers are an exception, regulated by the 3.12.4 rule.
From what I understand, the regulation tells that heat exchanger must be hidden when viewing from top, bottom, sides and any point of view in between. X axis is from front to back of the car.
Heat exchangers can be seen from the front of the car, what is expected, as we see radiator inlets from this point of view.
The regulations make it so that Heat exchangers must be placed inside the bodywork, but the positioning inside is quite free. It is possible to move the radiators to the "spine" of the car, for example.

Therefore, my question is: Can primary heat exchanges can be placed in between the planes of front wing, (a bit like in the Toleman TG183) or under rear wing planes (like in the BRM P180).
Front wing furniture and rear wing makes have a cylinder like shape, if the cylinder is parallel to the X axis. This would hide the heat exchangers when looking from angles perpendicular to the X-axis, as required by 3.12.4
Unfortunately, placing heat exchangers in between wishbones seems illegal, as these, along with other wheel bodywork, is defined in 3.13 and 3.14

Placing heat exchangers in this location may be detrimental to structural, weight distribution, cooling, and a variety of other factors, but it may be beneficial for aerodynamics. Bits in the area around the front wing planes could produce outwash or vortices.

https://www.slotcar-union.com/64561-lar ... p-1972.jpg
If they are bodywork, why not have them as the roof of the tunnels, and exit as a double diffusor?