2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
roon
roon
449
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

Would this be an '18 wing inside 2019 endplates? From the RB pit stop training car.

Image

roon
roon
449
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

Imagine this turbo formula if exhaust-blown diffusers had not been banned, and exhaust locations were still unspecified. Development would have gone crazy. I believe the 1.6 l units already flow something like 2.5x more air than the 2.4 l units? 4 bar at ~2/3 the revs. I wonder how much air they would have tried to move through the engine to energize the diffuser.

And if fuel flow and ignition limits were lifted, hot blowing would be taken to a new level.

Image

Image

Image

Image

And then McLaren would have brought back the...

Image
Last edited by roon on Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:39 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
dren
288
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

roon wrote:
Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:31 pm
Imagine this turbo formula if exhaust-blown diffusers had not been banned, and exhaust locations were still unspecified. Development would have gone crazy. I believe the 1.6 l units already flow something like 2.5x more air than the 2.4 l units? 4 bar at ~2/3 the revs. I wonder how much air they would have tried to move through the engine to energize the diffuser.

And if fuel flow and ignition limits were lifted, hot blowing would have been taken to a new level.

https://imgr2.auto-motor-und-sport.de/M ... 429628.jpg
Cold blowing with the H motoring the turbine on slow corners; 'waste gates' open to feed the turbine ambient air.
Honda!

User avatar
godlameroso
424
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

Regarding the front wings, are there any restrictions on the under wing strakes other than just having 2? I feel there is some untapped outwash potential with them. The wing, endplate, footplate, and strakes could all merge their vortices, and aim them at the same place on the outside of the tire. Then by their power combined you have outwash wing.

Or better yet, have one outwash strake, and one in-wash strake. Oh well, I'm sure the aero guys thought about this last year, and already ran the numbers to get what they got.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
639
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

The front under wing strakes are heavily regulated this year. They're allowed two per side and they can only be in a certain zone. They have tight limits on shape (curvature) too.
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

User avatar
jjn9128
387
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

godlameroso wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:32 am
Regarding the front wings, are there any restrictions on the under wing strakes other than just having 2? I feel there is some untapped outwash potential with them. The wing, endplate, footplate, and strakes could all merge their vortices, and aim them at the same place on the outside of the tire. Then by their power combined you have outwash wing.

Or better yet, have one outwash strake, and one in-wash strake. Oh well, I'm sure the aero guys thought about this last year, and already ran the numbers to get what they got.
2 strakes per side, strakes have to fit between y500 to y800, and z75 to z125. Each strake is defined by a virtual surface (VSS) which can only measure 20mm across the y direction, with a maximum angle at any point of 10deg to the car centreplane. Once the VSS is defined it can only attach to the fixed part of the wing, and must be terminated by that wing surface (it can't protrude above). The strake itself can then offset the VSS by +/-6mm until the last 100mm where it can only offset by +/-3mm. A 5mm radius can be added to the junction between strake and wing.
#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
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

godlameroso wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:32 am
Regarding the front wings, are there any restrictions on the under wing strakes other than just having 2? I feel there is some untapped outwash potential with them. The wing, endplate, footplate, and strakes could all merge their vortices, and aim them at the same place on the outside of the tire. Then by their power combined you have outwash wing.

Or better yet, have one outwash strake, and one in-wash strake. Oh well, I'm sure the aero guys thought about this last year, and already ran the numbers to get what they got.
https://www.f1technical.net/news/21935
Underwing Strakes
Bodywork underneath the wing, underwing strakes, are now limited to 2 (per side). Like the endplate, these pieces of bodywork require the creation of a virtual surface (Virtual Strake Surface, or VSS) upon which a whole set of regulations are defined to limit design freedom. When the visualisation is done, the strake must be applied so that it fully encloses the VSS and conforms to extremity limitations based on the VSS.

It's important to distinguish the virtual, 2-dimensional strakes from the actual, 3-dimensional (having a width) strake as not all rules apply to the final dimensions. Before being able to determine the form, let's first determine the area the 2 virtual strakes can sit in. That's simple enough: they must sit in a box underneath the wing between the Y500 and Y800 vertical planes.
Inside this box the 2 strakes can be applied in any position (disregarding the regulations on form for a moment), but the 2 virtual surfaces need to be at each and every point 50mm apart. Again, the virtual surfaces and not necessarily the actual strake (which is built around the virtual one). After that, we can determine the 'moveable' position of the VSS. It must sit in a 20mm box inside the bigger red box.
Image
Now, the surface is not allowed to have an angle greater than 10° relative to the car centre plane. The next limiting factor is that it can only have one single curve in it. In order to have the final bodywork piece comply with 3.3.8 g) ( the strake has to fully enclose the VSS) and 3.3.8 h) (the strake cannot stick out of the wing element profiles), we'll now cut the VSS to the actual proportions and finalize the VSS:
Image
With the VSS now finalized, we determine the maximum dimensions of the box the actual strake is allowed to sit inside:
Image
Purple show the allowed dimensional extremities (6mm in- and outboard of the VSS) of the underwing strake, with the exception of the last 100mm, which have to be 3mm in - and outboard of the VSS (shown in blue). Yellow is just a box to help determine the extremities


Finally we define the strake. Note we optimize here. Even though the VSS is only allowed to have a maximum angle of 10°, we can squeeze a little bit extra out of it through playing with the width at the rear edge of the actual strake. The best way to illustrate this, is to show it from a birds eye view:
Image
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
godlameroso
424
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

So in simple terms the 2 strakes have to be parallel to each other and both must fit within a box. And its curvature and angle relative to the car is severly restricted. Right, thanks for clearing that up.
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
jjn9128
387
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

godlameroso wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:54 am
So in simple terms the 2 strakes have to be parallel to each other and both must fit within a box. And its curvature and angle relative to the car is severly restricted. Right, thanks for clearing that up.
The strakes don't have to be parallel to one another.
#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
godlameroso
424
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

In your very well done and informative post it says they must be 50 mm from each other at all points. I thought that meant they have to mirror each other's shape.
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
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

godlameroso wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:19 pm
In your very well done and informative post it says they must be 50 mm from each other at all points. I thought that meant they have to mirror each other's shape.
No, the 50mm is a minimum. It's not fixed at 50mm, just that it needs to be at least 50mm.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
godlameroso
424
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

turbof1 wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:36 pm
godlameroso wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:19 pm
In your very well done and informative post it says they must be 50 mm from each other at all points. I thought that meant they have to mirror each other's shape.
No, the 50mm is a minimum. It's not fixed at 50mm, just that it needs to be at least 50mm.
Ahhh ok, thanks for clearing that up.
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
Blackout
785
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:12 am

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

We have no 2021 thread? Edit: we have one viewtopic.php?f=6&t=28009 Anyways AMuS claim they saw one of the latest 2021 concepts and interestingly it seems to have one of those old champ/indy car underbodies with a raised leading edge with multiple vanes/VGs, two long tunnels etc amongst some other features to enhance upwash at the rear etc...
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... nterboden/

Image
Last edited by Blackout on Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:44 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
jjn9128
387
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

Blackout wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:12 am
We have no 2021 thread? Edit: we have one viewtopic.php?f=6&t=28009 Anyways AMuS claim they saw one of the latest 2021 concepts and interestingly it seems to have one of those old champ/indy car underbodies with a raised leading edge with multiple vanes/VGs, two long tunnels etc amongst some other features to enhance upwash at the rear etc...
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... nterboden/

https://servimg.com/view/14795526/2474
https://i87.servimg.com/u/f87/14/79/55/26/62j0yh10.jpg
https://i87.servimg.com/u/f87/14/79/55/26/sebrin10.jpg
https://imgr2.auto-motor-und-sport.de/F ... 439389.jpg
https://imgr2.auto-motor-und-sport.de/F ... 439388.jpg
https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/F ... 439390.jpg
Yeah AMuS didn't get these 'leaked' images, racecar engineering got some CFD images (print media still exists) and someone on instagram has photoshopped a Ferrari livery onto them, which presumably makes them substantively different enough for AMuS to run.
#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

roon
roon
449
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2017-2020 Aerodynamic Technical Regulations

Post

For 2020, it looks like there are regulation changes to suspension members, brake ducts, mirrors, and maybe a return to bigger shark fins? If I have time I'll attempt deciphering them. Anyone want to have a go?