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.
User avatar
djos
100
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 5:09 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

santos wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:05 pm
The rear wing looks to be fixed. I don't see how can they adjust the flaps to have more or less downforce.
They would pivot the entire wing at the base.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

roon
roon
412
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:39 pm
Looks like...
In what sense?

mzso
mzso
50
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:17 am
[*]Maximum(or mandatory?) wheelbase of 3400mm (down from 3600 to 3650mm of 2019 cars)
Why not limit the length as well I wonder? I think the current length is noxious for balance and a handicap to taller/heavier drivers.
JordanMugen wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:17 am
[*]Flat floor rule is generally abandoned, with no more tea tray etc
[*]Champcar style underbody inlet with vortex generator strakes. Prescribed tunnel inlet area. The current unrestricted bodywork areas around the bargeboards are presumably eliminated.
[*]Greater diffuser angle than 2019 F1 cars with the diffuser starting further up the car and ahead of the ahead of the rear axle, similar to older CART cars or the Swift Formula Nippon car
This sounds a lot like what I suggested, but was ridiculed and harassed for in the current aero thread:
Go for under body downforce and and angle the diffuser upward to improve "mushrooming".
Though I would have went for covered tires and removing separate wings as well.

This formula is obviously impaired by catering totradition, shallow aesthetics, whatever we've grown accustomed to without logical reasons. (and those who whine about these copiously)
In particular I'm thinking about the foolishness of dragging along four aerodynamically atrociously bad cylinders remains. Which is no-one thinks is useful, and is also more dangerous and accident prone. I'm not surprised but, but still very disappointed.

mzso
mzso
50
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:17 am
[*]Champcar style underbody inlet with vortex generator strakes. Prescribed tunnel inlet area. The current unrestricted bodywork areas around the bargeboards are presumably eliminated.
What purpose does vortex generation serve? Guiding the air more effectively upwards?
Otherwise vortices are noxious for the downforce of the following car, right?

mzso
mzso
50
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

Maplesoup wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:12 pm
Suspension changes to deal with the 18 inch rims will probably add quite a bit of weight.

Personally I think they should give a spending cap and open up the regulations but before any specific concept can be used on a car it should be ok'd by the FIA and made public before it's introduction. The FIA could then choose too reject certain concepts if they don't feel that they fit in with the spirit of F1 or open wheel racing.
And what have them waste resources to build anything they want and then arbitrarily ban it? This would be ridiculous, and also not a formula.
Just_a_fan wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:39 pm
Looks like F1 is going to be merging with Indy sometime around 2025. Basically a spec series with little for the teams to do other than turn up and polish the paintwork.
Wow. You're being utterly ridiculous.

Maplesoup
Maplesoup
18
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:25 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:56 pm
Maplesoup wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:12 pm
Suspension changes to deal with the 18 inch rims will probably add quite a bit of weight.

Personally I think they should give a spending cap and open up the regulations but before any specific concept can be used on a car it should be ok'd by the FIA and made public before it's introduction. The FIA could then choose too reject certain concepts if they don't feel that they fit in with the spirit of F1 or open wheel racing.
And what have them waste resources to build anything they want and then arbitrarily ban it? This would be ridiculous, and also not a formula.
The idea would be to approve or reject concepts and designs as they are generated not as they are built and appear on the race cars. Which is something teams do quite alot like with the blown wheel rims concept which has been accepted.

If a team wants to introduce a concept without consultation then they run the risk of losing it if it's banned.

Nothing new just on a broader scale.

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

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:49 pm
What purpose does vortex generation serve?
In this case, the vortex cores just create low pressure zones under the floor, which increases underbody downforce.

mzso
mzso
50
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

In this article Brawn confirms reliance on ground-effect, and claims they accomplished a loss of only 5% downforce when following another car with it.
“At the moment, we have a car running in CFD and windtunnels which when they are behind another car loses 5% of its downforce. That is pretty small. At the moment, when they get nose-to-tail, the car behind loses 50% of the downforce.

“It’s no surprise, we’ve done that with ground effect. We are using the underside of the car a lot more and it gives us smoother wake behind the car. It’s a dramatic difference, but it’s not the only thing we need to change to get close racing. If we don’t get them together, it doesn’t matter how well they can race each other.”

(He also says that the engine will be more powerful and louder and drivers control energy recovery)

User avatar
Capharol
21
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:06 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

not sure if correct here .....
The FIA is understood to have received four bids from companies interested in fulfilling the tender for a supply of a gearbox cassette to all Formula 1 teams for the 2021-2024 seasons.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/four ... ontent=www
Strive for continuous improvement, instead of perfection.
"Most people seem to turn off their brain when they turn on the computer and log in to social media."

NL_Fer
NL_Fer
79
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

Would a more powerfull engine reduce the percentage of full trottle around a track and reduce the effect of difference in power between the engines?

mzso
mzso
50
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

Huh. I thought this thread would be really active with the apparent leak of the near-final aero concept.

Maplesoup
Maplesoup
18
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:25 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

NL_Fer wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:00 pm
Would a more powerfull engine reduce the percentage of full trottle around a track and reduce the effect of difference in power between the engines?
That is a question for the engine regulation thread not the aero thread.

Maplesoup
Maplesoup
18
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:25 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:32 am
Huh. I thought this thread would be really active with the apparent leak of the near-final aero concept.
Its really difficult to discuss the concept, the regulations haven't been released yet. FOM's idea of what a project INDIA car might look like should end up being completely different as to what the teams actually come up with.

User avatar
DiogoBrand
68
Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 6:02 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post



When talking about wake and loss of downforce by following another car, I'm always reminded of this video.
Willem says that what causes the loss of downforce is not the upwash, but rather because the longitudinal movement of the air created by the car in front reduces the delta between the air speed (which is ideally zero) and the car behind, which in turn makes for a loss in downforce and drag, since both of them are proportional to the air velocity squared if I'm not mistaken.

So to me the only way to make cars easier to follow is ground effect. Since the asphalt is "holding" the air for the car passing over it, the wake of the car in front won't matter.

I'm really excited, and even a bit skeptical about Brawn's claim of the loss of downforce going from 50 to 5%. I just wonder why in those pictures the diffuser isn't wider and the brake ducts still feature that load of winglets. I mean, wouldn't it be better to have a clean brake duct and let the diffuser pretty much fill the gap between the rear tyres?

Also, I hope they can create rules that not only allow for more ground effects, but also for simple downforce there, otherwise it will just be a race of which team can spend more money developing the floor of their car.

User avatar
jjn9128
752
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

DiogoBrand wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:49 pm
When talking about wake and loss of downforce by following another car, I'm always reminded of this video.
Willem says that what causes the loss of downforce is not the upwash, but rather because the longitudinal movement of the air created by the car in front reduces the delta between the air speed (which is ideally zero) and the car behind, which in turn makes for a loss in downforce and drag, since both of them are proportional to the air velocity squared if I'm not mistaken.

I'm really excited, and even a bit skeptical about Brawn's claim of the loss of downforce going from 50 to 5%. I just wonder why in those pictures the diffuser isn't wider and the brake ducts still feature that load of winglets. I mean, wouldn't it be better to have a clean brake duct and let the diffuser pretty much fill the gap between the rear tyres?

Also, I hope they can create rules that not only allow for more ground effects, but also for simple downforce there, otherwise it will just be a race of which team can spend more money developing the floor of their car.
It's not so simple, "ground effect" reduces upwash which makes the wake hang around for a following car. The rear wing creates upwash and inwash which helps to pull the wake up and pull "clean" air from around the car in to fill the space. Total head deficit is indeed the primary loss in a wake but the local upwash will effectively reduce the incidence of wing surfaces. It's why downwash from the y250 is desirable - because it increases the effective incidence of the floor, making more downforce. So if you have a big underbody but no upwash then the wake hangs around and will hurt a following car more, if you have a big rear wing and little underfloor then the wake will have a lot of upwash which will then hurt another car.

The rear brake duct winglets are there to pull the tyre wake upwards so it makes sense that they remain - even if they are responsible for some turbulence themselves, they'll help the rear tyre wake to clear the following cars front wing. The diffuser is narrower because they want to force the air up in that position, not out as is the current trend.

50% to 5% sounds wrong, not sure where that's from, you have a source?? The loss has to be measured relative to the location of the lead car, but essentially how much downforce is lost relative to the position of the following car looks like the wake when viewed from above. So really close and near the back there is a lot of loss, far away and out of the wheel tracks there is very little loss, that is if the outwash around the front wing isn't making the wake 3x the width of the car. Cross-winds and cornering will then play a role.
DiogoBrand wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:49 pm
So to me the only way to make cars easier to follow is ground effect. Since the asphalt is "holding" the air for the car passing over it, the wake of the car in front won't matter.
I don't even know where to start on this...
#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