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.
wuzak
wuzak
380
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

MatsNorway wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 5:16 pm
Holm86 wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 2:03 pm
Your theory is completely wrong.
How heavy is the carbon tub? and how heavy is the car? I doubt making the tub strong enough is the main reason the car is that heavy. The reason the car is that long is because it is allowed to be that heavy. Without a max length rule in the future( i am against) the cars will slowly creep up in length for aerodynamic reasons.
I believe that the 2021 rules have a maximum length rule, or at least it is proposed.

The tyres for 2021 are to be narrower at the front than currently, while the rears stay the same. That should mean a rearwards weight shift, if only slightly, which should make the cars shorter.

Reducing the weight limit will require more resources being spent on finding areas to reduce weight. Contrary to popular opinion, none of the cars are far enough below the weight limit to enable of strategic placement of ballast. Many struggle to get below the weight limit as it is.

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

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

techF1LES wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 8:53 am
Proposed floor of the 2021 F1 car (Source: Sam Collins/Racecar Engineering)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7mw5hIXkAUhqpC.jpg:orig
Classic Champcar... Very nice! :D

At least the aero side will be sorted in 2021. =D>

Bit worried about them messing up the 2021 FOM revenue and regulatory side of things though, the suspicion of remaining Ferrari bonus payment and Ferrari veto are very alarming. :shock:

MatsNorway
MatsNorway
4
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:24 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

wuzak wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 3:07 am
I believe that the 2021 rules have a maximum length rule, or at least it is proposed.

The tyres for 2021 are to be narrower at the front than currently, while the rears stay the same. That should mean a rearwards weight shift, if only slightly, which should make the cars shorter.

Reducing the weight limit will require more resources being spent on finding areas to reduce weight. Contrary to popular opinion, none of the cars are far enough below the weight limit to enable of strategic placement of ballast. Many struggle to get below the weight limit as it is.
I really hope they drop adding more rules such as maximum length.

The main reason they have such heavy cars is largely because of the hybrid tech and a conservative engine weight.

There is so much wrong with the current formula and the proposed chances. For one increasing the rpm with a modified fuel flow curve is dumb. If you want efficiency relevant for road cars or whatever you make the fuel flow completely flat. In addition a flat fuel flow curve would make the engines sound better i believe. And if you want the cars to be cheap you drop or make it optional to have the electric motor/generator on the turbo. Same with the hybrid tech. Suddenly you can have a light car that costs less, is shorter and sounds better.

As for the front wheels they should consider to also or just make them smaller in diameter. It makes it harder to flip a car when wheel to wheel contact happens where front wheel hits rear wheel. Because the contact patch will then be below center line and you will get less lifting force as the "wedging effect" counteracts it.

Perhaps there will be a short term increase in cost to reduce weight but in the long run simpler and lighter solutions will be made and the cars will be cheaper because of it.
je suis charlie

A touch of genius is the simplest thing.


DRS is like supports on a bicycle[/size]

User avatar
FrukostScones
162
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: European Union

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

MatsNorway wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:12 am
wuzak wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 3:07 am
I believe that the 2021 rules have a maximum length rule, or at least it is proposed.

The tyres for 2021 are to be narrower at the front than currently, while the rears stay the same. That should mean a rearwards weight shift, if only slightly, which should make the cars shorter.

Reducing the weight limit will require more resources being spent on finding areas to reduce weight. Contrary to popular opinion, none of the cars are far enough below the weight limit to enable of strategic placement of ballast. Many struggle to get below the weight limit as it is.
I really hope they drop adding more rules such as maximum length.

The main reason they have such heavy cars is largely because of the hybrid tech and a conservative engine weight.

There is so much wrong with the current formula and the proposed chances. For one increasing the rpm with a modified fuel flow curve is dumb. If you want efficiency relevant for road cars or whatever you make the fuel flow completely flat. In addition a flat fuel flow curve would make the engines sound better i believe. And if you want the cars to be cheap you drop or make it optional to have the electric motor/generator on the turbo. Same with the hybrid tech. Suddenly you can have a light car that costs less, is shorter and sounds better.

As for the front wheels they should consider to also or just make them smaller in diameter. It makes it harder to flip a car when wheel to wheel contact happens where front wheel hits rear wheel. Because the contact patch will then be below center line and you will get less lifting force as the "wedging effect" counteracts it.

Perhaps there will be a short term increase in cost to reduce weight but in the long run simpler and lighter solutions will be made and the cars will be cheaper because of it.
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 2-neutral/

3550mm instead of proposed 3400mm WB seems to be coming.

Iteration Juliette, just one more than India, so just onestep more is the final aero...?

Well, a bit dissapointing...

BUt most dissappointing is Pirelli tyres..... because they ruined F1.
Finishing races is important, but racing is more important.

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

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

FrukostScones wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:49 pm

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 2-neutral/

3550mm instead of proposed 3400mm WB seems to be coming.

Iteration Juliette, just one more than India, so just onestep more is the final aero...?

Well, a bit dissapointing...

BUt most dissappointing is Pirelli tyres..... because they ruined F1.
It won't be the final aero concept. Even after what is presented and agreed in June with the team there will still be further changes as they try to close loop holes or find areas they'd like to develop further.

There could also of been large changes between India and Juliette. India was based pretty much just off the work that's brawn's team did. Juliette will be that + team input.

And yes the tire manufacturer all by themselves ruined a multi billion dollar sport.....
Pirelli only ever created tyres that fit the brief they were given. It was the sort sightedness of the team running F1 and the teams that made the tyres an absolute pain.

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

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

wuzak wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 3:07 am
MatsNorway wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 5:16 pm
Holm86 wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 2:03 pm
Your theory is completely wrong.
How heavy is the carbon tub? and how heavy is the car? I doubt making the tub strong enough is the main reason the car is that heavy. The reason the car is that long is because it is allowed to be that heavy. Without a max length rule in the future( i am against) the cars will slowly creep up in length for aerodynamic reasons.
I believe that the 2021 rules have a maximum length rule, or at least it is proposed.

The tyres for 2021 are to be narrower at the front than currently, while the rears stay the same. That should mean a rearwards weight shift, if only slightly, which should make the cars shorter.

Reducing the weight limit will require more resources being spent on finding areas to reduce weight. Contrary to popular opinion, none of the cars are far enough below the weight limit to enable of strategic placement of ballast. Many struggle to get below the weight limit as it is.
Any evidence for this or is it just pulled out of your....something?

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

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

Ballast pocket covers are still visible on the front wings this year.

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

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

MatsNorway wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:12 am
wuzak wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 3:07 am
I believe that the 2021 rules have a maximum length rule, or at least it is proposed.

The tyres for 2021 are to be narrower at the front than currently, while the rears stay the same. That should mean a rearwards weight shift, if only slightly, which should make the cars shorter.

Reducing the weight limit will require more resources being spent on finding areas to reduce weight. Contrary to popular opinion, none of the cars are far enough below the weight limit to enable of strategic placement of ballast. Many struggle to get below the weight limit as it is.
I really hope they drop adding more rules such as maximum length.

The main reason they have such heavy cars is largely because of the hybrid tech and a conservative engine weight.

There is so much wrong with the current formula and the proposed chances. For one increasing the rpm with a modified fuel flow curve is dumb. If you want efficiency relevant for road cars or whatever you make the fuel flow completely flat. In addition a flat fuel flow curve would make the engines sound better i believe. And if you want the cars to be cheap you drop or make it optional to have the electric motor/generator on the turbo. Same with the hybrid tech. Suddenly you can have a light car that costs less, is shorter and sounds better.

As for the front wheels they should consider to also or just make them smaller in diameter. It makes it harder to flip a car when wheel to wheel contact happens where front wheel hits rear wheel. Because the contact patch will then be below center line and you will get less lifting force as the "wedging effect" counteracts it.

Perhaps there will be a short term increase in cost to reduce weight but in the long run simpler and lighter solutions will be made and the cars will be cheaper because of it.
They definitely should limit the length, instead of hoping other rules will result in the lengths getting shorter.

Covering the wheels with the body would be more effective at preventing flipping car on wheel to wheel contact.
It would also have the advantage of not being extremely stupid aerodynamically.

Lighter stuff will always be more expensive for the same mechanical performance.
FrukostScones wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:49 pm

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 2-neutral/

3550mm instead of proposed 3400mm WB seems to be coming.
Wheelbase is not car length though.

User avatar
FrukostScones
162
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: European Union

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:02 pm
MatsNorway wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:12 am
wuzak wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 3:07 am
I believe that the 2021 rules have a maximum length rule, or at least it is proposed.

The tyres for 2021 are to be narrower at the front than currently, while the rears stay the same. That should mean a rearwards weight shift, if only slightly, which should make the cars shorter.

Reducing the weight limit will require more resources being spent on finding areas to reduce weight. Contrary to popular opinion, none of the cars are far enough below the weight limit to enable of strategic placement of ballast. Many struggle to get below the weight limit as it is.
I really hope they drop adding more rules such as maximum length.

The main reason they have such heavy cars is largely because of the hybrid tech and a conservative engine weight.

There is so much wrong with the current formula and the proposed chances. For one increasing the rpm with a modified fuel flow curve is dumb. If you want efficiency relevant for road cars or whatever you make the fuel flow completely flat. In addition a flat fuel flow curve would make the engines sound better i believe. And if you want the cars to be cheap you drop or make it optional to have the electric motor/generator on the turbo. Same with the hybrid tech. Suddenly you can have a light car that costs less, is shorter and sounds better.

As for the front wheels they should consider to also or just make them smaller in diameter. It makes it harder to flip a car when wheel to wheel contact happens where front wheel hits rear wheel. Because the contact patch will then be below center line and you will get less lifting force as the "wedging effect" counteracts it.

Perhaps there will be a short term increase in cost to reduce weight but in the long run simpler and lighter solutions will be made and the cars will be cheaper because of it.
They definitely should limit the length, instead of hoping other rules will result in the lengths getting shorter.

Covering the wheels with the body would be more effective at preventing flipping car on wheel to wheel contact.
It would also have the advantage of not being extremely stupid aerodynamically.

Lighter stuff will always be more expensive for the same mechanical performance.
FrukostScones wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:49 pm

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 2-neutral/

3550mm instead of proposed 3400mm WB seems to be coming.
Wheelbase is not car length though.
yes, but WB determines the length of the car.
Finishing races is important, but racing is more important.

MatsNorway
MatsNorway
4
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:24 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

Point i am trying to make is that if you limit the materials and have a low weight you can only get so fancy with the design and still make the weight. A long car is harder to make stiff. So by having a low weight limit you naturally limit the length of the car. If you care about the price then they should drop the suspension being made in carbon and go back to steel or aluminium.
je suis charlie

A touch of genius is the simplest thing.


DRS is like supports on a bicycle[/size]

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

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

FrukostScones wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:00 pm
yes, but WB determines the length of the car.
Not at all. The car can be much longer.

ENGINE TUNER
ENGINE TUNER
26
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:07 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

MatsNorway wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 5:16 pm
Holm86 wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 2:03 pm
Your theory is completely wrong.
How heavy is the carbon tub? and how heavy is the car? I doubt making the tub strong enough is the main reason the car is that heavy. The reason the car is that long is because it is allowed to be that heavy. Without a max length rule in the future( i am against) the cars will slowly creep up in length for aerodynamic reasons.
The cars are heavy because of the increased safety standards and equipment(front, rear and side crash structures, halo, etc) and also because of the heavy tires. The current tires are almost 3x heavier than in 2010. With heavier tires come heavier wheels, brakes, hubs, and suspension both inboard and out. It is a falicy that the current PUs are heavy, they are not much heavier than the v8s+kers.

The length of the cars add very little to the weight of the cars. The extra length of the cars comes between the back of the PU and the rear axle in the "coke bottle" region where barely anything except the gearbox exists. Bodywork and floor have minimal weight.

User avatar
FrukostScones
162
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: European Union

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:45 pm
FrukostScones wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:00 pm
yes, but WB determines the length of the car.
Not at all. The car can be much longer.
yes they are longer than wheel base.
I meant WB is major factor of car length.
The wheelbase data is directly linked to the length of the car because the teams use maximum front (1225 mm) and rear (810 mm) overhangs (distance between the most foremost front / rear point of the car from the front / rear axle).
https://maxf1.net/en/f1-2019-cars-lengt ... rake-data/

so if you introduce a max wheel base the cars cannot but longer a certain length, under the rule that all other dimension regs for the car stay the same.
Finishing races is important, but racing is more important.

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

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:45 pm
FrukostScones wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:00 pm
yes, but WB determines the length of the car.
Not at all. The car can be much longer.
The current rules limit the front overhang from the axle line to just under 1225mm (the apex of the swept front wing) and the rear overhang to 810mm (the top edges of the rear wing endplates - the rear impact ends at 710mm behind the rear axleline). So adding a fixed/maximum wheelbase will very much limit the length of the car.
#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

MatsNorway
MatsNorway
4
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:24 pm

Re: 2021 Aero Thread

Post

ENGINE TUNER wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:20 pm
The cars are heavy because of the increased safety standards and equipment(front, rear and side crash structures, halo, etc) and also because of the heavy tires. The current tires are almost 3x heavier than in 2010. With heavier tires come heavier wheels, brakes, hubs, and suspension both inboard and out. It is a falicy that the current PUs are heavy, they are not much heavier than the v8s+kers.

The length of the cars add very little to the weight of the cars. The extra length of the cars comes between the back of the PU and the rear axle in the "coke bottle" region where barely anything except the gearbox exists. Bodywork and floor have minimal weight.
How heavy is the tub then? it is clean carbon. 100kg?

bigger wheels ++ add extra torque to the tub. Tub needs to be stiffer/stronger but yet they make them longer and longer. Because they can. They are still below the weight limit with the giant cars they have. Once they actually struggle to make the weight they will make them shorter. including gearboxes. Mercedes had the most efficient engine and probably still do.. so it is no surprise that they had or perhaps still have the longest car. Their radiators are smaller, fuel tank is smaller, probably have some of the best electrical components too so naturally they can squeeze out a longer car within the weight limit.
je suis charlie

A touch of genius is the simplest thing.


DRS is like supports on a bicycle[/size]