F1technical.net

I would really like to see a proper 3D render of these rules as I have a feeling next year's cars are going to look as ungainly as the 09 cars looked...

adrianjordan wrote: ↑

02 May 2018, 13:04

I would really like to see a proper 3D render of these rules as I have a feeling next year's cars are going to look as ungainly as the 09 cars looked...

Same, I really don't want the snow plow look back again!

adrianjordan wrote: ↑

02 May 2018, 13:04

I would really like to see a proper 3D render of these rules as I have a feeling next year's cars are going to look as ungainly as the 09 cars looked

Not a render but the wide front and rear will look something like this... only with the halo... and the OTT bargeboards and sidepod vanes... and a thumb nose... and a wheelbase like a stretch limo...

paddyf1 wrote: ↑

02 May 2018, 09:30

Why on earth are they making the front wing even bigger? Why dont they make it narrower and have it run under the nose to get rid of the y250?

I second that. Does anyone know if a wider span is necessary to reduce 'outwash potential' (as they put it)?

dave kumar wrote: ↑

02 May 2018, 14:14

paddyf1 wrote: ↑

02 May 2018, 09:30

Why on earth are they making the front wing even bigger? Why dont they make it narrower and have it run under the nose to get rid of the y250?

I second that. Does anyone know if a wider span is necessary to reduce 'outwash potential' (as they put it)?

They should regulate that the flaps on the front wing should also meet an endplate at the inside of the wing, so they arent able generate the vorticies around the pointy ends of the flaps

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

02 May 2018, 13:56

adrianjordan wrote: ↑

02 May 2018, 13:04

I would really like to see a proper 3D render of these rules as I have a feeling next year's cars are going to look as ungainly as the 09 cars looked

Not a render but the wide front and rear will look something like this... only with the halo... and the OTT bargeboards and sidepod vanes... and a thumb nose... and a wheelbase like a stretch limo...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 2008_1.jpg
https://cdn-0.motorsport.com/static/img ... m-2009.jpg

So nothing like that, then

krisfx wrote: ↑

02 May 2018, 14:35

So nothing like that, then

hahahahahah, I guess not.

I did only mean the combined look of the front and rear wing dimensions, not the whole car aesthetic. The front wing simplification will probably be a lot like that though!

The simplicity of 2009 aero by today's standard is almost apalling...

Single element active front and rear wings with no endplates. Driver controlled via dead-man flaps behind the steering wheel.

Would stop all aero development in that area.

Would assist overtaking hugely as the wings will act as brake lights for the car following allowing them to reference brake points and outbrake each other

Would differentiate the highly skilled drivers from the rest and look like aeroplanes flying around the circuits.

Zynerji wrote: ↑

02 May 2018, 14:50

The simplicity of 2009 aero by today's standard is almost apalling...

Eye of the beholder etc, but I think it looks far better


maybe that should be beer holder then.

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

01 May 2018, 17:07

The endplate, as it were, is mandated as a minimum projected area (looking at the side of the car) between 2 lines a certain distance from the centreline. So if they squeeze those lines together the teams can no longer camber the endplate.

I assume they can still achieve outwash by shaping the inside of the endplate.

On the other hand, it would make the bargeboards much more important in pushing tire wake away. Essentially meaning they're just pushing the outwash further back on the car.

Why not simply reduce the span of the front wing to the inner side of front wheel (like 80s and 90s cars) and limit the number of foil to 2 (it has been made for the rear wing so it should be possible to use the same wording for the front wing too).
Front downforce will be reduced and so automatically the loss of downforce when following a car.

wesley123 wrote: ↑

02 May 2018, 19:53

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

01 May 2018, 17:07

The endplate, as it were, is mandated as a minimum projected area (looking at the side of the car) between 2 lines a certain distance from the centreline. So if they squeeze those lines together the teams can no longer camber the endplate.

I assume they can still achieve outwash by shaping the inside of the endplate.

On the other hand, it would make the bargeboards much more important in pushing tire wake away. Essentially meaning they're just pushing the outwash further back on the car.

Using this from turbof1's article on front wings - the dark blue region is where the endplate has to be, they have a 90mm width to play with. If they max the endplate it's 200x550mm, so 110000mm^2 or 15000mm^2 more than the minimum area. If that volume is squeezed to the tip and reduced to say 25-50mm width then the outwash potential is reduced. I can't remember if the whole endplate has to be in that volume or if it's allowed to bisect the line - but you wouldn't want the endplate to be too thick. The point is that outwash endplates become less attractive with a full span wing as the wing tip circulation cancels the circulation of the wheel, so you don't need to turn the air in the same way.


The topic of bargeboards is where I get confused about the purpose of this - to me if it's about outwash then the bargeboards do more damage as they actually push all the low speed, turbulent air from the wheels outwards. I think this has all got confused by motorsport journo's - some team member has said something about reducing outwash and they've jumped the gun and claimed we're returning to 2008 wings. I imagine this front wing change is less about reducing wing tip outwash and more about simplifying the endplate to reduce the cascade effect of the weakened endplate/footplate/vane vortex system (in a wake) down the car.

Xwang wrote: ↑

02 May 2018, 21:32

Why not simply reduce the span of the front wing to the inner side of front wheel (like 80s and 90s cars) and limit the number of foil to 2 (it has been made for the rear wing so it should be possible to use the same wording for the front wing too).
Front downforce will be reduced and so automatically the loss of downforce when following a car.

This is not necessarily true - fewer elements doesn't mean less downforce. Narrower span may reduce downforce, but teams don't max the front wing now anyway - because they can't necessarily balance it at the rear.

I said less downforce due to the reduction in span to align to the inner face of front wheel so less total wing area.
I would also add to require the wing to be made of metal or other material that does not break in so many little pieces as we have seen in recent years (less SC, VSC and more action ... I do not like seeing cars circulating).