F1technical.net

When Porsche do come back will they use the Pink Pig livery????

wesley123 wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021, 01:09

Didn't there exist some loophole workgroup involving the teams that should clear out any loopholes?

Not sure, but they could only clear out the ones they found.

mzso wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021, 23:38

wesley123 wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2021, 01:09

Didn't there exist some loophole workgroup involving the teams that should clear out any loopholes?

Not sure, but they could only clear out the ones they found.

Who says it's loopholes, IMO a loophole is something thats clearly against the intentions of the regulations, but not technically illegal. Maybe they have just found an efficient way of using the regulations, kinda like the Mercedes cape, I wouldnt call that a loophole, but just a good idea. DAS, F-ducts, doubble diffusers were loopholes.

Aero development for the '22 car was not allowed in 2020 ( wind tunnel and CFD AFAIK). AT is using RBR's wind tunnel since the beginning of 2021, and AT had more WT-time. Maybe RB got a clue what works well and what not and, because both teams are in the same facility?
This could also be the case with Merc and AM, because AM is using Merc's wind tunnel.
Do you think these teams know "by accident" what the other one is doing in the wind tunnel?

And Binotto obviously said in an interview that Ferrari tried hundreds of solutions in the wind tunnel. Is this possible with limited WT-time?

lio007 wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2021, 19:32

And Binotto obviously said in an interview that Ferrari tried hundreds of solutions in the wind tunnel. Is this possible with limited WT-time?

It depends on how you define an iteration. I know of a semi-famous engine performance author who claimed to have tested "8000 camshaft combinations" in a relatively short span. He sold is as camshaft changes, but most of it was lash-loops, which are changes, but they're kind of not.

Really these rule sets are going to reward teams that 1) are very efficient with their CFD and wind tunnel time 2) struggle the least with correlation.

The infrastructure Mercedes and RedBull have develop will put them ahead, imo. You can't unlearn efficiency in design and correlation problem solving, and those two are likely better at it than any other team.

I also see it analogous to American sports and the draft system. The worst the team does, the higher their draft pick. Regardless, those teams are still bad year in year out, despite it.

Hoffman900 wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2021, 20:34

lio007 wrote: ↑

23 Dec 2021, 19:32

And Binotto obviously said in an interview that Ferrari tried hundreds of solutions in the wind tunnel. Is this possible with limited WT-time?

It depends on how you define an iteration. I know of a semi-famous engine performance author who claimed to have tested "8000 camshaft combinations" in a relatively short span. He sold is as camshaft changes, but most of it was lash-loops, which are changes, but they're kind of not.

Really these rule sets are going to reward teams that 1) are very efficient with their CFD and wind tunnel time 2) struggle the least with correlation.

The infrastructure Mercedes and RedBull have develop will put them ahead, imo. You can't unlearn efficiency in design and correlation problem solving, and those two are likely better at it than any other team.

This is true, but as James Allison said earlier this year, given how defined the regulations are you have to be very selective about how you filter what to test (as the obvious way is to ‘iterate the crap out of it’ - which is not possible with the aero-testing cap) the team that model most effectively using ‘hand-calcs’ and other modelling methods will have the most effective filter and, therefore, the most effective aero-testing program.
It will be interesting to see the performance gaps next year and how the testing budget is ‘spent’ in 2022; anyone that is miles off would probably be best to go 90-10% for 2023, whereas if you are at the sharp end the temptation would be to go 50-50% or maybe 40-60%. The reset mid-year also makes this an enticing prospect.

This is true, but as James Allison said earlier this year, given how defined the regulations are you have to be very selective about how you filter what to test (as the obvious way is to ‘iterate the crap out of it’ - which is not possible with the aero-testing cap) the team that model most effectively using ‘hand-calcs’ and other modelling methods will have the most effective filter and, therefore, the most effective aero-testing program.

Correct, so Binotto could be either trying to catch teams off guard by suggesting they are having issues or he is trying to pass issues off as a positive to an unquestioning media. It also could be a positive thing. Who knows at this point.

There are genuinely 1000s of configurations tested across wind tunnel and CFD, so 100s' sounds like the budget cap and resource restrictions working

Scrabs drawings

bauc wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2021, 11:38

Scrabs drawings

https://mobile.twitter.com/ScarbsTech/s ... 67/photo/1

"Rake is likely to disappear as the cars will run low and flat." - Hm. This is quite the opposite to the opinions I saw on this forum.

He also says "most downforce created from underfloor". Which makes me wonder, can't that result in the overhangs and wings and such length decreasing?
If they can make most of the downforce they want with the underbody, why make huge drag-generator wings?
And if you don't need much wings, why make long noses?

mzso wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2021, 12:31

bauc wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2021, 11:38

Scrabs drawings

https://mobile.twitter.com/ScarbsTech/s ... 67/photo/1

"Rake is likely to disappear as the cars will run low and flat." - Hm. This is quite the opposite to the opinions I saw on this forum.

He also says "most downforce created from underfloor". Which makes me wonder, can't that result in the overhangs and wings and such length decreasing?
If they can make most of the downforce they want with the underbody, why make huge drag-generator wings?
And if you don't need much wings, why make long noses?

They claim "safety"...

mzso wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2021, 12:31

bauc wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2021, 11:38

Scrabs drawings

https://mobile.twitter.com/ScarbsTech/s ... 67/photo/1

"Rake is likely to disappear as the cars will run low and flat." - Hm. This is quite the opposite to the opinions I saw on this forum.

He also says "most downforce created from underfloor". Which makes me wonder, can't that result in the overhangs and wings and such length decreasing?
If they can make most of the downforce they want with the underbody, why make huge drag-generator wings?
And if you don't need much wings, why make long noses?

Newey has claimed the high rake philosophy is dead for 2022

mzso wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2021, 12:31

bauc wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2021, 11:38

Scrabs drawings

https://mobile.twitter.com/ScarbsTech/s ... 67/photo/1

"Rake is likely to disappear as the cars will run low and flat." - Hm. This is quite the opposite to the opinions I saw on this forum.

He also says "most downforce created from underfloor". Which makes me wonder, can't that result in the overhangs and wings and such length decreasing?
If they can make most of the downforce they want with the underbody, why make huge drag-generator wings?
And if you don't need much wings, why make long noses?

Again, the rear wing is essenstial to reshape and lift and move away the dirty air of the car. And it needs to be reasonably powerful to do so.
Without rear wing, the dirty air would remain low, near the track, and disturb the following car.
And to counterbalance the rear wing that sits on the rear end of the car, a front wing is needed.

Blackout wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2021, 14:44

mzso wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2021, 12:31

bauc wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2021, 11:38

Scrabs drawings

https://mobile.twitter.com/ScarbsTech/s ... 67/photo/1

"Rake is likely to disappear as the cars will run low and flat." - Hm. This is quite the opposite to the opinions I saw on this forum.

He also says "most downforce created from underfloor". Which makes me wonder, can't that result in the overhangs and wings and such length decreasing?
If they can make most of the downforce they want with the underbody, why make huge drag-generator wings?
And if you don't need much wings, why make long noses?

Again, the rear wing is essenstial to reshape and lift and move away the dirty air of the car. And it needs to be reasonably powerful to do so.
Without rear wing, the dirty air would remain low, near the track, and disturb the following car.
And to counterbalance the rear wing that sits on the rear end of the car, a front wing is needed.

I’m fairly sure that they could accomplish all of this with a smaller rear wing (in fact, any team that really maximises what is achievable with the floor will be able to trim the rear wing - and also the front wing - accordingly), do the rules stipulate a minimum size for plan area and elements for the front wing??

If I'm not mistaken the rear wing interacts with the diffuser and enhances its performance.

The nose length is proportional to the amount of energy it can absorb in a front impact, so it's purpose for safety is quite important I'd say. Unfortunate because the shorter cars were fun to watch, but it's one of the more reasonable sacrifices.