F1technical.net

Zynerji wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2021, 17:32

cooken wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2021, 16:07

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.

I believe the return of the beam-wing has far more interaction with the diffusor than the rear wing. Although, the rear wing will help with the total upwash/extraction from the diffusor.

It's going to be interesting to see how well they can follow each other.

Well. The diffuser itself is gone. I think you mean the outlet of the venturi tunnels that goes all the way from the inlet. OK enough with that. I think yes.

toraabe wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2021, 11:01

Zynerji wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2021, 17:32

cooken wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2021, 16:07

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.

I believe the return of the beam-wing has far more interaction with the diffusor than the rear wing. Although, the rear wing will help with the total upwash/extraction from the diffusor.

It's going to be interesting to see how well they can follow each other.

Well. The diffuser itself is gone. I think you mean the outlet of the venturi tunnels that goes all the way from the inlet. OK enough with that. I think yes.

Wouldn't the outlet still be called a diffusor? I mean, the outlets job is still to bring the tunnel air back to ambient pressure. So it still diffuses in 2021...

Correct.
What we will have next year could/should be thought of as a much bigger version of what we have had recently than the 80’s Venturi tunnels.

Notice the inlets converge to a critical point, then diverge. If you cram air into a progressively smaller volume, the pressure increases. Just like the compressor stages in an axial turbine. In order to get low pressure somewhere, you must first increase the pressure somewhere else, then have a way to delay air from filling the void. By increasing the pressure above static you introduce compressibility effects to the air. This isn't hard to visualize, by raising the pressure above static at the inlet, you are choking the mass flow upstream, this creates a void downstream(low pressure below static). By having above ambient at the inlet the flow is choked. In order to restore equilibrium air will force its way into the void by any means necessary. The diffuser provides a nice supply of static pressure air, it cannot come from the inlet because that flow is choked(until of course there is a reduction in mass flow). The closest air that can fill the void is the air passing over and next to the car. Because a lot of this air comes from the tires it is rather turbulent and efficiently mixes and raises the pressure of the void.

It's great that G.E. and Honda collaborated on the design of the Honda Jet engine. This is going to come in handy with the new regulations.

It's great that G.E. and Honda collaborated on the design of the Honda Jet engine. This is going to come in handy with the new regulations

You might be over estimating the ability of Honda F1 related staff to talk to that part of Honda and have access to their people.

Hoffman900 wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2021, 17:17

It's great that G.E. and Honda collaborated on the design of the Honda Jet engine. This is going to come in handy with the new regulations

You might be over estimating the ability of Honda F1 related staff to talk to that part of Honda and have access to their people.

Huh is really that bad. I remember Wazzari talks about similar things. But surely eyes should become much open now. IDK still doesn't mean post above have its ground to be helpful at all. Personally i think that any Honda sector sector cannot really made any real contribution in F1 cars floors. F1 is too much esoteric and very rigid - limited via ruleset.

aleks_ader wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2021, 18:25

Hoffman900 wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2021, 17:17

It's great that G.E. and Honda collaborated on the design of the Honda Jet engine. This is going to come in handy with the new regulations

You might be over estimating the ability of Honda F1 related staff to talk to that part of Honda and have access to their people.

Huh is really that bad. I remember Wazzari talks about similar things. But surely eyes should become much open now. IDK still doesn't mean post above have its ground to be helpful at all. Personally i think that any Honda sector sector cannot really made any real contribution in F1 cars floors. F1 is too much esoteric and very rigid - limited via ruleset.

And to quote a PhD Boeing aerodynamicist I know, F1 cars at even at their fastest are barely at aircraft approach speeds.

The objective is totally different between the two. He says F1 is really about “exploding the air” to manage the open wheels, airliners and fighter jets are a totally different design mission.

Most OEM racing programs involve way less people than I think people give credit for, and they certainly don’t have full discretion to raid the company (and Honda Aircraft Company being totally separate business anyway) for resources.

Hoffman900 wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2021, 18:39

aleks_ader wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2021, 18:25

Hoffman900 wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2021, 17:17

You might be over estimating the ability of Honda F1 related staff to talk to that part of Honda and have access to their people.

Huh is really that bad. I remember Wazzari talks about similar things. But surely eyes should become much open now. IDK still doesn't mean post above have its ground to be helpful at all. Personally i think that any Honda sector sector cannot really made any real contribution in F1 cars floors. F1 is too much esoteric and very rigid - limited via ruleset.

And to quote a PhD Boeing aerodynamicist I know, F1 cars at even at their fastest are barely at aircraft approach speeds.

The objective is totally different between the two. He says F1 is really about “exploding the air” to manage the open wheels, airliners and fighter jets are a totally different design mission.

Most OEM racing programs involve way less people than I think people give credit for, and they certainly don’t have full discretion to raid the company (and Honda Aircraft Company being totally separate business anyway) for resources.

Aircraft are allowed to do things the most efficient way, while so much of F1 is doe in a way to circumvent the rule that says they can not take the easy road.

Big Tea wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2021, 21:39

Hoffman900 wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2021, 18:39

aleks_ader wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2021, 18:25

Huh is really that bad. I remember Wazzari talks about similar things. But surely eyes should become much open now. IDK still doesn't mean post above have its ground to be helpful at all. Personally i think that any Honda sector sector cannot really made any real contribution in F1 cars floors. F1 is too much esoteric and very rigid - limited via ruleset.

And to quote a PhD Boeing aerodynamicist I know, F1 cars at even at their fastest are barely at aircraft approach speeds.

The objective is totally different between the two. He says F1 is really about “exploding the air” to manage the open wheels, airliners and fighter jets are a totally different design mission.

Most OEM racing programs involve way less people than I think people give credit for, and they certainly don’t have full discretion to raid the company (and Honda Aircraft Company being totally separate business anyway) for resources.

Aircraft are allowed to do things the most efficient way, while so much of F1 is doe in a way to circumvent the rule that says they can not take the easy road.

To a point, but yes.

My point being RedBull is VERY unlikely to have access to that part of Honda, and if they did, they would have a steep learning curve as well.

Same PhD friend likes going to vintage races and pointing at 1970s and 1980s prototypes and Formula cars and say "air doesn't do that". There was a lot of guess work in those days...

Blackout wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2021, 14:44

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.

So, how much rear-wing do the regulations mandate? What's the minimum size? Is there any?

If I could produce lots of downforce with the body I would naturally try to minimize or even remove wings, if it were possible.

mzso wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2021, 12:34

Blackout wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2021, 14:44

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.

So, how much rear-wing do the regulations mandate? What's the minimum size? Is there any?

If I could produce lots of downforce with the body I would naturally try to minimize or even remove wings, if it were possible.

Well yes and no. If the rules defined a limit on downforce or drag, but more downforce equals better laptimes at most tracks in spite of the drag.

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2021, 15:11

mzso wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2021, 12:34

Blackout wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2021, 14:44

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.

So, how much rear-wing do the regulations mandate? What's the minimum size? Is there any?

If I could produce lots of downforce with the body I would naturally try to minimize or even remove wings, if it were possible.

Well yes and no. If the rules defined a limit on downforce or drag, but more downforce equals better laptimes at most tracks in spite of the drag.

Well, why didn't they use huge monster wings up until now then? It seems to me that wing drag is a more significant factor than what you imply. And next year when much of the downforce will come from the less draggy underside, it's significance can only increase. (By how much is anyone's guess.)

mzso wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2021, 15:42

Well, why didn't they use huge monster wings up until now then? It seems to me that wing drag is a more significant factor than what you imply. And next year when much of the downforce will come from the less draggy underside, it's significance can only increase. (By how much is anyone's guess.)

Well that's the problem with how F1 rules are written, the ideal would be to migrate downforce to the floor, but the rules specify boxes and have rules designed to limit how much downforce is possible from each box. I think the rules force the spoon shaped wing because the "rear wing endplate reference surface" which has to be hidden in side-view comes quite high.

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2021, 15:47

mzso wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2021, 15:42

Well, why didn't they use huge monster wings up until now then? It seems to me that wing drag is a more significant factor than what you imply. And next year when much of the downforce will come from the less draggy underside, it's significance can only increase. (By how much is anyone's guess.)

Well that's the problem with how F1 rules are written, the ideal would be to migrate downforce to the floor, but the rules specify boxes and have rules designed to limit how much downforce is possible from each box. I think the rules force the spoon shaped wing because the "rear wing endplate reference surface" which has to be hidden in side-view comes quite high.

Do the boxes create discontinuities that are hard to flush out?

Meaning, moving front to back, each new box has to rely on what is capable in the boxes preceding it, are there going to be wonky transitions?

Hoffman900 wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2021, 16:02

Do the boxes create discontinuities that are hard to flush out?

Meaning, moving front to back, each new box has to rely on what is capable in the boxes preceding it, are there going to be wonky transitions?

I don't believe so. These cars will be relatively "swoopy" compared to current gen.