2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Just_a_fan]

A nice render seen on f1 reddit

https://scontent-mxp1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=58E4D3F2

Nice image, just a shame he's slammed it rather than given representative ride height.

[Pierce89]

The nose is virtually identical to the Sean Bull designs. Is that what we're all expecting?

[wuzak]

would be funny if someone came with 1400mm side pods (but maybe some secret (to me ) paragraph is prohibiting this?)

I hope they all come with 1400mm wide bodies (exc. floor), as they will look very fat if they have 1600mm.

And, considering the cooling requirements have been met with 1400mm side pods, they don't really need the extra.

[f1316]

Interesting development in terms of suspension systems for next year:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... ension-row

[bhall II]

I hope they all come with 1400mm wide bodies (exc. floor), as they will look very fat if they have 1600mm.

And, considering the cooling requirements have been met with 1400mm side pods, they don't really need the extra.

Proportionally, I think sidepod widths are unlikely to change. The current layout creates downforce locally - picture a "wing" with the tea tray as its leading edge and the sidepod turning vanes as "end plates," which combine to allow areas of high pressure to form underneath the cooling inlets. Also, the low-pressure wake behind the sidepods' widest points accelerate air flow around the Coke bottle area and prevent air flow along the flanks of the floor from being sucked under the floor. It's why so-called "double floor" designs aren't ubiquitous.

[Sevach]

It will be interesting (to me at least) to see if they use the extra real estate to package the pods in a different way.

Kepping it to 1400 would be kinda boring(some publications insist that the Sidepods must be 1400 others don't).

[Just_a_fan]

I wonder if we might see a return to the sidepod design of the RB7. With more floor outboard of the wide part stopping flow under the floor, perhaps the more open rear end would make the new bigger diffuser more efficient.


I know the RB7 was designed this way to allow for the blown outer diffuser, but I wonder if longer wheelbase and more width might allow for a similarly "clean" flow around the sidepods.

[roon]

I wonder if we might see a return to the sidepod design of the RB7. With more floor outboard of the wide part stopping flow under the floor, perhaps the more open rear end would make the new bigger diffuser more efficient.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/u ... 7_2011.jpg

I know the RB7 was designed this way to allow for the blown outer diffuser, but I wonder if longer wheelbase and more width might allow for a similarly "clean" flow around the sidepods.

It was the premiere EBD car, but I think the design had more to do with optimizing the beam wing. The high-central radiator exit allowed less obstructed flow to the beam wing, with perhaps some compromise to flow under the main rear wing. When the beam wing was eliminated there was a return to two lower, symmetrical radiator exits. Likely done to optimize the rear wing and reduce the drag of the rear suspension arms by sharing the same space with them. The overall compactness has yet to be replicated with the V6s, as that was a benefit of the V8s' fewer & smaller heat exchangers.

[bhall II]

It's my impression that the ideal layout will, as much as practicable, minimize the distance between the edge of the sidepod at its widest point and the edge of the floor, in part to maximize the area of high pressure that forms in front of the sidepods. That's effectively downforce...



To move air flow around the sidepod, you use a flip-up (or two) on the "horn"...



...to create a vortex that will (hopefully) elevate air flow that's not been directed under the floor. From there, the low-pressure wake created by the angled, lower section of the turning vane will pull the elevated air flow inward, toward the car, positioning it to be accelerated around the Coke bottle area by the low-pressure wake left by the sidepod...



Though it may seem counterintuitive, that means maximizing the area of low pressure behind the sidepods, i.e. making the sidepods wider at the shoulder, increases the amount of air flow that passes over the floor, where it can feed the high-pressure component to the diffuser's edge vortices (good), and reduces the amount of air flow that gets pulled under the floor, where it would reduce dynamic pressure, thus increasing static pressure (bad).



...or so the Germans would have us believe.

[mclaren111]

Mario Keszeli:
2017 versus 2016

I don't like the high "fin" above the Airbox

[BanMeToo]

I still wish they weren't doing the swept-back rear wing. I cannot imagine that looking good on any car.

[roon]

Mario Keszeli:
2017 versus 2016

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1UpwKcWgAAn1tq.jpg:large

Nice image. I wonder if we'll see total 'inwash' front wings in '17. Given that the space between the front wheels is wider. Looking at this image, it looks like the white-coloured area of the front wing on the '16 car could fit totally inboard of the 2017 car's front wheels.

[godlameroso]

It's the inner section of the wing , near the neutral section that generates the lift, that means the wing main planes will be ~60mm wider on each side. They'll need either a more powerful outwash tunnel, or move to an inwash tunnel, and just live with the front tire drag, or try to recreate this year's outwash effect. Either way you deal with more drag from the wider tires, and larger surface area.

The drag you do induce with an inwash design can be mitigated by the increased downforce the new barge boards and improved floor can offer. Where most cars would hit 320kph with DRS closed they'll maybe hit 310 even with enhanced power units.

[roon]

Right. The way I'm reading the regs, the space between the chassis & the inside of the front wheel will be anywhere from 20mm - 85mm larger than in 2016. Depending on final assembled wheel sizes. Given the rumors around RB's suspension arms & bulkhead in that area perhaps something interesting is going on. Suspension arms can be angled 10* now instead of 5*. The area between & around the chassis & bargeboard is a relatively free zone housing the guide vanes, batwings, and the bargeboards.

[bhall II]

I think it's unlikely we'll see a reversion to inwash designs. (Given my tendency to reject "official" explanations, it should perhaps come as no surprise that I put very little stock in the idea that front wing endplates are designed chiefly to manage wheel wake.)

In my view, teams take advantage of spanwise flow characteristics - seen below as streaklines that lead to the endplate's trailing edge - in order to strengthen the wing's edge vortex, because the resultant upwash keeps air flow attached to the suction surface of the wing at higher angles of attack than would otherwise be possible. An inwash layout would pretty much negate the concept, since it would essentially require reversing such air flow.