2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
User avatar
Andres125sx
164
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

Vyssion wrote: With the current setup, F1 cars following behind the cars in front struggle for aerodynamic grip due to the turbulent air which they must drive through. You sometimes see a drop in downforce by as much as 60% depending on how close you are to the car in front which is insane.
But some people think it´s not proved dirty air is the problem. Yes Bhall, I´m refering to you :twisted:


This is like someone with worn out tires on his car causing aquaplanning frequently, but instead of putting new tires he think avoiding puddles is enough to keep those tires. That is FIA with current aero rules, instead of solving the problem, they try to go around it with DRS, artificial crappy tires, etc. but the problem will continue there until they face it.

User avatar
Big Mangalhit
27
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 2:39 pm

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

There were a lot of DRS overtakes this year, but also a lot of great overtakes with battles, probably thanks to new tyre rule but still...

I think the problem is none of the previously mentioned ones. It is just human memory.
Everybody complains of everything all the time, but probably in 15 years people will be complaining of that futuristic F1 and looking with nostalgia to these days and talking of great battles we have now, forgetting all the boring parts like we do now with the older F1 days.

China this year will be mentioned a lot I think

mrluke
mrluke
33
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:31 pm

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

Andres125sx wrote:
bhall II wrote:People are gonna complain about reduced overtaking next season no matter what happens, because overtaking is currently occurring at a historically high rate...
If Vission point of view is similar to mine, he was talking about real overtakes, not that gimmick DRS overtakes wich ruined the real and exciting overtakes

FIA keep missing the point, F1 does not need faster cars, F1 need real battles.

This said, faster cars will be welcome, but if that will mean real battles will be reduced further, I´d stick with current rules
Looking at Bhall's graph above, in what era was the racing the "best" ?

User avatar
strad
117
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:57 am

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

The reason we have no exciting battles is that the cars are too similar.
The biggest single reason is equal braking.
They all run the same brakes and therefore brake in the same place, whether a Merc or a Manor.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

User avatar
Andres125sx
164
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

strad wrote:
The reason we have no exciting battles is that the cars are too similar.
The biggest single reason is equal braking.
They all run the same brakes and therefore brake in the same place, whether a Merc or a Manor.
I think DF play a role here, so I highly doubt Mercedes and Manor use same braking points

User avatar
Andres125sx
164
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

mrluke wrote:
Andres125sx wrote:
bhall II wrote:People are gonna complain about reduced overtaking next season no matter what happens, because overtaking is currently occurring at a historically high rate...
If Vission point of view is similar to mine, he was talking about real overtakes, not that gimmick DRS overtakes wich ruined the real and exciting overtakes

FIA keep missing the point, F1 does not need faster cars, F1 need real battles.

This said, faster cars will be welcome, but if that will mean real battles will be reduced further, I´d stick with current rules
Looking at Bhall's graph above, in what era was the racing the "best" ?
Looking at the graph you can´t know, the "best" racing depends on many things and overtaking is only one of those parameters, an important one, but not the only one.

For example, 2007 and 2008 were fun seasons, even when overtakes reached a historic minimum

User avatar
Andres125sx
164
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

Big Mangalhit wrote:There were a lot of DRS overtakes this year, but also a lot of great overtakes with battles, probably thanks to new tyre rule but still...
That change it all. I´ve seen several overtakes were I was thinking X driver did it great, only to realice he had a huge tire advantage, and it was very dissapointing.

That´s exactly what I´m talking about, real overtakes have almost dissapear. Now best drivers don´t play any role, overtakes are due to DRS, different tire strategy, or a much faster car, because it doesn´t matter if X driver is the best on planet earth overtaking wise if his car becomes 1-1.5 seconds slower when in dirty air.

And it will continue the same until someone at FIA realize aero must be changed to allow close racing. For some time I tought new 2017 aero rules would be a step in the correct direction, but looks like I was wrong

It would require a dramatic change in aero philosophy I guess, but I see it as a renew or die matter, or that´s what audience numbers suggest

FPV GTHO
FPV GTHO
8
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:57 am

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

I have one hope for the new regulations helping overtaking despite the increased downforce, and this is my theory.

The current rules have an overpowered front wing compared to 2008, as the rear surfaces were significantly cut with the narrower rear wing and smaller diffuser but the front stayed similar with a wider width but neutral centre. The team's can't use all the possible downforce from the front though without balancing it with the rear, so they use the front wing to send more air to the rear and increase the quality of air and thus create more rear DF. When they lose air to the front like when overtaking, they end up losing downforce on both ends of the car though.

Next year with more surfaces on the rear, the front wing won't need as much development to feed air to the rear surfaces, and for some teams they may find themselves front limited on DF and unable to dedicate development time there anyway. They would theoretically then lose less DF to the rear when the FW starts losing downforce.

Im not sure though whether the balance change of only losing front downforce would actually be better than keeping the balance but losing DF across the car

zac510
zac510
22
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:58 am

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

In my experience of F1, the biggest issue in the first year after we have major regulation changes is not the actual regulation, but the chance of a couple of big teams making a fundamental mistake in their design, not realising for 4-5 races and then giving up on the season, leaving one or two teams to run away with it; see 1998, 2009, 2014.

The worst part of this scenario is that it makes it very hard to discern whether the rules are better or worse. We risk making knee-jerk changes to the rules to compensate for some teams' poor design job.

bhall II
bhall II
473
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

Andres125sx wrote:But some people think it´s not proved dirty air is the problem. Yes Bhall, I´m refering to you :twisted:


This is like someone with worn out tires on his car causing aquaplanning frequently, but instead of putting new tires he think avoiding puddles is enough to keep those tires. That is FIA with current aero rules, instead of solving the problem, they try to go around it with DRS, artificial crappy tires, etc. but the problem will continue there until they face it.
That's because no one has put forth a compelling case that shows how wake turbulence is more than just an incidental hindrance to overtaking. Even Pat Symonds freely admits that no one has a clear understanding of the dynamics of overtaking.

Since the only surefire way to address such a problem would be to stop aerodynamic development entirely, thus fundamentally altering the DNA of the sport, I think we need a whole lot more than just circumstantial confirmations supported by anecdotal evidence.

Given larger tires, the end of "designed to degrade" compounds, wider track-widths, and F1's usual limousine-like wheelbases, next season will feature mechanical grip for days - likely the most stable chassis in racing history - and overtaking will fall dramatically because of it, and it will occur despite aerodynamic packages that will be a hair's breadth away from the full-on venturi tunnel concept most everyone seems to think is the silver bullet. The perception of the drop will be magnified by the historically high rate of overtaking this year, and people will bitch and bitch and bitch and...

But, the cars will also be unbelievably quick, and I can't wait! :lol:

michl420
michl420
13
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 4:08 pm
Location: Austria

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

henry wrote:Someone, I think it was turbof1, asked if beam wings are excluded in 2017.
...
However in 2017 the geometry is more complex. The top end plates at either side of the wing stop at 450 mm above the reference plane and a lower end plate is defined from the top of the diffuser to 450mm. I think this is done to allow space for the "brake duct" since the wing end plate is only 60-75 mm from the tyre and the brake ducts are 120mm wide.

This offset means that the simple box used before does not suffice. So they have defined the inner and outer face of the lower end plate, and a box to put the wing in but from 450 above the reference plane to the underside of the wing at 600 mm I can find no wording to restrict having geometry. There is a restriction in the centre area associated with the centre wing support and that might make supporting the inside of a beam wing tricky.

So I think there is scope for beam wing functionality. At the very least there is a 50mm wide section at each side where the lower endplate has to connect to the upper.
...
Good analyse, but i think there is a paragraph wich one restricted this area.

3.9.7 Any bodywork behind the rear wheel centre line, more than 100mm from the car centre line, and between 200mm and 600mm above the reference plane must lie in an area more than 400mm from the car centre line. On any horizontal section through the bodywork in this area, at any given longitudinal position along this section, the distance between the inner and outer surfaces must not exceed 20mm measured perpendicular to the car centreline.

User avatar
henry
320
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

michl420 wrote:
henry wrote:Someone, I think it was turbof1, asked if beam wings are excluded in 2017.
...
However in 2017 the geometry is more complex. The top end plates at either side of the wing stop at 450 mm above the reference plane and a lower end plate is defined from the top of the diffuser to 450mm. I think this is done to allow space for the "brake duct" since the wing end plate is only 60-75 mm from the tyre and the brake ducts are 120mm wide.

This offset means that the simple box used before does not suffice. So they have defined the inner and outer face of the lower end plate, and a box to put the wing in but from 450 above the reference plane to the underside of the wing at 600 mm I can find no wording to restrict having geometry. There is a restriction in the centre area associated with the centre wing support and that might make supporting the inside of a beam wing tricky.

So I think there is scope for beam wing functionality. At the very least there is a 50mm wide section at each side where the lower endplate has to connect to the upper.
...
Good analyse, but i think there is a paragraph wich one restricted this area.

3.9.7 Any bodywork behind the rear wheel centre line, more than 100mm from the car centre line, and between 200mm and 600mm above the reference plane must lie in an area more than 400mm from the car centre line. On any horizontal section through the bodywork in this area, at any given longitudinal position along this section, the distance between the inner and outer surfaces must not exceed 20mm measured perpendicular to the car centreline.
Thanks. I worked from:

3.5.3 The width of bodywork behind the rear wheel centre line and between 200mm and 450mm
above the reference plane must not exceed 840mm.

And didn't spot that the restriction on thickness, 20mm, and void, goes up to 600 mm, which is the underside of the wing box.

So no beam wing, and an interesting transition from the wing endplate to the floor-wing connector plate, which overlaps with the brake duct area in plan view.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

User avatar
Andres125sx
164
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

bhall II wrote:
Andres125sx wrote:But some people think it´s not proved dirty air is the problem. Yes Bhall, I´m refering to you :twisted:


This is like someone with worn out tires on his car causing aquaplanning frequently, but instead of putting new tires he think avoiding puddles is enough to keep those tires. That is FIA with current aero rules, instead of solving the problem, they try to go around it with DRS, artificial crappy tires, etc. but the problem will continue there until they face it.
That's because no one has put forth a compelling case that shows how wake turbulence is more than just an incidental hindrance to overtaking.
Well, when cars grip is mainly dependant on aero I wouldn´t say wake turbulence reducing that grip is incidental. It´s the main problem in my eyes
bhall II wrote: Even Pat Symonds freely admits that no one has a clear understanding of the dynamics of overtaking.
Wich is completely different to your assertion. There´s no need to fully understand the dynamics of overtaking to know something is being harmful.

You don´t need to fully understand how the brain works to know drugs are harful for it
bhall II wrote:Since the only surefire way to address such a problem would be to stop aerodynamic development entirely, thus fundamentally altering the DNA of the sport
No, they (FIA) could hire some aerodynamicist to work on that while F1 continue his path. Not an instant solution, but at least it would put some hope to see it solved in some time, contrary to current situation where they continue groping in the dark

James Allison could be the solution, but that would need someone at FIA thinking with the brain, wich is quite unlikely
bhall II wrote:I think we need a whole lot more than just circumstantial confirmations supported by anecdotal evidence.
Drivers complaining about his car becoming drastically slower/unbalanced when in dirty air is not circumstantial or anecdotal, it is first hand experience. If we don´t fully understand the dynamics of overtaking (theory), we should at least pay some attention to real world experiece, shouldn´t we?
bhall II wrote:Given larger tires, the end of "designed to degrade" compounds, wider track-widths, and F1's usual limousine-like wheelbases, next season will feature mechanical grip for days - likely the most stable chassis in racing history - and overtaking will fall dramatically because of it, and it will occur despite aerodynamic packages that will be a hair's breadth away from the full-on venturi tunnel concept most everyone seems to think is the silver bullet. The perception of the drop will be magnified by the historically high rate of overtaking this year, and people will bitch and bitch and bitch and...
Personally I´m not impressed at all with current overtaking numbers. Actually DRS overtakes are not real overtakes to me. Well, they are of course, but overtakes must not exist only to allow cars passing each other, they must exist also to provide some excitement in the race, some battles, and DRS overtakes provide zero excitement, nill, nada, rien, null
bhall II wrote:But, the cars will also be unbelievably quick, and I can't wait! :lol:
Agree with this, I´m curious about how much FIA will miss the target, as I´m sure cars will be much faster than those few seconds improvement they were aiming :mrgreen:

bhall II
bhall II
473
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

I'm not getting into this with you for the billionth time, man.

Someone will have invented an entirely new form of downforce before we ever agree on this one. :lol:

zac510
zac510
22
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:58 am

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

The problem is air of course, it's far too dense. We should run the race in an enormous vacuum dome, then we won't have any problems with that pesky air causing drag.