2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[GM7]

Hello everyone,
I would like to know your opinion about all the changements that i would like to see in the 2017 season. I based my proposition on the regulation adopted Tuesday, February the 23th.

Top view :



Back view :



Side view :



Front view :



Show and performances :
As you can see the tyres and the car are larger to improve the mecanical grip. To improve the overtakes and the look of the cars, the rear wing is more larger but much thiner. To improve the downforce but do not interfere with other cars, the diffusor is much larger and highter.

Safety :
To improve safety without using the "Halo", I found an alternative solution. The concept is simple, the side protection of the cockpit are elevated to the top of the driver's helmet, the driver's visor is consolidated and two vertical poles (250-300 mm) are disguised as mirrors. The cables holding the wheels are also strengthened.

Total weight estimation : 720-730 Kg

Thanks for your opinion and sorry for my poor english.

[wesley123]

They should just drop the step in the floor and go back to flat bottoms. Combined with a wider rear wing (but not deeper, to fill in the space between the wheels) and larger diffuser and similar or narrower front wing they will throw the aerodynamic balance further rearwards. This would then suit the wider rear tyres but not wider front tyres, at least not as wide as proposed.

Dropping the step would be the worst thing they can do. This step exists to prevent the floor from choking, the floor is especially sensitive as it is so close to the ground, which is where the step comes in handy as the floor will always keep at least a 50mm ground clearance.

If you lose the underbody downforce you'll lose a significant amount of downforce and will guarantee a pretty big crash(which would look pretty cool and exciting).

I'm all for more freedom for the underbody, but the step should stay.

[wuzak]

They should just drop the step in the floor and go back to flat bottoms. Combined with a wider rear wing (but not deeper, to fill in the space between the wheels) and larger diffuser and similar or narrower front wing they will throw the aerodynamic balance further rearwards. This would then suit the wider rear tyres but not wider front tyres, at least not as wide as proposed.

Dropping the step would be the worst thing they can do. This step exists to prevent the floor from choking, the floor is especially sensitive as it is so close to the ground, which is where the step comes in handy as the floor will always keep at least a 50mm ground clearance.

If you lose the underbody downforce you'll lose a significant amount of downforce and will guarantee a pretty big crash(which would look pretty cool and exciting).

I'm all for more freedom for the underbody, but the step should stay.

The step exists because Mosley brought it in to slow the cars down by reducing downforce.

[f1316]

Reading these in more detail, I actually don't think these changes are bad.

Visually, a lower, wider rear wing is more symmetrical with the front, and symmetry tends to add to aesthetics.

Moreover, the single biggest improvement for overtaking will be, imho, increased mechanical grip from tyres. They should have gone further with this but it may be sensible to increase incrementally.

Also, completely undoing the work of the overtaking working group is a good idea - nothing they did worked.

so cars should look more within 2005-2007 rules?

I don't really understand the timeframe 2005-2007 - why not 2008? And 2005 was quite different because of the tyre regs.

Nevertheless, with the benefit of hindsight, a reasonably wide DRS (with reasonably long DRS zones) on a 2008 car would have been enough to have made overtaking possible without being too easy. We could have kept the cool, state of the art, cars; we could have kept refuelling for the added strategic interest which, in turn, would have meant no need for high degrading tyres, and the gaps between leading cars would have remained much smaller.

But there you are. I still don't think these regs are too bad though; some of it - like the front wing - seems pointless, but bigger tyres with a lower/wider rear wing are good things imo. They just needed to think bigger in terms of tyre size.

[wesley123]

The step exists because Mosley brought it in to slow the cars down by reducing downforce.

As well as to reduce the sensitivity of the floor

[superdowg316]

I'm a bit sceptical on the halo at the moment. Yes, it's great that we're finally getting head protection, but the whole point was protecting the top of the head from being hit and at a certain angle a tire can still hit the top of the driver's head in an accident. Also there's the problem of some teams finding aerodynamic advantages from it, visibility concerns and trying to get out of the cockpit if the driver is upside down/in a fire. I guess we'll know come 2017.

[f1316]

Maybe this is a completely mental thought, but would it be possible to think of a complete canopy as just a much bigger, stronger helmet?

So, rather than having another layer or canopy attached to the car, what is attached to the head is just increased in strength (and most likely size and weight). Probably not possible to make this work - certainly for a Bianchi type incident (and the halo wouldn't work for that either) - and maybe not for a tyre either; but what about Massa's incident? Surely we can reinforce the helmet enough to withstand this?

Another thought: what if the tub allowed space for the driver to kind of slide down inside it? I.e. You are able to essentially duck.

Crazy thoughts probably but just saying stuff that seemed interesting to my mind.

[CAEdevice]

Why is the rear wing endplate sloping?

[Tim.Wright]

Why is the rear wing endplate sloping?

Same reason the the front wing is swept back and that the wheels are left uncovered:

Aesthetics...

[CAEdevice]

Why is the rear wing endplate sloping?

Same reason the the front wing is swept back and that the wheels are left uncovered:

Aesthetics...

So sad and even stupid if we consider that aesthetics are only opinions.

Anyway: is there Giugiaro or Stephenson or De Silva among the members of the future rules commission?

[Tim.Wright]

Yea but when you consider that the open wheel open cockpit formula has been kept for no reason other than tradition, despite massive technical advantages in ditching them, these latest changes are pretty inconsequential in comparison.

[F1NAC]

https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status ... 4528467970 https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status ... 8726083584

[henry]

Looking at the car comparison thread I see that the cars are neatly clustered around 3500 mm wheelbase. Does it seem likely that this will change with the proposed aero changes? Will the bigger diffuser encourage more or less rake which might in turn lead to longer or shorter wheelbase to keep the relationship between splitter, front wing and the ground similar to today?

[matt21]

I would love to see distinct track-specific aero kits again:

Monza:


Monaco:

[Gerhardsa]

Why is the rear wing endplate sloping?

Same reason the the front wing is swept back and that the wheels are left uncovered:

Aesthetics...

I really don't think the swept back rear wing looks aesthetically pleasing. The shallow and wide rear wing already takes care of that for me. No need to "tilt" it backwards

Or if you will

And the high mirrors? I really don't get the point putting them on the car at all now. With the lower rear wing and higher mirrors, all you are going to see is your own rear wing. (if you take it a face value from the pictures above)