2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
vorticism
vorticism
84
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

It's a fake sort of clean though. The pre-downforce cars typify F1 to me; they'd be the cleanest you might say. The 80s and 90s continued this, producing many iconic shapes which came to define what many thought an F1 car should look like.Even with wings, they still looked clean. Enter the 2000s. By nature of technical and manufacturing prowess, increasing naturally through the engineering competition, the teams were able to produce more complex surfaces. To me they were as honest looking as the previous eras. If you look under the winglets, you see a clean coke bottle shape still remained. However for 2009 onward, it was design-by-lawyer; simplicity by decree, not by cleverness. The RB and the Toyota and the early Ferraris looked good for that era but ultimately I considered it a contrivance, like the 2017 and 2022 cars. Mandated swooshiness is kind of losing the plot.

User avatar
jjn9128
736
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Yes a lot of aerodynamic complexity was necessitated by the proximity of the front tyre to bodywork - it was part of the reason for the narrow track from 1998 to slow the cars by having them injest their own tyre wake. It's also why 2017 was so dumb moving to a 1.6m wide floor when the cars went back to 2m track. It continued to necessitate the complex front wing, brake duct/caketin, and bargeboard arrangements to stop the front tyre wakes going under the car.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

vorticism
vorticism
84
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Sun Apr 10, 2022 8:50 pm
Yes a lot of aerodynamic complexity was necessitated by the proximity of the front tyre to bodywork - it was part of the reason for the narrow track from 1998 to slow the cars by having them injest their own tyre wake. It's also why 2017 was so dumb moving to a 1.6m wide floor when the cars went back to 2m track. It continued to necessitate the complex front wing, brake duct/caketin, and bargeboard arrangements to stop the front tyre wakes going under the car.
You're saying they should have gone with a narrower or wider floor? They'd still want those elements or something equivalent in either case.

If I keep opening this matryoshka doll I find that the tires produce wakes, ergo an open wheel formula will always produce tire wakes, although the open wheel formula also decided that aerodynamics were important, except for the aerodynamics of the open wheels. One wonders how F1 would have developed if wheel covers would bave been allowed at some point after the 1950s. It's a weird schism, wanting to be an aero formula, and not an aero formula, at the same time.

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

vorticism wrote:
Sun Apr 10, 2022 9:16 pm
jjn9128 wrote:
Sun Apr 10, 2022 8:50 pm
Yes a lot of aerodynamic complexity was necessitated by the proximity of the front tyre to bodywork - it was part of the reason for the narrow track from 1998 to slow the cars by having them injest their own tyre wake. It's also why 2017 was so dumb moving to a 1.6m wide floor when the cars went back to 2m track. It continued to necessitate the complex front wing, brake duct/caketin, and bargeboard arrangements to stop the front tyre wakes going under the car.
You're saying they should have gone with a narrower or wider floor? They'd still want those elements or something equivalent in either case.

If I keep opening this matryoshka doll I find that the tires produce wakes, ergo an open wheel formula will always produce tire wakes, although the open wheel formula also decided that aerodynamics were important, except for the aerodynamics of the open wheels. One wonders how F1 would have developed if wheel covers would bave been allowed at some point after the 1950s. It's a weird schism, wanting to be an aero formula, and not an aero formula, at the same time.
2017 they (FIA) went for a wider floor, but bodywork kept as before. I’m not sure when enveloped wheels were banned, but Mercedes ran with fully enclose bodywork in the mid-fifties (occasionally). From a purity perspective I would say that the ‘cleanest’ cars were the early eighties, but that seemed to run through to the early nineties.
The more that I learn, the more I appreciate how much more there is to know….

User avatar
jjn9128
736
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

vorticism wrote:
Sun Apr 10, 2022 9:16 pm
You're saying they should have gone with a narrower or wider floor? They'd still want those elements or something equivalent in either case.
The floors/bodywork were always 1.4m wide, in 2017 they increased that by 200mm when they increased the track by 200mm. They also increased the front tyre width so it had a bigger wake too.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

User avatar
Vanja #66
648
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:38 pm
Location: BGD, SRB

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Mon Apr 11, 2022 7:11 am
The floors/bodywork were always 1.4m wide, in 2017 they increased that by 200mm when they increased the track by 200mm. They also increased the front tyre width so it had a bigger wake too.
Ah, but Ecclestone wanted faster cars and Todt wanted FIA reelection :mrgreen:
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#Aerogimli
#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

vorticism
vorticism
84
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Mon Apr 11, 2022 7:11 am
vorticism wrote:
Sun Apr 10, 2022 9:16 pm
You're saying they should have gone with a narrower or wider floor? They'd still want those elements or something equivalent in either case.
The floors/bodywork were always 1.4m wide, in 2017 they increased that by 200mm when they increased the track by 200mm. They also increased the front tyre width so it had a bigger wake too.
Gotcha, but you were saying this was related to front tire wake negatively. Was that to say, a narrower floor would have skirted in between the tire wake, or a wider floor would have negated the effect of it? Something else?

User avatar
jjn9128
736
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Wide track with narrow body the front tyre wake is less of an issue for the underbody. Certainly straight ahead and at moderate yaw angles (i.e. F1 )
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

vorticism
vorticism
84
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

CFD eyes moment: if they'd have kept the inboard side of the front wings and the Y250, they'd have fewer problems with porpoising, without disrupting their pro-following wake too much.

User avatar
jjn9128
736
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

vorticism wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 2:51 am
CFD eyes moment: if they'd have kept the inboard side of the front wings and the Y250, they'd have fewer problems with porpoising, without disrupting their pro-following wake too much.
There are 2 points of the 2022 rules 1) make cars easier to follow but also 2) make cars which follow more easily. The y250 gets weakened in a wake (Cp is pulled towards 0 from +ve and-ve sides) so makes the car worse when in a wake.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

vorticism
vorticism
84
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:49 pm
vorticism wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 2:51 am
CFD eyes moment: if they'd have kept the inboard side of the front wings and the Y250, they'd have fewer problems with porpoising, without disrupting their pro-following wake too much.
There are 2 points of the 2022 rules 1) make cars easier to follow but also 2) make cars which follow more easily. The y250 gets weakened in a wake (Cp is pulled towards 0 from +ve and-ve sides) so makes the car worse when in a wake.
So the unified raised (high center) FW deals better with wake, you think? The Y250 was a good way to have predictable flow through the region, could have been made to work well with the floor edges, maybe even the tunnel inlet.

mzso
mzso
49
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

vorticism wrote:
Sun Apr 10, 2022 9:16 pm
If I keep opening this matryoshka doll I find that the tires produce wakes, ergo an open wheel formula will always produce tire wakes, although the open wheel formula also decided that aerodynamics were important, except for the aerodynamics of the open wheels. One wonders how F1 would have developed if wheel covers would bave been allowed at some point after the 1950s. It's a weird schism, wanting to be an aero formula, and not an aero formula, at the same time.
Yeah, it's amusing how people go at each others throats at the smallest aero details, but conveniently ignore the four giant cylinders that are ridiculously being pulled around. A total cognitive dissonance.
Also, covering up the wheels would have helped more with dirty air then all of the ridiculously long list of contrivances the added to the regulation. (Well, maybe apart from the created upwash)

vorticism
vorticism
84
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 11:58 pm
vorticism wrote:
Sun Apr 10, 2022 9:16 pm
If I keep opening this matryoshka doll I find that the tires produce wakes, ergo an open wheel formula will always produce tire wakes, although the open wheel formula also decided that aerodynamics were important, except for the aerodynamics of the open wheels. One wonders how F1 would have developed if wheel covers would bave been allowed at some point after the 1950s. It's a weird schism, wanting to be an aero formula, and not an aero formula, at the same time.
Yeah, it's amusing how people go at each others throats at the smallest aero details, but conveniently ignore the four giant cylinders that are ridiculously being pulled around. A total cognitive dissonance.
Also, covering up the wheels would have helped more with dirty air then all of the ridiculously long list of contrivances the added to the regulation. (Well, maybe apart from the created upwash)
Newey gave an insight into what it might look like with the X2010 cars. A closed wheel car, that still looked like an open wheel car.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Curiously close to current Indycar!
The more that I learn, the more I appreciate how much more there is to know….

mzso
mzso
49
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

vorticism wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 1:26 am
Newey gave an insight into what it might look like with the X2010 cars. A closed wheel car, that still looked like an open wheel car.
Is this the RB X2010 retextured to many liveries?

I think the front wheels could be enhanced. :) Since the covering are not part of, or connected to the chassis, it should cover the wheels from the outer side as well similarly to the rear, and it would rotate with the wheel.