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.
User avatar
Zynerji
110
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

trinidefender wrote:
Fri Jun 10, 2022 10:57 pm
If porpoising is the entire reason why you consider it a failure then this entire problem can be solved by allowing one single make spec interter on the cars with adjustability for the porpoising frequency. The frequency that it is set to dampen can be open source for all teams if they choose to run it. It will have a performance benefit for sure but it will get around the issue of costs and developing it to have effects other than the purely proposing phenomenon.

There. Problem solved fairly easily.
Why punish those teams that figured it out?

The rules are the same for everyone, and we needed fresh teams to steal a march.

This is the shakeup it was meant to be.

User avatar
djos
99
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 5:09 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Sat Jun 11, 2022 2:44 am
trinidefender wrote:
Fri Jun 10, 2022 10:57 pm
If porpoising is the entire reason why you consider it a failure then this entire problem can be solved by allowing one single make spec interter on the cars with adjustability for the porpoising frequency. The frequency that it is set to dampen can be open source for all teams if they choose to run it. It will have a performance benefit for sure but it will get around the issue of costs and developing it to have effects other than the purely proposing phenomenon.

There. Problem solved fairly easily.
Why punish those teams that figured it out?

The rules are the same for everyone, and we needed fresh teams to steal a march.

This is the shakeup it was meant to be.
Exactly, this is F1 not a “spec“ series, it’s the teams job to engineer their cars to make them better.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

trinidefender
trinidefender
311
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:37 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:25 am
trinidefender wrote:
Fri Jun 10, 2022 10:57 pm
If porpoising is the entire reason why you consider it a failure then this entire problem can be solved by allowing one single make spec interter on the cars with adjustability for the porpoising frequency. The frequency that it is set to dampen can be open source for all teams if they choose to run it. It will have a performance benefit for sure but it will get around the issue of costs and developing it to have effects other than the purely proposing phenomenon.

There. Problem solved fairly easily.
Inerters are banned under this Formula, arent they?
So that solution is sort of what I am saying anyway (that the formula is not successful)
Doing that only solves the symptom not the cause.
You are correct, they are banned under this formula and have been since after the Renault pioneered them in the 2000's.

Saying that one smallish rule change that can pretty much fix the entire problem for every team means the whole formula is crap is a slight overreaction I would say.

To each their own I guess

User avatar
chrisc90
8
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:22 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

djos wrote:
Sat Jun 11, 2022 2:51 am
Zynerji wrote:
Sat Jun 11, 2022 2:44 am
trinidefender wrote:
Fri Jun 10, 2022 10:57 pm
If porpoising is the entire reason why you consider it a failure then this entire problem can be solved by allowing one single make spec interter on the cars with adjustability for the porpoising frequency. The frequency that it is set to dampen can be open source for all teams if they choose to run it. It will have a performance benefit for sure but it will get around the issue of costs and developing it to have effects other than the purely proposing phenomenon.

There. Problem solved fairly easily.
Why punish those teams that figured it out?

The rules are the same for everyone, and we needed fresh teams to steal a march.

This is the shakeup it was meant to be.
Exactly, this is F1 not a “spec“ series, it’s the teams job to engineer their cars to make them better.
Agree totally. Given the end of the 21 season and the start of 22....there is nothing that could have suggested the finishing WCC would be flipped round for this year. Nothing to say that the likes of Haas and Williams wouldnt be a front runner. (not how the season is planning out, but the complete new rule change didnt write anyone off
No Mikey Noo! No! Nooo Mikey! That was sooo not riiight!!

f1jcw
f1jcw
14
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:15 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Reading here, auto sport and the race, I see a lot of people discount the problems with porpoising due to either their hate/dislike of Mercedes or due to being one of the teams not effected. The comments are quite distasteful, that people let personal prejudices get in the way of safety and rules everyone can race with.

morefirejules08
morefirejules08
2
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:21 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

f1jcw wrote:
Sat Jun 11, 2022 11:42 pm
Reading here, auto sport and the race, I see a lot of people discount the problems with porpoising due to either their hate/dislike of Mercedes or due to being one of the teams not effected. The comments are quite distasteful, that people let personal prejudices get in the way of safety and rules everyone can race with.
Redbull fans don’t want to give up their teams competitive advantage, the same way Mercedes fans didn’t want to give up their teams competitive advantage when party modes were banned.

toraabe
toraabe
12
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:42 am

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Rb and Renault know how to turn it on and off. . Mercedes actually has to find it out themselves.

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

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Fri Jun 10, 2022 7:30 pm
Is it time to discuss that the new aero formula has been a failure?
The move to more ground effects and less downforce combined with the suspension change has produced a lousy race car.
Add in the weight increase and there is a healthy discussion to be had.

Just one question, are the full tanks reducing the porpoising?
The weight gain is because of the concept. Also I don't see the "less downforce", when even in Monaco they were within 1 second qualifying time with all the weight gain.

They do follow a lot closer. Not sure why the overtaking, racing ability is still so dreadful despite of this. Barely better.

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

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:25 am
trinidefender wrote:
Fri Jun 10, 2022 10:57 pm
If porpoising is the entire reason why you consider it a failure then this entire problem can be solved by allowing one single make spec interter on the cars with adjustability for the porpoising frequency. The frequency that it is set to dampen can be open source for all teams if they choose to run it. It will have a performance benefit for sure but it will get around the issue of costs and developing it to have effects other than the purely proposing phenomenon.

There. Problem solved fairly easily.
Inerters are banned under this Formula, arent they?
So that solution is sort of what I am saying anyway (that the formula is not successful)
Doing that only solves the symptom not the cause.
How so? The problem is oscillation, if inerters fix that, then they fix the problem.

User avatar
JordanMugen
67
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

djos wrote:
Sat Jun 11, 2022 2:51 am
It’s the teams job to engineer their cars to make them better.
Indeed, Pat Symonds has a clear view (from Racecar Engineering magazine):
F1 and the FIA don’t change rules. Anyone who’s worked in sportscars or worked in Formula 1 for a long while knows the phenomena. It’s fixable within the framework of the rules and the technology allowed on the cars now. As it always has been, the secret is to minimise the instability while keeping the performance.
As Symonds says, the phenomenon can be mitigated within the existing regulations (by some good engineering), he even gives a clue, "the secret is to minimise the instability while keeping the performance". :)

mzso wrote:
Sun Jun 12, 2022 5:46 pm
How so? The problem is oscillation, if inerters fix that, then they fix the problem.
As Symonds says, the inerters are not necessary, the phenomenon is "fixable within the framework of the rules and the technology allowed on the cars now". The secret, as he says, is "to minimise the oscillation": i.e., like the Red Bull does, which can be done within the existing suspension regulations.

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

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Sun Jun 12, 2022 5:47 pm
As Symonds says, the inerters are not necessary, the phenomenon is "fixable within the framework of the rules and the technology allowed on the cars now". The secret, as he says, is "to minimise the oscillation": i.e., like the Red Bull does, which can be done within the existing suspension regulations.
So since at any given time half the field fails to do so, we should accept that drivers miss races due to injuries, or might even retire, instead of implementing something that completely prevents the problem?

User avatar
Zynerji
110
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

mzso wrote:
Sun Jun 12, 2022 6:02 pm
JordanMugen wrote:
Sun Jun 12, 2022 5:47 pm
As Symonds says, the inerters are not necessary, the phenomenon is "fixable within the framework of the rules and the technology allowed on the cars now". The secret, as he says, is "to minimise the oscillation": i.e., like the Red Bull does, which can be done within the existing suspension regulations.
So since at any given time half the field fails to do so, we should accept that drivers miss races due to injuries, or might even retire, instead of implementing something that completely prevents the problem?
The teams can solve it immediately by raising the rear ride height, and giving up performance.

The drivers only suffer because the teams choose it for laptimes.

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

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Sun Jun 12, 2022 6:08 pm
The teams can solve it immediately by raising the rear ride height, and giving up performance.

The drivers only suffer because the teams choose it for laptimes.
But they will never do that as long as it requires giving up performance.

f1jcw
f1jcw
14
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:15 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

morefirejules08 wrote:
Sun Jun 12, 2022 9:14 am
f1jcw wrote:
Sat Jun 11, 2022 11:42 pm
Reading here, auto sport and the race, I see a lot of people discount the problems with porpoising due to either their hate/dislike of Mercedes or due to being one of the teams not effected. The comments are quite distasteful, that people let personal prejudices get in the way of safety and rules everyone can race with.
Redbull fans don’t want to give up their teams competitive advantage, the same way Mercedes fans didn’t want to give up their teams competitive advantage when party modes were banned.
And yet, Merc competitive advantages were given up time and time again, sometimes even when they couldn’t respond.

Why was it fair to do to Merc but suddenly unfair to Redbull

f1jcw
f1jcw
14
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:15 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Sun Jun 12, 2022 6:08 pm
mzso wrote:
Sun Jun 12, 2022 6:02 pm
JordanMugen wrote:
Sun Jun 12, 2022 5:47 pm
As Symonds says, the inerters are not necessary, the phenomenon is "fixable within the framework of the rules and the technology allowed on the cars now". The secret, as he says, is "to minimise the oscillation": i.e., like the Red Bull does, which can be done within the existing suspension regulations.
So since at any given time half the field fails to do so, we should accept that drivers miss races due to injuries, or might even retire, instead of implementing something that completely prevents the problem?
The teams can solve it immediately by raising the rear ride height, and giving up performance.

The drivers only suffer because the teams choose it for laptimes.
So, you want a unlevel playing field.
Teams couldn’t compete with mercs frick, party modes, etc. they was removed, often in season