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.
Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
561
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
Fri Jul 22, 2022 7:53 am
godlameroso wrote:
Wed Jul 20, 2022 9:14 pm
I'm aware, despite being downvoted to oblivion by users who assured me no such thing was happening. Turns out I was right all along, eh I'll just add it to the pile.
It's not an outwashing diffuser, it's an introduction of varying curvature in the diffuser corner for the vortex to attach to and lower the pressure a tiny bit more.
Interesting. I must admit that I too thought it was a bit of outwash trickery. Does this device help to keep the vortex under control or does it help to keep it spinning?
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

User avatar
Vanja #66
685
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
Fri Jul 22, 2022 9:59 am
Interesting. I must admit that I too thought it was a bit of outwash trickery. Does this device help to keep the vortex under control or does it help to keep it spinning?
It's hard to tell what it is exactly. The simplest explanation seems a bit too simplistic to me - add some curvature to add some downforce. Perhaps there is a delicate vortex manipulation at play, letting it attach sideways or up depending on different flow conditions at different attitudes?
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#Aerogimli
#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
75
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
Fri Jul 22, 2022 7:53 am
godlameroso wrote:
Wed Jul 20, 2022 9:14 pm
I'm aware, despite being downvoted to oblivion by users who assured me no such thing was happening. Turns out I was right all along, eh I'll just add it to the pile.
It's not an outwashing diffuser, it's an introduction of varying curvature in the diffuser corner for the vortex to attach to and lower the pressure a tiny bit more.

This is an outwashing diffuser, the curvature is much larger in outward lateral direction (than upward direction).

https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... tail-1.jpg

This is an upwashing diffuser, there is no curvature in lateral direction.

https://i.ibb.co/wSdXhqp/ferrari-f1-75-rear-1.jpg

There is a clear difference. What's confusing you is a kink in the diffuser in the area where reflections got you to think there is a big outwashing curvature.

https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/C ... 876637.jpg

As for having a fin in diffuser, it prevents you from introducing the central ramp, which adds downforce. Unless your chassis is really low and/or other parts (suspension, etc) prevent you from having a ramp there, no racecar aerodynamicist would want a fin in that area.
Aren't divisions (fins) useful in large volume tunnels and diffusers at lower speeds?
Its not always race Cars, for a top fuel Bike we developed a curved tunnel to get rid of the rear tyre wedge with introducing skirts and subdivided tunnel which helped initiate the airflow earlier and thus more effective all the way through to 230 Milesph. Stuck a bit of exhaust gas in there to help and voila!
As you can tell we are not ridgy didge aerodynamicysts
Last edited by johnny comelately on Fri Jul 22, 2022 12:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Vanja #66
685
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Fri Jul 22, 2022 12:01 pm
Aren't divisions (fins) useful in large volume tunnels and diffusers at lower speeds?
Not in the way he was pointing to.

godlameroso wrote: Image
This kind of fin takes away diffuser volume and, more importantly - ramp surface. The only change Ferrari made to this area was early in the season, with a slight change to geometry to reduce diffuser drag.

Image
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#Aerogimli
#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

n_anirudh
n_anirudh
28
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:43 am

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... /10341540/
One team boss said: “The changes are so extreme for 2023 because Mercedes claim that they have found 40% more downforce for next year, so they have urged the FIA to act. If Mercedes have genuinely done that, then you may as well hand them the world championship now.”

Sevach
Sevach
927
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:00 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

n_anirudh wrote:
Fri Jul 22, 2022 3:25 pm
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... /10341540/
One team boss said: “The changes are so extreme for 2023 because Mercedes claim that they have found 40% more downforce for next year, so they have urged the FIA to act. If Mercedes have genuinely done that, then you may as well hand them the world championship now.”
Teams that disappointed, Mercedes, Mclaren, Aston desperately want this rule change.
Teams that made a jump or are directly associated to another don't...

Alpine is a "free agent".

bosyber
bosyber
43
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:41 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

n_anirudh wrote:
Fri Jul 22, 2022 3:25 pm
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... /10341540/
One team boss said: “The changes are so extreme for 2023 because Mercedes claim that they have found 40% more downforce for next year, so they have urged the FIA to act. If Mercedes have genuinely done that, then you may as well hand them the world championship now.”
So, just to check I understand. The article quotes that 40% in the context of it supposedly having been what moved the FIA to make the proposed changes so big. I presume that those teams not wanting the new rule believe that number is a vast overstatement then (probably diff between max theoretically available and actually achievable on track?), especially if they [em]also[/em] believe Mercedes actually prefers those more restrictive new rules.

Still, what if they block the change and Merc is in the ballpark of that number, that would be a bit of a downer right. Bit of a dilemma then (and personally, it would feel quite a bit like karma if that were to be true after a veto oid., though certainly not great for the racing).

User avatar
jjn9128
752
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

I think the FIA would want/need proof before acting not just Toto giving them the hard sell. Also if they found that level of improvement - at least some of it would be compatible with this years car, so why aren't they winning!? I smell bullplop.
#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

bosyber
bosyber
43
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:41 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Sevach wrote:
Fri Jul 22, 2022 6:46 pm
n_anirudh wrote:
Fri Jul 22, 2022 3:25 pm
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... /10341540/
One team boss said: “The changes are so extreme for 2023 because Mercedes claim that they have found 40% more downforce for next year, so they have urged the FIA to act. If Mercedes have genuinely done that, then you may as well hand them the world championship now.”
Teams that disappointed, Mercedes, Mclaren, Aston desperately want this rule change.
Teams that made a jump or are directly associated to another don't...

Alpine is a "free agent".
Williams is also named as against; I guess they didn't make a jump themselves, but also don't like to start over on their floor for next year due to limitations in budget. Alpine might be on the fence that way too, as would be several other midfield teams as it seems like a valid worry.

bosyber
bosyber
43
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:41 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Fri Jul 22, 2022 7:13 pm
I think the FIA would want/need proof before acting not just Toto giving them the hard sell. Also if they found that level of improvement - at least some of it would be compatible with this years car, so why aren't they winning!? I smell bullplop.
Given the FIA went ahead with this, and given they can now ask teams for access to the CFD to check parts, wouldn't it be quite possible they actually did look at such stuff? Hence why I mentioned diff. between what CFD suggests as possible and it actually being a working race car on track in the mind of those opposing these rules (perhaps from their own CFD versus final result?). As to why not do it with this years car, perhaps the tub and layout of the engine, gearbox needs to change enough that they cannot do it within budget?

I see why you are skeptical, but assuming the FIA didn't do any of that due diligence seems also a bit off too (though yes, it is the FIA). What's the FIA's advantage to going with such big changes, knowing they will lead to a lot more protest than more minimal ones that would be sufficient otherwise.

Sevach
Sevach
927
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:00 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

bosyber wrote:
Fri Jul 22, 2022 7:10 pm
n_anirudh wrote:
Fri Jul 22, 2022 3:25 pm
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... /10341540/
One team boss said: “The changes are so extreme for 2023 because Mercedes claim that they have found 40% more downforce for next year, so they have urged the FIA to act. If Mercedes have genuinely done that, then you may as well hand them the world championship now.”
So, just to check I understand. The article quotes that 40% in the context of it supposedly having been what moved the FIA to make the proposed changes so big. I presume that those teams not wanting the new rule believe that number is a vast overstatement then (probably diff between max theoretically available and actually achievable on track?), especially if they [em]also[/em] believe Mercedes actually prefers those more restrictive new rules.

Still, what if they block the change and Merc is in the ballpark of that number, that would be a bit of a downer right. Bit of a dilemma then (and personally, it would feel quite a bit like karma if that were to be true after a veto oid., though certainly not great for the racing).
If Mercedes has 40% in the wind tunnel that would mean they have something spetacular and are declining to use right now because there may not be enough time to turn this championship around and they wanna hold on to their "ace".

On the other hand the car has just been upgraded, shortly after it was upgraded at Silverstone... and they are planning further upgrades.
It doesn't make sense.
Williams is also named as against; I guess they didn't make a jump themselves, but also don't like to start over on their floor for next year due to limitations in budget. Alpine might be on the fence that way too, as would be several other midfield teams as it seems like a valid worry.
Yes, that's fair.
Haas and Alfa can't be fully put down to Ferrari influence, i imagine they are quite happy where things stand currently.
AT is a team that thus far has failed to make an impression this season (they are going quite well this weekend so far), but pressure from above might've directed them to oppose changes.

BlueCheetah66
BlueCheetah66
8
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2021 7:23 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

n_anirudh wrote:
Fri Jul 22, 2022 3:25 pm
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... /10341540/
One team boss said: “The changes are so extreme for 2023 because Mercedes claim that they have found 40% more downforce for next year, so they have urged the FIA to act. If Mercedes have genuinely done that, then you may as well hand them the world championship now.”
If Mercedes think they have a 40% increase in downforce in the pipeline, why would they tell the FIA in the hopes to have some regulation change? They have already shown this year with their reluctance to address porpoising through higher ride height that safety is not their priority. Smells a lot like fishing for rule changes to bail themselves out. And if that were to be true, it's very embarrassing that the FIA got hooked in.

User avatar
RZS10
327
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 12:23 am

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Not the most technical post in the world and i don't even know if this is the right place but I made those recently when the 25mm raised floor edge change became public just to visualize what that would look so why not share:

Image

Image

Image

Image

I measured the pixels at the 720mm wheels and got a ratio which then gave me the pixels that represent 25mm, it's not perfect but it does not have to be, i don't even know if floor edge would mean all of it or just the part defined as such in the tech. regs.

dialtone
dialtone
60
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:31 am

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Thanks RZS10!

How does Brawn start the season complaining about rake and then suggests a change that is worse than the rake we came from?

LM10
LM10
102
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:07 pm

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Some tweets from tami quoting Autosport:

A number of teams are especially fearful that the scope of the floor changes being introduced by the FIA are playing into rival Mercedes’ hands – and the tweaks both this season and for 2023 are being framed in such a way that they could benefit them.

It is understood that a core team of six– believed to include Ferrari, Red Bull, AlphaTauri, Alfa Romeo, Haas & Williams – are ready to challenge the changes amid questions about whether or not the FIA’s claims it is a safety matter are legitimate.

Sources with good knowledge of the situation have suggested that there is even support from eight teams – which would be enough for a super majority.

It is suggested that teams could accept more minor tweaks – such as the floor edge being raised by around 10mm – as that would not require such a fundamental rethink of car designs at this late stage.

Quoting Binotto (AMuS):

Binotto: "There is no reason to classify it as a safety problem. Most teams have the bouncing under control. Fixed limits will be set for the race in Spa anyway. If the cars comply with the spec, they should also be safe."

Binotto: "And if there is no safety argument, the normal voting process must be followed when changing the rules."

Binotto also said that the new floor rules would be protested if they were pushed through so easily with the safety argument.