2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Holm86]

Does the wide front wing cause the length of the car to be longer?

DOes the wing have to be be further ahead of the front wheel to be efficient that in th regulations call for a increassed distance from the front wheel axis in comparison to the 2008 regulations ?

https://www.auto123.com/ArtImages/10419 ... ri-lat.jpg

I think most of the lenght gained the past years are from the driver to the rear wheels, not the front.
Try and look at modern day engine covers, they are sooooo much longer.
And it makes sense as they try to increase the floor area

I know that, but the length of the car is not only in that area but in front too

https://i.imgur.com/Ds0KGBF.jpg

Yeah, but I think the wider wings plus the fact that they now have to be angled backwards make the noses much longer.

[ENGINE TUNER]

I think most of the lenght gained the past years are from the driver to the rear wheels, not the front.
Try and look at modern day engine covers, they are sooooo much longer.
And it makes sense as they try to increase the floor area

I know that, but the length of the car is not only in that area but in front too

https://i.imgur.com/Ds0KGBF.jpg

Yeah, but I think the wider wings plus the fact that they now have to be angled backwards make the noses much longer.

Also because the frontal crash test standards have been increased several times since 2014.

[FW17]

I know that, but the length of the car is not only in that area but in front too

https://i.imgur.com/Ds0KGBF.jpg

Yeah, but I think the wider wings plus the fact that they now have to be angled backwards make the noses much longer.

Also because the frontal crash test standards have been increased several times since 2014.

No the trend was set in 2009

[jjn9128]

The maximum front overhang (1.2m ahead of the front axle) was unchanged for decades until 2017. From 1993/94 the front wing overhang was moved back a bit to 1m. In 2017 the new swept wings meant the front wing moved to the maximum overhang at the centreline (actually a tiny bit longer than 1.2m) but remained up to 1m forward of the wheels at the tip. In 2016(?) they brought in a minimum nose length of 1.05m. The 2021 car noses will be slightly longer 1.35m but I think this is more to do with the larger diameter tyres (725mm not 660/670mm).

[strad]

I was under the impression that they now had more radiators. Not necessarily bigger but a larger number of them because they had more things than just the engine to cool.

[mzso]

What I'm trying to say is surely the cars don't have to be this big and heavy to cater for these tyres and such as cars of the past did so whilst being much smaller.

They're big because it's allowed, and they're heavy because the enhanced crash safety and the hybrid PUs add weight.

[mzso]

I think most of the lenght gained the past years are from the driver to the rear wheels, not the front.
Try and look at modern day engine covers, they are sooooo much longer.
And it makes sense as they try to increase the floor area

That's obvious from the pictures I dug up and posted above. The first thing I would have done is explicitly limit the length to 4.5m and forget about silly overhangs and such. If I wanted the formula to not loose much downforce I could have just extended the venturi tunnels. There's a lot of room for that in 2021 regulations compared to cars from the early eighties.

[JordanMugen]

Going off topic here but can anyone provide the tyre dimensions and weight from the past and current era tyres?

1972?-1980...
Front Goodyear: 9.2"/20.0" 13" (note: crossply tyre)
Rear Goodyear: 16.2"/26.0" 13" > 410mm/660mm 13"
source: https://www.f1technical.net/f1db/cars/335/ferrari-312t

1981-1992...
Front 245mm / 635mm R13 (Goodyear: 10.0"/25.0" R13" (overall diameter / width, R = radial))
Rear 380mm / 660mm R13 (15.0"/26.0" R13")

1993-1997...
Front 245mm/635mm R13 (Goodyear: 10.0"/25.0" R13", around 1997 Bridgestone introduces front tyre with the same 660mm diameter as the rear.. the width stayed the same however)
Rear 325mm/660mm R13 (Goodyear: 12.8"/26.0" R13")

1998-2016...
Front 245mm/635mm R13
Rear 325mm/660mm R13

2017-2021...
Front 305mm / 670mm R13
Rear 405mm /670mm R13

2021-...
Front 270mm / 725mm R18
Rear 405mm / 725mm R18

Not a huge change in rear tyre dimension from 1975 to 2021. The narrow rear tyres used in between 1992 and 2017 were silly and can be ignored.

[jjn9128]

That's obvious from the pictures I dug up and posted above. The first thing I would have done is explicitly limit the length to 4.5m and forget about silly overhangs and such. If I wanted the formula to not loose much downforce I could have just extended the venturi tunnels. There's a lot of room for that in 2021 regulations compared to cars from the early eighties.

The maximum length a 2021 car can (and most likely length all the cars will) be is 5.625m, so 4.5m is quite a significant chop. I think 5m is more reasonable to have safe crushable structures and space for driver and powerunit...etc. There's no need for the gearbox cases to be so long as they are as the actual gear cassette is only ~175mm long. All that does is make it easier to create the tight coke bottle rear ends. They could make the car shorter using the new Le Mans seating position, which is supposed to ease pressure on the drivers spine in accidents reducing the likelihood of stress fractures, it's more upright so the safety cell is shorter... it makes the car ~200mm taller though so probably someone would say "but F1 cars should only ever be <1m tall".

I don't think you and I disagree on any point, I just think there are some legitimate reasons for at least some of the growing length. Overhangs are necessary to make the cars safer.

[JordanMugen]

I think 5m is more reasonable to have safe crushable structures and space for driver and powerunit...etc.

Why couldn't the driver sit more upright?

I take it there is no reason for the driver to be as reclined as they are, other than to find performance.

If the regulations said the driver had to sit more upright, should it possible to make a safe 4.5m car?

[ENGINE TUNER]

What I'm trying to say is surely the cars don't have to be this big and heavy to cater for these tyres and such as cars of the past did so whilst being much smaller.

They're big because it's allowed, and they're heavy because the enhanced crash safety and the hybrid PUs add weight.

The PUs don't add weight, the lower amount of fuel makes up for the extra mass. V6PU+ fuel<V8+ kers+fuel.

[mzso]

I don't think you and I disagree on any point, I just think there are some legitimate reasons for at least some of the growing length. Overhangs are necessary to make the cars safer.

Rather than longer, crash structures could be simply thicker and accomplish the same thing.

The maximum length a 2021 car can (and most likely length all the cars will) be is 5.625m, so 4.5m is quite a significant chop.

I don't think it would be any problem. The old McLaren of Hamilton's on the picture is almost at that length.

it makes the car ~200mm taller though so probably someone would say "but F1 cars should only ever be <1m tall".

Bah. Someone people complain about whatever change. Besides F1 cars only started to be low height in the late eighties.

[mzso]

The PUs don't add weight, the lower amount of fuel makes up for the extra mass. V6PU+ fuel<V8+ kers+fuel.

I don't think you're right. The engines have the two MGU-s added which both add weight. As does the battery that come with them.

[strad]

Besides F1 cars only started to be low height in the late eighties.

What????
What is your definition of "Low Height?
I'm afraid you're a few decades off. Engineers have understood the need of getting the center of gravity low since almost the beginning of auto racing.
In 1912 Peugeot showed the way when it's leaner, lighter, tauter car beat the more powerful, slightly faster very much bigger Fiat in the Targa Florio and again in 1913.
It was 1921 when beautiful and clean lined Fiats were the first racers to have wind tunnel proof of drag and lift abatement.
Certainly you'll admit the die was cast in 1923 by Bugatti' "Tiny Tank" streamliners. Very low and light cars were they.
It has been a constant evolution then to where we are now.














?

[henry]

I don't think you and I disagree on any point, I just think there are some legitimate reasons for at least some of the growing length. Overhangs are necessary to make the cars safer.

Rather than longer, crash structures could be simply thicker and accomplish the same thing.

Probably not. The key point of the structure is not absorption of the energy but control of the rate of absorption. The G forces. Shorter, thicker, structures would absorb the energy at the expense of higher loads on the driver.