2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Steven]

Impressive work base_1000 !

Anyway, I was wondering what is the effect of removing rear wing endplates (more specifically, the part that currently sits on the high pressure side of the rear wing?

Is that just a way to reduce some downforce, and the strength of that vortex at the wingtip, while trying to keep a similar ad-surface on the rear wing? Is it aerodynamically less impacting for the wake than just a long AoA rear wing like in the current regs?

[Just_a_fan]

Beautiful images.

[Santozini]

Interesting...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/2021 ... t/4590414/

[MtthsMlw]

Interesting...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/2021 ... t/4590414/

As a 4 flap FW is allowed I wonder if anyone will even go for a 3 flap one as shown on the red model.

[Blackout]

Great insight insidef1 and turbo and Jjn etc.
They should have gone even further and standardised 80% of the "floor" and diffuser, atleast for 2021 in order to set everyone on an equal footing, at least at the start of the new regs...
What about the car length/wheelbase and weight? will they try to reduce them?

[base_1000]

Impressive work base_1000 !

Thank you!




Here's the car untextured, the details and curves are more apparent. And here's the Behance project page if anyone is interested.

[Holm86]

Impressive work base_1000 !

Anyway, I was wondering what is the effect of removing rear wing endplates (more specifically, the part that currently sits on the high pressure side of the rear wing?

Is that just a way to reduce some downforce, and the strength of that vortex at the wingtip, while trying to keep a similar ad-surface on the rear wing? Is it aerodynamically less impacting for the wake than just a long AoA rear wing like in the current regs?

I also have a hard time making sense of that rear wing, it seems really inefficient.
There will no doubt be a lot of spill over on the sides, and that will probably make two quite strong vorticies.
I think I saw in the demo video that they actually push the wake down, maybe thats a way to push down the following car??

[Just_a_fan]

I also have a hard time making sense of that rear wing, it seems really inefficient.
There will no doubt be a lot of spill over on the sides, and that will probably make two quite strong vorticies.
I think I saw in the demo video that they actually push the wake down, maybe thats a way to push down the following car??

Isn't the aim to generate a vortex that pulls in the wake and then lift it upwards and so clear of the following car?

As the diffuser is bigger etc., the rear wing doesn't need to be as efficient in order to get the overall downforce numbers.

[Holm86]

I also have a hard time making sense of that rear wing, it seems really inefficient.
There will no doubt be a lot of spill over on the sides, and that will probably make two quite strong vorticies.
I think I saw in the demo video that they actually push the wake down, maybe thats a way to push down the following car??

Isn't the aim to generate a vortex that pulls in the wake and then lift it upwards and so clear of the following car?

As the diffuser is bigger etc., the rear wing doesn't need to be as efficient in order to get the overall downforce numbers.

Take a look at 1:32 minutes, you can clearly see two large vortecies pushing the wake down


NOTE: You may have to open the video seperately in youtube, as F1 doesn't let you implement the video

[Sevach]

Interesting...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/2021 ... t/4590414/

Edge of the floor slots still allowed.
Some flexibility in tunnel shape.
Sidepods and nose of course.

Cars will look good, let's see if they deliver on racing.
Hpefully DRS is less powerful.

[jjn9128]

Great insight insidef1 and turbo and Jjn etc.
They should have gone even further and standardised 80% of the "floor" and diffuser, atleast for 2021 in order to set everyone on an equal footing, at least at the start of the new regs...
What about the car length/wheelbase and weight? will they try to reduce them?

The floor is pretty standard.. there's a minimum and maximum shape for the tunnels (previous rules only even specified a maximum height for the diffuser) which doesn't leave a lot of room to play with. The diffuser endfence is also quite tight and there's not a lot of room to play with it. Then there's the minimum convex and concave radii. The vane surfaces are a little more open but still not huge freedom.

[Holm86]

Does the regulations say anything about serrated front wing planes?? Or does it have to be a constant line on the leading and trailing edge?

[jjn9128]

How do you mean? Like this?

EDIT: I think not

g. The rearward most point of every closed section, when projected in Z on to the reference plane, must produce a single tangent continuous curve with no radius of curvature smaller than 200mm.

[Holm86]

How do you mean? Like this? http://cdn-8.motorsport.com/images/mgl/ ... detail.jpg

Exactly, if its legal, I can see some teams trying to generate vortices at the tips of serrations ...

[Holm86]

EDIT: I think not

g. The rearward most point of every closed section, when projected in Z on to the reference plane, must produce a single tangent continuous curve with no radius of curvature smaller than 200mm.

But how about the front edge??