2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[olahOPO23]

Found this on instagram. What do you think how this concept fits in the 2022 regulations? Interesting FW design tho.

[Stu]

Not sure that front wing is legal for the new regs?
Radiator inlets look very stylised and impractical.

[jjn9128]

Found this on instagram. What do you think how this concept fits in the 2022 regulations? Interesting FW design tho.

http://www.kepfeltoltes.eu/view.php?fil ... G_0083.jpg

Not a 2022 legal car. At all. I don't get the front wing. FWEP upper winglets are impossible in the rules. Can't have an S-duct in the nose. Rear wing beam is illegal. RWEPs are illegal. Other than that it looks like the FOM model made to look more "aggressive".

[F1NAC]

what is the point of that FWEP wing that is directing the air in the tyre?

[Just_a_fan]

It's obviously just an image made by someone that wants to make a striking image, but has no clue about the object they're "designing". It's just a pretty picture, nothing more.

[Blackout]

Radiator inlets look very stylised and impractical.

They're the same as the FOM model.
Almost every 3d artist who tries to model a 'different' rendition of the 2022 car, puts exactly the same sideopods as the FOM car...

[olahOPO23]

It would be great if someone would make a sketch of the possible loopholes or where may the cars be different by approaching the new regs. [-o<

[Stu]

It would be great if someone would make a sketch of the possible loopholes or where may the cars be different by approaching the new regs. [-o<

From what I am seeing there will be few ‘free’ volumes available, the new rules are bounding where things can be done and then limiting how that space can be used.
There is bound to be something though.
If the rules will allow it I can see a low, forward radiator inlet being potentially advantageous. Downforce will still be king, but reduced drag is still a worthwhile goal.

[jjn9128]

It would be great if someone would make a sketch of the possible loopholes or where may the cars be different by approaching the new regs. [-o<

From what I am seeing there will be few ‘free’ volumes available, the new rules are bounding where things can be done and then limiting how that space can be used.
There is bound to be something though.
If the rules will allow it I can see a low, forward radiator inlet being potentially advantageous. Downforce will still be king, but reduced drag is still a worthwhile goal.

An interesting thought. Personally I think the high rad inlet will still be king, it creates the undercut which will work with the front of the floor to help outwash flow. A high L/D is always the aim, but absolute DF is where the laptime generally comes.

[hollus]

Would it be technically legal not to have any sidepod inlet at all?
All cooling would have be central or at least with a central intake and the results might be horrible, but the regs do not force an actual front facing opening in the sidepods, do they?
Is there an volume defined for the opening where there would be scope for aero widgets?
Maybe on one side only?

[Stu]

Would it be technically legal not to have any sidepod inlet at all?
All cooling would have be central or at least with a central intake and the results might be horrible, but the regs do not force an actual front facing opening in the sidepods, do they?
Is there an volume defined for the opening where there would be scope for aero widgets?
Maybe on one side only?

Now that is an interesting idea!!
I wonder whether the very bulbous Alpine engine cover is a part of such a scheme??
I would imagine that the side impact structures would be difficult to package. Other than that a very (very!) low side-pod could then be utilised (something akin to an early nineties F3 car - the whole side-pod could be built as a pseudo wing and really subvert the rules

[Just_a_fan]

Would it be technically legal not to have any sidepod inlet at all?
All cooling would have be central or at least with a central intake and the results might be horrible, but the regs do not force an actual front facing opening in the sidepods, do they?
Is there an volume defined for the opening where there would be scope for aero widgets?
Maybe on one side only?

To what benefit? And at what cost? Increase airflow to the rear of the floor, great. Block airflow to the rear wing and beam wing, bad show. Extra mass placed high up on the car, bad show perhaps unless the aero benefit is more than the losses caused by high CoG.

You'd ideally have all of your mass as low in the car as possible, wouldn't you, for grip and handling? But you want good airflow to the rear of the floor. So maybe the current compromise of having the radiators and sidepods as they are is the best, well, compromise.

[hollus]

It is all levels of compromise, a cursory look at the floor real state of a current F1 car will tell you that masses ase not placed as low as possible. Not all of them.
I am not sure what the idea could achieve, but all the air that currently gets swallowed in and hidden away would be available to produce downforce or to guide other masses of air (y250 mimic anyone?).
It is just an idea, I am not really expecting it to bring laptime, or at least I am not sure how it would.

[Just_a_fan]

It is just an idea, I am not really expecting it to bring laptime, or at least I am not sure how it would.

Sorry hollus, wasn't having a go at you (although it might read that way ), I was just asking questions as it's going back to the fundamentals in a way, isn't it? What's the best compromise within a given rule set? Today's cars appear to be that best compromise for the current rule set. With the new rules about the undertray, the diffuser size and the beam wing interactions, perhaps getting lots of air across the top of the rear floor is less important and the compromise leans towards lowering of masses. I don't know. Hopefully we'll see the team exploring these things as the new rules bed in and the teams look to find the tenths here and there.

[johnny vee]

Would it be technically legal not to have any sidepod inlet at all?
All cooling would have be central or at least with a central intake and the results might be horrible, but the regs do not force an actual front facing opening in the sidepods, do they?
Is there an volume defined for the opening where there would be scope for aero widgets?
Maybe on one side only?

Now that is an interesting idea!!
I wonder whether the very bulbous Alpine engine cover is a part of such a scheme??
I would imagine that the side impact structures would be difficult to package. Other than that a very (very!) low side-pod could then be utilised (something akin to an early nineties F3 car - the whole side-pod could be built as a pseudo wing and really subvert the rules

Wow, thanx guys. I think you are on to something here...