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
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 22:51
Those CHAMP cars were also probably 0.5-1SCz lower than modern F1, and a bit draggier. Plus heavier and mechanically simpler to where it was possible to miss gears or other little driving mistakes which can close up a race.
I reckon F1 cars are a similar weight to those old cars now. Iirc they were ~900kg including the driver.

Missed gears wasn’t an issue as they ran sequential boxes.
"In downforce we trust"

User avatar
jjn9128
778
Joined: 02 May 2017, 23:53

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Still manual in 2006

#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

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 23:09
Still manual in 2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alya6A3adSg
I didn’t say automatic sequential, just sequential. 😎 It’s still pretty hard to mess up a gear shift with a manual sequential gearbox. Iirc they only used the clutch for standing starts from the pit boxes.
"In downforce we trust"

Hoffman900
Hoffman900
210
Joined: 13 Oct 2019, 03:02

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

djos wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 23:18
jjn9128 wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 23:09
Still manual in 2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alya6A3adSg
I didn’t say automatic sequential, just sequential. 😎 It’s still pretty hard to mess up a gear shift with a manual sequential gearbox. Iirc they only used the clutch for standing starts from the pit boxes.
Downshifting too fast is a common mess up.

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Hoffman900 wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 23:19
djos wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 23:18
jjn9128 wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 23:09
Still manual in 2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alya6A3adSg
I didn’t say automatic sequential, just sequential. 😎 It’s still pretty hard to mess up a gear shift with a manual sequential gearbox. Iirc they only used the clutch for standing starts from the pit boxes.
Downshifting too fast is a common mess up.
If you watch the video jjn posted, Justin is able downshift very quickly. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s done with shift cuts and is clutchless?
"In downforce we trust"

Hoffman900
Hoffman900
210
Joined: 13 Oct 2019, 03:02

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

djos wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 23:25
Hoffman900 wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 23:19
djos wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 23:18


I didn’t say automatic sequential, just sequential. 😎 It’s still pretty hard to mess up a gear shift with a manual sequential gearbox. Iirc they only used the clutch for standing starts from the pit boxes.
Downshifting too fast is a common mess up.
If you watch the video jjn posted, Justin is able downshift very quickly. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s done with shift cuts and is clutchless?
If you downshift a manual sequential transmission too fast it can cause the rear tire tires to lock up momentarily.

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Cheers, I wasn’t aware of that.
"In downforce we trust"

User avatar
JordanMugen
84
Joined: 17 Oct 2018, 13:36

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
10 Mar 2022, 23:09
Still manual in 2006
Champcars used sequential rather than a H-pattern. :)

I'm not sure it's obvious in this clip though:

Hoffman900
Hoffman900
210
Joined: 13 Oct 2019, 03:02

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post



I agree with Frank 100%. I love CFD, but it does not deal with turbulence well and needs validation. His opinion echoes a PhD aerodynamicist friend as well and he suggests vortex shedding is a big part of the problem. Then add those structural mode interactions to a non rigid chassis, and you end up with what you have.

To quote same PhD “rigid bodies only exist in undergraduate text books”

A close wheel car is much easier to deal with and I suspect the comments about LMP1 cars dealing with porpoising is only half understanding the story / solution

User avatar
SICK AL SPEEDSHOP
2
Joined: 15 Feb 2022, 16:53

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

I'm not sure if it is already officiall and the correct thread but FiA is going to raise minimum weight from 795 to 798 kg because tyres are 1,5 kg heavier as usually planned and they want to make the floor more stiff with struts and ban too much flexibility so that teams cant use the outer floor as flexible skirts. The other 1,5 kg are for the floor to body struts. Not fair in my opinion from struggling RBR who want higher minimum weight to Alfa Romeo / Sauber who are the only team that already reached minimum weight of around 795 kg.

source: german article on motorsport-magazin

https://www.motorsport-magazin.com/form ... nd-reifen/

User avatar
SICK AL SPEEDSHOP
2
Joined: 15 Feb 2022, 16:53

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Here is another article in english on motorsport.com about the minimum weight discussion so it is not officiall yet and the tyres are only around 0,1 kg heavier than expected but the wheel covers are also heavier than planned. Now F1 Commission and World Motor Sport Council have time before first FP1 next week to approve this issue or not. I guess they will approve it also if it is unfair for some teams like Alfa Romeo / Sauber.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... e/8926327/

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
110
Joined: 10 Apr 2015, 00:55
Location: Australia

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

If you downshift a manual sequential transmission too fast it can cause the rear tire tires to lock up momentarily.
[/quote]

Solved and adjustable in MotoGP by slipper clutches

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
110
Joined: 10 Apr 2015, 00:55
Location: Australia

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Stu wrote:
13 Feb 2022, 10:32
Chuckjr wrote:
13 Feb 2022, 06:27
Since these cars use the Bernoulli effect for most of their downforce starting this year, I’d like to better understand the forgiveness or lack thereof, of this aero anomaly.

So my main question is, is the break point for the “suck effect” of this system sudden, or is it forgiving?

For instance, if the car lifts off the ground from a curb bump and jumps, say, an inch or so past the main suck point (I’m assuming that’s the pinch point before the opening to the end of the car), will the car suddenly lose a majority of its downforce and tend to lift more easily? Or, is Bernoulli’s amazing suck zone a forgiving one, and the car can go 1”, heck even 2” past the main downforce driving area and still maintain most of the sucking effect?

Bonus round:
How large is the area that generates the majority of the downforce under the car, and what percentage of downforce does that area generate overall? Or is the downforce evenly spread over the whole of the bottom of the car, and the pinch point is simply the beginning of the suck effect.

If these details have already been elucidated, please point me to the page. Thank you.

Thank you for any and all answers. This place is amazing when it comes to explaining the engineering of this fantastic sport, and I appreciate the insight offered in the engineering forums here. Thank you insightful contributors — your efforts are appreciated.
I’ll try to answer a couple of these…

Sensitivity to ride height
At this point we do not know. The teams think they know, but need to confirm with actual testing. Historically, if the highest downforce is ‘peaky’ then the car will be very sensitive to ride height; but a car with broad peak (but less maximum downforce) will be less sensitive to ride height. Obviously a high broad peak that is not too sensitive would be the best compromise (but probably like trying to hunt down a unicorn…).

Because of how the tunnels are shaped (and assuming that they follow Bernoulli’s theory, the entrance of the tunnel should be speeding up the airflow, such that the peak speed (and lowest pressure) occurs at the leading edge of the flat section of floor, the longer this low pressure area can be maintained the better, the outlet (tunnel exit) should be designed to slow the airflow back to the same air speed (and pressure) that is present at the rear of the car. The tunnels should be designed to do this efficiently without stagnation points. This is probably why we are seeing ‘stepped’ tunnels in the launch cars.

This will tend to work alongside the ride height sensitivity as if the floor becomes ‘choked’ and cannot allow the airflow through the high-speed flat section (throat), all downforce generated by the floor disappears and an effect known as porpoising occurs. This is a bad thing.

Until they know the exact behaviour of the cars expect the drivers to be very respectful of the kerbs at the corner apex.

Hope that helps.
And that it isn’t a load of old bollocks….
Re porpoising, is it right they have gone from suspension intergrated with hydraulics to fully mechanical, if so could that possibly accentuate the aero induced porpoising?

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2019, 10:05
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
12 Mar 2022, 15:02
Stu wrote:
13 Feb 2022, 10:32
Chuckjr wrote:
13 Feb 2022, 06:27
Since these cars use the Bernoulli effect for most of their downforce starting this year, I’d like to better understand the forgiveness or lack thereof, of this aero anomaly.

So my main question is, is the break point for the “suck effect” of this system sudden, or is it forgiving?

For instance, if the car lifts off the ground from a curb bump and jumps, say, an inch or so past the main suck point (I’m assuming that’s the pinch point before the opening to the end of the car), will the car suddenly lose a majority of its downforce and tend to lift more easily? Or, is Bernoulli’s amazing suck zone a forgiving one, and the car can go 1”, heck even 2” past the main downforce driving area and still maintain most of the sucking effect?

Bonus round:
How large is the area that generates the majority of the downforce under the car, and what percentage of downforce does that area generate overall? Or is the downforce evenly spread over the whole of the bottom of the car, and the pinch point is simply the beginning of the suck effect.

If these details have already been elucidated, please point me to the page. Thank you.

Thank you for any and all answers. This place is amazing when it comes to explaining the engineering of this fantastic sport, and I appreciate the insight offered in the engineering forums here. Thank you insightful contributors — your efforts are appreciated.
I’ll try to answer a couple of these…

Sensitivity to ride height
At this point we do not know. The teams think they know, but need to confirm with actual testing. Historically, if the highest downforce is ‘peaky’ then the car will be very sensitive to ride height; but a car with broad peak (but less maximum downforce) will be less sensitive to ride height. Obviously a high broad peak that is not too sensitive would be the best compromise (but probably like trying to hunt down a unicorn…).

Because of how the tunnels are shaped (and assuming that they follow Bernoulli’s theory, the entrance of the tunnel should be speeding up the airflow, such that the peak speed (and lowest pressure) occurs at the leading edge of the flat section of floor, the longer this low pressure area can be maintained the better, the outlet (tunnel exit) should be designed to slow the airflow back to the same air speed (and pressure) that is present at the rear of the car. The tunnels should be designed to do this efficiently without stagnation points. This is probably why we are seeing ‘stepped’ tunnels in the launch cars.

This will tend to work alongside the ride height sensitivity as if the floor becomes ‘choked’ and cannot allow the airflow through the high-speed flat section (throat), all downforce generated by the floor disappears and an effect known as porpoising occurs. This is a bad thing.

Until they know the exact behaviour of the cars expect the drivers to be very respectful of the kerbs at the corner apex.

Hope that helps.
And that it isn’t a load of old bollocks….
Re porpoising, is it right they have gone from suspension intergrated with hydraulics to fully mechanical, if so could that possibly accentuate the aero induced porpoising?
To a point.
Part of the reasoning for the FIA removing the hydraulic linking of suspension components (third/heave spring-dampers are still allowed, but have to be mechanically linked) is to prevent unnatural/non-linear behaviour of the suspension, which a few teams were playing with.
The same systems that were being used last year to actively dump the car onto the ground, could equally be used to ‘prop up’ a chassis that is suffering from porpoising simply by changing the valving inside.
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

User avatar
vorticism
323
Joined: 01 Mar 2022, 20:20

Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Post

Merc have essentially added two large vortex generators on either side of their car, in an area where no other teams will be generating such a degree of vorticity. If this has any major, provable effect on the wake then the other teams may have something to argue over with the FIA.
𓄀