2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[vorticism]

If they are bodywork, why not have them as the roof of the tunnels, and exit as a double diffusor?

Because bodywork geometry is well defined in the regs. Floor and generally most surfaces must be a continuous surface without apertures--not good for heat exchange.

[Zynerji]

If they are bodywork, why not have them as the roof of the tunnels, and exit as a double diffusor?

Because bodywork geometry is well defined in the regs. Floor and generally most surfaces must be a continuous surface without apertures--not good for heat exchange.

I think u totally miss my point... you could have the DDD inlets like the RB5 for the rads if the rads count as bodywork. They are exempt of the aperature clause.

[vorticism]

I think u totally miss my point... you could have the DDD inlets like the RB5 for the rads if the rads count as bodywork. They are exempt of the aperature clause.

They aren't. Being bodywork doesn't exempt it, in fact is holds it to the same rules as the other bodywork. Regardless in order to make ducts like a DDD would require an inlet i.e. a hole. Holes in the floor are ruled out by nature of the wording of the regulation regardless of what sort of bodywork might be beyond such hole (a radiator, winglets, vanes, etc.). Don't shoot the messenger; believe me I'd like to see development wizardry as much as you do, but certain things are no longer feasible. In fact I was just thinking the other day about how much of a beast the RB6 was. Tall wide diffuser, plus double diffuser, plus exhaust blowing, plus rake (plus front wing DRS, plus F duct, like the others). IIRC at the time they were saying it was the most downforce ever in F1 up til that point.

Speaking of beasts, I am now imagining 2022 aero regs with 2009 kerb weight... Certainly feasible (and cheaper!). Only thing preventing it is institutional will.

[Zynerji]

I think u totally miss my point... you could have the DDD inlets like the RB5 for the rads if the rads count as bodywork. They are exempt of the aperature clause.

They aren't. Being bodywork doesn't exempt it, in fact is holds it to the same rules as the other bodywork. Regardless in order to make ducts like a DDD would require an inlet i.e. a hole. Holes in the floor are ruled out by nature of the wording of the regulation regardless of what sort of bodywork might be beyond such hole (a radiator, winglets, vanes, etc.). Don't shoot the messenger; believe me I'd like to see development wizardry as much as you do, but certain things are no longer feasible. In fact I was just thinking the other day about how much of a beast the RB6 was. Tall wide diffuser, plus double diffuser, plus exhaust blowing, plus rake (plus front wing DRS, plus F duct, like the others). IIRC at the time they were saying it was the most downforce ever in F1 up til that point.

Speaking of beasts, I am now imagining 2022 aero regs with 2009 kerb weight... Certainly feasible (and cheaper!). Only thing preventing it is institutional will.

I just came across my HAYNES RB6 manual a few days ago. It was a very, very cool car!

[bartez1000]

If they are bodywork, why not have them as the roof of the tunnels, and exit as a double diffusor?

For a double diffuser to work, you would need a hole in the floor. So you'd subtract geometry, not add extra. Besides, if the radiator were to be placed under the surface of the floor, then it would be visible from under the car, and thus illegal according to the 3.12.4 rule.

The shapes of bodywork in the front wing and rear wing area is restricted to what you currently see: smooth airfoil shapes, two in the rear, four in the front. So no way to place in a trad multi element heat exchanger. Radiators as part of the PU are iirc required to be located within a certain distance of the PU which would prevent making aluminum wings elements with coolant running through them (to form a heavy, inefficient heat exchanger out of a wing.)

Which rule specifies that? I see rules that specify the front wing, rear wing, nose, etc. Each rule starts with a statement like Bodywork declared as “XYZ” must: ... . But I can't find a ruling stating that only such and such bodywork is allowed in a given volume.

Furthermore, where can I find a ruling that considers radiators a part of PU? And limits it's location to area close to PU? Primary heat exchanger, according to definition 7.4.1.b is a heat exchanger that uses the air flowing over or through the car to cool a fluid, which includes all of the core, tubes, header plates, header tanks and fins..
The construction of such an exchanger is prescribed by the 7.4 rules, but not its placement. Also, my hypothetical rear wing heat exchanger would be used solely to cool drs mechanism. No PU relation.

[vorticism]

Which rule specifies that? I see rules that specify the front wing, rear wing, nose, etc. Each rule starts with a statement like Bodywork declared as “XYZ” must: ... . But I can't find a ruling stating that only such and such bodywork is allowed in a given volume.

Furthermore, where can I find a ruling that considers radiators a part of PU? And limits it's location to area close to PU? Primary heat exchanger, according to definition 7.4.1.b is a heat exchanger that uses the air flowing over or through the car to cool a fluid, which includes all of the core, tubes, header plates, header tanks and fins..
The construction of such an exchanger is prescribed by the 7.4 rules, but not its placement. Also, my hypothetical rear wing heat exchanger would be used solely to cool drs mechanism. No PU relation.

To the first question, consider that it is the FIA who is doing the declaring and not the entrant. For the second: 5.4.7.

[bartez1000]

Which rule specifies that? I see rules that specify the front wing, rear wing, nose, etc. Each rule starts with a statement like Bodywork declared as “XYZ” must: ... . But I can't find a ruling stating that only such and such bodywork is allowed in a given volume.

Furthermore, where can I find a ruling that considers radiators a part of PU? And limits it's location to area close to PU? Primary heat exchanger, according to definition 7.4.1.b is a heat exchanger that uses the air flowing over or through the car to cool a fluid, which includes all of the core, tubes, header plates, header tanks and fins..
The construction of such an exchanger is prescribed by the 7.4 rules, but not its placement. Also, my hypothetical rear wing heat exchanger would be used solely to cool drs mechanism. No PU relation.

To the first question, consider that it is the FIA who is doing the declaring and not the entrant. For the second: 5.4.7.

Thank you for this info. It seems that 5.4.7 sets up a legality box, referenced in the Appendix 3 column 4. Yet I am still a bit confused.
Is the gearbox heat exchanger considered also a part of PU ? It would seem somewhat not intuitive, given it's definition in 5.1.2
How can all elements featured in the Appendix 3 need to fit in the 5.4.7 legality box, given that FIA ECU is listed there, which I remember being usually mounted in cockpit area. Also, fuel is an element in the Appendix, and fuel cell is definitely present more than 150mm back from engine mounting studs.

[mzso]

and primary heat exchangers provided they are not visible when viewed from the outside of the car, at any angle perpendicular to the X-axis.

I wonder what this accomplishes... Why not allow radiators to be uncovered?

But even if covered, why not have radiators that are aerofoils that produce downforce instead of being grilles that only produce drag? Also bloat and open up the body to allow (roughly) free moving air. (Since it can't be exposed)

[bartez1000]

and primary heat exchangers provided they are not visible when viewed from the outside of the car, at any angle perpendicular to the X-axis.

I wonder what this accomplishes... Why not allow radiators to be uncovered?

But even if covered, why not have radiators that are aerofoils that produce downforce instead of being grilles that only produce drag? Also bloat and open up the body to allow (roughly) free moving air. (Since it can't be exposed)

I believe this accomplishes that, which many other regulations strive for - make F1 car look "right". Usually this means the way F1 car looked when rulemakers were young (The low nose fetish!).

Also, if radiators are covered, then making them into aerofoil shape would not yield in downforce for the car as a whole. Just as putting a wing inside a wind tunnel does not make the tunnel fly.

[organic]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-e ... /10517669/

Tombazis:

"If we take the 2021 F1 cars, based on being two lengths from the car in front, they were losing more than 50% of the [aero] load," he explained.

"With the 2022 single-seaters, there was only a 20% reduction in load. But now we are at about 35%. Surely there has been a worsening and, on this point, Carlos is right. We have identified what we should act on."

"We are studying solutions for 2025," he explained. "We have identified some parts of the cars to act on, such as the endplate of the front wing, the side of the floor and the fins inside the wheels (around the brake ducts). We could lay down somewhat more restrictive rules in these areas.

Earlier suggestions from Tombazis that the FIA could intervene in 2025 with bodywork changes to improve the wake for following cars have been played down recently.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/loop ... fore-2026/

“I don’t think it’s going to get much worse for next year because I don’t think there’s any other loopholes to scrape through – the front wing area, and so on,” he asserted.

“I expect it’s going to stay very similar. I also don’t think it’s got worse during the year, I think it was just this year versus last year.”

[mzso]

Earlier suggestions from Tombazis that the FIA could intervene in 2025 with bodywork changes to improve the wake for following cars have been played down recently.

It's easier to pretend that everything is fine. As usual.

[FW17]

These were the Plank test carried out in 2024; surprisingly limited after the disqualification in 2023

BAHRAIN Checked (2 cars)

SAUDI ARABIAN Not checked

AUSTRALIAN Not checked

JAPANESE Not checked

CHINESE Checked (2 cars)

MIAMI Not checked

EMILIA ROMAGNA Checked (1 car)

MONACO Not checked

CANADA Checked (4 cars)

SPANISH Not checked

AUSTRIAN Not checked (presumed - no scrutineering results published)

BRITISH Not checked

HUNGARIAN Checked (1 car)

BELGIAN Not checked

DUTCH Checked (3 cars)

ITALIAN Not checked

Why don't the FIA make it easier for themselves and teams to use a plank that is laminate of different coloured sheets which would make it easier with post race checks.

[mzso]

Why don't the FIA make it easier for themselves and teams to use a plank that is laminate of different coloured sheets which would make it easier with post race checks.

Why have planks at all. Suspensions/springs could be made to reach the limit of their movement range before the car bottoming out, right? Or is that too simple and obvious?

I also suspect the floor could be (mandatorily) shaped to make getting close to the tarmac disadvantageous.

[stewie325]

Why don't the FIA make it easier for themselves and teams to use a plank that is laminate of different coloured sheets which would make it easier with post race checks.

Why have planks at all. Suspensions/springs could be made to reach the limit of their movement range before the car bottoming out, right? Or is that too simple and obvious?

I also suspect the floor could be (mandatorily) shaped to make getting close to the tarmac disadvantageous.

IIRC the plank - and a related ride height increase - was introduced after events in Imola 94. The intention was to reduce cars' ability to utilise ground effect and improve safety related to bottoming out. Removing the plank would be a reversal of that good intention, so not something that would happen lightly even if technically feasible.

[mzso]

Why don't the FIA make it easier for themselves and teams to use a plank that is laminate of different coloured sheets which would make it easier with post race checks.

Why have planks at all. Suspensions/springs could be made to reach the limit of their movement range before the car bottoming out, right? Or is that too simple and obvious?

I also suspect the floor could be (mandatorily) shaped to make getting close to the tarmac disadvantageous.

IIRC the plank - and a related ride height increase - was introduced after events in Imola 94. The intention was to reduce cars' ability to utilise ground effect and improve safety related to bottoming out. Removing the plank would be a reversal of that good intention, so not something that would happen lightly even if technically feasible.

It always seemed like a clunky pseudo solution to me. It doesn't actually prevent bottoming out for one.