Future Aero Regulations: ideas

[sh^rkbo0ts]

Hi all,

For the last couple of years I've had some ideas kicking around my head for the future of F1 regulations (I imagine many of you have too).

Here is my take on fixing aero dependency:

- Standardised (edit: by which I mean identical, off-the-shelf) wings, attached directly to suspension uprights, with 'active' flaps that attempt to maintain a specific downforce level regardless of speed or airflow quality.

- FIA Sensors in the suspension pull/push rods that test for downforce generated by the bodywork (bodywork must not produce downforce).

- Greatly increased freedom in bodywork design (but it must be aero nuetral!).

- Wider tyres for increased mechanical grip.

Since pictures tell a thousand words, I've cobbled something together in Google sketchup using an existing Indycar model as a base. Please excuse the extreme blockiness of my additions (in yellow) and try to get over the fact that it is an Indycar.

Am interested in whether you f1-techorati think this might be workable and/or desirable, and if not, why not?

[Mystery Steve]

- Standardised wings, attached directly to suspension uprights, with 'active' flaps that attempt to maintain a specific downforce level regardless of speed or airflow quality.

- FIA Sensors in the suspension pull/push rods that test for downforce generated by the bodywork (bodywork must not produce downforce).

- Greatly increased freedom in bodywork design (but it must be aero nuetral!).

While I appreciate what you're trying to work towards with these points, unfortunately I don't see them being workable solutions. Starting on the first point with standardized wings and active flaps: I don't have anything against the standardized wing, but I do take issue with the flaps "maintaining constant downforce." That is something that is very difficult to execute technically (taking time and money), and would likely only lead to more politics. I could only imagine the backlash if one of these flaps were to stick in position and a driver's car was compromised. I would say "Keep It Simple Stupid" and just give them a wing to mount.

On the second point, you can't directly measure aerodynamic loads that way. If you're measuring at the push(pull)rod, you're getting a combination of aerodynamic and mechanical loading. You can't really separate the two either. Finally, addressing the third point: if you have any kind of asymmetrical bodywork traveling in proximity to the ground, it will not be aero-neutral. Physics won't let it. Besides, that would be another rule that would next to impossible to enforce. How close to neutral is enough? Regardless of where you draw the line in the sand, you'll have some arbitrary line that the teams will constantly be trying to dance on, and that would mean more time and money poured into it.

Personally, if you're somebody who doesn't like all the time and money spent on aerodynamics, then I would say give them wings and an underbody and say "design around this." Otherwise, you'll just create a bunch of loopholes for designers to jump through. Although some people (like me) actually enjoy the aerodynamic development. Granted, I am biased being an aeronautical engineer, but I like seeing teams being creative and using double deck diffusers or little scoops that are driver activated to control the rear wing. It's not a spec series, so they have the freedom to try these ideas, which I think is really cool. Does it necessarily have "real world" impact? No. But who cares? OK, I know some of you care, but let's not get into that here.

[wesley123]

the only good future regulation would be more design freedom

[sh^rkbo0ts]

OK, all good points.

I do take issue with the flaps "maintaining constant downforce."

Obviously constant downforce can't be maintained (impossible even with a Brabham fan) so bad choice of words by me, but the point is to have wings that will adjust automatically when in turbulent air. I'm happy for it to be a technically complex solution even if a standard part - nice to see visible hi-tech on F1 cars. I can appreciate that the FIA would not wish to incur to cost of development, but that's another story...

you can't directly measure aerodynamic loads that way. If you're measuring at the push(pull)rod, you're getting a combination of aerodynamic and mechanical loading.

I can't see a problem with checking the aero neutrality via the suspension. If you plot suspension movements over the course of a lap, you should see no correlation between deflection and speed.

if you have any kind of asymmetrical bodywork traveling in proximity to the ground, it will not be aero-neutral

With no bodywork restrictions teams could fine tune their neutrality with winglets - let the aero guys dance on that fine line!

For the record, aero has traditionally been the area of F1 that has interested me the most, but I think it's the end of the road for the current regulatory framework - the aero work the teams do is too iterative to be as interesting as it once was.

[Mystery Steve]

I can't see a problem with checking the aero neutrality via the suspension. If you plot suspension movements over the course of a lap, you should see no correlation between deflection and speed.

I understand the concept you're going for, but it just wouldn't work. The problem is the suspension in constantly moving as it goes through turns and hits bumps. The aerodynamic deflection you are trying to measure would just be lost in the noise.

[sh^rkbo0ts]

But why couldn't linear regression cancel out the noise? I'm talking correlation not max/min value.

I don't have any experience with telemetry, but if you plotted the average force applied to the 4 push/pullrods, at 0.1s intervals, against the speed at that moment would you not get something like this over about two laps?





If the correlation coefficient is near enough to zero, the body is neutral.

[DaveW]

Like your example, sb. It is possible to generate a passable aero map from track data with judicious corrections, sorting & regression.

Not sure about attaching D/F generators to the uprights, though. That idea was banned years ago because the devices (wings) attached directly to uprights fell off fairly regularly into the path of following vehicles....

[sh^rkbo0ts]

Don't you think materials technology might have improved a bit since 1969.

[DaveW]

Don't you think materials technology might have improved a bit since 1969.

Absolutely, but materials technology is not the (only) issue as illustrated by a certain Virgin front wing of 2010.

I believe 1981 was the last year the regulation caused a black flag.

[christopher.mahlon]

I'm becoming more of the opinion that wings should be banned, or cut down to Monza size.

[Ciro Pabón]

There are no open wheel series without wings that I know. Of course, if you like stock cars... suit yourself. I find bizarre the concept of emasculating wings or requiring zero downforce cars. It would be like a Tour de France on tricycles.

It seems to me many people wants a series we could call "NASCAR/Europe", instead of "Formula 1".

Freedom of regulations = Championship for the richest

[Ciro Pabón]

If the correlation coefficient is near enough to zero, the body is neutral.

Oh, my. This is an example of how the road to hell is paved with good intentions: what you're asking from the teams is to give you a high reading at slow curves and a low one at straights. This would give you the zero you're asking, with cars that have positive downforce.

Not to mention that I find (respectfully) the idea not ridiculous but useless. Why would you want to have F1 cars that are slower than F3 cars? Take of the wings or minimize them and that's what you'll get.

So, the question that comes to my mind is not "will this idea work?" but "why?".

[autogyro]

If the correlation coefficient is near enough to zero, the body is neutral.

Oh, my. This is an example of how the road to hell is paved with good intentions: what you're asking from the teams is to give you a high reading at slow curves and a low one at straights. This would give you the zero you're asking, with cars that have positive downforce.

Not to mention that I find (respectfully) the idea not ridiculous but useless. Why would you want to have F1 cars that are slower than F3 cars? Take of the wings or minimize them and that's what you'll get.

So, the question that comes to my mind is not "will this idea work?" but "why?".

If you took off the wings Ciro the cars would be a lot faster not slower.
They would not corner as efficiently which is not the same thing.

[sh^rkbo0ts]

Oh, my. This is an example of how the road to hell is paved with good intentions: what you're asking from the teams is to give you a high reading at slow curves and a low one at straights. This would give you the zero you're asking, with cars that have positive downforce.

Not to mention that I find (respectfully) the idea not ridiculous but useless. Why would you want to have F1 cars that are slower than F3 cars? Take of the wings or minimize them and that's what you'll get.

I'm clearly not suggesting that the cars produce no overall downforce, simply that all the downforce is generated by the unsprung part of the car. The teams must ensure that the sprung part of the car provides no downforce. At what point did I say I wanted the cars to be slow?

One thing I like about splitting the aero and suspension loads is that the teams have always tried to do this, but have been prevented by rule changes (i.e. banning of wings attached to suspension, Lotus 88, active suspension). The teams could run a softer, grippier suspension setup under these regs.

Understand also that my primary motivation for putting forward an idea like this is a fear of some of the truly awful suggestions being bandied about for spicing up the racing (forced pitstops, reversed grids etc.)

[ESPImperium]

I like the concept of the 1960s-1970s rear wing, could that be brought back into the sport as a way of reducing downforce???

Im thinking with large wing end plates and a Le Mans style centre swan neck support it could also decrease drag as well.

Front wings id like to see raised and narrowed, somewhere in between the current 09-present wing and the 06-08 wing. Also with unlimited FFA usage per lap.

Other than that, i think the body should have total freedom from the current regulations. Id allow some "clean" appendages brought back, like the GP2/05 style flip up and the vyking horns and the Ferarri slotted nose.

But basically ill cover the aero regs in 5 areas:

Front Wing: Hybrid rules between the 06-08 wing and the 09-present wing. Keep the standardised middle section, but only as far as 50mm outside each of the minimum 2 wing supports. Nosecone would be homologated for the season as well.

Rear Wing: More 1960s/1970s in style, but with a ALMS style usage of the goose neck centre support and generous sized rear wing end plates. Standardised centre section, but the rest is fair game for development.

Diffuser: Make the diffuser to the letter of what the 2009 rules are, but with a standardised centre section and started hole. Floors would have to remain flat floored, with the plank being kept as well.

Rest of body: Pretty much fair game as long as development is homologated every 4 to 6 races for the top 4 teams in the constructors championship. The only thing that wouldnt be allowed is the wing mirrors being out board, they should have to be inboard in a standardised location for saftey purposes. Wheel spinners would remain banned as well from a saftey point of view as well. the only things that would be homologated is the rear, side and front crash structures.

Aerodynamic Aids: Anything like the F-Duct would be banned, anything however FFA usage would be unlimited.

Id keep the current tyre sizes, but increase their grip as well for more mechanichal grip.