New 2013 F1 aerodynamic formula

[ringo]

The front wings cans till be there. But they need a reduction in width and also an icrease in chord length and thickness.
If the front wings are mad to resemble front diffusers, similar to lmp cars, i think they wont be as senstive as today's wings.



similar to this, but a lower and narrower front diffuser.

[Pingguest]

However, if Formula 1 would ever drop its flawed high-downforce concept, the feeder series are very likely to follow suit.

Why is it "flawed"?

And do you really think the rest of the industry would say "oh, better follow F1 and go wingless"? If, for example, GP2 said "we'll stay with wings thanks" they'd just be the replacement for F1 because they'd be the quickest cars around a track - which is what F1 is all about.

Series like GP2 and Formula 3 are feeder series for Formula 1. It would be against their raison d'être to become faster than Formula 1.

[agip]

I don't think a drop in performance is acceptable. FIA wants to make changes but MANTAIN it.

[WhiteBlue]

I don't think a drop in performance is acceptable. FIA wants to make changes but MANTAIN it.

Yes, that seems to be the plan but at the same time drive train and chassis efficiency must improve to reduce fuel consumption. Aerodynamics must reduce drag to save approximately 12% of the power it uses today.

Tunnels seem to be the preferred method by the fans of making the floor more efficient and reducing the reliance on wings.

[Ronin]

Hi guys,

I am new to the forum and hope to learn a lot and share my opinions.

Regarding the topic, to promote innovation and reward clever thinking, I believe the rules should focus on energy values and not dictate specifics. The cleverest engineers are in F1 and if we allow them freedom, they will push the limits of engineering and definitely contribute to the automotive industry.

Do not specify what type of engine to use, rather limit the amount of energy that can be used during a race. This will create highly fuel efficient engines and I am sure will speed up the development of alternative fuels. To promote a move away from traditional fuel, offer budget incentives or weight advantages for teams using alternative energy sources.

Limit the amount of downforce that can be generated, but do not specify how they should achieve these limits. So, if for example the FIA limit downforce to 20kN at 200MPH, give the teams freedom to innovate different methods of attaining these values. The FIA could easily monitor these values through wind tunnel data and even 3rd party testing.

We need to keep the formula interesting and keep innovation going. We should not end up with a spec series where all the cars look the same, rather limit the physics but allow freedom to achieve the limits.

[WhiteBlue]

To promote a move away from traditional fuel, offer budget incentives or weight advantages for teams using alternative energy sources.

That would be wrong IMO. Rules must be the same for everyone. Fuels should remain technically close to what is in use for road cars. There is no point in using "green fuels" that are unobtainable for the man on the street. It is best to promote fuel efficiency only by suitable freedom in the regulations and fuel use limits.

Limit the amount of downforce that can be generated, but do not specify how they should achieve these limits. So, if for example the FIA limit downforce to 20kN at 200MPH, give the teams freedom to innovate different methods of attaining these values. The FIA could easily monitor these values through wind tunnel data and even 3rd party testing.

A fuel cap and flow limit will automatically limit the drag that is feasible for the engine power. No need to specify downforce if the limit is set correctly. If they still want to specify downforce they should actually measure it during the race which is technically feasible.

[747heavy]

http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/ ... mework.pdf

[agip]

(i made a stupid comment)

That document is dated "22 June 2007". I don't understand.

[747heavy]

(i made a stupid comment)

That document is dated "22 June 2007". I don't understand.

I just came across it, and posteded it here, as I think that it shows some of the internal discussions, which take place within the TWG at the FIA.
Some of the reasoning applies to the rules from 2013 onwards, as the reducting in engine power and some proposals for drag/downforce reduction.
I thought it offers some insight as in which direction FIA/FOTA want to go with it, sure due to the date some things are superceeded by now.

Sorry, if the post has offended you, it was not my intention.
If you or someone else feels it´s inappropriate and/or detrimental to this thread,
please let me know.
I´m happy to remove it, if this should be the case.

Regards

[WhiteBlue]

I think it shows very nicely how the focus changed when the FiA lost their influence on the technical regulations and FOTA took over. FiA under Mosley wanted a 50% power cut and massive cuts into the downforce. FOTA are much more conservative. The power cut will effectively be less than 10% when you consider the added electric power from KERS.

[FW17]

Is it true that the down force of the car which had ground effects (as seen in 70's and 80's) acted at the throat of the venturi which was inline with the cockpit/fuel tank are, unlike todays cars where they act at the front end (effect of front wing) and somewhere at the rear end (effect of diffuser)

Another thing noticed on the cars with venturi tunnel ground effects is the shallow angle of attack of the front wing, it is almost like it is used to direct air into the underside of car rather than produce down ]force.

[747heavy]

not directly at the throat, you will have the lowest pressure at the point where the profile in the sidepods is closest to the ground. (highest air velocity)
You will need to see the pressure profil under and above the car (body) where the pressure difference is greatest, you will have the point with the highest downforce.
The pressure difference varies along the car.
You have your CoP (centre of pressure) along the longitunal axis.
This is similar in pricnciple to your CoG (centre of gravity) for the different masses along the longitunal axis.
You normaly aim to have your CoG and CoP close togther, to minimize balance changes with speed.

in this example you would have the point at app. the cockpit.




venturi tunnel exit on an Lotus 79


pressure distibution in tunnels (Indycar)

[machin]

I've got to say, that 2007 FIA article hits the nail on the head I'd say.... I can't pick a single fault in it. If future F1 was based on the suggestions in there it would be great; developement emphasis in all the right directions, and also a good nod to the entertainment side too. Spec parts for the parts we don't really care about (wheels etc) is no bad thing I reckon.

I also like the automatically adjusting aero for following cars, which I suggested in my F1 concept a while back: link

[leoleo]

The front wings cans till be there. But they need a reduction in width and also an icrease in chord length and thickness.
If the front wings are mad to resemble front diffusers, similar to lmp cars, i think they wont be as senstive as today's wings.



similar to this, but a lower and narrower front diffuser.

THIS #27 CAR,LET ME SAY THIS,WITH SOME MODS OF COURSE.SO CLEAN LOOKING.
I HAVE BEEN GOING TO AND WATCHING ON THE TELE SINCE 1955(MONACO)
THE TURBO YEARS,NOW THEY WERE CLEAN MACH.THE CARS WE ARE SEEING TODAY ??
SO MUCH JUNK HANGING FROM THE BODY.TURN #1 DRAMA GO THUR MAYBE,OR.
YOU NEED TO COME BACK IN FOR A NEW NOSE.(so boring)
the late breaking guys would have much more going for them an other guy.
we could even have a true race, huge gaps tween first,second are just not on.
the mid pack racing, is very best part of the show .leoleo

[WhiteBlue]

BBC preview of the 2013 aero rules

• Much smaller front and rear wings;
• A far greater proportion of the total downforce of the cars will be created by the underfloor, compared to the wings;
• A major reduction in the amount of total downforce created by the car;
• To achieve this, the underfloor of the cars will be shaped along its length to generate downforce for the first time since the 1982 season - currently cars have bottoms that are flat between the wheels;
• The average proportion of a lap that a driver is able to spend on full throttle to be cut from 70% in 2010 to 50% in 2013;
• Tyres will remain large and chunky to ensure cornering speeds remain high.

So tunnels will return and the floor will probably become a spec item. They don't say so but the strategy was proposed by the technical working group three years ago. Source

They are now picking up where they left it some years ago. They need the floor to become a spec item because otherwise they cannot control the increase of downforce from the floor. So the wings and the bodywork is the only area of aerodynamic work in the future. It is conceivable that they will have load cells in the wing struts as well to limit the downforce from the wings or they will have to have very strict rules on geometries.

I say this is going to be very good for the sport. With limits on the aero development potential teams will start to focus more on the drive train which has been neglected for some years. With lower downforce a big part of the overtaking problem will go away. You cannot loose downforce that you don't have in the first place.

It is interesting that the experts expect full throttle to go down from 70 to 50%. It will provide the engine guys with opportunities to focus on running leaner engine regimes.

Head has recently designed the car for Formula2 which uses tunnels, so he will be up to date with some real world figures. The F2 car uses 450 bhp and the new F1 car will have 580 bhp engine power which will be topped up with another 160 bhp of KERS for some 20-33 s.