2014 aero regs revert to 2012 regs

[piast9]

So again - which of the provisional aero changes for 2014 were dropped? Is it only the simplification of front wing? Everything else seems to stay - lower nose height, no beam wing, reduced front wing width.

[Cam]

So again - which of the provisional aero changes for 2014 were dropped? Is it only the simplification of front wing? Everything else seems to stay - lower nose height, no beam wing, reduced front wing width.

Yes, it would be nice if some kind soul would keep one post updated with dot points of what has and hasn't changed. The current method of trying to filter all the posts, is a bit difficult.

Any chance the mods good put a post at the front of this thread to cater for this?

[Ogami musashi]

It takes time to browse through the rules and understand everything, it is not just reading..

So far what has been dropped is the banning of turning vanes and simplification of FW end plates as well as DRS use restriction together with a modification of RW elements proportions.

More to come.

[matt21]

The difference is the DRS-activation.

No. The physical point of rotation is the same as now, the volume is fixed and the relative dimension of lower RW element to upper RW element as well as their minimum radius are fixed and the same than in both previous 2014 draft and current regs.
This means this changes the placement and dimensions of both elements which, because of said fixed volume means the dimensions and AOA are potentially changed.

I think I have chosen a wrong wording.
I meant the difference between the distance of 15 and 65mm between the two sections. This is the difference between DRS off and on.

[Ogami musashi]

I think I have chosen a wrong wording.
I meant the difference between the distance of 15 and 65mm between the two sections. This is the difference between DRS off and on.

Yeah i know but if the actual DRS on solution is close to neutral you already achieve effeciency so increasing the max (DRS on) distance between element while keeping the same initial (DRS OFF) position implies you have changes in elements sizes.

More digging necessary...

[matt21]

AFAIK at the moment they are already lifting the upper element by 50mm while DRS-ON

[Ogami musashi]

AFAIK at the moment they are already lifting the upper element by 50mm while DRS-ON

It will be lifted to 65mm now. The closest distance stays the same. And that distance is measures in any vertical plane which means that this is the smaller distance between parts of the two elements, so i reckon this is not tilting the upper element more (since it already tilts to neutral now) but rather this one will have longer chord.

[matt21]

I just checked the regs.

You´re right. Actual they lift it 35mm. Sorry!

[Blanchimont]

I took the sketch from the 2014 regulations and added the limits for the front wing and nose. Looks pretty much the same as now in 2012 except for the new width of 1650mm and the nose of course. The yellow boxes contain both 9000mm².

Check if i made any mistake.

[ringo]

The nose is described in article 15.4.3 and is still limited at ~185mm.

15.4.3
An impact absorbing structure must be fitted in front of the survival cell.
This structure need not be an integral part of the survival cell but must be solidly attached to it.
It must have a minimum external cross section, in horizontal projection, of 9000mm² at a point 50mm behind its forward-most point.
Furthermore :
a) No part of this cross-section may lie more than 500mm above the reference plane.
b) The centre of area of this section must be no more than 185mm above the reference plane.
c) No part of this section may be more than 50mm below its centre of area.

This says the centre of the area, not the top or bottom. Some trickery can still be at play from the teams.

In fact Benson is wrong. He's twisted the regulations for sensationalism. His article says the nose will be 385mm lower, this is not true.

[Blanchimont]

The nose is described in article 15.4.3 and is still limited at ~185mm.

15.4.3
An impact absorbing structure must be fitted in front of the survival cell.
This structure need not be an integral part of the survival cell but must be solidly attached to it.
It must have a minimum external cross section, in horizontal projection, of 9000mm² at a point 50mm behind its forward-most point.
Furthermore :
a) No part of this cross-section may lie more than 500mm above the reference plane.
b) The centre of area of this section must be no more than 185mm above the reference plane.
c) No part of this section may be more than 50mm below its centre of area.

This says the centre of the area, not the top or bottom. Some trickery can still be at play from the teams.

In fact Benson is wrong. He's twisted the regulations for sensationalism. His article says the nose will be 385mm lower, this is not true.

And this is why i wrote ~185mm.

If you read through §15.4.3 and look at the picture above, you'll notice the nose limited between 135mm and 235mm in height at a point 50mm behind its forward-most point. Thats because when no part of this section may be more than 50mm below the COA, then also no part is allowed to be more than 50mm above (when i assume the cross section is a rectangle).

In fact, the first 50mm of the nose/car can be up to 550mm (§3.7.9), now that would look ridiculous.

[ringo]

Interesting. We are maybe looking at something like the early 90s, but more exaggerated.

The lack of the beam wing will make the cars look very clean.

One reason to retain the 2012 rules also is that if the engines meet the fuel efficiency target, there's no need for the body work aerodynamics to change to further increase fuel efficiency.
There's also concern for safety and lap time when we look at aerodynamics.

Increasing the minimum weight of the vehicle, i'm not sure why they did that. May have to do with reducing weight of the body to make up for increased engine weight. Safety reasons?

I personally would like to see reintroduction of refueling, ie if F1 is serious about fuel efficiency. We would have smaller tanks, and more aerodynamic bodies, lighter car weights, and more room for engine and subsystems.

[godlameroso]

How much downforce is produced by the beam wing? I mean from what I can see, although yes it can develop some, it seems minimal at best. The turbulence caused by the suspension members doesn't give the impression that it is very effective as opposed to the front or rear wing which are basically in unobstructed air. Or the diffuser, which basically has every development trick trying to toss as much clean air in this direction as physically possible. At best we see teams optimize it's shape, but I recon it does little more than flow conditioning.

[Blanchimont]

I don't have any numbers for the beam wing but i would imagine it interacts both with the air flow over and out of the diffuser and around the rear wing profiles, helping them to generate downforce.

This flow-viz image shows the direction of the streaming air between the rear wing endplates. Copy the url for a bigger picture.

[Lycoming]

by virtue of proximity, the beam wing plays an important role in driving flow through the diffuser, at small expense to the efficiency of the rear wing. I don't think the flow over it is that turbulent. the flow to it is messy, but I imagine the flow over the suspension arms should be all laminar.