More aero, less powerunit

[NL_Fer]

If in 2017 they would like to increase aero, maybe they should do i it in such a way, the powerunit would be less dominent in total car performance. We now know, the engine packaging has a huge influence on the chassis aero. Mercedes designed a powerunit, that is both compact and powerfull, we can see the results.

So how aero be increased, but without the engine package size influence the performance that much as now.

[wesley123]

Aero already is the dominant area to increase performance. Why? Because it is the least restricted.

[natehall]

If in 2017 they would like to increase aero, maybe they should do i it in such a way, the powerunit would be less dominent in total car performance. We now know, the engine packaging has a huge influence on the chassis aero. Mercedes designed a powerunit, that is both compact and powerfull, we can see the results.

So how aero be increased, but without the engine package size influence the performance that much as now.

ok, so you reduce the engines input, which can be easily described to the majority of fans in the following format:

If you have a Mercedes Engine, You are expected to win if you have a half decent chassis
If you have a Ferrari Engine, You may win if you have a very good chassis
If you have a Renault Engine, You stand little chance of winning, but if all the cards stack up and the wind blows in your direction you may win
If you have a Honda Engine, Good Luck getting points
If you have a year old Ferrari Engine, your an also ran.

This format is very easy for average fans to understand, however if you move back to a completely aero dominated discipline like the engine froze V8 Era, what you get is people talking about Y250 vortexes, multi tier front wings, vortex generators and exhaust blown diffusers without really understanding what any of this is, and all wondering why manor marrusia dont just bolt on a red bull front wing and find 3 seconds..

The average fan also wants to see more out and out racing, which aero performance does not help. This is because as soon as you get within a second or two of the car infront you lose grip... How does the FIA fix this problem? Add an aero device to try and counteract and make overtaking easy on the straights..

I recently showed my 5 year old a race from the early 90's, he thought it was absolutely brilliant all the "side by side" racing and thought it was better than modern f1.

he has no prejudice as to which era is best as us adult have, he just wanted to see racing drivers battle. We need to simplify the aero and engines... then let the Drivers do the talking but to many technical people too involved in the sport dont want that.

[Vyssion]

There is also the issue of the gap that would develop between the lesser teams and the big wigs of racing. There are many aero-related phenomena which are extremely tricky to get working well and lesser teams simply do not have the time, resources and/or money to invest into getting the effect working. One example which springs to mind is the blown diffuser technique. This was notoriously difficult to get working correctly, and if a team was unable to get it just right, it was harmful to the cars performance.

One thing that I would love to see implemented would be for the championship winning car become a sort of "pick what you want to buy" type of thing. Each team would be given an allotment of "credits" based upon their constructor championship position with more credits allocated to the lower teams. Each part of the championship car would then be given a "credit price" to it (e.g. front wing would be worth more than a bargeboard - or dampers could be worth more than an A-arm piece) which lesser teams can then purchase and apply to their car. It does bring the whole "but we worked hard to make this!!" argument, but to help alleviate some of the angst it would bring, perhaps the part comes as a "plug-and-play" only and no further development on that part can be researched/adjusted through that championship year.

I reckon this would allow lesser teams to focus on areas that they are weak in, whilst having the knowledge that other areas of the car are fine and can be ignored presently. With how the races are now being about fuel and tyre management and very little wheel to wheel racing, perhaps this would limit front runners and being the rear runners up the field to at least be a little more competitive? Obviously this is a super simplified proposal and I'm sure it would be much more complex in reality, but I think it would be a pretty decent way to go...

[Just_a_fan]

When RedBull were winning back-to-back-to-back titles people asking for less aero and more engine. Funny how these things go around...

[sectionate]

All that would happen if this was initiated would be that another camp wold pop up and say more power, less aero, or more mechanical grip less aero.

[NL_Fer]

This was not the discussion i wanted to start. More aero will be initiated anyway, i just want to know which area of the car needs to be more "released" to increase downforce, but without the powerunit size be of influence on this part.

[riff_raff]

The easiest way to significantly increase downforce would be to allow greater freedom in the underbody design.

[bhall II]

This was not the discussion i wanted to start. More aero will be initiated anyway, i just want to know which area of the car needs to be more "released" to increase downforce, but without the powerunit size be of influence on this part.

In general, it's not really possible to separate aero matters like that, because everything affects everything else. Based upon the CFD below, for instance, if the light-blue streamlines around the "Coke-bottle" area were somehow pushed farther outboard, it would have cascading effects on everything that happens to air flow both upstream and downstream of that location.



In other words, if you alter flow patterns at the rear of the car, it will have an effect on the front of the car, too. That means the answer is pretty much this: everything and nothing. You can do whatever you want, but none of it will be immune to the consequences of packaging decisions.

Given the substantial increase in size of the barge boards and the addition of angled turning vanes, the cars should see a rather liberal increase in underbody downforce, which is perhaps the area of aerodynamic performance that's least influenced by packaging constraints.



The return of the beam wing and the modest increase in diffuser size should help as well. But, the effects of those particular elements are very closely allied with engine packaging.

[PlatinumZealot]

Lower step plane means higher expansion ration in the diffuser...

[Just_a_fan]

I'm not a fan of the "angle it to make it look modern" idea with the rear wing endplates and the sidepod turning vanes.

[NL_Fer]

Can't we install a wider rear wing and get rid of fhe idiotic stacked fromt wing, everybody drives over.

[bhall II]

Lower step plane means higher expansion ration in the diffuser...

Not necessarily.

I'm not a fan of the "angle it to make it look modern" idea with the rear wing endplates and the sidepod turning vanes.

I'm not yet sure how the new angle will affect the rear wing beyond marginally reducing drag, but it should improve the performance of the turning vanes, because it'll make them better suited for redirecting air flow around increasingly undercut sidepods.

In general, the need for a turning vane is most pressing near a sidepod's widest points, and current designs are lacking in that regard when it comes to air flow closest to the floor. The new geometry will more closely follow the contours of the sidepod's leading edge from top to bottom, which should help reduce the amount of unwanted air flow that gets pulled underneath the car and increase the amount desirable air flow that gets sent to elements at the rear of the car.



I don't like how it's not a more organic development, but it's not just cosmetic. It's more like the result of a few (possibly drunk) aerodynamicists getting together to fix some of the more significant development challenges posed over the years by the current ruleset.

Can't we install a wider rear wing and get rid of fhe idiotic stacked fromt wing, everybody drives over.

The rear wing will be wider...



...and normal development has virtually standardized the front wing at this point. i don't see how being swept will change much about the design beyond making it somewhat more difficult to build with both the rigidity demanded by the rules and the low weight needed to be competitive.

[trinidefender]

If the sweep on the rear wing end plates is large enough then under conditions of yaw vortices will develop off of it. Actually thinking about it the teams can probably use the sweep to introduce steps on the vertical endplates. Each step (will look like a sawtooth pattern) that the teams can use to set up a vortex on the lower side of the rear wing or for the lower part of the endplates to control rear tyre wake.

I'm not very familiar with the proposed 2017 aero rules. I understand that they are lowering the step plane so that the floor bottom is closer to the plank. Are they also lengthening the regulation box for the diffuser?