2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Vyssion]

I figured that it would be a good idea to begin a thread to discuss all of these changes that 2017 will bring to aerodynamics. Below is a silent video which showcases all of the proposed changes so far.



From watching it, it seems that the overall aim was to make the cars look more aggressive and stylish than the current (and previous years) "penis-nose" designs. They want it to be much faster than they currently are of course, and there seems to be more of a focus on vortex control with larger turning vanes, underbody/diffuser leeway and aggressive front wing detailing.







Some of the obvious changes are:

• A more aggressive and sculpted looking front wing design - Outer limits positioned 200mm rearward of centreline
• Front wing is also 100mm wider than previously allowed
• 15° angle of the sidepod intake
• Wider (420mm up to 450mm) rear tyres aimed at just increasing mechanical grip
  
  
• Car is Longer, though wheelbase remains mostly the same
• Car is Wider - i.e. has a wider track of 1000mm instead of the original 905mm
  
• Removal of the tall, narrow rear wings and introducing a similar design to the 2008 design
• Rear Wings are much shorter and wider and have 5mm less vertical height in which to place the elements
• There is also the introduction of a Beam Wing
  
  
• Several angled parameters of endplates (30°), bargeboards (45°)and sidepods (15° and 30°) introduced
  
• Longer and wider diffuser length allowable giving more cross sectional area
  
• Much larger turning vanes and general peripheral aerodynamic device size
  

It would've been nice if they had've ditched the 8-9 element front wing which is soooo sensitive, especially in the wake of another car. It makes overtaking tricky and hence we have DRS to help with it. It would've been nice to see a simplified front wing and removal of DRS perhaps.

Overall, I would say that they have succeeded (at least for now) in creating a more aggressive and better looking F1 car. Now to fix their sounds!! But it will definitely be interesting to see what revisions come about and then finally what the teams do with these new guidelines. With the target of making the cars 6ish seconds quicker a lap... I'm not too sure if these changes will allow that to happen, at least for a while as the teams use their CFD quota for it. But still, all of that extra energy is still transmitted through the tyres; and so if the aero performance will be get to a point where extra pit stops are required, we may still find that races are, once again, governed by tyre and fuel management *sigh*...

Until that aspect of racing goes away, I think I will always find myself wanting more. F1 is meant to be the pinnacle of racing. The cars should rip holes in the ozone layer and burn all the fossil fuels they need; after all, F1's impact on climate change is basically negligible compared to the entire rest of the world. Hybrid technology has proven to enhance the cars in areas where the mechanical parts fall down and that is great. But all these rules and "green hug a tree" stuff which are not directly included to help the beginner teams, limit the potential of what F1 could be. You only need to look to the absolutely brilliant wheel-to-wheel action we are seeing in the WEC LMP1 Series between Porsche and Audi to see what racing could be: edge of your seat excitement even hours into the race for 1st place.

[graham.reeds]

[OT] I am loving this years WEC. Would prefer Toyota to be more in the mix - hopefully next year they will be competitive with their 3l turbo.

[wesley123]

Looks okay I suppose, although I don't get the jumping around. This undoes the majority of changes that were done with the '09 rule change for no apparent reason.

I bet this jumping around is great to cutting costs!

[ChrisF1]

I really dislike the angled wings. Both the front wing from top down and the side view of the turning vane and rear wing are not pleasant to me.

I would prefer things like turning vanes to be removed, but I guess if they want 4 seconds a lap faster than it has to come from aero.

[trinidefender]

The number of elements isn't what makes the wing sensitive or not. How close a team runs the wing to its stall angle (for given atmospheric conditions), how close the wing is run to the ground, any imperfections in its surface from manufacture and painting or debris getting stuck in the slots and also suspension setup decides how sensitive a wing is.

In fact adding extra slots to a wing is there to help reduce the sensitivity of the wing in changing conditions and/or to run the wing at a higher angle of attack.

[bill shoe]

Here at Mexico we are seeing lower downforce due to high altitude and resulting low air density. Bottas of Williams says the actual downforce here is much lower than even Monza. And what are we seeing?

The drivers actually have to... drive the cars. You can clearly see them working the cars instead of passively guiding them around in a high-downforce kind of live-action video game.

Yet the assumption is that F1 cars need much more downforce in 2017. What?? Is the purpose of F1 to have laptime X, or is the purpose of F1 to create a high-level and difficult driving challenge for the drivers?

Don't think aero details matter much until the big-picture stuff is thought thru more.

[lucafo]

The number of elements isn't what makes the wing sensitive or not. How close a team runs the wing to its stall angle (for given atmospheric conditions), how close the wing is run to the ground, any imperfections in its surface from manufacture and painting or debris getting stuck in the slots and also suspension setup decides how sensitive a wing is.

In fact adding extra slots to a wing is there to help reduce the sensitivity of the wing in changing conditions and/or to run the wing at a higher angle of attack.

Thats interesting, but a more simplified FW would looks nice to me.

And I also dislike the angled RW. I think it looks indy and not F1.

Just bring ground effect back again...

[Pierce89]

The number of elements isn't what makes the wing sensitive or not. How close a team runs the wing to its stall angle (for given atmospheric conditions), how close the wing is run to the ground, any imperfections in its surface from manufacture and painting or debris getting stuck in the slots and also suspension setup decides how sensitive a wing is.

In fact adding extra slots to a wing is there to help reduce the sensitivity of the wing in changing conditions and/or to run the wing at a higher angle of attack.

There you go, making sense again. You know that's not tolerated in these "change xyz" threads. You lose your column 1 rights and your "historic team"payments.

[Cold Fussion]

Here at Mexico we are seeing lower downforce due to high altitude and resulting low air density. Bottas of Williams says the actual downforce here is much lower than even Monza. And what are we seeing?

The drivers actually have to... drive the cars. You can clearly see them working the cars instead of passively guiding them around in a high-downforce kind of live-action video game.

Yet the assumption is that F1 cars need much more downforce in 2017. What?? Is the purpose of F1 to have laptime X, or is the purpose of F1 to create a high-level and difficult driving challenge for the drivers?

Don't think aero details matter much until the big-picture stuff is thought thru more.

If you want to see drivers driving cars that are all over the place watch nascar or v8supercars.

[bill shoe]

If you want to see drivers driving cars that are all over the place watch nascar or v8supercars.

Are you against watching more active driving & vehicle dynamics in F1 at all, or are you simply more in favor of laptime X?

[bhall II]

Here at Mexico we are seeing lower downforce due to high altitude and resulting low air density. Bottas of Williams says the actual downforce here is much lower than even Monza. And what are we seeing?

The drivers actually have to... drive the cars. You can clearly see them working the cars instead of passively guiding them around in a high-downforce kind of live-action video game.

A lot of that is due to a very green track surface that offers little grip at this point.

I feel the track has got a lot of potential, but it’s so slippery out there. Even in the afternoon when it was quite dry, the high-speed stuff was still very slippery. But it’s a brand new track and once the grip is in, it’ll be a lot of fun. The track is unique and I think they have done a really good job with it.

Otherwise, there's virtually no level of downforce that can contain the effects of 750+bhp if improperly applied. What you see now is the way it's always been; it's just a bit slower these days and that much easier to spot.

[Cold Fussion]

If you want to see drivers driving cars that are all over the place watch nascar or v8supercars.

Are you against watching more active driving & vehicle dynamics in F1 at all, or are you simply more in favor of laptime X?

F1 should be the unquestionable fastest racing series around, if I was only interested in how active the driver was then I would only watch rallying and drifting exclusively.

[PhillipM]

The number of elements isn't what makes the wing sensitive or not. How close a team runs the wing to its stall angle (for given atmospheric conditions), how close the wing is run to the ground, any imperfections in its surface from manufacture and painting or debris getting stuck in the slots and also suspension setup decides how sensitive a wing is.

In fact adding extra slots to a wing is there to help reduce the sensitivity of the wing in changing conditions and/or to run the wing at a higher angle of attack.

There you go, making sense again. You know that's not tolerated in these "change xyz" threads. You lose your column 1 rights and your "historic team"payments.

The trouble there is that it doesn't always work like that does it? Teams build wings that are less sensitive to stalling with multiple elements....then use that try to run them closer to the ground, at higher AoA, or to create more vortices for the rest of the car to work with - leading to a front wing that's ultimately as sensitive or worse than the old lower-element one.

[trinidefender]

The number of elements isn't what makes the wing sensitive or not. How close a team runs the wing to its stall angle (for given atmospheric conditions), how close the wing is run to the ground, any imperfections in its surface from manufacture and painting or debris getting stuck in the slots and also suspension setup decides how sensitive a wing is.

In fact adding extra slots to a wing is there to help reduce the sensitivity of the wing in changing conditions and/or to run the wing at a higher angle of attack.

There you go, making sense again. You know that's not tolerated in these "change xyz" threads. You lose your column 1 rights and your "historic team"payments.

The trouble there is that it doesn't always work like that does it? Teams build wings that are less sensitive to stalling with multiple elements....then use that try to run them closer to the ground, at higher AoA, or to create more vortices for the rest of the car to work with - leading to a front wing that's ultimately as sensitive or worse than the old lower-element one.

I actually disagree. In the days of F1 cars with a million aerodynamic bits and bobs (mid 2000's), the focus was on peak downforce. These cars basically drove on rails with very hard suspension to maintain their aerodynamic performance. Come 2009 with drastic rule changes and Red Bull became dominant force for the next while as far as aerodynamics go.

They realised that the cars would have much less total downforce that previously. Therefore the cars would be much more slidey. Adrian Newey and his design team realised this. To combat this problem as best they can they went after a design philosophy that allows the driver the most grip under changeable conditions. The front wing gained elements season upon season to allow the driver to push the car to its absolute limit of what the lower amount of downforce will allow under any condition. This lower general sensitivity in the cars aerodynamic setup allowed softer spring rates to be used increasing mechanical grip. One of the reasons that Red Bull was dominant in slower speed corners (again my belief).

Also due to the car having much less fins flaps and general aero trickery(and this is my personal belief), the control of airflow when a car is in yaw and/or sliding is harder (from the 2009 onward general rule set). This only further increases the need for a team to make the car as drive able as possible under conditions of lateral slip.

[gavingav1]

found on reddit, some 2017 visualisations -