2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[djos]

Are the inclined rear wing and the V-shaped front wing going to be mandatory? These things made just for the look (which personally I don't even like) seem just dumb to me.

Agreed, the angled front wing, huge barge board and tilted back rear wing look ridiculous, almost as bad as the current fugly Indy cars!

[bhall II]

None of it is unprecedented...

[henry]

For the front wing the Piola graphic shows what I think was intended with a pretty delta shape.

However... The regulations define the centre neutral section just the same as 2016. The new angled leading edge definition line does not intersect the neutral rectangle in plan view. To match them up we'll need horns on the wing and a long pointy nose. We've seen those before.

Cock up or opportunity?

EDIT

was this what Williams were looking at in the recent Barcelona test? You can, after all, have bodywork above the neutral section. Return of the walrus?

[StrikeForceF1]

Here's a question..I'm not sure exactly what the new rules are but is it possible that with the height or allowable height of the diffuser increased we could see a return or a semi return to the diffuser's of the early to mid 2000's? During that era we had some beautiful looking low nosed F1 cars which did't require as much as today's fugly concepts for getting that much air from the front to feed the diffuser.

[djos]

None of it is unprecedented...

http://i.imgur.com/P8GNwCx.jpg

Good point, the slanted rear wing is still ugly but I'd forgotten how good the McLaren looked with those barge boards. The Ferrari does look good too but I'm not convinced yet that the 2017 solutions with be as nice. Happy to be wrong tho.

[turbof1]

With the upper wing lower and placed further backwards, wouldn't a beam wing interfere with it's airflow?

But that's exactly what you want. In the past the beam wing was important to link diffuser flow with rear wing flow. The resulting aero structure increased both rear wing and diffuser downforce through a bigger upwash.

My question is, with the endplate being diagonal from side view the main wing will be placed further back from where it used to be, the beam wing however will be roughly at the same placement it had in 2013 i'm assuming.

Wouldn't this dirty flow coming from the beam wing placed ahead of the rear wing (the wing is also lower) interfere with it on a negative way?

You might need a pretty neutral beam wing (if they are even allowed in the first place).

A fairly neutral beam is good enough. In the past the beam wing already was quite diagonal placed in regard to the rear wing. Upwash never was fully vertical anyway.

[Sevach]

A fairly neutral beam is good enough. In the past the beam wing already was quite diagonal placed in regard to the rear wing. Upwash never was fully vertical anyway.

Can't say i remember the days where the beam wing was ahead of the rear wing leading edge... but still, ok.

[bhall II]

Good point, the slanted rear wing is still ugly but I'd forgotten how good the McLaren looked with those barge boards. The Ferrari does look good too but I'm not convinced yet that the 2017 solutions with be as nice. Happy to be wrong tho.

Would it make things easier if I told you that the shapes of the components - not just the increased size - will bring performance gains? That it's entirely possible, if not probable, that the new rules are going to make the cars significantly quicker than anyone bargained for?

[godlameroso]

There's nothing in the regulations against using EMF to control aerodynamic flows, does anyone think someone is taking advantage, or could take advantage of this? Besides me of course.

[godlameroso]

Good point, the slanted rear wing is still ugly but I'd forgotten how good the McLaren looked with those barge boards. The Ferrari does look good too but I'm not convinced yet that the 2017 solutions with be as nice. Happy to be wrong tho.

Would it make things easier if I told you that the shapes of the components - not just the increased size - will bring performance gains? That it's entirely possible, if not probable, that the new rules are going to make the cars significantly quicker than anyone bargained for?

Downforce is already at the levels seen in 2012, the changes are going to take downforce levels past 2010 cars, which means cars will have more downforce than ever.

[rscsr]

Good point, the slanted rear wing is still ugly but I'd forgotten how good the McLaren looked with those barge boards. The Ferrari does look good too but I'm not convinced yet that the 2017 solutions with be as nice. Happy to be wrong tho.

Would it make things easier if I told you that the shapes of the components - not just the increased size - will bring performance gains? That it's entirely possible, if not probable, that the new rules are going to make the cars significantly quicker than anyone bargained for?

Downforce is already at the levels seen in 2012, the changes are going to take downforce levels past 2010 cars, which means cars will have more downforce than ever.

And not to forget the tyres will be 22% wider as well. Which means tyres almost as wide as before the grooved tyres have been introduced.

[flickerf1]

Good point, the slanted rear wing is still ugly but I'd forgotten how good the McLaren looked with those barge boards. The Ferrari does look good too but I'm not convinced yet that the 2017 solutions with be as nice. Happy to be wrong tho.

Would it make things easier if I told you that the shapes of the components - not just the increased size - will bring performance gains? That it's entirely possible, if not probable, that the new rules are going to make the cars significantly quicker than anyone bargained for?

Downforce is already at the levels seen in 2012, the changes are going to take downforce levels past 2010 cars, which means cars will have more downforce than ever.

So, 2010 cars had the most downforce? I'm just curious because I thought cars circa 2004 had the most downforce.

[djos]

Good point, the slanted rear wing is still ugly but I'd forgotten how good the McLaren looked with those barge boards. The Ferrari does look good too but I'm not convinced yet that the 2017 solutions with be as nice. Happy to be wrong tho.

Would it make things easier if I told you that the shapes of the components - not just the increased size - will bring performance gains? That it's entirely possible, if not probable, that the new rules are going to make the cars significantly quicker than anyone bargained for?

Yes it helps.... A lot!

[wuzak]

None of it is unprecedented...

http://i.imgur.com/P8GNwCx.jpg

Good point, the slanted rear wing is still ugly but I'd forgotten how good the McLaren looked with those barge boards. The Ferrari does look good too but I'm not convinced yet that the 2017 solutions with be as nice. Happy to be wrong tho.

Note that the "slanted" rear wing of the Jordan was only a cut away rear part of the end plates. The front part was still perpendicular to the reference plane.

The Ferrari front wing works because it was only 1400mm (IIRC) wide compared to the overall width of 1800mm.
I assume that the centre neutral section in the current regulations pretty much prevents them angling the front wing like that.

The 2017 regulations also, I believe, define the angle at which the front of the sidepods must be. AFAIK there is no regulation preventingteams from angling the leading edge of the sidepods under the current regulations.

I still don't think that the floor needs to be any wider than now. And if it is wider (1600mm) with the same width bodywork (1400mm) it would look a bit silly IMO.

[wuzak]

Good point, the slanted rear wing is still ugly but I'd forgotten how good the McLaren looked with those barge boards. The Ferrari does look good too but I'm not convinced yet that the 2017 solutions with be as nice. Happy to be wrong tho.

Would it make things easier if I told you that the shapes of the components - not just the increased size - will bring performance gains? That it's entirely possible, if not probable, that the new rules are going to make the cars significantly quicker than anyone bargained for?

It is the usual way of things that the teams will find more downforce than the regulators expect them to have. It has happened every time they reduced downforce, so I expect it to be the same with increased downforce.