2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
wuzak
wuzak
467
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

Zynerji wrote: Until torque needs outstrip horse power needs, gas burners will reign supreme I think.
An MGUK weighs about 10kg and produces 120kW.

Power is not the problem for electric vehicles.

Energy storage is.

User avatar
godlameroso
309
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 21:27
Location: Miami FL

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

120kw with a flat power band and instant torque and throttle response that puts any reciprocating engine to shame. You can't beat that.
Saishū kōnā

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: 13 Aug 2013, 10:15
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

And no significant decrease in perfomance over the years, no maintenance...


It´s only the batteries what keep ICEs alive yet

User avatar
dmjunqueira
21
Joined: 12 Nov 2013, 20:55
Location: Brazil

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

godlameroso wrote:120kw with a flat power band and instant torque and throttle response that puts any reciprocating engine to shame. You can't beat that.
Agreed...But the energy density of fuels still put batteries to shame.
Andres125sx wrote:And no significant decrease in perfomance over the years, no maintenance...

It´s only the batteries what keep ICEs alive yet
Agreed...But that's a BIG ONLY.

IMHO, I think (and hope) they will overcome this limitation. But batteries really need a breakthrough innovation in order to become our main energy storage for transportation.

User avatar
godlameroso
309
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 21:27
Location: Miami FL

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

True gasoline has about 50x the energy density, without the hybrid system we'd only be able to extract maybe 35% of that energy so ~16.35 MJ/kg vs batteries which are 95% efficient @ .835MJ/kg which in practical terms means fuel is still 20x more energy dense than gasoline. For poops and giggles uranium is 1.6 million times more energy dense than the best gasoline.
Saishū kōnā

User avatar
Zynerji
110
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 16:14

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

godlameroso wrote:True gasoline has about 50x the energy density, without the hybrid system we'd only be able to extract maybe 35% of that energy so ~16.35 MJ/kg vs batteries which are 95% efficient @ .835MJ/kg which in practical terms means fuel is still 20x more energy dense than gasoline. For poops and giggles uranium is 1.6 million times more energy dense than the best gasoline.
Welcome to Formula Nuclear!

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

dmjunqueira wrote: But batteries really need a breakthrough innovation in order to become our main energy storage for transportation.
I think the innovation is in how you recharge the batteries. Traditionally you plug it in and wait a long time. Liquid fuels always win in this way because they are quick and easy to replenish.

I think Formula E is half right. They change cars when the battery is discharged. The answer for the rest of us is to have an idiot proof battery swap system. Drive up to the recharge point, drop old battery, insert fresh one, drive away. It requires little in the way of technical innovation : what it requires is political innovation in order to have a truly common/universal battery design and some form of central ownership. The "system" owns the batteries and you just pay for the juice (and a nominal battery depreciation/maintenance charge).
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

User avatar
Pierce89
60
Joined: 21 Oct 2009, 18:38

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

wow! You guys managed TO COMPLETELY DERAIL an interesting thread.
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970

“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher

User avatar
henry
324
Joined: 23 Feb 2004, 20:49
Location: England

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

A minor consequential change to the wider front wing is that the deflection test has been changed. Same load, positioned further out and deflection permitted by 50% (15 mm vs 10). My rough estimation is that this allows the wings to be 30% less stiff. Together with the wider wingspan it will be more straightforward to get the wing tips close to the ground.

My estimation is based on the expectation that the stiffness is a length cubed relationship which would have permitted a deflection of 13.5mm. Rule writers so like round numbers though.

Whether this makes any difference will be moot given the expertise in bending the wings no matter what test is formulated.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

User avatar
AnthonyG
38
Joined: 03 Mar 2012, 13:16

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

godlameroso wrote:120kw with a flat power band and instant torque and throttle response that puts any reciprocating engine to shame. You can't beat that.
Get your facts straight. Power isn't the flat. It peaks somewhere in/past the middle of the rpm band.
Thank you really doesn't really describe enough what I feel. - Vettel

User avatar
FoxHound
55
Joined: 23 Aug 2012, 16:50

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

AnthonyG wrote:
godlameroso wrote:120kw with a flat power band and instant torque and throttle response that puts any reciprocating engine to shame. You can't beat that.
Get your facts straight. Power isn't the flat. It peaks somewhere in/past the middle of the rpm band.
I think what Godlameroso was trying to say is nicely depicted here...

JET set

User avatar
strad
117
Joined: 02 Jan 2010, 01:57

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

Pierce89 wrote:wow! You guys managed TO COMPLETELY DERAIL an interesting thread.
+100
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

wuzak
wuzak
467
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

AnthonyG wrote:
godlameroso wrote:120kw with a flat power band and instant torque and throttle response that puts any reciprocating engine to shame. You can't beat that.
Get your facts straight. Power isn't the flat. It peaks somewhere in/past the middle of the rpm band.
3 phase motors have constant torque until they reach peak power after which they have constant power. Nominally speaking.

User avatar
SR71
5
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 21:23

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

AnthonyG wrote:
godlameroso wrote:120kw with a flat power band and instant torque and throttle response that puts any reciprocating engine to shame. You can't beat that.
Get your facts straight. Power isn't the flat. It peaks somewhere in/past the middle of the rpm band.

Horses will always be faster than those dang darn automobiles....

User avatar
SR71
5
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 21:23

Re: Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes

Post

strad wrote:
Pierce89 wrote:wow! You guys managed TO COMPLETELY DERAIL an interesting thread.
+100
Someone said refueling will bring smaller fuel tanks which will bring smaller cars which will bring better aero.

Someone got schooled...