2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[djos]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co3re8TWAAAhGV4.jpg:large

WTF?

Any idea what are they doing with skirts?

Maybe just trying to simulate the increased DF provided by bigger diffusers of next season?

Imo simulating the bigger diffuser.

[ESPImperium]

I fear that we will have more fuel saving, the cars will be heavier, dragger and also have more power on the engine side. I still think the fuel at 105kg is still too low. Id much prefer 120kg with a limit on Quali and Race being 170kg, with all cars forced to have 50kg in the tank at the start of Quali, get them out on the track and burn fuel for quail. If you want to go faster, burn fuel, meaning the top guys might try to get out early in Q1 and burn as much as they can in a 10 lap run, and a 8 lap run in Q2 before having the correct fuel numbers for two runs in Q3. It would also mean that the slower guys once the top guys have done their fuel burn, have the track rubbered in enough to push harder and make quail closer and meaning the slower guys may actually have a chance to get into Q2 on merit more often.

[PhillipM]

We had that, it just results in a procession of really slow cars for 10 minutes, wasting fuel for no good reason.

Fuel consumption might be an issue at more circuits next year though, definately, not so much from the extra drag but with corner speeds so much higher there'll be less regen for the ES - so you're going to have to be recovering more from the -H through various techniques.

[Juzh]

I fear that we will have more fuel saving, the cars will be heavier, dragger and also have more power on the engine side. I still think the fuel at 105kg is still too low. Id much prefer 120kg with a limit on Quali and Race being 170kg

There will be more fuel saving. Extra 5 killos will 100% not be enough to offset the extra drag and speed next year. As for 170kg for the race. While i'm not against that, seems a bit overkill. No one's going to use anywhere near that much,

[godlameroso]

Frontal area is only increasing ~6-7%. Also teams may design their cars for low drag since there's a lot more liberty with the aero package. This year teams could probably run the same package save rear wing and monkey seat, at every single track. Next year they'll have choices, do you run high drag high downforce low drag low downforce, or somewhere in between? Like you feel you have enough downforce from the floor at Bahrain so you elect not to run a beam wing and a skinny rear wing. Etc.

[wuzak]

I fear that we will have more fuel saving, the cars will be heavier, dragger and also have more power on the engine side. I still think the fuel at 105kg is still too low. Id much prefer 120kg with a limit on Quali and Race being 170kg

There will be more fuel saving. Extra 5 killos will 100% not be enough to offset the extra drag and speed next year. As for 170kg for the race. While i'm not against that, seems a bit overkill. No one's going to use anywhere near that much,

This era is slightly different to previous eras in that the maximum fuel flow rate is set, so that even though the cars are going faster over a lap they may not actually be using more fuel.

While it is true that the maximum speeds will reduce meaning that the fuel consumption, expressed as mpg, will reduce on the straights, the much increased cornering speeds will mean less time accelerating from slow speeds and the average mpg in corners will probably be better.

The extreme example is if the cars are able to operate at 100kg/h continuously and average >>300km/h over the race distance. That means they will complete a race distance in around 1 hour, using fuel at 100kg/h and having an allowance of 105kg.

Another way to look at it is that the fuel allowance is raised 5% and the time to use that fuel allowance is reduced ~5%, probably more, depending on how good the tyres work out.

In previous times the equation was simple. More power (= higher fuel rate) means more downforce can be used and the lap times lowered.

Basically I think that the fuel saving will only be an issue at tracks where it is now, maybe a half dozen of the tracks. Those where it isn't an issue shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Monza is the fastest average lap on the calendar with one of the highest full throttle percentages, one of the lowest for brake energy recovery and yet I don't think any team has had much issue with fuel saving there.

[PhillipM]

It's the tyres that will be the big increase in drag. The cars themselves will be less draggy for a given level of downforce, as the front and rear wings should be more efficient and the diffuser and underfloor will be more powerful (especially as it should couple more with the rear wing too)

[mrluke]

If the lap time is reduced by around 5s per lap, and an average GP is what 60 laps you are looking at a 5 minute shorter race time. With a fixed kg/hr fuel rate the shorter duration the more fuel per second you have available.

[Jolle]

The wider FW should also play a part in reducing the effect of the wider tires plus the bigger diffuser reduces the need of steep RW settings (with more drag)

[Juzh]

I fear that we will have more fuel saving, the cars will be heavier, dragger and also have more power on the engine side. I still think the fuel at 105kg is still too low. Id much prefer 120kg with a limit on Quali and Race being 170kg

There will be more fuel saving. Extra 5 killos will 100% not be enough to offset the extra drag and speed next year. As for 170kg for the race. While i'm not against that, seems a bit overkill. No one's going to use anywhere near that much,

This era is slightly different to previous eras in that the maximum fuel flow rate is set, so that even though the cars are going faster over a lap they may not actually be using more fuel.

While it is true that the maximum speeds will reduce meaning that the fuel consumption, expressed as mpg, will reduce on the straights, the much increased cornering speeds will mean less time accelerating from slow speeds and the average mpg in corners will probably be better.

The extreme example is if the cars are able to operate at 100kg/h continuously and average >>300km/h over the race distance. That means they will complete a race distance in around 1 hour, using fuel at 100kg/h and having an allowance of 105kg.

Another way to look at it is that the fuel allowance is raised 5% and the time to use that fuel allowance is reduced ~5%, probably more, depending on how good the tyres work out.

In previous times the equation was simple. More power (= higher fuel rate) means more downforce can be used and the lap times lowered.

Basically I think that the fuel saving will only be an issue at tracks where it is now, maybe a half dozen of the tracks. Those where it isn't an issue shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Monza is the fastest average lap on the calendar with one of the highest full throttle percentages, one of the lowest for brake energy recovery and yet I don't think any team has had much issue with fuel saving there.

More grip, more pace, more throttle, more fuel consumption. It's as black and white as you can get. This is also the reason why button said after germany they didn't expect to be as fast as they were in the race and hence had to do so much fuel savings. And next year there will be a lot more open throttle.
Instant fuel consumption aka 100 kg/h in itself stays the same next year, but % of full throttle over the lap does not. It will go up by a LARGE margin. Why do you think they've upped the fuel limit, even though races will be shorter? I predict an utter disaster on a fuel heavy tracks next year. Hopefully i'm wrong.

[Juzh]

If the lap time is reduced by around 5s per lap, and an average GP is what 60 laps you are looking at a 5 minute shorter race time. With a fixed kg/hr fuel rate the shorter duration the more fuel per second you have available.

How exactly do you think they'll get rid of those 5 minutes? By being on the throttle sooner and heavier, thus consuming more fuel. Gains did not come out of thin air.

[Jolle]

On fuel, I think there are to many variables and unknowns to have a direct conclusion. Cars might get more draggy, but with a wider FW and greater effect of the diffuser this might not be the case. Also, the 100kg/h means that even with more drag, the cars just go slower (which doesn't go well with the 5s faster lap times).
Because of the better downforce and wider tires the corner speed is higher = less braking (best way to save fuel, don't brake) but because of the better traction the cars can brake later.

And at the moment it's still guessing if the top teams even use the 100kg of fuel for a race (apart from Honda of course)

My first reaction would be: more fuel, but the fuel flow limit plays a tricky part.

We'll see. Might just be balancing out in the end.

[Jolle]

Some time ago, when cars did all lap records, some drivers reported feeling sick because of the high Gs sustained over a race (combined with tiredness, dehydratation, etc.). Supporting 5Gs for a corner is very different to support 5Gs on several corners and braking points for 2 hours after you lost 2-3 litres of water and your muscles are exhausted

I´m wondering if this problem may be a problem next season again, since every opinion I´m reading from people with some knownledge agree 2017 cars will be faster than FIA anticipates

I hope not, but if it happens, it may be a serious problem wich could be a huge safety problem depending on intensity


Any toughts?

Corners in F1 are not cambered enough for this to be a major problem imo. I think it's good for drivers to feel exhausted after the race. Race pace will be most likely be equal or still slightly worse than lets say 2004 and everyone managed it fine then.

Cambered corners don't increase the g-force, just like on a motorcycle. You'll get pushed in the ground a bit more, that's it (the most extreme version is a wall of death)

[wuzak]

More grip, more pace, more throttle, more fuel consumption. It's as black and white as you can get.

No, it's not black and white.

On some tracks they will probably need more of the 105kg/more fuel saving but on others the case will be opposite.

I come back to the case of a very fast average speed race - 310km/h. They could do this race with full throttle 100% of the time. The race will take 1h (310km race distance) and consume 100kg of fuel. If you do the race in 20% less time (ie average speed 20% more) you would need 20% less fuel.

This is also the reason why button said after germany they didn't expect to be as fast as they were in the race and hence had to do so much fuel savings. And next year there will be a lot more open throttle.

The race pace is slower for a variety of the reasons. One of which is the tyres, another is the need to carry all the race fuel.

Apart from Honda I don't think any team needed to save much fuel. Honda has a serious problem with their engine and ERS efficiency.

Instant fuel consumption aka 100 kg/h in itself stays the same next year, but % of full throttle over the lap does not. It will go up by a LARGE margin. Why do you think they've upped the fuel limit, even though races will be shorter? I predict an utter disaster on a fuel heavy tracks next year. Hopefully i'm wrong.

Yes, the % full throttle goes up. But consider corner A. This year they might go through at part throttle, 80% max fuel flow rate. Next year they might go full throttle, 100% fuel flow rate and go around at 150km/h.

The fuel flow rate used is increased 25% but the time in the corner is reduced 33%.

[PhillipM]

Apart from the power required is the cube of the speed so they're still going to use more fuel.