2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Juzh]

Pat Symonds on the new regs:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... -taggering

I think this is good. 2017 can't come soon enough.

[turbof1]

Pat Symonds on the new regs:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... -taggering

I think this is good. 2017 can't come soon enough.

There is one particular thing in the article I have been pondering on as well: since tyres are going to be bigger, brakes and consequently brake ducts are going to have to be as well. Anybody an idea on specific changes?

If current rules still apply though, then the brake disks can't be any thicker then 28mm:

Anything that can be done with the caliper?

[Juzh]

If current rules still apply though, then the brake disks can't be any thicker then 28mm:

Thickness is going up to 32mm next year. Diameter stays the same (obviously).

[turbof1]

If current rules still apply though, then the brake disks can't be any thicker then 28mm:

Thickness is going up to 32mm next year. Diameter stays the same (obviously).

That's good to know. That'll have less of an impact aerodynamically. Cooling will probably still have to be improved though.

[mclaren111]

Related to 2017 changes !!

Engine noise is a big and important change !!

[Holm86]

Related to 2017 changes !!

Engine noise is a big and important change !!

This topic is about Aerodynamic changes, not just overall 2017 changes, so please stay on topic.

[turbof1]

Related to 2017 changes !!

Engine noise is a big and important change !!

The cameras and micros recording it are not relevant.

I believe there was a 5% increase in fuel. Now was that fuel flow or just total allowed fuel?

[Holm86]

Related to 2017 changes !!

Engine noise is a big and important change !!

The cameras and micros recording it are not relevant.

I believe there was a 5% increase in fuel. Now was that fuel flow or just total allowed fuel?

105 kg of fuel total, flow stays the same

[turbof1]

Related to 2017 changes !!

Engine noise is a big and important change !!

The cameras and micros recording it are not relevant.

I believe there was a 5% increase in fuel. Now was that fuel flow or just total allowed fuel?

105 kg of fuel total, flow stays the same

Well, that will not lead to an increase in sound, so nevermind that.

The article by Juzh gives the impression downforce will indeed be higher then expected. I'm wondering if this is just the bigger diffuser, or because the rear wing is lower and wider, creating a bettee linking with the diffuser in extracting flow.

[Holm86]

The article by Juzh gives the impression downforce will indeed be higher then expected. I'm wondering if this is just the bigger diffuser, or because the rear wing is lower and wider, creating a bettee linking with the diffuser in extracting flow.

No, the increase was just to compensate for the extra drag/weight of the cars.

I think its a combination of all, plus the base 2017 cfd models was probably just scaled up 2016 concepts, but as they discover more efficient ways of directing flow across the new wider front tires, they will get more and more downforce, and ofc that will stagnate at some point, but as new aero concepts becomes avalible with the 2017 regulations, there are more development paths to exploid .

[AMG.Tzan]

Next year's downforce levels are going to be staggering, but still Mercedes turned up at the Barcelona test yesterday with the same specification as last time although Pirelli asked for more downforce! What is more rain disrupted the test! That is why Pirelli is asking for pre-season testing at Bahrain but Red Bull talks of costs (as if they don't have enough money)! Tires are a major isssue here and they've got to get them right, so teams must help Pirelli this time! [-o< Otherwise races with up to 6-7 pit stops and slower than expected cars are only going to cost teams and the sport a lot of money!

P.S. Something tells me that if everything goes according to plan and we don't have any dramas with tires that can't cope with the amount of downforce, we are going to have much quicker cars than expected! Maybe 6-7 seconds faster than 2016 to the 4-5 predicted!

[henry]

I made a very basic estimate of the change in downforce and drag based on the basic dimensional changes and Willem Toet's distribution map in this Matt Somers reblog http://www.somersf1.co.uk/2015/11/what- ... erate.html

I assumed the floor contribution proportional to diffuser exit area and floor width and wing proportional to plan area.

I got increases of 30 % for downforce and only 20% for drag.

In addition to these basic dimensional effects the shortened t-tray will make high rake easier to achieve.

If the low rear wing does connect with the diffuser not only will downforce go up but the DRS will become even more powerful.

My expectation is that the rule makers will have misjudged the impact of the changes, as has happened each time they have tried to reduce downforce. If they are aiming at 3-5 seconds I think we might see 5-6.

Edit: I used floor width not area assuming a similar pressure distribution along the floor

[miqi23]

I made a very basic estimate of the change in downforce and drag based on the basic dimensional changes and Willem Toet's distribution map in this Matt Somers reblog http://www.somersf1.co.uk/2015/11/what- ... erate.html

I assumed the floor contribution proportional to diffuser exit area and floor area and wing proportional to plan area.

I got increases of 30 % for downforce and only 20% for drag.

In addition to these basic dimensional effects the shortened t-tray will make high rake easier to achieve.

If the low rear wing does connect with the diffuser not only will downforce go up but the DRS will become even more powerful.

My expectation is that the rule makers will have misjudged the impact of the changes, as has happened each time they have tried to reduce downforce. If they are aiming at 3-5 seconds I think we might see 5-6.

I think it would be more like 12 to 15% increase in downforce and about 5% increase in drag. Perhaps 2012-2013 levels of downforce.

[LookBackTime]

I just have added this comment made :
"
by PhillipM » Thu Oct 13, 2016 12:43 pm

I was talking to someone from Manor over the weekend and even they're expecting 3 seconds a lap just from what they've got in testing already (I was actually asking him about sidepods given they stay the same width and most renders have them wider - he reckons that's because they're going to change shape around the front undercuts especially due to the tyre blockage but there's a few options and nobody wants to show their hand yet by talking about it), god knows what the big teams are going to pull out.
"

[henry]

I made a very basic estimate of the change in downforce and drag based on the basic dimensional changes and Willem Toet's distribution map in this Matt Somers reblog http://www.somersf1.co.uk/2015/11/what- ... erate.html

I assumed the floor contribution proportional to diffuser exit area and floor area and wing proportional to plan area.

I got increases of 30 % for downforce and only 20% for drag.

In addition to these basic dimensional effects the shortened t-tray will make high rake easier to achieve.

If the low rear wing does connect with the diffuser not only will downforce go up but the DRS will become even more powerful.

My expectation is that the rule makers will have misjudged the impact of the changes, as has happened each time they have tried to reduce downforce. If they are aiming at 3-5 seconds I think we might see 5-6.

I think it would be more like 12 to 15% increase in downforce and about 5% increase in drag. Perhaps 2012-2013 levels of downforce.

What method did you use to arrive at your estimates?

My estimate is that the increase of wing area alone (front 13% rear 26%) could yield 10% so 12% looks very conservative.