2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Sevach]

Those sidepod intakes are far lower than what we've seen in previous years. Also, notice the new diffuser shape. It's the dark grey block shaped object sitting just inside of the rear wheels. It's forward edge reaches far ahead of the rear axle now, but maintains the concave/overexpanded shape which we've been used to seeing for many years now.

Seems to me that Manor used the extra width to make the sidepods lower and more front loaded.

[PhillipM]

I mentioned that was the case a while ago, I'd expect most teams to follow the same line of thinking to be honest. More tyre blockage and more powerful bargeboards makes it the way to go.

[roon]

Those sidepod intakes are far lower than what we've seen in previous years. Also, notice the new diffuser shape. It's the dark grey block shaped object sitting just inside of the rear wheels. It's forward edge reaches far ahead of the rear axle now, but maintains the concave/overexpanded shape which we've been used to seeing for many years now.

Seems to me that Manor made used the extra width to make the sidepods lower and more front loaded.

Seems likely. It's hard to be sure from the photos but it looks like the widest point of the sidepod is about in line with the floor edge i.e. ~100mm wider. Which isn't such a problem since they've maintained the undercut, which is quite a big distance from the floor's edge. If they achieved required radiator surface area through width instead of height, along with a shallow incline, this may have permitted lower & wider sidepods.

[Eddie_Temple]

I always loved Williams bodywork exploit at the rear, looks like Manor was trying to use a similar technique.



Are they trying to tunnel the airflow?

[PlatinumZealot]

F1 2017 overtaking study for your perusal.

http://www.dynamic-flow.co.uk/uploads/5 ... _study.pdf

Great post.
I notice in one of the tables that their 2013 model had a smidgen more downforce than their 2017 model. It is a reminder to us that the tyres are really the big "enablers" of the high cornering speeds we will see. Nico Hulkenburg recently said the 2017 cars would be flat out in Barcelona turn 3, and I was excited at the prospect, but when I went back to the 2013 pole lap video the pole car was also flat out too! So it sorta ties in quite well with the numbers.

It's exciting to see how the aerodynamics will evolve in the following years too. 2009 cars had so little downforce, even less than some cars from the 1990's and yet the same lineage of aero-regs produced cars with the most downforce everyseen in 2010!

[PlatinumZealot]

http://i.imgur.com/FDoz1dv.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/y7Vlkeu.jpg

Cute little SOS to investors - Hey you! Buy us! can't you see we are ready to roll!

[godlameroso]

F1 2017 overtaking study for your perusal.

http://www.dynamic-flow.co.uk/uploads/5 ... _study.pdf

Great post.
I notice in one of the tables that their 2013 model had a smidgen more downforce than their 2017 model. It is a reminder to us that the tyres are really the big "enablers" of the high cornering speeds we will see. Nico Hulkenburg recently said the 2017 cars would be flat out in Barcelona turn 3, and I was excited at the prospect, but when I went back to the 2013 pole lap video the pole car was also flat out too! So it sorta ties in quite well with the numbers.

It's exciting to see how the aerodynamics will evolve in the following years too. 2009 cars had so little downforce, even less than some cars from the 1990's and yet the same lineage of aero-regs produced cars with the most downforce everyseen in 2010!

Some cars yes, particularly the McLaren at the beginning of the year, and the Sauber. The Brawn/Honda/Mercedes did a 1:20.5 with race fuel in the Barcelona race. In 2008 the fastest lap of the weekend was a 1:20.5, this was at the peak of the aero appendage years.

[lio007]

That's a good read:
https://blog.canopysimulations.com/2017 ... .danp5wwaj

[Juzh]

Nico Hulkenburg recently said the 2017 cars would be flat out in Barcelona turn 3, and I was excited at the prospect, but when I went back to the 2013 pole lap video the pole car was also flat out too

2013 is not flat in either turn 2 or turn 3. There's a lift in both those corners. Maybe you missed it. I'll still reserve judgement as to whether 2017 will actually be flat, odds are 50/50 I'd say. Don't forget cars will have something like 250 extra bhp, so being flat would mean a much higher corner speed than 2013.

It's exciting to see how the aerodynamics will evolve in the following years too. 2009 cars had so little downforce, even less than some cars from the 1990's and yet the same lineage of aero-regs produced cars with the most downforce everyseen in 2010!

2009 Brawn had so little downforce it was actually faster than the RB6. /s
Ok, some came from the wider and softer slicks but it's still a very good time.

[Juzh]

That's a good read:
https://blog.canopysimulations.com/2017 ... .danp5wwaj

It would be if wasn't a load of bull. There's so many mistakes and plain wrong assumptions in that article it's ridiculous. The original version didn't even take extra 5kg of all things into equation.

[godlameroso]

Well it still makes a few decent points, but it does fail to take certain things into consideration. Namely efficiency improvements, MGU-H harvesting improvements, and like you said extra fuel. Then there's also the fact the cars are a bit heavier, but I dont think 827kg vs 802kg race weight will make much of a difference to braking distances with the increase in aero.

[roon]

Well it still makes a few decent points, but it does fail to take certain things into consideration. Namely efficiency improvements, MGU-H harvesting improvements, and like you said extra fuel. Then there's also the fact the cars are a bit heavier, but I dont think 827kg vs 802kg race weight will make much of a difference to braking distances with the increase in aero.

Regarding "the increase in aero." I see this spoken about often. Do absolute downforce levels need to increase? Can downforce be created more efficiently? Must drag increase?

The only change for 2017 regarding bodywork that we can be certain of is that the regulatory boxes have become wider and changed shape & position slightly. What the teams put into those boxes will determine the cars' drag & downforce levels.

Wider tyres will increase cornering speeds, somewhat independent of increases in downforce. Wider, thinner wings, along with a wider floor, floor leading-edge details & a bigger diffuser might provide a better L/D ratio.

Tyres themselves will have more frontal area, but that alone doesn't tell us about how they will interact with the flow fields set up by the wings & bodywork. If tyre drag would need to be countered, then perhaps longer, narrowed, and more tapered bodywork could compensate. RB for example are rumoured to have a longer car in development.

I will stick my neck out and say that not only will cornering speeds increase, but so will top speeds. Can the teams not have their cake and eat it to, with this revised formula?

[PlatinumZealot]

That's a good read:
https://blog.canopysimulations.com/2017 ... .danp5wwaj

Arrgh my brain hurts from reading that!

Now I am a pretty poor writer but this takes the cake!

[godlameroso]

Given how lousy aero is when it has to deal with sharp corners anyone think we'll see some interesting diffuser designs? m shaped maybe?

[garyjpaterson]

F1 2017 overtaking study for your perusal.

http://www.dynamic-flow.co.uk/uploads/5 ... _study.pdf

Great read, but that massive predicted balance shift sounds scary?!

I'm far from an expert, but anything above 50% front balance is pretty oversteery in my sim experience, which is what they are predicting at 2 cars distance apart. Then going up to 61% at half a car length. Surely that will put a stop to just about any overtaking at high speeds, as getting that close will be fairly unstable.

The fact they reckon you can run a bit closer (about 4 car lengths) without too much balance change sounds good though, just means all passing will probably be under braking.

Then again, the aero predictions might be off, as could be my interpretation. Could be a total mess though, can't wait to find out.