2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Andres125sx]

We don't even know for sure that the teams perform all of their modelling, wind tunnel and CFD testing in perfectly clean air either. That's just an assumption we make in the absence of any evidence from the teams themselves.

Dirty air is chaotic, wich means aero cannot be optimized for something you don´t know how will behave. Also each car produces its own dirty air and they´d need the windtunnel data of the other teams to understand dirty air of each car (if that´s possible). In addition dirty air is different at 2m behind the car in front or 20m behind

The only way to optimize aero is assuming clean air

[turbof1]

We don't even know for sure that the teams perform all of their modelling, wind tunnel and CFD testing in perfectly clean air either. That's just an assumption we make in the absence of any evidence from the teams themselves.

Dirty air is chaotic, wich means aero cannot be optimized for something you don´t know how will behave. Also each car produces its own dirty air and they´d need the windtunnel data of the other teams to understand dirty air of each car (if that´s possible). In addition dirty air is different at 2m behind the car in front or 20m behind

The only way to optimize aero is assuming clean air

No again, that is an assumption. The assumption could be right, or could be only partly right. What zac said could be right as for instance a team like Force India will run much more in dirty air and therefore has to adjust to it.

This is where the lack of academic study in this area in general shines through. We all have assumptions about this, but we have very little actual research to back up anything.

[zac510]

Andres, yes I understand your point. Turbulent air could be close to random and how can you optimise for randomess (not without hundreds of samples anyway). Overall I'm not comfortable making the assumption that they don't, though.

I am sure no team engineer would confess either way, but I'd love it if one of the tech journalists asked this question!

[Andres125sx]

True, it´s an assumption, but I don´t think it´s a wild assumption. Any calculus need some known initial parameters so if you can´t know how the dirty/turbulent air will reach your aero parts (density, turbulence, direction...), how are you going to optimize your aero for some conditions you can´t know for sure?

[Andres125sx]

Andres, yes I understand your point. Turbulent air could be close to random and how can you optimise for randomess (not without hundreds of samples anyway). Overall I'm not comfortable making the assumption that they don't, though.

Also true, and agree it´s a bit risky to assume F1 teams can´t know something for sure. But in F1 we all usually make several assumptions or we couldn´t discuss anything, as it´s all secret in F1

I am sure no team engineer would confess either way, but I'd love it if one of the tech journalists asked this question!

Me too, but most of them are sensationalistic journalist who don´t care about the technics behind F1, so I´m afraid that will never happen

[shady]

You dont need data from another team to test two cars, you just put two of your models in the tunnel, not difficult. I have seen the picture, of a team testing this; but having no luck locating it. Teams test this, and different yaw angles in wind tunnels. I think the first step should be removing the step in the floor.

[f1316]

You dont need data from another team to test two cars, you just put two of your models in the tunnel, not difficult. I have seen the picture, of a team testing this; but having no luck locating it. Teams test this, and different yaw angles in wind tunnels. I think the first step should be removing the step in the floor.

Right, but this is what the OWG did pre 2009, with what I would say could generously be described as unconvincing results (or a blind alley that took F1 into a downward spiral for nearly 10 years...)

Brawn has recently described the problem since you're just running them behind each other in a straight line - not simulating the actual problem which is in corners - and that the benefit they now have is cfd, meaning they can simulate a wide range of conditions far far more easily.

Let's hope they actually do it some time soon - and publish the results!

[ME4ME]

how are you going to optimize your aero for some conditions you can´t know for sure?

If you know that you don't know, you can account for it through design choices. For example running less close to the stalling limit, putting more emphisis on guiding air rather than creating downforce producing surfaces etc. I'm no aerodynamicist but i'm sure there are sufficient tools to make it work. Problem is, while doing so teams get further and further away from the optimal config for running in clean air.

[krisfx]

I'd suggest checking the Sporting Regulations regarding the above posts.

[Andres125sx]

how are you going to optimize your aero for some conditions you can´t know for sure?

If you know that you don't know, you can account for it through design choices. For example running less close to the stalling limit, putting more emphisis on guiding air rather than creating downforce producing surfaces etc. I'm no aerodynamicist but i'm sure there are sufficient tools to make it work. Problem is, while doing so teams get further and further away from the optimal config for running in clean air.

Exactly, and no team will do this, ever, as no car ca go in dirty air the whole race (cooling, brakes...) so that would be configuring your car for a situation wich will never be the most frequent.

Also, doing that would mean you´re assuming your starting grid will be much lower than possible as in saturdays your perfomance (clean air) will be lower than possible, so you´re condemning yourself to overtake on sundays, and no F1 car will ever be so good overtaking wise to make this sort of strategy worth it.


An assumption again , but to me this would be complete nosense

[zac510]

how are you going to optimize your aero for some conditions you can´t know for sure?

If you know that you don't know, you can account for it through design choices. For example running less close to the stalling limit, putting more emphisis on guiding air rather than creating downforce producing surfaces etc. I'm no aerodynamicist but i'm sure there are sufficient tools to make it work. Problem is, while doing so teams get further and further away from the optimal config for running in clean air.

You could perhaps do something like, if you had two floor/barge board setups of similar downforce level, test each of them with a 50% smaller Y250 vortex and then see which one loses the lease points of downforce. This probably doesn't precisely replicate following another car but it is a repeatable scenario.
I don't want to say this is an example wind tunnel run, I just want to put an idea out there to get people thinking

[JonoNic]

how are you going to optimize your aero for some conditions you can´t know for sure?

If you know that you don't know, you can account for it through design choices. For example running less close to the stalling limit, putting more emphisis on guiding air rather than creating downforce producing surfaces etc. I'm no aerodynamicist but i'm sure there are sufficient tools to make it work. Problem is, while doing so teams get further and further away from the optimal config for running in clean air.

Exactly, and no team will do this, ever, as no car ca go in dirty air the whole race (cooling, brakes...) so that would be configuring your car for a situation wich will never be the most frequent.

Also, doing that would mean you´re assuming your starting grid will be much lower than possible as in saturdays your perfomance (clean air) will be lower than possible, so you´re condemning yourself to overtake on sundays, and no F1 car will ever be so good overtaking wise to make this sort of strategy worth it.


An assumption again , but to me this would be complete nosense

Can I throw a spanner in the works? What if you qualify in tandem with your teammate?

Sent from my SM-A700F using Tapatalk

[PhillipM]

Then you've just built one car to specifically come second. Provided it doesn't just get jumped in the pitstops by the cars behind which are faster because they haven't been deliberately compromised.

[JonoNic]

Then you've just built one car to specifically come second. Provided it doesn't just get jumped in the pitstops by the cars behind which are faster because they haven't been deliberately compromised.

Maybe 2nd and 3rd or even 1st and 2nd (if both cars help each other). I do though get what you are saying about optimising the car for clean air.

[zac510]

I think if you're FI or STR, where budgets alone mean you're never realistically going to challenge for a win even with a car optimised for clean air, then it might be a good strategy for them.

Anyway we as tech-enthusiast fans should definitely be encouraging (and the FIA promoting rules) that promote alternative design strategies. It shouldn't take much thought to see exactly what happens if every team designs their car for clean air; cars that can't follow other cars or overtake.