2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Andres125sx]

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

I think some of you are getting confused about that concept of a car "optimized for dirty air".

Even if they could do it, a car fully optimized for dirty air will ALWAYS be much slower than a car optimized for clean air. Period, and this is not an assuption Clean air is the condition where aero can get its full potential, any other condition is reducing DF potential

So if you qualify in tandem, the first car will qualify as always, and the second car will qualify several positions behind because he made his qualifying run in dirty air, wich means his lap was with severly compromised downforce, even if its design was optimized for dirty air.

A car designed for dirty air will only be faster than a car designed for clean air, running into dirty air. But no team/driver will ever make his qualifying run in dirty air on purpose, so it will acually beat none

[Andres125sx]

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.

Probably 1st and around 8th supposing it´s a top team

This is not MotoGP, here the slipstream in slightly helpful at the straights, and very very harmful at the braking points and corners.

[JonoNic]

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

I think some of you are getting confused about that concept of a car "optimized for dirty air".

Even if they could do it, a car fully optimized for dirty air will ALWAYS be much slower than a car optimized for clean air. Period, and this is not an assuption Clean air is the condition where aero can get its full potential, any other condition is reducing DF potential

So if you qualify in tandem, the first car will qualify as always, and the second car will qualify several positions behind because he made his qualifying run in dirty air, wich means his lap was with severly compromised downforce, even if its design was optimized for dirty air.

A car designed for dirty air will only be faster than a car designed for clean air, running into dirty air. But no team/driver will ever make his qualifying run in dirty air on purpose, so it will acually beat none

I understand now. Thanks

[zac510]

When I say "aerodynamic testing in dirty air" I am also not saying optimize purely for dirty air. I'm thinking of searching for a great gain in dirty air for as little compromise in clean air as possible. If you get 20% better performance in dirty air for 5% loss in clean air, this might be a worthwhile compromise for a mid-pack team.

[J.A.W.]

Check this - still currently relevant - radiator diffuser bypass duct/slot research from 3/4's of a century ago..

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00669.html

(& amazingly, its a translated Nazi-science aero-tech period piece published in wartime!).

[wesley123]

When I say "aerodynamic testing in dirty air" I am also not saying optimize purely for dirty air. I'm thinking of searching for a great gain in dirty air for as little compromise in clean air as possible. If you get 20% better performance in dirty air for 5% loss in clean air, this might be a worthwhile compromise for a mid-pack team.

Don't think so as the midfield is very close. A .2s slower laptime mean multiple places lost on the grid and you then have to question if that further performance is enough to overtake those extra places.

Not that that really matters, though. You still keep some distance between you and the car and you still require the draft and a speed difference on the straight to overtake. And then you have to question if you have enough performance to outbrake the guy in front, or to create a gap with the guy behind you as you have sacrificed 5% of your aerodynamic performance because if you don't the guy will just be in the DRS and overtake you the next lap.

[turbof1]

I was asked to sticky this topic again because regulations are quite stable into 2018. While the 2018 regulations have their own separate topic, this topic can still be used to discuss anything within the frame of the changes between 2016 and 2017.

[turbof1]

So after some deliberation with Vyssion, we concluded we'll take a page out of the PU topics and change this into a general "era" topic. Given no significant changes are planned, it is rather good to keep discussion fluent about the base of these regulations. According to media outlets, F1 is looking to overhaul aero rules by 2021, just like the PU rules. Until then we are likely to have relative stable rules regarding aerodynamics. Changes for each year, like this year, will still have their own separate topic to discuss these things specifically.

[godlameroso]

2018 cars due to the lower T-wing loophole, we have the return of beam wings.

[Zynerji]

2018 cars due to the lower T-wing loophole, we have the return of beam wings.

I love it when a good loophole is found. Interestingly, now with separate end-plates, it can induce vorticies!!

Also, Shark fins are STILL HUGE!!!. That, or the engine bump has way shrunk, and they can simply pinch it closer to the driver.

[FPV GTHO]

Also, Shark fins are STILL HUGE!!!. That, or the engine bump has way shrunk, and they can simply pinch it closer to the driver.

Would rather see the cutout in front of the rear wing remain as is, with mandated shorter cars.

[djos]

Would rather see the cutout in front of the rear wing remain as is, with mandated shorter cars.

Agreed, bring back the 92' season track width (2m) and a sensible wheelbase length (eg from the FW14B) and lock them in via the regs.

Last years Merc was just a stupidly long wheelbase @ 3.76m! (for reference a Chevy Tahoe only has a wheelbase of 2.94m)

[J.A.W.]

That is looong..
No wonder the Merc' suffered from 'push-past-apex-turn-in' difficulties with past 'best-by' rubber, in slow/tight corners..

[djos]

That is looong..
No wonder the Merc' suffered from 'push-past-apex-turn-in' difficulties with past 'best-by' rubber, in slow/tight corners..

Mercedes claimed the wheelbase wasn't to blame, but I'm just not sure I believe them.

[Brenton]

I was just skimming the bodywork regulations and struck by the amount of detailed limitations. What is the philosophy behind this? Is it to make the cars look as similar to each other as possible, like stock cars? Is it to try to performance equalize by making the cars so similar?

Many of the details don't appear to have anything to do with safety. It's hard to understand why the pinnacle of Motorsport has its cars designed by regulators instead of the best Motorsport engineers in the world. I wish there was more freedom for creative designs. But there must be a good reason here to be careful what you wish for?

The front nose for example. I didn't know the size and slope is exactly specified by the rules. Not just the end of the nose for crash safety purposes. I miss seeing a variety of front end shapes competing.