2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[McMrocks]

To angle the front wings backwards which generates more outwash itself and then desperately trying to write rules to minimize outwash sums up FiA's strategy quite nicely.

[Blackout]

Thank you for the answers in page 100 mates.

I also wonder why the FIA do not ̶p̶e̶r̶m̶i̶t̶ impose the use of skirts around th floor, skirts like the ones RBR and Ferrari used for the 2016-2017 Pirelli tests to simulate higher DF levels for 2017
https://cdn-3.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... ing-th.jpg
They might simplify the aero and greatly reduce the amount of ressources and time teams spend on studying and manipulating that area and the airflow around it

[Sevach]

I suspect the bigger DRS hole will help overtaking, the FW as it is will make a lot less diference but still the rule makers will be telling "you see".

[Just_a_fan]

Adding a skirt would be an interesting idea. I think the teams would then be spending much of FP ensuring the suspension allowed the skirt to run as close as possible to the ground. Rake would be gone as keeping the skirt sealed would be more effective.

[Blackout]

Why not bring back active suspensions too (or better say constant ride height suspensions) to further simplify everything

[Just_a_fan]

I wouldn't be averse to active suspension in F1. I wouldn't want a return to "driver aids" such as ABS etc., however.

The thing with active suspension is that we could get away from the "tyre lottery" too.

[Just_a_fan]

Quick question: what effect would banning the Y250 vortex have on aero performance? Would a ban improve following, for example?

[Dipesh1995]

Quick question: what effect would banning the Y250 vortex have on aero performance? Would a ban improve following, for example?

Outwash of the front tyre wake would be reduced and thus downforce would degrade as the Y250 vortex forms a “barrier” preventing the front tyre wake from being sucked under the floor at any point along its longitudinal length; this barrier would now be eliminated. However, it would benefit following/overtaking as the effective size of the wake of a car would reduce. Also since the leading car would be generating less downforce, the downforce deficit with the following car (travelling in the wake of the leading car) would reduce. Both of these effects would aid following.

There’s some good animations in these videos:

[jjn9128]

Quick question: what effect would banning the Y250 vortex have on aero performance? Would a ban improve following, for example?

An extract from Nakagawa's (Toyota F1) paper in SAE on the Y250 vortex.

Managing the front-wheel wake has been a constant challenge in F1 aerodynamic development since the 1980s, as the rotating wheels create the largest disturbances acting on the car and can thus reduce the effects of downstream aerodynamic devices. To minimize this potentially detrimental effect, the wheel wake must be well managed using aerodynamic devices on the chassis side. This was done using devices called turning vanes (TV) and bargeboards (BB) situated between the front wheel and the sidepod for the 2008 car as in Figure 3. These devices produce strong downwash flow to feed energized air under the floor, as well as expelling the front-wheel wake outboard so that the underfloor flow can be kept undisturbed. Meanwhile, the front-wheel wake of the 2009 car had to be managed differently, since no such devices existed on the 2009 car, owing to the restricted area in the regulation box. It turns out that the vortices generated by the inboard tips of the front wing flaps, so-called Y250 vortices, became prominent and became a major target of the development...

...Figure 21 compares similar measurements before and after the 2009 regulation change. For the 2008 car, there are two strong vortical flows, generating downwash flows. The top vortex from the turning vane travels outboard downstream and the vortex from the bargeboard travels through the undercut area of the sidepod. On the other hand, in 2009, the nominal vortical structure was the flap vortex. It must be remembered that the turning vane vortices were misaligned with the Y250 vortex. In fact, it was still an early stage of the development when this test was conducted, and thus, these positions were not optimized. Later it will be shown that these turning vane vortices merge with the Y250 vortex. It is also seen that the trailing vortices generated on top of the bargeboards flow through the undercut areas, which effectively seals the underfloor flow to maintain the negative pressure on the floor. This effect can be seen for both cars.

So, to some end the Y250 is less necessary now than in 2009 as the bargeboards and vanes around the floor are so much bigger since the 2017 rule change - essentially allowing teams even more freedom than pre-2008 to generate outwash and vortical flow between the wheels and underbody - but as it's there and so helpful teams will continue to use it.

I can't think of a way to ban the Y250 per se (it was unintended in 2009 anyway)... you could regulate out the means of generating it - like saying the wing elements have to blend into the neutral wing. As to the effect of losing it... some downforce loss around the front of the floor, and depending how it's removed, a drag reduction also. I can't say for sure how it would affect following, likely it would improve things a bit because part of the effect of a wake will be a weakening of pressure differences on the following car... I doubt it would be a significant impact, but all these little things add up.

[turbof1]

Upcoming article where I give my personal thoughts on the front wing changes. Stay tuned.

https://twitter.com/andy_urlings/status ... 8887773185

[nzjrs]

Upcoming article where I give my personal thoughts on the front wing changes. Stay tuned.

https://twitter.com/andy_urlings/status ... 8887773185

Awesome!

(twitter tip: if you start a tweet with @username then it doesnt show in your feed to your followers - it is considered a message to the @'ed account. Best to start with .@username)

[turbof1]

Upcoming article where I give my personal thoughts on the front wing changes. Stay tuned.

https://twitter.com/andy_urlings/status ... 8887773185

Awesome!

(twitter tip: if you start a tweet with @username then it doesnt show in your feed to your followers - it is considered a message to the @'ed account. Best to start with .@username)

Oh but that's no issue; I did a message before which did not start with the @username. I did that one afterwards because the first message did not add the image (the image had a too high resolution).

[mzso]

Thank you for the answers in page 100 mates.

I also wonder why the FIA do not ̶p̶e̶r̶m̶i̶t̶ impose the use of skirts around th floor, skirts like the ones RBR and Ferrari used for the 2016-2017 Pirelli tests to simulate higher DF levels for 2017
https://cdn-3.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... ing-th.jpg
They might simplify the aero and greatly reduce the amount of ressources and time teams spend on studying and manipulating that area and the airflow around it

Why bother with skirts? Just ban wings, winglets, aero flaps, all those nasty stuff. And let the shape of the body be the only way to create aerodynamic downforce. That would certainly simplify things.

[Zynerji]

Thank you for the answers in page 100 mates.

I also wonder why the FIA do not ̶p̶e̶r̶m̶i̶t̶ impose the use of skirts around th floor, skirts like the ones RBR and Ferrari used for the 2016-2017 Pirelli tests to simulate higher DF levels for 2017
https://cdn-3.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... ing-th.jpg
They might simplify the aero and greatly reduce the amount of ressources and time teams spend on studying and manipulating that area and the airflow around it

Why bother with skirts? Just ban wings, winglets, aero flaps, all those nasty stuff. And let the shape of the body be the only way to create aerodynamic downforce. That would certainly simplify things.

They would just build wings, winglets and aero flaps into the body shape...

[Blackout]

Wings are useful

The researches RacecarEngineering did (with DynamicFlow Solutions) in 2016 show that skirts (they used mini ones on their different aero configurations) may be very helpful for following and overtaking...
IMO they have many possible benefits and can trigger a positive snow ball effect on the wake, the following car etc.
The covered wheels have benefits too... but the model they used looked like those ugly 2017 indy cars with delta seidepods, big underbody tunnels, covereed floor and wheels etc...
The modified "2017" car was a very good compromise IMO: