2019 Aerodynamic Changes & Solutions

[turbof1]

https://redbullracing.redbull.com/artic ... -tech-regs

"Barge Boards
The bargeboards either side of the cockpit are being moved and shrunk for 2019, in an effort to make them less effective and thus, less disruptive. The new regs make them 150mm smaller, and pushed forward 100mm"

If I am correct, the only reason for the changed bargeboard dimensions, was for advertising. Yes, of course it has its aerodynamic effect, but the writing is on the wall the bargeboard will become a lot more agressively developed and therefore more effective and more disruptive.

[jjn9128]

I hate to bang on about it but these press releases aren't written by aerodynamicists or anyone who ever really has to actually look at the rules. It's probably some social media intern who's using the same out of date references you keep bringing up. Just look at the proliferation of "wake turbulence" when talking about the impact of wakes (a personal bugbear) like we should be impressed they know a big word.

The exact wording on the bargeboards from the F1 rules - the length remains fixed to between 430mm behind the front axle line and a diagonal line at an angle to the car centreplane fixed ahead of the rear face of the cockpit template (plane C-C). 3.5.6b has been tidied up to fix the bargeboards relative to the outer face of the chassis regs. You can make this region longer by stretching the monocoque length, but you then run into issues with the COG.

2018 wording

3.5.6 Bargeboards height
With the exception of the mirrors defined in Article 3.5.2, no bodywork which, in plan view, is in the area enclosed by the intersection of the following lines may be more than 475mm above the reference plane:
a) A longitudinal line parallel to and 800mm from the car centre plane.
b) A longitudinal line parallel to and 320mm from the car centre plane.
c) A transverse line 430mm rearward of the front wheel centre plane.
d) A diagonal line running rearwards and outwards, from a point 625mm forward of the plane C-C and 320mm from the car centre plane, at an angle of 75° to the car centre plane.

2019 wording

3.5.6 Bargeboard height
No bodywork which, in plan view, is in the area enclosed by the intersection of the following lines may be more than 350mm above the reference plane :
a) A longitudinal line parallel to and 800mm from the car centre plane.
b) A diagonal line running rearwards and outwards, from a point 430mm rearward of the front wheel centre line and 240mm from the car centre plane, at an angle of 4.5° to the car centre plane.
c) A transverse line 430mm rearward of the front wheel centre plane.
d) A line running through a point 625mm forward of the plane C-C and 320mm from the car centre plane, running parallel to the diagonal line defined in Article 3.5.5(c).

[godlameroso]

I hate to bang on about it but these press releases aren't written by aerodynamicists or anyone who ever really has to actually look at the rules. It's probably some social media intern who's using the same out of date references you keep bringing up. Just look at the proliferation of "wake turbulence" when talking about the impact of wakes (a personal bugbear) like we should be impressed they know a big word.

The exact wording on the bargeboards from the F1 rules - the length remains fixed to between 430mm behind the front axle line and a diagonal line at an angle to the car centreplane fixed ahead of the rear face of the cockpit template (plane C-C). 3.5.6b has been tidied up to fix the bargeboards relative to the outer face of the chassis regs. You can make this region longer by stretching the monocoque length, but you then run into issues with the COG.

2018 wording

3.5.6 Bargeboards height
With the exception of the mirrors defined in Article 3.5.2, no bodywork which, in plan view, is in the area enclosed by the intersection of the following lines may be more than 475mm above the reference plane:
a) A longitudinal line parallel to and 800mm from the car centre plane.
b) A longitudinal line parallel to and 320mm from the car centre plane.
c) A transverse line 430mm rearward of the front wheel centre plane.
d) A diagonal line running rearwards and outwards, from a point 625mm forward of the plane C-C and 320mm from the car centre plane, at an angle of 75° to the car centre plane.

2019 wording

3.5.6 Bargeboard height
No bodywork which, in plan view, is in the area enclosed by the intersection of the following lines may be more than 350mm above the reference plane :
a) A longitudinal line parallel to and 800mm from the car centre plane.
b) A diagonal line running rearwards and outwards, from a point 430mm rearward of the front wheel centre line and 240mm from the car centre plane, at an angle of 4.5° to the car centre plane.
c) A transverse line 430mm rearward of the front wheel centre plane.
d) A line running through a point 625mm forward of the plane C-C and 320mm from the car centre plane, running parallel to the diagonal line defined in Article 3.5.5(c).

These seem to be the two articles worded differently. I suppose this allows one to have the bargeboard footplate closer to the nose.

[jjn9128]

These seem to be the two articles worded differently. Perhaps because 3.4.4 was worded differently in 2019 and 2018 as well. 3.4.4 is the exclusion volume around the front wheels, basically what determines the leading edge of the bargeboards, and how close it can be to the nose. 3.5.5 represents a gap directly in front of the actual vertical outwash device known as the bargeboard. That wing shaped area on your neat drawing of the regulations is up for grabs, I just don't understand why you wouldn't want a wing there. Maybe it's better to focus on the ultra limited front and rear wings to get more performance from the car?

As I said 3.5.2b is different in 2019 to be more explicit about the inboard face of that volume. I'm doing your work for you here, but 3.4.4 is identical between both versions, as is 3.5.5. I also refer you to my CAD volume about 2 pages back which I made using the wording of the 2018 and '19 regulations and which produced the same planform area for bargeboards.

[godlameroso]

These seem to be the two articles worded differently. Perhaps because 3.4.4 was worded differently in 2019 and 2018 as well. 3.4.4 is the exclusion volume around the front wheels, basically what determines the leading edge of the bargeboards, and how close it can be to the nose. 3.5.5 represents a gap directly in front of the actual vertical outwash device known as the bargeboard. That wing shaped area on your neat drawing of the regulations is up for grabs, I just don't understand why you wouldn't want a wing there. Maybe it's better to focus on the ultra limited front and rear wings to get more performance from the car?

As I said 3.5.2b is different in 2019 to be more explicit about the inboard face of that volume. I'm doing your work for you here, but 3.4.4 is identical between both versions, as is 3.5.5. I also refer you to my CAD volume about 2 pages back which I made using the wording of the 2018 and '19 regulations and which produced the same planform area for bargeboards.

I appreciate your efforts, that's why I mentioned it. After reading 3.4.4 in both years I realized they're worded identically, so yes aside from being closer to the nose the bargeboard footplate volume is the same. The height is lowered, however the complexity and elements in a wing shaped region seem to be free to develop. The biggest question I have is why wouldn't you want a wing there, considering wings can be made to not just generate performance enhancing downforce, but flow conditioning to generate more performance enhancing downforce downstream.

Sure you lose the complexity and flow conditioning from the front wing but all hope is not lost, tons of money can be thrown at this area.

[Zynerji]

These seem to be the two articles worded differently. Perhaps because 3.4.4 was worded differently in 2019 and 2018 as well. 3.4.4 is the exclusion volume around the front wheels, basically what determines the leading edge of the bargeboards, and how close it can be to the nose. 3.5.5 represents a gap directly in front of the actual vertical outwash device known as the bargeboard. That wing shaped area on your neat drawing of the regulations is up for grabs, I just don't understand why you wouldn't want a wing there. Maybe it's better to focus on the ultra limited front and rear wings to get more performance from the car?

As I said 3.5.2b is different in 2019 to be more explicit about the inboard face of that volume. I'm doing your work for you here, but 3.4.4 is identical between both versions, as is 3.5.5. I also refer you to my CAD volume about 2 pages back which I made using the wording of the 2018 and '19 regulations and which produced the same planform area for bargeboards.

I appreciate your efforts, that's why I mentioned it. After reading 3.4.4 in both years I realized they're worded identically, so yes aside from being closer to the nose the bargeboard footplate volume is the same. The height is lowered, however the complexity and elements in a wing shaped region seem to be free to develop. The biggest question I have is why wouldn't you want a wing there, considering wings can be made to not just generate performance enhancing downforce, but flow conditioning to generate more performance enhancing downforce downstream.

Sure you lose the complexity and flow conditioning from the front wing but all hope is not lost, tons of money can be thrown at this area.

Without reading the limitations of this mid-wing area for myself, I'm wondering if they could be made to be complete venturi floors. I mean, with the slots/flips/airbenders that we have seen in the last 2 years, there seems to be an amazing amount of freedom in this area. Would it be worth it to try to hang simple Venturi floors off of this area, or are the current implementations just radically advanced forms of that already?

[jjn9128]

Without reading the limitations of this mid-wing area for myself, I'm wondering if they could be made to be complete venturi floors. I mean, with the slots/flips/airbenders that we have seen in the last 2 years, there seems to be an amazing amount of freedom in this area. Would it be worth it to try to hang simple Venturi floors off of this area, or are the current implementations just radically advanced forms of that already?

Everything between 430mm behind the front axle line (start of the bargeboards and floor step) and 175mm ahead of the rear axle line (start of the diffuser kick) has to sit on 2 planes when viewed from below (the reference and step planes). Bodywork sitting on the step plane can have a maximum upwards radius of 100mm applied to the edges not connected to the vertical transition from the reference plane.

So even in the bargeboard area you must have bodywork on the step plane to shadow everything, and it can only curve upwards with up to a 100mm radius.

[godlameroso]

As I said 3.5.2b is different in 2019 to be more explicit about the inboard face of that volume. I'm doing your work for you here, but 3.4.4 is identical between both versions, as is 3.5.5. I also refer you to my CAD volume about 2 pages back which I made using the wording of the 2018 and '19 regulations and which produced the same planform area for bargeboards.

I appreciate your efforts, that's why I mentioned it. After reading 3.4.4 in both years I realized they're worded identically, so yes aside from being closer to the nose the bargeboard footplate volume is the same. The height is lowered, however the complexity and elements in a wing shaped region seem to be free to develop. The biggest question I have is why wouldn't you want a wing there, considering wings can be made to not just generate performance enhancing downforce, but flow conditioning to generate more performance enhancing downforce downstream.

Sure you lose the complexity and flow conditioning from the front wing but all hope is not lost, tons of money can be thrown at this area.

Without reading the limitations of this mid-wing area for myself, I'm wondering if they could be made to be complete venturi floors. I mean, with the slots/flips/airbenders that we have seen in the last 2 years, there seems to be an amazing amount of freedom in this area. Would it be worth it to try to hang simple Venturi floors off of this area, or are the current implementations just radically advanced forms of that already?

Double decker floor and bargeboards.

[Shakeman]

Anyone competent enough with MS Paint to sketch something and give us an idea what double decker floors and venture floors might look like on the car? Cheers.

[godlameroso]

Anyone competent enough with MS Paint to sketch something and give us an idea what double decker floors and venture floors might look like on the car? Cheers.

Like this but stacked on top of each other.

[Just_a_fan]

Why would you want to do that? Those bits aren't making much, if any, downforce, they're directing air to somewhere else. Looking at the shape, I'd say they're guiding a vortex generated further upstream.

Trying to get items like this generating downforce means adding a lot of weight in the area - the downforce has to be transferred back to the chassis. Any meaningful downforce will require heavier bits to deal with it.

[godlameroso]

Why would you want to do that? Those bits aren't making much, if any, downforce, they're directing air to somewhere else. Looking at the shape, I'd say they're guiding a vortex generated further upstream.

Trying to get items like this generating downforce means adding a lot of weight in the area - the downforce has to be transferred back to the chassis. Any meaningful downforce will require heavier bits to deal with it.

Not really. Red Bull put a wing on the upper edge of the bargeboard which connected to the side pod deflector, that wing had higher COG. Putting a lower one can't be too bad. Carbon fiber isn't very heavy, you'd know this if you held a front wing assembly which can't be more than 20kg with ballast and nosecone attached.



This wing is still legal, but it's illegal for it to be so high up.

[Just_a_fan]

I'm not sure that's a wing as in a device generating lift. I think it's a device to tidy up and direct flow.

[jjn9128]

I'm not sure that's a wing as in a device generating lift. I think it's a device to tidy up and direct flow.

This is correct. As I've said a lot in this thread bargeboards are downwash (lift) generators. That "cat fish whisker" wing may still be used in 2019 but will be less effective as the height is reduced. It could also start to interfere with the footplate aerodynamics as the pressure fields interact more strongly.

[Shakeman]

There are rumoured to be a couple of loopholes going into 2019 with these new regulations. So astounding that 2009's double diffuser will look like nothing!

From what I have heard so far, the out-wash front wing will live on.

Would it be possible to move the vortex tunnel from the outside of the wings near the end plate to close to the nose of the car and aim the vortex at the front wheel wake to steer it outboard?

I think there's scope in the y250 area. After I posted I went onto YT and low and behold there was a Scarbs video discussing 2019 Front Wings in my recommended videos. Big Brother is definitely watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuY3-qn2tIs