2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[godlameroso]

At 15 minutes - 21 minutes he also discusses downforce/drag for lap times. Very interesting and agood refresher that even dropping huge amounts of drag does very little for lap time compared to sticking on lots of downforce.

I found the bit of the video relevant to the discussion - Willem is always incredibly insightful and entertaining but it is a 2hr lecture (I'd recommend the whole thing if you have 2hrs spare on top of a number of his other online lectures) and I didn't think people would want to sit through it to get to the point in question.

Drag may not impact laptime as much as downforce but the effect on fuel consumption cannot be ignored, especially at a time when fuel use is limited. Limiting drag could be a major variable if we want flat out racing rather than fuel saving races, on top of what I think would be a huge impact for following in races.

At full tilt these engines will drink ~2-2.8kg of fuel per lap depending on the track. That's full on qualifying mode and no effort is made to conserve fuel. In a race pace setting 1.7-2.3kg per lap seems to be the average depending on track. With Austria and Monaco being outliers with 1.2kg being the average per lap. Spa Canada Silverstone Shanghai and Suzuka are the most fuel thirsty circuits, to my surprise even more so than Azerbaijan and Monza.

Canada was hard to do without at least 10 laps of fuel saving, an extra 5kg will make things better but won't stop lift and coast for a few laps to make the end of the race.

[Shakeman]

Every regulation made adds cost by forcing the teams to "study" the regulation, and find its limits. Thus, no matter how "competent" the regulators, their package is always the most expensive part of F1.

We're discussing regulation wrt improved racing and overtaking not cost cutting. Millions of £s are being sunk into chasing tiny aero improvements that do nothing for the sport and are the very cause for the processional racing every single season.

Close off the aero side, and open up other areas for development that will improve racing and be relevant to road car development and safety. If the same money is spent by teams at least there's a point to it, I don't think we'll ever get hedgehog bargeboards on our hatchbacks for the school run.

I think the fixed level of downforce is an interesting idea and would push development into overall aero efficiency. If F1 doesn't take giant steps forward it'll be made to look anachronistic by the likes of Formula E and pure engineering series with AI and driverless cars in a few short years.

[Just_a_fan]

Drag may not impact laptime as much as downforce but the effect on fuel consumption cannot be ignored, especially at a time when fuel use is limited. Limiting drag could be a major variable if we want flat out racing rather than fuel saving races, on top of what I think would be a huge impact for following in races.

It was more the bit where he points out that you spend much longer in the slow parts of the track than in the high speed parts. And that is why downforce has such a big impact on lap times. As he said, ideally you'd have a car that was high downforce up until you were no longer traction limited, and then have downforce, and hence drag, drop away. That would give the best lap times.

It would be stunning if someone could design a car that, above a given speed threshold, stopped producing any more downforce. A kind of automatic f-duct, if you like, but purely driven by speed-dependant separation on the wings etc.

If a team could do that reliably, they'd walk the season.

[Zynerji]

Every regulation made adds cost by forcing the teams to "study" the regulation, and find its limits. Thus, no matter how "competent" the regulators, their package is always the most expensive part of F1.

We're discussing regulation wrt improved racing and overtaking not cost cutting. Millions of £s are being sunk into chasing tiny aero improvements that do nothing for the sport and are the very cause for the processional racing every single season.

Close off the aero side, and open up other areas for development that will improve racing and be relevant to road car development and safety. If the same money is spent by teams at least there's a point to it, I don't think we'll ever get hedgehog bargeboards on our hatchbacks for the school run.

I think the fixed level of downforce is an interesting idea and would push development into overall aero efficiency. If F1 doesn't take giant steps forward it'll be made to look anachronistic by the likes of Formula E and pure engineering series with AI and driverless cars in a few short years.

It's very apparent that we both watch F1 for very different reasons then...

[jjn9128]

It was more the bit where he points out that you spend much longer in the slow parts of the track than in the high speed parts. And that is why downforce has such a big impact on lap times. As he said, ideally you'd have a car that was high downforce up until you were no longer traction limited, and then have downforce, and hence drag, drop away. That would give the best lap times.

It would be stunning if someone could design a car that, above a given speed threshold, stopped producing any more downforce. A kind of automatic f-duct, if you like, but purely driven by speed-dependant separation on the wings etc.

If a team could do that reliably, they'd walk the season.

To an extent they do some of that - they run bodywork flexibility up to the limit of the rules. Various parts will also lose load at speed to reduce some drag. It's not as extreme as it could be but the FIA is petrified of wings flying off - like happened a fair few times around the early 2000's as teams really started trying to exploit flexibility.

[Shakeman]

It's very apparent that we both watch F1 for very different reasons then...

What reasons do watch F1 for then?

[turbof1]

It was more the bit where he points out that you spend much longer in the slow parts of the track than in the high speed parts. And that is why downforce has such a big impact on lap times. As he said, ideally you'd have a car that was high downforce up until you were no longer traction limited, and then have downforce, and hence drag, drop away. That would give the best lap times.

It would be stunning if someone could design a car that, above a given speed threshold, stopped producing any more downforce. A kind of automatic f-duct, if you like, but purely driven by speed-dependant separation on the wings etc.

If a team could do that reliably, they'd walk the season.

To an extent they do some of that - they run bodywork flexibility up to the limit of the rules. Various parts will also lose load at speed to reduce some drag. It's not as extreme as it could be but the FIA is petrified of wings flying off - like happened a fair few times around the early 2000's as teams really started trying to exploit flexibility.

Oh yeah, I remember that mclaren rear wing just shearing off at one point.

[jjn9128]

Oh yeah, I remember that mclaren rear wing just shearing off at one point.

[Shakeman]

The biggest issue with flexi wings was shown by Vettel's Red Bull throwing itself into Button's car when the load was changing dramatically.

[nzjrs]

The biggest issue with flexi wings was shown by Vettel's Red Bull throwing itself into Button's car when the load was changing dramatically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nSfH1oa3mU

To me that is an over-ambitious move and a driver error.

[jjn9128]

The biggest issue with flexi wings was shown by Vettel's Red Bull throwing itself into Button's car when the load was changing dramatically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nSfH1oa3mU

To me that is an over-ambitious move and a driver error.

Slow it down and watch the front wing

[AMG.Tzan]

The biggest issue with flexi wings was shown by Vettel's Red Bull throwing itself into Button's car when the load was changing dramatically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nSfH1oa3mU

To me that is an over-ambitious move and a driver error.

Slow it down and watch the front wing

Half of the field if not all of them went straight there after the Vettel accident just because of the dump patch...so i think it has more to do with it being a bit wet on slicks with relatively low tyre temps probably!

[Shakeman]

The biggest issue with flexi wings was shown by Vettel's Red Bull throwing itself into Button's car when the load was changing dramatically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nSfH1oa3mU

To me that is an over-ambitious move and a driver error.

It looks like an attempted overtake to me nothing over ambitious.

The car is made unstable by the load imbalance on the front wing but that dramatic banking of the wing would've also reduced rear downforce during the braking phase and helped the car spin round on the front axle.

[Zynerji]

It's very apparent that we both watch F1 for very different reasons then...

What reasons do watch F1 for then?

Man vs. Nature

Artificial constraints make my teeth itch.

[Shakeman]

It's very apparent that we both watch F1 for very different reasons then...

What reasons do watch F1 for then?

Man vs. Nature

Artificial constraints make my teeth itch.

Don’t know what version of F1 you’ve been watching recently but the F1 I’ve been watching the whole of my adult life could hardly be described with any accuracy man vs nature.

The whole of the F1 rule book is a catalogue of artificial constraints, that’s what makes F1 rather than a catalogue of different artificial constraints the F2 formula.