2019 Aerodynamic Changes & Solutions

[izzy]

[
F1 cars are still 15cm narrower than they were from the 1970s until 1992. The width is not the problem.

https://cdn-1.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... t-re40.jpg
https://cdn-1.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... m-rs16.jpg

The "squashed" 1.8m era cars look absurd by comparison.

2017's 2.0m rule is an improvement but still the proper width should be restored IMO.

Nice pics, and yes wide cars generally look better, and yes the width isn't THE problem, but the wider cars produce a wider wake as well as taking up more space on the track. It's okay on the new tracks but on the older narrow ones it makes a difference. Also they're heavier, and with more floor area it makes the cars all more aero.

[strad]

Personally, I'd be happy to see the cars drop several seconds in lap time to be able to have cars follow each other

Quite right. I have said for ages that most wouldn't notice a couple of seconds slower IF they were busy watching close tight racing.

[JordanMugen]

Personally, I'd be happy to see the cars drop several seconds in lap time to be able to have cars follow each other

Quite right. I have said for ages that most wouldn't notice a couple of seconds slower IF they were busy watching close tight racing.

The 2017 rules were brought in because the cars looked "slow", especially during the race. Corner speeds in F1 in 2016 were slower than corner speeds in Super Formula (a lowly GP2 type class) --- that was ridiculous.

At least now F1 cars have that sense of "phwoar" when cornering even during the race, for example onboards from Austria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgF-yYWmpOU Very welcome improvement!

[FPV GTHO]

The 2017 rules failed to address the hybrid cars main weakness, low speed agility due to their higher weights.

[godlameroso]

The y250 tunnel that starts with the leading edge of the wing seems to be critical to wing performance. Racing point McLaren and the big 3 all have these features on their front wings.

It seems to be that these tunnels strengthen the y250 vortex for greater interaction with the middle of the car.

However I think this is a very sensitive area, particularly one that can stall if the rest of the wing geometry isn't helping.

I think modifying the y250 flaps as well as the tunnel opening can bring or kill a lot of performance. There is a sweet spot for flow velocity and mass flow, and some teams have overshot one or the other.

[sprint car76]

Why do you think the early version of aero on the haas car has turned out to be better than the updated version?

[F1Krof]

Hypothetically:

Could some of the teams cheat by making the halo with carbon fiber (or literally light plastic) after they've initially passed the crash test, and to move around the weight requirements ballasts where they actually need?

Or do they test the Halo every weekend?

[turbof1]

They do random tests. Also, all parts have FIA seals I believe. You can theoritically cheat. You can theoritically cheat with any part, but chances are real you'll get discovered. Especially with such a high profile part.

The y250 tunnel that starts with the leading edge of the wing seems to be critical to wing performance. Racing point McLaren and the big 3 all have these features on their front wings.

It seems to be that these tunnels strengthen the y250 vortex for greater interaction with the middle of the car.

However I think this is a very sensitive area, particularly one that can stall if the rest of the wing geometry isn't helping.

I think modifying the y250 flaps as well as the tunnel opening can bring or kill a lot of performance. There is a sweet spot for flow velocity and mass flow, and some teams have overshot one or the other.

The Y250 area flaps are indeed very important. A quick reminder also that that (I believe between Y250 and Y400) area is excluded from most regulations they introduced this year. So they can still shape the geometry at will there, just have to stay within 5 elements.

Also, what comes behind the front wing is very important as well. All the bargeboards, turning vanes, capes, etc. are there to heavily emphasize that specific flow. And if you got it wrong by a couple of mm, than that can have dramatic implications. Integrate that into flexing, bumpy roads, different velocities, and you got a massively complex challenge. It is that reason why you see Mercedes never have made dramatic changes in that area ever since 2014: we don't know what they have is the best solution, it might or might not be, but more importantly they got a baseline of 5 years in that area. The amount of unknowns and correlation issues they don't have to deal with, is not to be underestimated.

[Just_a_fan]

Could some of the teams cheat by making the halo with carbon fiber (or literally light plastic) after they've initially passed the crash test, and to move around the weight requirements ballasts where they actually need?

Imagine the legal outcome if the team did such a thing and there was an accident. Imagine the pretend-halo disintegrating as a wheel hits it. Imagine the driver being hit by the wheel. Imagine what happens to the team principal, senior team members and the team thereafter if the driver is seriously injured (or even killed).

Some things they might chance a little cheat here and there, but an item that is there solely for safety is too risky. The possibility of ending up in court on a manslaughter charge would make most think twice before messing with the halo.

[ENGINE TUNER]

The 2017 rules failed to address the hybrid cars main weakness, low speed agility due to their higher weights.

The 2014 cars weighed less on the start grid then the 2013 cars. The hybrid PUS made the cars lighter, not heavier in race trim. The cars are heavier because of heavier tires/wheels and more stringent safety standards, specifically the halo and the changes to the safety cell to accommodate it. Then they went in 2017 and made the tires heavier and wider further exacerbating the problem.

[F1Krof]

Could some of the teams cheat by making the halo with carbon fiber (or literally light plastic) after they've initially passed the crash test, and to move around the weight requirements ballasts where they actually need?

Imagine the legal outcome if the team did such a thing and there was an accident. Imagine the pretend-halo disintegrating as a wheel hits it. Imagine the driver being hit by the wheel. Imagine what happens to the team principal, senior team members and the team thereafter if the driver is seriously injured (or even killed).

Some things they might chance a little cheat here and there, but an item that is there solely for safety is too risky. The possibility of ending up in court on a manslaughter charge would make most think twice before messing with the halo.

Yes I agree on the legality and the consequences, 100% true.

But I was actually inferring a lighter solution, made out of different material that would have the strength and effectiveness of say 70-80% of the current homologated design... but they wouldn't disclose it because of course it's a sneaky cheat whilst having the advantage. Something like this.

[Just_a_fan]

I wonder whether you could make a halo that worked as well, using other materials and yet was lighter.

The halo is, I think, Titanium. To replicate the strength in CFRP in the same volume would probably be as heavy.

[rscsr]

I wonder whether you could make a halo that worked as well, using other materials and yet was lighter.

The halo is, I think, Titanium. To replicate the strength in CFRP in the same volume would probably be as heavy.

I don't think so. As you can see in this Ashby Diagram, CFRP and Ti Alloys have about the same strength, while Ti has a significantly higher density.



Therefore you would assume that a thicker CFRP halo with less weight than a Ti one should just be as strong. But of course Ti alloys seem to have about 2 magnitudes higher fracture toughness.

[Maritimer]

Abrasion resistance is probably a consideration as well, I doubt a composite would handle the car sliding upside down as well as titanium will.

[Just_a_fan]

Multiple impact resistance might also be an important consideration. I guess Ti would be better than CFRP but I don't know enough to say either way.