2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[FrukostScones]

I'd argue that nothing is a ground effect car unless it has a fully sealed floor like the old lotus.

Until then they are similar utilizing some ground effect.

Then your definition of ground effect is wrong. To an aerodynamicist the "ground effect" is simply the increase in normal force (lift/downforce) from proximity to the ground. Current F1 cars are very much in ground effect!

I think it is not his definition. The journalists use it for the new 2021 cars.
See:
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14484 ... t-for-2021
https://www.racefans.net/2019/07/17/ret ... vertaking/


What do we call them 2021 cars and their underlying bottom aero correctly?

twin diffuser cars? double venturi tunnel cars? wannabee wing cars?

Maybe we need a consensus here...

So that not every fan that is reading autosport.com etc. gets called for beeing clueless.


of racefans.net

[Maplesoup]

I'd argue that nothing is a ground effect car unless it has a fully sealed floor like the old lotus.

Until then they are similar utilizing some ground effect.

Then your definition of ground effect is wrong. To an aerodynamicist the "ground effect" is simply the increase in normal force (lift/downforce) from proximity to the ground. Current F1 cars are very much in ground effect!

No my definition of ground effect is perfectly fine. It's the definition of a ground effect car.

Modern F1 cars use ground effect but they aren't a ground effect car. I bet the Astra in my drive way produces some minor ground effect, it doesn't make it a ground effect car.

[Maplesoup]

In the engine side.....¿someone know the rules in 2021?....¿more fuel per hour......more engines in a year?

I think there is a higher fuel flow limit and high rpm limit for the engine that I know of so far.

All in an effort to make the cars sound better I believe. I was at Silverstone on the start finish straight, cars sound amazing but you do lose some of the noise when watching on TV.

[roon]

I would argue that it's not ground effects until it involves loosly fitted plastic placed upon a mid nineties sports car.



My own concept would involve a singular American chassis supplier along with a simplified engine formula combined with more stringent vetting of energy drinks sponsors who must agree to use a homolgated Twitter account.

1. Lowered front nose for better impact dynamics
2. Side skirts for enhanced and efficient downforce
3. Enclosed wheels for drag reduction and more overtaking
4. Rear spoiler for historical accuracy
5. More spoiler

[NtsParadize]

Will the DRS stay?

[jjn9128]

Will the DRS stay?

With the rear wing design as it is I can't see how. Likewise I can't see any adjustment other than adding/removing a Gurney. Unless the whole assembly pivots from the mount.

[roon]

The proposal is conservative. Nothing new in terms of componentry nor packaging. Reminds me of the Indy bids from a few years ago. Will a piecemeal approach to a spec car aid costs? Any free areas will absorb the existing development budgets. Why would top end chassis manufacturers want to participate in a spec series where they will struggle to diffrentiate themselves. A five year freeze on driveline development is sad.

The underlying sentiment is: FIA and Liberty do not value engineering, they value drivers and paparazzi. They do not value engineering development and competition. They deem it unwanted. Undesireable. Not worthy of spending money on. In Formula 1.

[AMG.Tzan]

I like the 2021 rules...i've been asking for ground effect for years now and tbh i still can't understand why they never used it all those years! Thankfully they get rid of the plank...such an ugly and silly solution! Cars before 1994 where so low to the ground, they looked really great!! Also the huge diffusers of the ground effect cars look so nice!

So you don't understand that the current cars are ground effect cars?

Of course they are! But they don't have Venturi tunnels...that's what i mean

[djos]

https://www.racefans.net/wp-content/upl ... -floor.jpg

From a couple of racefans articles on the proposed changes:
Return of ground effect in 2021 to make “massive” difference to overtaking
Why Brawn expects teams to resist F1’s “very prescriptive” plans to limit development in 2021

I love the development race in F1 but this is absolutely the right direction imo. I'm excited!

We need a development race in f1, just not so much in aero, more so in electrification, and novel tech for the ICE and crazy stuff like cvt transmissions, laser ignition, rotary valve trane, or electromagnetic valve actuation. Stuff like the Williams flywheel.

Exactly!

[Pyrone89]

It may create closer racing, but if you are expecting the 2021 regulations to end Merc dominance then I have bad news for you. Newey said earlier this year that Mercedes have double the aero staff of RB and therefore can work on 3 cars at the same time. I therefore expect their advantage to only grow in 2021. This also beimg the reason I think Max should sign with Merc asap.

[djos]

It may create closer racing, but if you are expecting the 2021 regulations to end Merc dominance then I have bad news for you. Newey said earlier this year that Mercedes have double the aero staff of RB and therefore can work on 3 cars at the same time. I therefore expect their advantage to only grow in 2021. This also beimg the reason I think Max should sign with Merc asap.

Personally, I'm not obsessed with ending anyone's dominance - I'd just like to see a more level Aero playing field. If this delivers the sort of close racing we saw in the glory days of Champ Car, then I'm all for it! (and I think it will).

This is what the Lola floor looked like:


there's some really good pics of the top side over here:

http://www.canamcarsltd.com/part/Lola-C ... -side-pods

[Just_a_fan]

How about allowing the teams free rein for one or two seasons. Let them develop an underside and then take the best one and make it the standard design.

Defining "best" would be the FIA's job in the process.

[Maritimer]

The team that came up with the chosen design would have a two year head start on integrating and optimizing the floor to the rest of their aero design, that wouldnt be a good idea.

[Singabule]

The proposal is conservative. Nothing new in terms of componentry nor packaging. Reminds me of the Indy bids from a few years ago. Will a piecemeal approach to a spec car aid costs? Any free areas will absorb the existing development budgets. Why would top end chassis manufacturers want to participate in a spec series where they will struggle to diffrentiate themselves. A five year freeze on driveline development is sad.

The underlying sentiment is: FIA and Liberty do not value engineering, they value drivers and paparazzi. They do not value engineering development and competition. They deem it unwanted. Undesireable. Not worthy of spending money on. In Formula 1.

More and more manufacturers want to join FE as they can develop the motors themself but not the chasis. At the end, the chasis builder could build better chasis but not overwrite the manufacturer improvements and also drivers involvement, that all we need

[netracing]

Can't ignore the effect on aero design with the proposal for spec radiators either. I assume they would propose a spec volume and core design but given these regs are designed to reduce costs and the performance gap between teams, I would assume core shapes might also become tightly restricted to prevent teams continuing with their complicated twisted cores and the associated complex sidepod shapes which come with it.