2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[JordanMugen]

Hopefully they stay under 2017 lap times at least...

I've never understood this obsession with lap times and or top speeds instead of fantastic close racing.
I'd prefer close racing and real passes over a few MPH or ticks on the clock.

Wingless Formula Ford and Formula Vee cars produce fantastic racing with intense slipstreaming battles but are of minor interest and minor popularity.

IMO, it is clear that F1 cars being able to corner at a spectacular lateral acceleration of 5g's-6g's (thanks to downforce) is a drawcard for many fans (certainly for me) and is thrilling to watch.

F2's level of 3g's with less downforce is not *too* bad, but it is clear that they are much slower and less spectacular than F1 cars when they come out back-to-back.. It's as if the F2 cars are in slow motion compared to the F1 that were on track in the previous session.

Dropping right down to 1.5-2g of a non-downforce car would be too extreme a leap IMO.

[trinidefender]

Hopefully they stay under 2017 lap times at least...

I've never understood this obsession with lap times and or top speeds instead of fantastic close racing.
I'd prefer close racing and real passes over a few MPH or ticks on the clock.

While I don't think lap times are the end all and be all of what makes F1....F1, it does play a part. If lap time doesn't matter then why not watch any other series? NASCAR, Indy, DTM, Aussie supercars, BTCC, GT3 classes etc etc etc.

The fact is F1 is F1 because it has always had a few defining characteristics. These are;
1. Open design rules which encourage manufacturers to come in and prove they are the best
2. The fastest cars around a track which again, encourages manufacturers to compete to say, look we are the best.
3. Fastest cars around the track (part 2) which is a marketing point in itself which attracts fans for it being "the pinnacle of motorsports"

There are others but these are, whether one wants to admit it, very large reasons why it has the fan base it does. It is seen as the pinnacle of Motorsport and that's why drivers aim for it.

This brings me neatly back on topic. I believe too much standardisation will do harm to F1 in the long run. It pushes it away from its unique position into being similar to almost every other racing series. Have a budget cap and leave it at that. If the FIA still finds that there is too much difference between teams then simply reduce the budget cap season on season. There will be parity after a while.

[roon]

For years they have been trying to turn gambling into a sustainable business, with some success. The current effort is an attempt to make F1 more profitable in the era of multiple HD camera views, via closer sustained vehicle proximity. I don't really care about this, but they seem to think that this is their ticket to filling stands and increasing online & television viewership. Dancing with the Cars.

[mzso]

On another note, why the change to less wide front tyres? This creates more natural understeer and less frontal mechanical grip, which is going to hurt a car following closely. Seems counterintuitive if they want cars to follow closely.

The wake of the front tires is a huge problem for following. So it's not surprising that it got narrower.

Sealing skirts arenot safe, those are the dangerous aspect which caused it to be banned in the dirst place if my history is correct. The moment the skirt is slightly damaged or raises a little higher than expected for whatever reason you lose a extreme percentage of downforce very suddenly. Without the skirt there is less chance of this, there is already constant leakage/spillage so the changes are less extreme percentage wise when some more spills or leaks,

Skirts wern't the problem it was the ride height dropping to zero that stalled the cars ground effect wing which cause sudden loss of grip.

Skirts were definitely the problem. They got banned. After which the teams started the trickery with ride height to get the chassis scrubbing the ground.
The floor touching the ground and downforce disappearing was after, with flat floors. It was a suspected cause in Senna's crash, more than a decade later.

[mzso]

With modern sensors you could run the skirts them actively with hydraulic ram and a moog valves and if you were to do that you could run an active suspension.
From and engineering standpoint this would be more cost effective to get -CL and handling and reduce weight.
Rather than the current frics suspension and complex CFD designed parts and flexing wings.

For what purpose? It wouldn't make them safer. On an uneven surface (going over kerbs) it still wouldn't be able to seal and you would get massive loss of downforce.

if we are going to ground effect will we also be using active suspension and sealing skirts as this would make the car safer for the drivers to drive on the limit by control the ride heights and floor sealing.

Race cars that don't pitch, roll or squat are boring to watch though.

Unless they race each-other spectacularly...

[mzso]

If we can't have skirts that are safe then I guess the aero development cost will be high as every one will be spending a lot of time sealing the floor with vortexes.

Not with a $175m budget cap.

It is going to be a total joke. Just look at the Panama papers and the constant tax dodging by large corporations which even the largest coumtries fail to combat and somehow we think the FIA has found the solution to police this? If they manage, please tell Western countries governments so we the people can finally start paying less tax and the rich and corporates their fair percentage.

Well, monitoring the totality of finances would definitely do the trick.
What's problematic is deciding where a design came from. An engineer could work on something for a year somewhere within Mercedes, then moved to the F1 department with the knowledge gained, maybe slipping in some data and designs and miraculously design, build a super high performing component for the F1 project in short time.
So unless the FIA puts spyware on all computers and do body cavity searches it's rather difficult to police.

[DChemTech]

Hopefully they stay under 2017 lap times at least...

I've never understood this obsession with lap times and or top speeds instead of fantastic close racing.
I'd prefer close racing and real passes over a few MPH or ticks on the clock.

While I don't think lap times are the end all and be all of what makes F1....F1, it does play a part. If lap time doesn't matter then why not watch any other series? NASCAR, Indy, DTM, Aussie supercars, BTCC, GT3 classes etc etc etc.

The fact is F1 is F1 because it has always had a few defining characteristics. These are;
1. Open design rules which encourage manufacturers to come in and prove they are the best
2. The fastest cars around a track which again, encourages manufacturers to compete to say, look we are the best.
3. Fastest cars around the track (part 2) which is a marketing point in itself which attracts fans for it being "the pinnacle of motorsports"

There are others but these are, whether one wants to admit it, very large reasons why it has the fan base it does. It is seen as the pinnacle of Motorsport and that's why drivers aim for it.

This brings me neatly back on topic. I believe too much standardisation will do harm to F1 in the long run. It pushes it away from its unique position into being similar to almost every other racing series. Have a budget cap and leave it at that. If the FIA still finds that there is too much difference between teams then simply reduce the budget cap season on season. There will be parity after a while.

I agree. The budget cap is important, because it prevents 'buying' the championship by just having the biggest wallet instead of the best, most creative engineers and top drivers. An interesting part of the competition is who can perform best with limited resources.

Perhaps, in that light, rules are set in the wrong way. Regulations are based on how a car can look, how big an engine can be, etcetera, which limits the creativity teams can exercise - and indeed paves a way to standardization. Maybe instead limits on specs should be set. E.g. max peak engine output, maximum lift/drag coefficients, and so on - but leave open how teams achieve this. This shifts the competition from one of performing the maximum within certain geometrical constraints, to one of being the most efficient within certain performance constraints (the best engine would not be the one operating at the highest HP, but the one operating most efficiently so they can run at the maximum allowed HP for the longest time, or with the most lightweight, etc... ). I think it would also increase the relevance of F1 innovation for real world application.

Edit: and, since the topic is on aero, same there - don't limit the shapes that can be used, but limit the budget teams can spend on it, and perhaps set some performance targets, e.g. limits to wake behavior, or something like "a maximum loss of X% in downforce for a standardized car geometry following at a distance of Y meters" (or some other standardized test cases)

[mzso]

Reading reactions to it in social medias I get the feeling that I'm the only one who likes how it looks. Just hoping there will still be enough room for the teams to play with.

People are people. Shallow and whiny. I like it for the supposed improvement to racing it brings, if it fails then I'll hate it.
The wheel caps don't bother me, which most seem to whine about. I would have enclosed all the wheels inside the chassis. Imagine the whine-fest that would have caused...

I quite like it, hopefully this means we can do without DRS from 2021 onwards

I think they'll keep it around, just in case, the way Brawn talked about it. They can choose not to specify DRS zones, unless they're needed.

[mzso]

The most important thing for me is that although it's a completely different concept to what we've been used to, it's still very clearly an F1 car, and a good looking one at that in my opinion. I'm still torn on the rear wing concept, but if it's there to do a specific job and it results in a better product then I'm not going to complain too much.

I do hope that the rules aren't too prescriptive and that we do get some variation in front wing concepts, sidepod shapes, floors etc.

The front wing is far more bothersome to me. Ungainly and fragile.

Still has a huge snow plow front wing. I'd shrink that by 20%

I'd chop off half of it. More like the old GE wing-cars. They should just extend the Venturi tunnels forward if the want more front down-force.

No, it's not required and we did fine without it for decades. Aero is a lie, a ploy proffered by "aerodynamicists,"

If this is meant to be sarcastic than it's ill conceived. Otherwise it's just sad.

Still has a huge snow plow front wing. I'd shrink that by 20%

It's 'required' to direct the air over the front tyres. Furthermore, the wider front wing is less sensitive to being in turbulent wake compared to a narrow wing, hence why it is specified here and also in Dallara spec series cars.

Well, underbody aero is also not sensitive, so a longer Venturi tunnel should work fo this as well.
Not sure how much trouble the tire drag/turbulence is.

[jjn9128]

On another note, why the change to less wide front tyres? This creates more natural understeer and less frontal mechanical grip, which is going to hurt a car following closely. Seems counterintuitive if they want cars to follow closely.

The wake of the front tires is a huge problem for following. So it's not surprising that it got narrower.

The rear wheels are narrower too (16.9" from 18") but contact patch is as big because of the squarer sidewall. I think the front tread is slightly narrower, but could be to do with aero and COG moving a bit rearwards with a fixed wheelbase.

[mzso]

Hopefully they stay under 2017 lap times at least...

I've never understood this obsession with lap times and or top speeds instead of fantastic close racing.
I'd prefer close racing and real passes over a few MPH or ticks on the clock.

Most people would for sure. If they could actually compare most of them would even claim as such. As it stands people point at all sorts of useless, meaningless stuff as being important, when it isn't.

Wingless Formula Ford and Formula Vee cars produce fantastic racing with intense slipstreaming battles but are of minor interest and minor popularity.

IMO, it is clear that F1 cars being able to corner at a spectacular lateral acceleration of 5g's-6g's (thanks to downforce) is a drawcard for many fans (certainly for me) and is thrilling to watch.

F2's level of 3g's with less downforce is not *too* bad, but it is clear that they are much slower and less spectacular than F1 cars when they come out back-to-back.. It's as if the F2 cars are in slow motion compared to the F1 that were on track in the previous session.

Dropping right down to 1.5-2g of a non-downforce car would be too extreme a leap IMO.

The popularity of those series is of no relevance. F1's popularity is based on heritage and the fact that it's thought of and promoted as the top of motorsports and its wide scale coverage.

The majority wouldn't notice or care for corner speeds.

Hopefully they stay under 2017 lap times at least...

I've never understood this obsession with lap times and or top speeds instead of fantastic close racing.
I'd prefer close racing and real passes over a few MPH or ticks on the clock.

While I don't think lap times are the end all and be all of what makes F1....F1, it does play a part. If lap time doesn't matter then why not watch any other series? NASCAR, Indy, DTM, Aussie supercars, BTCC, GT3 classes etc etc etc.

The fact is F1 is F1 because it has always had a few defining characteristics. These are;
1. Open design rules which encourage manufacturers to come in and prove they are the best
2. The fastest cars around a track which again, encourages manufacturers to compete to say, look we are the best.
3. Fastest cars around the track (part 2) which is a marketing point in itself which attracts fans for it being "the pinnacle of motorsports"

I don't think so. See above. It was just designated as the top of autosport and its popularity stems from that. Other categories are designed to be slower or have no means or interest in competing. Making F1 slower with better racing wouldn't change anything.
Popularity would only increase because there would be more reason to watch F1.

[mzso]

I agree. The budget cap is important, because it prevents 'buying' the championship by just having the biggest wallet instead of the best, most creative engineers and top drivers. An interesting part of the competition is who can perform best with limited resources.

Perhaps, in that light, rules are set in the wrong way. Regulations are based on how a car can look, how big an engine can be, etcetera, which limits the creativity teams can exercise - and indeed paves a way to standardization. Maybe instead limits on specs should be set. E.g. max peak engine output, maximum lift/drag coefficients, and so on - but leave open how teams achieve this. This shifts the competition from one of performing the maximum within certain geometrical constraints, to one of being the most efficient within certain performance constraints (the best engine would not be the one operating at the highest HP, but the one operating most efficiently so they can run at the maximum allowed HP for the longest time, or with the most lightweight, etc... ). I think it would also increase the relevance of F1 innovation for real world application.

Edit: and, since the topic is on aero, same there - don't limit the shapes that can be used, but limit the budget teams can spend on it, and perhaps set some performance targets, e.g. limits to wake behavior, or something like "a maximum loss of X% in downforce for a standardized car geometry following at a distance of Y meters" (or some other standardized test cases)

I've long had this opinion that they should just put a cap on engine power instead of prescribing even screw sizes, which is nuts. Otherwise only few restrictions would be needed on exotic materials or morbidly expensive ideas.
However I don't think that would work for anything, especially aero, especially if you want to limit cost and performance at the same time. It would just lead to extremely convoluted solutions one way or another.
Aero just needs to be severely restricted and be done with, aero developments are of no use to anyone.

You do realize though that going for efficiency will eradicate internal combustion engines instantly.
They would look around and spend all their money on the best fuel cells, batteries, supercapacitors and lightest electric motors.

[DChemTech]

I agree. The budget cap is important, because it prevents 'buying' the championship by just having the biggest wallet instead of the best, most creative engineers and top drivers. An interesting part of the competition is who can perform best with limited resources.

Perhaps, in that light, rules are set in the wrong way. Regulations are based on how a car can look, how big an engine can be, etcetera, which limits the creativity teams can exercise - and indeed paves a way to standardization. Maybe instead limits on specs should be set. E.g. max peak engine output, maximum lift/drag coefficients, and so on - but leave open how teams achieve this. This shifts the competition from one of performing the maximum within certain geometrical constraints, to one of being the most efficient within certain performance constraints (the best engine would not be the one operating at the highest HP, but the one operating most efficiently so they can run at the maximum allowed HP for the longest time, or with the most lightweight, etc... ). I think it would also increase the relevance of F1 innovation for real world application.

Edit: and, since the topic is on aero, same there - don't limit the shapes that can be used, but limit the budget teams can spend on it, and perhaps set some performance targets, e.g. limits to wake behavior, or something like "a maximum loss of X% in downforce for a standardized car geometry following at a distance of Y meters" (or some other standardized test cases)

I've long had this opinion that they should just put a cap on engine power instead of prescribing even screw sizes, which is nuts. Otherwise only few restrictions would be needed on exotic materials or morbidly expensive ideas.
However I don't think that would work for anything, especially aero, especially if you want to limit cost and performance at the same time. It would just lead to extremely convoluted solutions one way or another.
Aero just needs to be severely restricted and be done with, aero developments are of no use to anyone.

You do realize though that going for efficiency will eradicate internal combustion engines instantly.
They would look around and spend all their money on the best fuel cells, batteries, supercapacitors and lightest electric motors.

Fantastic. Let them. F1 doesn't need to be restricted to ICE - it should be about the best available technology to get the job done within the restrictions laid out by the rules which, in my view, should relate to cost/performance. I see we agree at least to some extend, albeit maybe not on the aero. Freedom there is more to keep the engineers entertained.

[strad]

As I've said before; I don't think the average TV viewer would even notice if the cars were doing 100mph or 120mph thru a given corner. At the track it might be more noticeable but not on TV where most watch races.
Same for top speed.

[Big Tea]

As I've said before; I don't think the average TV viewer would even notice if the cars were doing 100mph or 120mph thru a given corner. At the track it might be more noticeable but not on TV where most watch races.
Same for top speed.

Yip, the easiest and cheapest way to reduce lap times is shorten tracks.

The best way to avoid back markers to lengthen tracks