2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[mzso]

You wouldn't advocate getting rid of helmets because they have halo now Make the cockpit sides shorter/smaller you reduce the lateral impact protection for the driver.

Or maybe replace it with something that doesn't suck and block out half the driver's vision.Even simply putting having foam under the eyeline and on the upper frame of the halo would help a lot.
And there is no holy scripture saying that protection to lateral forces should come from foam pads that block out vision.

Maybe that foam helps in rare huge accidents but having peripheral vision brings constant danger and accidents. All in all not a good trade-off.

[MatsNorway]

Instead of a standardized safety device they should let the teams innovate. Give em a crash test to pass.

[izzy]

Instead of a standardized safety device they should let the teams innovate. Give em a crash test to pass.

Yes I like this idea. They should do it for car weight too - make the crash tests MUCH more severe and high energy and let teams meet them as light as they can.

[Capharol]

Instead of a standardized safety device they should let the teams innovate. Give em a crash test to pass.

1) no please don't because you don't play with safety
2) if all teams would make they're own safety device, stewards along the track need to know how to recover each driver from they're own safety device instead of 1 general construction for all
3) teams tend to temper with own devices as much as possible, keep it as cheap as possible and trying to minimize the material that is needed to secure the drivers safety
4) as in point 3 already said "keep it as cheap as possible" which means, Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and some others would have the highest of standards but teams like Haas, Alfa need to get as cheapest material they can get due to a smaller budget.

[wesley123]

Instead of a standardized safety device they should let the teams innovate. Give em a crash test to pass.

No offense, but that is probably the worst idea someone could implement.

Apart of the reasons stated above, there is no way to actually confirm the safety of the drivers in a reasonably, timely manner.

There are some things competitors shouldn't innovate on, and safety is one of those things. The innovation will revolve around performance, not safety.

[Just_a_fan]

Instead of a standardized safety device they should let the teams innovate. Give em a crash test to pass.

Yes I like this idea. They should do it for car weight too - make the crash tests MUCH more severe and high energy and let teams meet them as light as they can.

That would kill F1. The top teams would spend a shed load of cash saving weight making the performance gap even bigger. The guys at the back would be 10s of kg heavier and would fall back even more than they already do. Then they'd give up and go elsewhere.

It's a good system in road cars: that's what happens anyway - you have to pass crash tests, so off you go and see what you can do. But that is with cars being made in the many tens of thousands per year, not two a year.

[izzy]

That would kill F1. The top teams would spend a shed load of cash saving weight making the performance gap even bigger. The guys at the back would be 10s of kg heavier and would fall back even more than they already do. Then they'd give up and go elsewhere.

It's a good system in road cars: that's what happens anyway - you have to pass crash tests, so off you go and see what you can do. But that is with cars being made in the many tens of thousands per year, not two a year.

did you see the article on Mercedes' net costs? on Racefans probably. £40m that's all!! because of all the disproportionate prize money, and sponsorship. and the advertising equivalent value was $3.7 BILLION or something. Similar for Ferrari and Red Bull i bet. So they spend what they like already, and they're consistently 2s or whatever faster than the midfield, cos all the 100+ pages of limitations of every conceivable thing don't work

they don't work because of consistency. The absolute gap isn't huge it's just consistent - always there. and this is what happens when they deny innovation - it becomes a development competition with tiny, miniscule advantages that are consistent because nobody can really invent something clever

with the aero, perfect example: they ALL can only do 25 hours a week in the wind tunnel, or trade some of that for CFD teraflops, 60% scale, no tandem, all the boxes and dimensions and a million limits that are the same for all of them, but always, every single year for decades, the rich teams have more downforce. How?? it's a mystery to me but there it is - these attempts to level the playing field looking great and totally logical in theory but just not working.

so i don't believe in the costs argument. Let them be clever, it actually gives the small teams more of a chance, compared to development

[izzy]

1) no please don't because you don't play with safety
2) if all teams would make they're own safety device, stewards along the track need to know how to recover each driver from they're own safety device instead of 1 general construction for all
3) teams tend to temper with own devices as much as possible, keep it as cheap as possible and trying to minimize the material that is needed to secure the drivers safety
4) as in point 3 already said "keep it as cheap as possible" which means, Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and some others would have the highest of standards but teams like Haas, Alfa need to get as cheapest material they can get due to a smaller budget.

it's not playing with safety to let teams design safety. they do it already with the nose for example - it just has to meet a force test. Same with helmets. HANS was developed with a crash test dummy presumably, instrumented for the various forces and accelerations, so if teams can meet the same criteria with a device that allows more sideways vision why shouldn't they? Does there need to be so much friction?

[MatsNorway]

2) if all teams would make they're own safety device, stewards along the track need to know how to recover each driver from they're own safety device instead of 1 general construction for all

Detachment of safety device can be standardized.

If you care about safety the biggest issue is vehicle weight. Cars now are so heavy the marshals might struggle to flip the vehicle over if it is buried in a gravel trap or dirt.

3) teams tend to temper with own devices as much as possible, keep it as cheap as possible and trying to minimize the material that is needed to secure the drivers safety

The safety is ensured by the very rigorous crash tests as before.

4) as in point 3 already said "keep it as cheap as possible" which means, Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and some others would have the highest of standards but teams like Haas, Alfa need to get as cheapest material they can get due to a smaller budget.

F1 will never be cheap. And it And the main driving cost is not a crash test but the complex hybrid everything power plants. Drop MGUH and drop KERS if you are concerned about costs.

as for comment about no weight limit. Minimum car weight is needed ofc.

[izzy]

as for comment about no weight limit. Minimum car weight is needed ofc.

they just use ballast, or they go over with load requirements, minimum car weight doesn't have anything to do with safety these days

[Capharol]

1) no please don't because you don't play with safety
2) if all teams would make they're own safety device, stewards along the track need to know how to recover each driver from they're own safety device instead of 1 general construction for all
3) teams tend to temper with own devices as much as possible, keep it as cheap as possible and trying to minimize the material that is needed to secure the drivers safety
4) as in point 3 already said "keep it as cheap as possible" which means, Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and some others would have the highest of standards but teams like Haas, Alfa need to get as cheapest material they can get due to a smaller budget.

it's not playing with safety to let teams design safety. they do it already with the nose for example - it just has to meet a force test. Same with helmets. HANS was developed with a crash test dummy presumably, instrumented for the various forces and accelerations, so if teams can meet the same criteria with a device that allows more sideways vision why shouldn't they? Does there need to be so much friction?

The only problem is.... those small mirrors, if they would made these a bit bigger (and use a better angle) the drivers has enoug to see what happens behind and on the side of them.....
i recall one driver was saying, why should we have these mirrors at all, you can't see a thing anyway with them...

[jjn9128]

The only problem is.... those small mirrors, if they would made these a bit bigger (and use a better angle) the drivers has enoug to see what happens behind and on the side of them.....
i recall one driver was saying, why should we have these mirrors at all, you can't see a thing anyway with them...

Or cameras with the screens mounted close to the cockpit

[Capharol]

Detachment of safety device can be standardized.

If you care about safety the biggest issue is vehicle weight. Cars now are so heavy the marshals might struggle to flip the vehicle over if it is buried in a gravel trap or dirt.

for that is the HALO, and if you wanna standardized the detachment, then you could keep the standard safety already in place, maybe make it better at some points, but don't let each team make they're own, I assure you that will only bring troubles

The safety is ensured by the very rigorous crash tests as before.

Who is paying for them? FIA?, LM? because if the teams need to pay for it , as already said, this will bring extra costs, which not every team can handle

F1 will never be cheap. And it And the main driving cost is not a crash test but the complex hybrid everything power plants. Drop MGUH and drop KERS if you are concerned about costs.

so what you are saying here is "it doesn't matter that the costs rises more because it's already expensive anyway".
so the hell with budget caps (as proposed by the smaller teams), just make it more expensive anyway....

because we won't get ride of the hybrids anymore that i can guarantee you, they won't drop MGU-H's and KERS because the only time they can do this is 2021, ofc they can do it in 2022 or any other year but not after such a big change happening in 2021......

The only problem is.... those small mirrors, if they would made these a bit bigger (and use a better angle) the drivers has enoug to see what happens behind and on the side of them.....
i recall one driver was saying, why should we have these mirrors at all, you can't see a thing anyway with them...

Or cameras with the screens mounted close to the cockpit

this is a possibillity aswell

[MatsNorway]

Custom Halo/dodad for roll over protection++ is a drop in the ocean for costs.

This is a minor one be it safety test done by teams themselves or cost as counter argument. If halo spec is your biggest concern for increased costs you are staring at a tree in the forest.

If innovation dies in F1.. F1 dies. Some things can be spec. Halo is one of them, not my biggest concern i just answered a few questions. It can be done and it is not the reason F1 is or will be more expensive, spec or or not.

[izzy]

The only problem is.... those small mirrors, if they would made these a bit bigger (and use a better angle) the drivers has enoug to see what happens behind and on the side of them.....
i recall one driver was saying, why should we have these mirrors at all, you can't see a thing anyway with them...

yes the teams design the mirrors for aero don't they, and to just meet the regs. The regs are pretty hopeless on the mirrors, they should specify rigidity, wet performance, a wider field of view and minimum image size/angle subtended, then teams would have to design better ones. it's a good example of how the best way is to specify the performance and let teams come up with the solutions