2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Just_a_fan]

Performance based regulations work well until they don't. There is often then a glaring difference between the regulator's expectations and the reality of the solution's performance.

Grenfell House fire disaster in the UK is a good example of what happens when a performance based regulatory system is gamed.

[izzy]

Performance based regulations work well until they don't. There is often then a glaring difference between the regulator's expectations and the reality of the solution's performance.

Specifying performance is the most direct way of getting the outcome you want. Obviously you do have to actually specify it correctly, with mirrors and neck protection or anything else, but then you can get a better solution than trying to do the designing yourself. Because to do the designing yourself you first have to specify the performances anyway and analyse it for unintended consequences too

[MtthsMlw]

From reddit, uploaded to the Formula 1 LinkedIn page.
https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... urce=share

[JordanMugen]

https://i.redd.it/wv57xnxe8jr31.png
From reddit, uploaded to the Formula 1 LinkedIn page.
https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... urce=share

Hmm, that front wing looks ugly, though I suppose I will get used to it.

I preferred the one with the rectangular endplates and no sweep.

[mzso]

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.

Besides the teams can already suggest safety features, if they want. But of course they don't spend extra money on safety.

[mzso]

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?
[/quote]

But they wouldn't. They wouldn't spend time and money on something that doesn't increase the car's performance. They don't care.
Now if the FIA mandated something that requires both peripheral vision and lateral protection than they'd spend a lot on it to make it the lightest. (Won't improve competition though.)

[mzso]

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.

No it isn't, a good chunk of added weight is crash protection. Staying upside down for a while is not an increased safety issue. If the driver is seriously injured the marshals can't just drag him out anyway.
And as for fire both them and the car has fire extinguishers.

[mzso]

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...

I doubt it. It won't compensate for lack of peripheral vision. You have to choose mirrors and focus your attention there.
Meanwhile reacting to something that happens in your peripheral vision is natural. It also works when you don't take your eyes off the road.

[izzy]

But they wouldn't. They wouldn't spend time and money on something that doesn't increase the car's performance. They don't care.
Now if the FIA mandated something that requires both peripheral vision and lateral protection than they'd spend a lot on it to make it the lightest. (Won't improve competition though.)

F1 would be better if the cars weren't as heavy as they've become, and yes FIA have to specify the safety, my point is they could specify the safety performance not the design or its weight

[Capharol]

http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... e-autos%2F
6 teams are against the new 2021 ruling, only Renault, Alfa Romeo, McLaren & Williams are in favour of the new ruling
(translated from AMuS)

Majority against new cars

The three top teams have prepared an alternative concept that gives the engineers a bit more freedom, yet does not miss the main goal of steering the turbulent air behind the car so that the following vehicle does not lose too much downforce.

The rule-keepers are ready to talk as long as CFD simulations or wind tunnel tests bring the same result as their own product. In the last version of the 2021er car the following car loses in a range of two car lengths only 10 percent contact pressure. Right now it's 50 percent.......

The teams must put forward good arguments if they want to score with their proposal. You have no chance by vote to avert the reform. The World Association is not bound by a vote by the teams because the Concorde Agreement expires at the end of 2020. There is only one vote in the FIA ​​World Council, in which the teams are only represented with one vote from Ferrari. Not enough to block the 2021 regulations.

[JordanMugen]

6 teams are against the new 2021 ruling

If true, these F1 teams seem rather self-interested and averse to the greater good of the sport.

[wesley123]

6 teams are against the new 2021 ruling

If true, these F1 teams seem rather self-interested and averse to the greater good of the sport.

Why? Because they want a bit more design freedom, something that literally defines F1?

[djos]

6 teams are against the new 2021 ruling

If true, these F1 teams seem rather self-interested and averse to the greater good of the sport.

So same old, same old then.

Personally I like the new aero direction and I hope the FIA and FOM have the balls to keep going!

[izzy]

Why? Because they want a bit more design freedom, something that literally defines F1?

Yes i agree, and after all the teams could be proposing the same concept just without the 50 boxes limiting it so much. Cos obviously part of Liberty's agenda is closing up the field, going spec, which is another thing

[browney]

The FIA need to be careful here because we could have another y250 loophole that makes all the changes an expensive but not worthwhile excercise.

If the are mature with there plans, they shouldn't make knee jerk changes for the teams. Introduce these rules and then free them up later if they produce the desired result.

We are talking about the 2021 rules and it's taken them quite a while to get to here.