2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[InsideF1]

Hi all,

I'm new to forums like this as my previous 15 years of employment prevented me talking much about what I did. However, for the past two years I've been part of the aerodynamic team working within F1 on the 2021 rule set. Today these rules, following consultation with the teams and then unanimous approval by the WMSC, have been released to the wider public and where possible I'd be happy to try and answer any questions you might have about them.

There will always be differences of opinions, especially around something as subjective as aerodynamics but whilst you might not agree with some of what we have done or tried to achieve I won't continue to participate in the face of outright negativity.

In the meantime, ask away...

[turbof1]

Hi all,

I'm new to forums like this as my previous 15 years of employment prevented me talking much about what I did. However, for the past two years I've been part of the aerodynamic team working within F1 on the 2021 rule set. Today these rules, following consultation with the teams and then unanimous approval by the WMSC, have been released to the wider public and where possible I'd be happy to try and answer any questions you might have about them.

There will always be differences of opinions, especially around something as subjective as aerodynamics but whilst you might not agree with some of what we have done or tried to achieve I won't continue to participate in the face of outright negativity.

In the meantime, ask away...

I might have a small question for now (there will probably a huge washlist once the regulations have been gone through). There seems to be a whole new approach to regulations through Virtual Surfaces, which the 2021 technical regulations make extensively use of. Was this inspired by the 2019 front wing regulations, or was the usage of virtual surfaces already thoroughly thought about before the 2019 regulations?

Also, this is a technical thread. So by standard we are not going to allow gratuitous negativity towards the new regulations. The subforum General Chat will lend to that. So I am asking our members to explicitly keep questions down towards the content of the technical regulations.

[InsideF1]

Hi,

Virtual surfaces as you point out were first introduced in 2019 for the FW regulations. The writing of the regulations is very much a collaborative process undertaken with the FiA whereby we agree what we are trying to achieve (and prevent) and from there discuss the best way of regulating it. Given that the virtual surface approach has worked well for achieving what was required in 2019 it was felt that in the appropriate areas it could continue to be utilised in 2021. Whilst it has not been without it's critics it offers a convenient method of trying to more tightly prescribe certain features (for example limiting level of curvature in the 2019 FWEP) whilst not completely prescribing a surface. Alternative approaches that were tested internally could often be circumvented where as thus far this approach seems to be working.
Thanks.

[Vyssion]

These rules are nuts... 138 pages to trawl through... really prescriptive, like the rear coke even is defined

Looking forward to your analysis

It's gonna take weeks for Andy and me to go through and do drawings and explanations

I think this is one of those times where I can say that I am glad its my job to do the CAD-prep, mesh, and CFD

#pretty-pictures

[jjn9128]

2021 rule boxes ... I'm going for a nap now.

[turbof1]

Hi,

Virtual surfaces as you point out were first introduced in 2019 for the FW regulations. The writing of the regulations is very much a collaborative process undertaken with the FiA whereby we agree what we are trying to achieve (and prevent) and from there discuss the best way of regulating it. Given that the virtual surface approach has worked well for achieving what was required in 2019 it was felt that in the appropriate areas it could continue to be utilised in 2021. Whilst it has not been without it's critics it offers a convenient method of trying to more tightly prescribe certain features (for example limiting level of curvature in the 2019 FWEP) whilst not completely prescribing a surface. Alternative approaches that were tested internally could often be circumvented where as thus far this approach seems to be working.
Thanks.

Thanks for the answer. I hope we can keep you very busy the next few weeks with questions as we will start to plough through the regulations at our community .

[jjn9128]

In the meantime, ask away...

How do we access the FIA CAD portal to access the bits not defined in the rules

[InsideF1]

You have to register to take part in the 2021 championship which includes paying the required entry bond!

I do believe some of those will be added into Appendix 1 in due course however...

[F1Krof]

Behold the Indy Car + Series, formerly known as Formula 1. I'm out! GL.

[turbof1]

You have to register to take part in the 2021 championship which includes paying the required entry bond!

I do believe some of those will be added into Appendix 1 in due course however...

This will be a vaguely related question: in quite a few cases in the past the community had trouble to understand a few things when things came down to technical directives, which the public is not privy to. Is there a possibility these technical directives, whenever possible, could be made public? We as technical community would sherish having clarity in that.

[jjn9128]

You have to register to take part in the 2021 championship which includes paying the required entry bond!

I do believe some of those will be added into Appendix 1 in due course however...

That sucks. Means we can't design cars ourselves.

I think there's a typo in Appendix 29.3 - should be

29.3 An extrusion of sections defined in §28.1 (b) and (c) along Y to Y=800.

[InsideF1]

I've never really considered that... I've always just been able to read them! Given that F1 are only the CRH and don't have any regulatory powers over the sport that is nothing I can directly influence.

A lot of the TD's are born out of confidential correspondence between the FiA and individual teams and some of that will surely need to be protected. However, if it is a general explanation of something in the rules themselves which all teams subsequently get to see then maybe some of that could be considered in the public interest. No promises but I will enquire as to whether there is any reason why it is all withheld...

[InsideF1]

I think there's a typo in Appendix 29.3 - should be

29.3 An extrusion of sections defined in §28.1 (b) and (c) along Y to Y=800.

Correct and noted. Thanks.

[hollus]

Why is there an “engine cover box” and a “sidepod box” and why is there a concave void between them?
It appears unnecessary to prohibit the car from having a basic triangular shape in frontal view, IMO.

[InsideF1]

Why is there an “engine cover box” and a “sidepod box” and why is there a concave void between them?
It appears unnecessary to prohibit the car from having a basic triangular shape, IMO.

The bodywork regulations were originally more tightly regulated from an aesthetics point of view the separate boxes were present to try force a certain top deck slope. Over time it was noted that (a) the bodywork shape (in general) is not influential in the car's wake and (b) too tightly imposing bodywork shape would reduce visual differentiation (even if we couldn't guarantee the end solution would look nice!) as such the boxes were made larger.

There is no reason why the box could not be defined as you describe, it is more a modification of a legacy design. I shuold also note that the box is such a size that you could effectively draw your triangle as described and still package all the PU data we had access to.