2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[jjn9128]

Any reason why FIA did not introduce the suspension and tyre rule for a year prior (2020) than the aero rules?

I'd guess a mistrust of Pirelli. They're letting them use f2 as a test bed for the 2021 tyres in the hope they can create a half decent product.

[Koldskaal]

Hi everyone. I am reading through the 2021 technical regulations and stubled upon something. On page 118 they seem to leave out the final operation, when defining Floor edge reference volume (RV-FLOOR-EDGE):

With all the other parts they end the section by stating: "The fully defined volume/surface in §final is PART." But this time they seem to, intentionally or not, leave out the final step.
There is a similar error in §14 on page 120. Here they state that the fully defined §14.2 is RS-RBW-APERTURE. it only goes up to §14.1 though.
I figured you guys might be interested.

[jjn9128]

Hi everyone. I am reading through the 2021 technical regulations and stubled upon something. On page 118 they seem to leave out the final operation, when defining Floor edge reference volume (RV-FLOOR-EDGE):
https://i.imgur.com/g80DoaK.png
With all the other parts they end the section by stating: "The fully defined volume/surface in §final is PART." But this time they seem to, intentionally or not, leave out the final step.
There is a similar error in §14 on page 120. Here they state that the fully defined §14.2 is RS-RBW-APERTURE. it only goes up to §14.1 though.
I figured you guys might be interested.

I didn't have an issue with those parts?

EDIT: I see what you're saying. Is it really an issue that the volume is named than cut again?

[Oehrly]

I've wondered when reading those regulations, why do they describe everything in words. Putting geometry in words seems like a somewhat bad idea to me. Why does the FIA not create drawings of their reference geometry with minimum/maximum dimensions?
The only drawings I see are Camera Positions and Cockpit Cross Section in the Appendix. That looks rather straight forward and understandable compared to all that gibberish in the rest of the regulations.

[jjn9128]

I've wondered when reading those regulations, why do they describe everything in words. Putting geometry in words seems like a somewhat bad idea to me. Why does the FIA not create drawings of their reference geometry with minimum/maximum dimensions?
The only drawings I see are Camera Positions and Cockpit Cross Section in the Appendix. That looks rather straight forward and understandable compared to all that gibberish in the rest of the regulations.

From/for 2021 the regulation parts are all available to download from the FIA, for teams. The appendix just describes how to create them which is useful for people like us who want to scrutinize them. It can also be useful for teams to see those sketches the volumes extrude from.

It's a completely new way of writing rules, it used to be that the main body of the regs described the volume and what could be in it, now the regs just say what is in the volumes - and the emphasis is on the plural of that...there are a lot of volumes! Previously there were drawings in the technical appendix, which wasn't released to the public, then from 2017 the drawings started appearing in the actual regs, though there was still more detail in the appendix.

[Koldskaal]

Hi everyone. I am reading through the 2021 technical regulations and stubled upon something. On page 118 they seem to leave out the final operation, when defining Floor edge reference volume (RV-FLOOR-EDGE):
https://i.imgur.com/g80DoaK.png
With all the other parts they end the section by stating: "The fully defined volume/surface in §final is PART." But this time they seem to, intentionally or not, leave out the final step.
There is a similar error in §14 on page 120. Here they state that the fully defined §14.2 is RS-RBW-APERTURE. it only goes up to §14.1 though.
I figured you guys might be interested.

I didn't have an issue with those parts?

EDIT: I see what you're saying. Is it really an issue that the volume is named than cut again?

Well, if the volume is explicitly named without the cut, then the cut should be ignored right? So whenever the volume is referenced in the rules, it refers to the volume without the cut. This is a very small thing I know, I suspect it is simply a typo. But in this case, if not fixed, it could give the teams some additional wiggle-room. Though we are only talking a few millimeters.

[jjn9128]

Well, if the volume is explicitly named without the cut, then the cut should be ignored right? So whenever the volume is referenced in the rules, it refers to the volume without the cut. This is a very small thing I know, I suspect it is simply a typo. But in this case, if not fixed, it could give the teams some additional wiggle-room. Though we are only talking a few millimeters.

I believe teams download the parts from the FIA anyway - so they input their wheelbase/AA position and the FIA autocreates the volumes - so they're not free to change them from what the FIA produces. The appendix only describes the operations for production - I think mainly for press.

[godlameroso]

In other words the shapes of cars are extremely prescribed, with only detail changes possible? In other words aero developments will still happen, but they'll be more invisible to the average viewer.

[jjn9128]

The rules are already fairy prescriptive but the cars look more different than they have for a while. We'll have to wait and see what they look like in '21. I think the front end (except nose and wing) will be fairly standard up to the driver. Behind that is about the same freedom as now, except without the winglets around the front of the sidepods.

[godlameroso]

The rules are already fairy prescriptive but the cars look more different than they have for a while. We'll have to wait and see what they look like in '21. I think the front end (except nose and wing) will be fairly standard up to the driver. Behind that is about the same freedom as now, except without the winglets around the front of the sidepods.

Or bargeboards, or the floor leading edge. No slots along the edge of the floor.

Cars will definitely be slower, but there will be big steps taken throughout the season. My biggest fear are that gaps will increase, and the racing will genuinely be worse than what we have now and next season.

[jjn9128]

There's the "floor edge wing" volume along the edge of the floor, so there is some scope for something there. Gaps always increase in the first year of a major rule change, but I certainly don't expect the wheel-to-wheel to be worse. We've had an okay season this year with a few outstanding races but the majority of races have been the standard fare, or worse.

[mzso]

Any reason why FIA did not introduce the suspension and tyre rule for a year prior (2020) than the aero rules?

So that they can make sure Pirelli will win the tender.

[godlameroso]

There's the "floor edge wing" volume along the edge of the floor, so there is some scope for something there. Gaps always increase in the first year of a major rule change, but I certainly don't expect the wheel-to-wheel to be worse. We've had an okay season this year with a few outstanding races but the majority of races have been the standard fare, or worse.

If the cars are 2.5 seconds slower it means they lost that performance from the lack of bargeboards and heavier weight. It's a shame that 2020 will be the last we see of the current complex bargeboards. I thought they were really interesting devices that served numerous purposes.

[Just_a_fan]

I agree that the barge boards are interesting devices, but we are not the typical fan, it seems. These things are not understood by the majority of viewers of F1. If the merchandise buying, slack jawed, numpties can't understand stuff, it must be thrown away. Dumb stuff down, sell more t-shirts, keep the shareholders happy. Simple game plan really.

[Holm86]

I agree that the barge boards are interesting devices, but we are not the typical fan, it seems. These things are not understood by the majority of viewers of F1. If the merchandise buying, slack jawed, numpties can't understand stuff, it must be thrown away. Dumb stuff down, sell more t-shirts, keep the shareholders happy. Simple game plan really.

Honestly, I don't understand that strategy?
The casual fans will watch F1 if they understand the regulations or not, its all down to good racing.
I agree that a change was needed to make the racing better, but to standardise so many things just because "the average fan cant tell the diffirence" shouldnt be an incentive not to have the technical development side of F1.

My argument is that the casual viewer will always be there, but they risk loosing the more passionate and technical side of the fans (i.e us).