2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[jjn9128]

Team bosses didn't like the bargeboards, too much broken surface makes it difficult to put big stickers on the car. Same reason the tops of the rear wing endplates are now gone - from some angles they blocked the sponsor logo on the mainplane.

The function of the bargeboard is basicaly fulfilled by the new floor fences, namely vortical flow to slightly enhance downforce and some outwash of the front tyre wake.


Coming soon to the front page, maybe in a month or two!

[SmallSoldier]

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).

I would even argue that much of the appeal in F1 is that level of complexity... That even when the average fan doesn’t understand how it works, there is a “technological masterpiece” aspect to the cars that draws people into watching the sport.

The fact that F1 is still the most watched Motorsport in the world, regardless if it doesn’t have the best “racing” is a testament to how that aura of mystique and “black magic” regarding all those crazy and intricate pieces of aero make the casual fan tune in.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[godlameroso]

Team bosses didn't like the bargeboards, too much broken surface makes it difficult to put big stickers on the car. Same reason the tops of the rear wing endplates are now gone - from some angles they blocked the sponsor logo on the mainplane.

The function of the bargeboard is basicaly fulfilled by the new floor fences, namely vortical flow to slightly enhance downforce and some outwash of the front tyre wake.

https://qd1pqw.db.files.1drv.com/y4mGGJ ... pmode=none
Coming soon to the front page, maybe in a month or two!

In theory yes. However those fences and the side wings won't be nearly as powerful nor will they generate the same loads generated by the bargeboards. The biggest challenge I see is getting the aero to not stall too much under yaw. The bargeboards mitigate this to a huge degree which is a big chunk of where the lap time comes from.

Much like the front wing compromises that were made to try to retain some of the performance, it may just have unintended consequences. I see what you're saying about team bosses and the logos, it is a commercial sport in the end. My worry comes from the fact that if you take away the bargeboards, then you are taking away from the smaller teams, as their bargeboards brought big performance, and they were semi modular. Teams had a lot of scope for development in that area, and the way they were built, they weren't a huge expense relatively speaking.

Without them, and other parts of the car more restricted, it will still favor the bigger teams. Why? Because bigger teams have better suspension parts, they have better aero in the critical areas that the regulations haven't and can't address. Because bigger teams can afford more compact and streamlined packaging of the equipment, and that equipment sits in front of the most critical area for downforce production on the whole car.

[djos]

Without them, and other parts of the car more restricted, it will still favor the bigger teams. Why? Because bigger teams have better suspension parts, they have better aero in the critical areas that the regulations haven't and can't address. Because bigger teams can afford more compact and streamlined packaging of the equipment, and that equipment sits in front of the most critical area for downforce production on the whole car.

Don't forget that the suspension rules have been heavily simplified for 2012 - Inerters and other complex devices have been banned which imo will level the suspension playing field a lot.

[maunde]

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).

I would even argue that much of the appeal in F1 is that level of complexity... That even when the average fan doesn’t understand how it works, there is a “technological masterpiece” aspect to the cars that draws people into watching the sport.

The fact that F1 is still the most watched Motorsport in the world, regardless if it doesn’t have the best “racing” is a testament to how that aura of mystique and “black magic” regarding all those crazy and intricate pieces of aero make the casual fan tune in.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Aerodynamically, the current F1 cars are incredibly complex, yes, however it's interesting to consider that technologically one could almost say that the cars of the 90s (active suspension etc.) were much more complex, and were then dumbed down. And yet, we still have had phenomenal cars despite these restrictions on the technology (they found pseudo active suspension using hydraulics, one such solution the engineers achieved). Makes ya think.

[Holm86]

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).

I would even argue that much of the appeal in F1 is that level of complexity... That even when the average fan doesn’t understand how it works, there is a “technological masterpiece” aspect to the cars that draws people into watching the sport.

The fact that F1 is still the most watched Motorsport in the world, regardless if it doesn’t have the best “racing” is a testament to how that aura of mystique and “black magic” regarding all those crazy and intricate pieces of aero make the casual fan tune in.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Aerodynamically, the current F1 cars are incredibly complex, yes, however it's interesting to consider that technologically one could almost say that the cars of the 90s (active suspension etc.) were much more complex, and were then dumbed down. And yet, we still have had phenomenal cars despite these restrictions on the technology (they found pseudo active suspension using hydraulics, one such solution the engineers achieved). Makes ya think.

Complex, but still pretty regulated. Since the 2017 regulations, the only real loophole innovation was the T-wing?
The 2009 regulation changes brought many innovations like double diffuser, f-duct, exhaust blown diffuser, coanda exhaust.

And I fear that 2021 will be even worse in that regard, after two years teams will have found out which shapes are optimal, and then all cars will look alike in 2023

[JordanMugen]

And I fear that 2021 will be even worse in that regard, after two years teams will have found out which shapes are optimal, and then all cars will look alike in 2023

So what?

Some may look at this and think it's amazing, but others are just as inclined to think it's ridiculous and a waste of money. An unnecessary expense in the goal of entering two race cars in a Grand Prix 23 times a year.



Zak Brown notes regarding WEC:
"But I think the one who has the biggest cheque book we know historically is the one who wins. I think they need to come up with a formula where it becomes increasingly difficult to throw more money at it."

The same principle applies to F1.

[mzso]

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.

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.

I was never a fan of aero pollution. I think vortex and turbulence generation, should have been smothered in its infancy.
Apart from the toxic effects of dirty aero, I'm genuinely more interested when sleek deceptively simpler looking car accomplishes similar performance more efficiently and without needing to throw hundreds of millions on designing it.

[hollus]

Focus folks: 2021 Aero Thread. Off topic pages have been removed.

[maunde]

Focus folks: 2021 Aero Thread. Off topic pages have been removed.

Always appreciated <3

[Zynerji]

Without them, and other parts of the car more restricted, it will still favor the bigger teams. Why? Because bigger teams have better suspension parts, they have better aero in the critical areas that the regulations haven't and can't address. Because bigger teams can afford more compact and streamlined packaging of the equipment, and that equipment sits in front of the most critical area for downforce production on the whole car.

Don't forget that the suspension rules have been heavily simplified for 2012 - Inerters and other complex devices have been banned which imo will level the suspension playing field a lot.

Idiocy. Banning the very tech that gives superior, passive control of the suspension, and possibly has the most road relevance, makes zero sense to me.

That's like banning 3rd springs, or chassis integrated torsion springs and rocker arms. These are all passive evolutions of engineering brilliance that deserve praise for their power to simplicity ratio... Not the Ban Hammer.

[djos]

I broadly agree with you.

My preference is that they bring back active suspension like the Williams system from the 90’s. Make it a single supplier or single spec system and the teams would save millions in development and running costs.

[Zynerji]

I broadly agree with you.

My preference is that they bring back active suspension like the Williams system from the 90’s. Make it a single supplier or single spec system and the teams would save millions in development and running costs.

I'm still much more interested and impressed by the simple mechanical systems these teams currently implement over a full active system.

The passive cars have "character" and come "alive". Active cars are just like watching Scalextric racers. There is no soul in the car when there are FPGAs running auto-balance real-time tensor tables for the sole purpose of ground facing aero benefit.

That's not racing, that's a Magic Carpet ride.

[mzso]

I remember reading about coating the cars' surface with some sort of foil to mitigate carbon composite rubble on the track due to damage. Is that a thing for 2021, or somethingonly in the research phase.

[Zynerji]

Inferiority?

The current passive system has more manhours/FEA hours than any fully active system in existence, I'd bet.

A fully active system could not compete for size and weight. It may give better underbody aero benefit, and more computer control over the outcome of the races, but it is soul less and an artificial driver aid.

It only added 10-12kg to the car weight back in the late 80's.

Compared to 1980's passive systems that were removed? That doesn't mean anything. Today's systems might be 10-12k lighter by themselves, increasing the weight delta immensely.

Today's simple*, passive, well integrated, highly engineered suspension systems are modern art rivalling watchmaking in its perfection. It's hard to imagine kludging it up with an active system that's only benefit is controlling the aero platform. Soulless.