With the 2022 rule change on the horizon bargeboards will no longer be a feature of F1 cars, but what are they, how do they work, and will F1’s designers be able to replicate their function in 2022?
Good question. The undercut allows the outwash on the top of the floor to assist outwash under the floor. But the big vanes under the car are doing that job. That said it will allow a clean path to the diffuser. So less powerful but just as useful would be my guess.
I'm wondering if it will see a slight change in how the radiators are mounted, they could be more upright and forwards to reduce the area behind it more. Potentially the radiators could be reduced in size (and weight) because of more effective airflow through them. Obviously I don't know the figures for what a lower drag but heavier and larger radiator does on car performance. I just think that area right behind the venturi tunnel entrance will be interesting for development.jjn9128 wrote: ↑08 Mar 2021, 14:39Good question. The undercut allows the outwash on the top of the floor to assist outwash under the floor. But the big vanes under the car are doing that job. That said it will allow a clean path to the diffuser. So less powerful but just as useful would be my guess.
That car has soooo much yuck, its abominable...FW17 wrote: ↑08 Mar 2021, 15:39jjn9128
You seem to have some inside knowledge into what was happening in development of the rule.
The front wheels has a device on top of the tyre to reduce the turbulance of the tyre. Would it not have been better to go for the full set up as done by Formula e gen2evo? That is with a element on top of the front wing end plates and turning vane behind the tyre. Also why no such device for the rear tyre?
https://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/s ... ba6688.jpg
I have no inside knowledge but I did my phd on wake effects of f1 cars and interviewed for the fom job. A lot of what I said in said interview ended up in the drafts though so I feel somewhat vindicatedFW17 wrote: ↑08 Mar 2021, 15:39jjn9128
You seem to have some inside knowledge into what was happening in development of the rule.
The front wheels has a device on top of the tyre to reduce the turbulance of the tyre. Would it not have been better to go for the full set up as done by Formula e gen2evo? That is with a element on top of the front wing end plates and turning vane behind the tyre. Also why no such device for the rear tyre?
https://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/s ... ba6688.jpg
A thousand times yes. It belongs in a toy box rather than a garage.Zynerji wrote: ↑08 Mar 2021, 15:42That car has soooo much yuck, its abominable...FW17 wrote: ↑08 Mar 2021, 15:39jjn9128
You seem to have some inside knowledge into what was happening in development of the rule.
The front wheels has a device on top of the tyre to reduce the turbulance of the tyre. Would it not have been better to go for the full set up as done by Formula e gen2evo? That is with a element on top of the front wing end plates and turning vane behind the tyre. Also why no such device for the rear tyre?
https://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/s ... ba6688.jpg
This sophisticated opinion of "EWWW!" is highly relevant, not just to F1 but the whole world.El Scorchio wrote: ↑08 Mar 2021, 19:15A thousand times yes. It belongs in a toy box rather than a garage.Zynerji wrote: ↑08 Mar 2021, 15:42That car has soooo much yuck, its abominable...FW17 wrote: ↑08 Mar 2021, 15:39jjn9128
You seem to have some inside knowledge into what was happening in development of the rule.
The front wheels has a device on top of the tyre to reduce the turbulance of the tyre. Would it not have been better to go for the full set up as done by Formula e gen2evo? That is with a element on top of the front wing end plates and turning vane behind the tyre. Also why no such device for the rear tyre?
https://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/s ... ba6688.jpg
mzso wrote: ↑08 Mar 2021, 19:48This sophisticated opinion of "EWWW!" is highly relevant, not just to F1 but the whole world.El Scorchio wrote: ↑08 Mar 2021, 19:15A thousand times yes. It belongs in a toy box rather than a garage.
I was being sarcastic. Ewwwing is ridiculous and senseless.
And I think these work a lot better:
How is it that the element over the front tyre is not being track tested by any team so far or introduced in F2?jjn9128 wrote: ↑08 Mar 2021, 18:39I have no inside knowledge but I did my phd on wake effects of f1 cars and interviewed for the fom job. A lot of what I said in said interview ended up in the drafts though so I feel somewhat vindicatedFW17 wrote: ↑08 Mar 2021, 15:39jjn9128
You seem to have some inside knowledge into what was happening in development of the rule.
The front wheels has a device on top of the tyre to reduce the turbulance of the tyre. Would it not have been better to go for the full set up as done by Formula e gen2evo? That is with a element on top of the front wing end plates and turning vane behind the tyre. Also why no such device for the rear tyre?
https://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/s ... ba6688.jpg
The job of the wheelarch is to downwash the separated flow from the top of the tyre whereas, as far as I can tell, the formula e winglet is creating downforce and upwashing flow. This makes the tyre wake bigger but moves it up and away from the rest of the car. The high pressure in front is being reduced by the pod ahead so the vorticity around the sidewall is reduced. I think the formula e solution is an aesthetic one more than necessarily solid aero foundations though.
I suggested a wheel cover more like the mudguard on a caterham to have a similar effect of removing the sheer at top of the tyre which moves the separation point forward and increases the size of the tyre wake.
The issue with f1 is being forward thinking vs maintaining traditions. F1 is an open-wheel formula and there’s been backlash against the arches and 18” wheels already. I can imagine more when less on it fans catch a glimpse of 2022 cars. Pods in front of the wheels would be too much for some fans.
As for the rear. The shape of the rear tyre wake is fundamentally different because of all the preceding bodywork but also the separation region is less critical for subsequent parts. The front tyres wakes affect almost everything, especially if badly optimised.
It's illegal as of now, so it would be hard to test. Also its effect may be obvious, no need to test.
3.7.5 Bodywork Blister
Once the Rear Bodywork surfaces are fully defined in accordance with Articles 3.7.1 to 3.7.4, a single Bodywork Blister may be added per side, which must:
a. Exist entirely between XR =-50 and XR = -600, below Z=550 and inboard of Y=250.
b. Lie entirely between the Rear Bodywork surfaces and a 50mm external offset of them.
c. In side-view, lie entirely within an axis-aligned rectangle which is 350mm long and 120mm high.
d. Intersect the Rear Bodywork surfaces around its entire periphery.
e. Only comprise convex curvature, with a minimum radius of 20mm.
f. At no point on its surface have a normal with a negative X component that subtends an angle greater than 20deg to an X plane.
Once the Bodywork Blister surfaces are fully defined, the Bodywork Blister and Rear Bodywork must be trimmed to each other, such that no overlapping surfaces remain. A fillet radius, no smaller than 20mm, must be applied along the periphery of where these surfaces intersect.
These rulesjjn9128 wrote: ↑05 May 2021, 23:152022 rule have had another update
For the most part it seems to be clarification of wording but we now have a specific rule for bodywork blisters (or "sexy bulges" if they're on a Mercedes).
3.7.5 Bodywork Blister
Once the Rear Bodywork surfaces are fully defined in accordance with Articles 3.7.1 to 3.7.4, a single Bodywork Blister may be added per side, which must:
a. Exist entirely between XR =-50 and XR = -600, below Z=550 and inboard of Y=250.
b. Lie entirely between the Rear Bodywork surfaces and a 50mm external offset of them.
c. In side-view, lie entirely within an axis-aligned rectangle which is 350mm long and 120mm high.
d. Intersect the Rear Bodywork surfaces around its entire periphery.
e. Only comprise convex curvature, with a minimum radius of 20mm.
f. At no point on its surface have a normal with a negative X component that subtends an angle greater than 20deg to an X plane.
Once the Bodywork Blister surfaces are fully defined, the Bodywork Blister and Rear Bodywork must be trimmed to each other, such that no overlapping surfaces remain. A fillet radius, no smaller than 20mm, must be applied along the periphery of where these surfaces intersect.
