2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[jjn9128]

A few people have been questioning how the DRS is going to work on this rear wing. But what's on my mind is how will they adjust the wings for the car setup? If a driver requests a bit more front wing, surely they won't have to replace the entire thing? There must be a mechanism to adjust it, but I can't see one.

(At this rate they'll be using the same wing all season )

On the physical car model you can see the adjuster on the front wing - the top 2 elements.

[jjn9128]

They had length, width and height so they were very definitely three-dimensional.

They didn't have the big VGs at the mouth which increase the appearance of being sinuous in plan. I guess they'd have had the big VGs after a while if they'd been allowed to continue for a few years after skirts were banned. Back then, aero knowledge was fairly limited in F1 teams. With skirts, you didn't need clever shaping and other devices. The tunnels just sucked (or rather the atmosphere pushed if we're being accurate). The loss of skirts led to the teams trying clever things like double chassis, drooping suspension, etc., to try to mimic skirts and get the performance back that way. Eventually someone would have figured out that playing with the mouth of the tunnel can be powerful. But flat floors were introduced and that was the end of it.

There's a fundamental difference in how these tunnels operate compared to the old ones. Skirts meant the floor was sealed so air went in the front and came out the back, that said they used vortex generators at the start of the expansion to help the diffusion flow stay attached. Having an outwash strake like 2022 wouldn't have worked for those cars. These floors work very similarly to modern floors and bargeboards - pushing flow outward at the front of the car, which if you put a full skirt on they'd actually lose downforce - optimal for a current and 2022 spec floor would be a skirt from about half way back on the floor. So you get outwash but not ingress further back.

I have no issue with the fundamental shape of the car... other than it looks a bit stylised rather than optimized, the endplates are very much off a designers drawing board more than an aerodynamicist. I think teams solutions will be a bit more functional than this. My issue is the 172 page regulation book which is trying to force cars to all look the same. I hope I'm wrong.

[SmallSoldier]

I can't see DRS flap. how will mechanism looks like? Actuator I mean. Will it be placed outside (Something that mercedes had in 2011? )

I wonder if the cars will need DRS. DRS is a sticking plaster to cover the inability to run close together in the corners before the straights. If the cars can run more nose to tail, they will naturally be in the tow much earlier and thus have a good chance of an overtake attempt. What's more, it'll be a real overtake situation and so not guaranteed. That'll be a return to "proper racing".

If the cars are able to follow closely and have DRS, overtaking will be so easy that it'll be boring as hell.

I see DRS in a different perspective… Since F1 isn’t an spec series, there will always be cars that are faster than others… Naturally, those cars start at the front… In that scenario, you only get overtakes when someone is “out of position”.

DRS gives the “slower” car a chance to fight the faster one in front him as long as he can be close enough to use it.

Without DRS we may very well end with a formula in which cars are closer to each other, but the amount / frequency of overtakes in a given race wouldn’t be hire than today and potentially smaller.

Even an spec series like Indycar needs a gadget to induce more battles / overtakes on track (push to pass)… Without it, it could be as processional as F1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jjn9128]

Even an spec series like Indycar needs a gadget to induce more battles / overtakes on track (push to pass)… Without it, it could be as processional as F1

I could see DRS morphing to be more like push-to-pass - so drivers have a limited supply to use as they wish through the race - assuming the regs work to make following easier.

[Just_a_fan]

They had length, width and height so they were very definitely three-dimensional.

They didn't have the big VGs at the mouth which increase the appearance of being sinuous in plan. I guess they'd have had the big VGs after a while if they'd been allowed to continue for a few years after skirts were banned. Back then, aero knowledge was fairly limited in F1 teams. With skirts, you didn't need clever shaping and other devices. The tunnels just sucked (or rather the atmosphere pushed if we're being accurate). The loss of skirts led to the teams trying clever things like double chassis, drooping suspension, etc., to try to mimic skirts and get the performance back that way. Eventually someone would have figured out that playing with the mouth of the tunnel can be powerful. But flat floors were introduced and that was the end of it.

There's a fundamental difference in how these tunnels operate compared to the old ones. Skirts meant the floor was sealed so air went in the front and came out the back, that said they used vortex generators at the start of the expansion to help the diffusion flow stay attached. Having an outwash strake like 2022 wouldn't have worked for those cars. These floors work very similarly to modern floors and bargeboards - pushing flow outward at the front of the car, which if you put a full skirt on they'd actually lose downforce - optimal for a current and 2022 spec floor would be a skirt from about half way back on the floor. So you get outwash but not ingress further back.

I have no issue with the fundamental shape of the car... other than it looks a bit stylised rather than optimized, the endplates are very much off a designers drawing board more than an aerodynamicist. I think teams solutions will be a bit more functional than this. My issue is the 172 page regulation book which is trying to force cars to all look the same. I hope I'm wrong.

Yes, the old tunnels are very different to the new ones. But my point was that given time, someone would have changed how they used the tunnels once skirts and clever suspension, etc., were banned. But no one got a chance as the whole system was banned.

But the old tunnels were still 3d.

As for the look, I fear it's being compared to Indycar amd one thing F1 doesn't need is to be compared to a different series with very different performance.

[Just_a_fan]

I see DRS in a different perspective… Since F1 isn’t an spec series, there will always be cars that are faster than others… Naturally, those cars start at the front… In that scenario, you only get overtakes when someone is “out of position”.

DRS gives the “slower” car a chance to fight the faster one in front him as long as he can be close enough to use it.

Isn't the whole ethos behind F1 (and all motor racing) to build the fastest car you can within the rules? DRS is only about offsetting the fact that the cars can't follow each other close enough to be close at the start of a straight. DRS, in other words, exists only because the basic rules mean the cars can't race. DRS isn't (or at least shouldn't be) about equalising the cars.

[Blackout]

There's a fundamental difference in how these tunnels operate compared to the old ones. Skirts meant the floor was sealed so air went in the front and came out the back, that said they used vortex generators at the start of the expansion to help the diffusion flow stay attached. Having an outwash strake like 2022 wouldn't have worked for those cars. These floors work very similarly to modern floors and bargeboards - pushing flow outward at the front of the car, which if you put a full skirt on they'd actually lose downforce - optimal for a current and 2022 spec floor would be a skirt from about half way back on the floor. So you get outwash but not ingress further back.

I have no issue with the fundamental shape of the car... other than it looks a bit stylised rather than optimized, the endplates are very much off a designers drawing board more than an aerodynamicist. I think teams solutions will be a bit more functional than this. My issue is the 172 page regulation book which is trying to force cars to all look the same. I hope I'm wrong.

Is there any concern that the outer strake might produce too much outwash 'in real life', widen the dirty wake and partly ruin the hard work

2017ish car vs 2022 car - Racecar Engineering

[SmallSoldier]

Even an spec series like Indycar needs a gadget to induce more battles / overtakes on track (push to pass)… Without it, it could be as processional as F1

I could see DRS morphing to be more like push-to-pass - so drivers have a limited supply to use as they wish through the race - assuming the regs work to make following easier.

That would be interesting… But I’m afraid that F1 will feel compelled to find a completely different way to avoid not only the comparisons, but to be thought as following Indy instead of leading Motorsport


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SmallSoldier]

I see DRS in a different perspective… Since F1 isn’t an spec series, there will always be cars that are faster than others… Naturally, those cars start at the front… In that scenario, you only get overtakes when someone is “out of position”.

DRS gives the “slower” car a chance to fight the faster one in front him as long as he can be close enough to use it.

Isn't the whole ethos behind F1 (and all motor racing) to build the fastest car you can within the rules? DRS is only about offsetting the fact that the cars can't follow each other close enough to be close at the start of a straight. DRS, in other words, exists only because the basic rules mean the cars can't race. DRS isn't (or at least shouldn't be) about equalising the cars.

2 completely different situations / premises then:

If F1 is about who can build the fastest car (which I fully agree with)… “Racing” as we all imagine it (or desire it) will not exist… We will always have periods of dominance by a team (like Mclaren, Williams, Ferrari, Red Bull and most recently Mercedes have had)… The “Racing” will be almost “non-existent” as long as Qualifying determines the grid for Sunday (the fastest cars will start ahead of the slower cars

If F1 is about “the racing” (which I don’t think is the case, but seems to be what most fans find desirable)… Then, you will need gimmicks like DRS, Push to Pass, Fan Boost or any other silliness to promote racing… You can’t have a series, with open development, no gimmicks and good racing at the same time… One has to pick which is the most important one and hope fans enjoy it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jjn9128]

TOP F1 TEAMS SAY REAL 2022 CARS ‘MINIMALLY’ DIFFERENT TO MODEL no shocks there.

[Zynerji]

We don't necessarily need more passing, we need more passing ATTEMPTS.

[JordanMugen]

We don't necessarily need more passing, we need more passing ATTEMPTS.

Formula Ford & Formula Vee has lots of passing, indeed it can be advantageous to avoid taking the lead until the final approach to the finish line to prevent being slipstreamed before the chequered flag.

Yet it seems removing all wings and downforce producing bodywork entirely was not considered by rulemakers?

Formula Ford Article 12 in its entirety:

12.1 Bodywork:
(a) Any device designed to aerodynamically augment the downforce on the vehicle is prohibited. These
devices specifically include aerofoils, venturi tunnels, skirts, nose fins and spoilers of any kind.
(b) Integration of aerofoils and spoilers by design or the mismatching of bodywork and/or chassis panels
and members is also prohibited.
(c) The bodywork must totally enclose the engine inlet manifold and filter with an opening for the passage
of air.
(d) The uppermost surface of the bodywork must not extend more than 25mm above the top surface of
the rollover hoop. See additional note in Table of Dimensions, Appendix A.
(e) The upper rear bodywork (located above the wheel centerline) is permitted to extend rearwards for a
maximum of 375mm from a line drawn through the rear wheel axis. The maximum height at any part
wider than 1100mm ahead of the front wheels is not to exceed the front wheel rim height.
(f) The shape of the bodywork behind a vertical line drawn from the highest point of the roll-over bar must
not include any reflex curves or flat surfaces which are capable of augmenting downforce.
(g) The lower rear bodywork (located below the wheel centreline) is only permitted alongside and beneath
the engine and may only extend from behind the cockpit to a line drawn through the rear wheel axis.
(h) The incorporation of suspension or other fairings in this bodywork is prohibited.
(i) It is not permitted to construct any suspension member in the form of an aerofoil or to incorporate a
spoiler in the construction of any suspension member. The use of suspension fairings separate from
this bodywork is prohibited.
(j) The use of composite materials using carbon fibre reinforcement is prohibited.

https://www.formulaford.org.au/technical

Exactly 287 words -- a far cry from the Formula One bodywork regulations!

[mclaren111]

http://www.f1reader.com/list/news/lates ... ees-283849


I agree with Horner...

Clearly Wolff are after the money...

[GM7]

Looking at the 2022 car i was wondering if teams can use the first front wing element to do something similar to the 2008 McLaren.

[jjn9128]

Looking at the 2022 car i was wondering if teams can use the first front wing element to do something similar to the 2008 McLaren.

https://www.formulapassion.it/wp-conten ... er_f1.jpeg
http://www.conceptcarz.com/images/McLar ... 008-01.jpg

You mean the wing over the top? The wings have to go incrementally from lowest to highest with a maximum gap.