2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[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.

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.

OK thx, so no 2008 McLaren front wing in 2022

[mzso]

I hate everything about the design; the nose, front wing, sidepods, the tunnels under the sidepods, rear wing, those wings/fins inside/around the front wheels area The sidepods are so IndyCar, and I detest them. F1 has always been about the cars for me, this is so generic there's no way I'm gonna like how it looks.

This is easily the worst looking f1 car ever. What in the world is with that nose?. Looks like a wider version of IndyCar. Terrible sight. Besides that, hopefully the aero is good.

It's like the worst of youtube here since the car launch. Endless variants of the "Ewww is it's different, so it's ugly" sentiment....

I for one don't care much about the barely significant difference in appearance. It looks like a usual formula car like all of them did since the eighties.

But I wonder what happened with the full hubcaps. So those holes in the middle are mandatory, optional, or actually not in line with the new regulations?

[RZS10]

There is no hole? Apart from the obvious one for the wheel gun of course.

[mzso]

There is no hole? Apart from the obvious one for the wheel gun of course.

Well, it was proportionally much smaller before:

[mzso]

As for F1 car length I think it's been discussed enough that most of the added length in the last 20 years is in the gearbox case, not the cockpit/safety cell.

Where? I didn't see any such discussion.
But more importantly: Why? Plainly lengthening the gearbox case for aerodynamic reasons?
F1 cars look kind of grotesque in this regard, in my opinion. Barely any car between the rear wheels.

[mzso]

Everybody said that cars are too long and not nimble enough. This looks even clumsier. Not a fan right now. Will have to wait to see with a proper livery and design tweaks.

But they've been only criticising length and weight for a few years. They've been talking about dirty air since the eighties. Just you wait, by 2050 the FIA will deal with it.

[jjn9128]

As for F1 car length I think it's been discussed enough that most of the added length in the last 20 years is in the gearbox case, not the cockpit/safety cell.

Where? I didn't see any such discussion.
But more importantly: Why? Plainly lengthening the gearbox case for aerodynamic reasons?
F1 cars look kind of grotesque in this regard, in my opinion. Barely any car between the rear wheels.

Yes to get the coke nice and narrow and more floor area for downforce - plus because of the fixed centre of gravity. Cars should be 1/2 to 3/4m shorter. And 150kg lighter.

[mzso]

As for F1 car length I think it's been discussed enough that most of the added length in the last 20 years is in the gearbox case, not the cockpit/safety cell.

Where? I didn't see any such discussion.
But more importantly: Why? Plainly lengthening the gearbox case for aerodynamic reasons?
F1 cars look kind of grotesque in this regard, in my opinion. Barely any car between the rear wheels.

Yes to get the coke nice and narrow and more floor area for downforce - plus because of the fixed centre of gravity. Cars should be 1/2 to 3/4m shorter. And 150kg lighter.

What is the purpose of the center of gravity regulations? I never saw any obvious point to them. It feels like regulation for regulation's sake.

[mzso]

I'm interested to see whether teams' DNA shows through in the new cars. Red Bull, for example, have for a long time had a different approach to the sidepods, particularly the rear slope and how the pod meets the floor. Will they do something similar with the new cars? Will it be beneficial to do so?

The anticipation of the unveiling of the teams' 2022 cars is probably, for me, more exciting than the rest of this season. A new F1 era. Can't wait. Not so worried about the aesthetics so long as the cars are able to do what is intended by the rule change.

I expect an awful lot of work will be going in to designing suspension systems to give the tyres the best chance. How the tyres are used by the various cars could be one of the big differentiators next year, for example, if the aero performance of the cars is similar.

I'm not looking forward for more tire snafu. Tires should provide grip, take a lot of beating and last the race, or half of it. Not being the center of car performance.
Maybe Pirelli could deliver tires that don't suck for once.

As for team's approaches. I think you can forget their history. They will design the cars from scratch to their best ability. Everything might be different

[mzso]

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.

AFAIK, according to the data that F1 published in 2020 and according to the simulations RacecarEngineering published in april 2020, the drag reduction thanks to tow might decrease compared to today, especially at closer separations, so tow will be less effective, theoretically, and that's one of the reasons DRS was retained.

Interesting. If that's the case, then they'll have to figure a way of fitting a hinge and actuator on that swoopy rear wing. Was kind of hoping DRS was going to become a bygone.

It would, however, be an interesting and ironic application of the Law of Unintended Consequences if the cars could follow in the corners but the tow was less and so they still couldn't make a pass work on track.

They, or at least Ross Brawn always said that they'l retain DRS as a fallback. Only to be used if really needed. Otherwise it'll be dead weight. Maybe they'll ditch it in a year or two.

[jjn9128]

What is the purpose of the center of gravity regulations? I never saw any obvious point to them. It feels like regulation for regulation's sake.

Pirelli wanted it. Means you somewhat control load on front vs rear tyres. Front/Rear weight limits basically means aero-balance is limited to within a few percent.

[mzso]

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!

Actually I can imagine a dual formula, one of them being no-downforce, which wouldn't cost that much.
But there would be even more eeeewww-ers.

[Zynerji]

I think downforce is fine in F1.

I still like the idea of laminators/relaminators being a spec part tho. A 100MM deep, fully enclosed rectangle as the leading edge of the front wing with an aluminum 5mm honeycomb mesh inside would straighten any turbulent air before it reaches the wing elements that are stacked behind it. Also, adding a similar 150MM deep rectangle that covers the exit of the diffusor as well should straighten a lot of the air as it leaves the car.

I'm sure the measurements would need to be played with to get an effect, but the frontal area of such a mesh should be super minimal and not greatly increase drag (but will probably reduce overall downforce) and have the effect of more consistent and stable downforce.

[Just_a_fan]

I think downforce is fine in F1.

I still like the idea of laminators/relaminators being a spec part tho. A 100MM deep, fully enclosed rectangle as the leading edge of the front wing with an aluminum 5mm honeycomb mesh inside would straighten any turbulent air before it reaches the wing elements that are stacked behind it. Also, adding a similar 150MM deep rectangle that covers the exit of the diffusor as well should straighten a lot of the air as it leaves the car.

I'm sure the measurements would need to be played with to get an effect, but the frontal area of such a mesh should be super minimal and not greatly increase drag (but will probably reduce overall downforce) and have the effect of more consistent and stable downforce.

I'm not sure it's the small scale turbulence that's the issue. It's the overall flow and also the fact that the air behind the lead car is moving forward with the lead car to a certain degree. Thus the following car is effectively seeing a lower airspeed over its aero surfaces and that air is turbulent. The two combined causing the problems.

[jjn9128]

I'm not sure it's the small scale turbulence that's the issue. It's the overall flow and also the fact that the air behind the lead car is moving forward with the lead car to a certain degree. Thus the following car is effectively seeing a lower airspeed over its aero surfaces and that air is turbulent. The two combined causing the problems.

Not turbulence really at all but dynamic pressure deficit