Front page thread: The 2022 Formula 1 rules explained

[jjn9128]

A simple drawing of what I was trying to explain...

I think it has to be the solid line. Each surface must be tangent to the fillet.

3.1.9 Fillet Radius
An arc with radius of curvature respecting the limit(s) specified, connecting two fully defined surfaces tangentially with no inflection and perpendicular to the intersection between them. Unless otherwise specified, fillet radii may change in magnitude around the periphery of the boundary around which they are defined, but such changes must be continuous.
If there exists a discontinuity in tangency at the trailing edge of the intersection between the parts to be joined by the fillet, then the fillet surfaces may be extended behind the trailing edge to provide a closed aerodynamic fairing. This fairing need not consist of arcs of constant radius, but, relative to the fillet immediately preceding the trailing edge, it may be no larger in cross section than and no longer than three times the maximum fillet arc radius at this point.

That said it's specifying minimum convex and concave curvature not a fillet radius...

3.1.4 Concave and convex curvature
References made in this Article on curvature of aerodynamic surfaces refer to the part of the aerodynamic surface which is in contact with the external air stream.
When references are made to the curvature of a surface, without specifying an intersection with a particular plane, the local curvature at any point will be defined as the curvature of the intersection of the surface in question with a plane passing through a line normal to the surface at that point. The concave radius of curvature of the surface at that point will be defined as the minimum concave radius of curvature obtained when the intersecting plane is swept through 180 degrees around the normal line. The convex radius of curvature of that surface at that point will be defined as the minimum convex radius of curvature obtained when the intersecting plane is swept through 180 degrees around the normal line.
As an example, and for the sake of clarity, the aerodynamic surface of a solid sphere would be the surface where this sphere makes contact with the external airstream, and would be considered to be a convex surface.

[BassVirolla]

I didn't account for the requirement for tangency.

Nevertheless, my drawing was supposed to be a cut view of two surfaces, trying to explain how can you go from >25 to zero without decreasing the radius. Another thing is if the rules allows it or not (no, for not being tangent).

F1 relevance... not so sure about it.

[SiLo]

For RS-FLOOR-PLAN, you say it cannot be smaller than this, is the same to be said of anything larger than it also? It's hard for me to see how the red plan aligns with the overall drawing in the first image posted.

Thanks for the feedback. Is this any clearer?
https://db3pap006files.storage.live.com ... pmode=none

It's difficult to choose images without overloading things.

yes thanks thats much clearer now. Do you know how this compares to the floor areas for 2020 and 2021? I find it interesting the minimum floor size is so close to the maximum floor size. Doesn't leave much room for innovation.

[jjn9128]

Doesn't leave much room for innovation.

You just summed up the 2022 rules

[SiLo]

Doesn't leave much room for innovation.

You just summed up the 2022 rules

It's getting very close to a spec series isn't it? Which is a bit sad IMO.

[jjn9128]

Doesn't leave much room for innovation.

You just summed up the 2022 rules

It's getting very close to a spec series isn't it? Which is a bit sad IMO.

The next article I’m writing is about if the rule book could be simplified without undermining the 2022 aims.

[SiLo]

You just summed up the 2022 rules

It's getting very close to a spec series isn't it? Which is a bit sad IMO.

The next article I’m writing is about if the rule book could be simplified without undermining the 2022 aims.

I'll take a stab and say that the answer is yes

I think there could have been more freedom within the rules for some aero innovation. I would rather have seem things like limits on volume rather than such strict rules on shape etc.

[Just_a_fan]

I think there could have been more freedom within the rules for some aero innovation. I would rather have seem things like limits on volume rather than such strict rules on shape etc.

I wonder if they've taken the decision to start fairly restricted in order to ensure the general idea behind the rules works, then, if it is working well, allow the teams a bit more flexibility until they reach a point where the cars start to struggle again in close proximity. Then step back from that point and say "you can play around up to this line, and that's it. Off you go and innovate what you can up to this line in the sand."

That would be a sensible approach as it gives the FIA more control over the risk of serious outwash designs reappearing and causing the old issue of poor followability to return.

[Just_a_fan]

The diffuser exit is rather narrow, 750mm wide compared to 1050mm on the 2017-21 cars, and the shape of the floor volume will prevent teams from expanding their diffusers laterally, as they do now, which would subvert the aerodynamic concept for the 2022 cars, and allows only for expansion in the vertical direction, with the diffuser exit between 200mm and 310mm tall.

I wonder if any will just use the full height as the diffuser and not use any little devices along the top rear edge of the diffuser. The diffuser exit height variation will presumably see some / all teams using extension flaps along the top rear edge rather than the full height of the allowed diffuser at the exit, much like they currently do. This will presumably increase diffuser extraction and thus improve downforce at the kink line.

Also, might there be benefit from running a convex diffuser roof instead of the now ubiquitous concave roof? The concave roof allows for more expansion earlier on and offsets the relatively low diffuser height. But with taller diffusers, might a traditional convex roof give better overall results? Are they allowed strakes in the diffuser area? If not, dealing with a step at the kink and concave roof as they use today might be tricky.

[Just_a_fan]

"any convex radius of curvature must be greater than 25mm" would suggest that if you make the junction 90deg then no radius is required. A 90deg corner is not convex radius. A 90deg radius is r = 0.

I can see that interpretation being much discussed within the team and between team and FIA tech rep.

0 << 25 though

Truth is I don't know how the FIA would rule here. I imagine they'd come down on the side of defining a minimum radius means there needs to be a radius.

Thinking further on this, they define the minimum radius of the curve but not the arc length (unless I've missed that). So I can draw a curve of 25mm radius and use some short part of that curve to join two surfaces together, can't it? Thus I can have my two surfaces with a 25mm radius curve of length 2mm. That's quite a sharp junction that meets the minimum radius requirement. You're going to tell me I'm wrong, aren't you? I can see it coming.

[Big Tea]

You just summed up the 2022 rules

It's getting very close to a spec series isn't it? Which is a bit sad IMO.

The next article I’m writing is about if the rule book could be simplified without undermining the 2022 aims.

Would it not depend to large extent if the 'rules' were what is in the book, or anything that is not?
Far less rules needed to say 'you must do this' than to say 'get this result'

[Just_a_fan]

It's getting very close to a spec series isn't it? Which is a bit sad IMO.

The next article I’m writing is about if the rule book could be simplified without undermining the 2022 aims.

Would it not depend to large extent if the 'rules' were what is in the book, or anything that is not?
Far less rules needed to say 'you must do this' than to say 'get this result'

I think the thing about having rules that say "you must do this" is that it sounds like a set of spec rules, and F1 doesn't want to be seen as a spec series. By having long-winded, detailed, rules, they get to say "we're a technical series, look!".

[Big Tea]

The next article I’m writing is about if the rule book could be simplified without undermining the 2022 aims.

Would it not depend to large extent if the 'rules' were what is in the book, or anything that is not?
Far less rules needed to say 'you must do this' than to say 'get this result'

I think the thing about having rules that say "you must do this" is that it sounds like a set of spec rules, and F1 doesn't want to be seen as a spec series. By having long-winded, detailed, rules, they get to say "we're a technical series, look!".

Completely agree. The more wriggle room the better

[BassVirolla]

"any convex radius of curvature must be greater than 25mm" would suggest that if you make the junction 90deg then no radius is required. A 90deg corner is not convex radius. A 90deg radius is r = 0.

I can see that interpretation being much discussed within the team and between team and FIA tech rep.

0 << 25 though

Truth is I don't know how the FIA would rule here. I imagine they'd come down on the side of defining a minimum radius means there needs to be a radius.

Thinking further on this, they define the minimum radius of the curve but not the arc length (unless I've missed that). So I can draw a curve of 25mm radius and use some short part of that curve to join two surfaces together, can't it? Thus I can have my two surfaces with a 25mm radius curve of length 2mm. That's quite a sharp junction that meets the minimum radius requirement. You're going to tell me I'm wrong, aren't you? I can see it coming.

It would fail at the tangency requirements (if I've understand rightly such rules ).

[SiLo]

The diffuser exit is rather narrow, 750mm wide compared to 1050mm on the 2017-21 cars, and the shape of the floor volume will prevent teams from expanding their diffusers laterally, as they do now, which would subvert the aerodynamic concept for the 2022 cars, and allows only for expansion in the vertical direction, with the diffuser exit between 200mm and 310mm tall.

I wonder if any will just use the full height as the diffuser and not use any little devices along the top rear edge of the diffuser. The diffuser exit height variation will presumably see some / all teams using extension flaps along the top rear edge rather than the full height of the allowed diffuser at the exit, much like they currently do. This will presumably increase diffuser extraction and thus improve downforce at the kink line.

Also, might there be benefit from running a convex diffuser roof instead of the now ubiquitous concave roof? The concave roof allows for more expansion earlier on and offsets the relatively low diffuser height. But with taller diffusers, might a traditional convex roof give better overall results? Are they allowed strakes in the diffuser area? If not, dealing with a step at the kink and concave roof as they use today might be tricky.

It's possible they wont use the full width to be able to shape some lateral expansion into it as well. Be very interested to see what they do here.