Front page thread: The 2022 Formula 1 rules explained

[SiLo]

Can teams still recreate the Y250 vortex? Will they even want to?

I assume they don't actually need to run the wing all the way to the nose.

[jjn9128]

What's the relation between the front wing and the nosecone?
The orange volume of RV-FW-PROFILES seem to protrude over the blue nosecone volume near its tip, so is it possible to a construct wing beginning "over" the nosecone, a bit like in the Theodore TY01?

It would be possible, but not ideal. The closer you can get the front wing to the ground the better it works.

[jjn9128]

Can teams still recreate the Y250 vortex? Will they even want to?

I assume they don't actually need to run the wing all the way to the nose.

No. The trailing edges of all the elements (except the last one) have to be hidden by the next when viewed from above. Across the span also has to be a tangent continuous curve - so no discontinuities to create a vortex.

[SiLo]

Can teams still recreate the Y250 vortex? Will they even want to?

I assume they don't actually need to run the wing all the way to the nose.

No. The trailing edges of all the elements (except the last one) have to be hidden by the next when viewed from above. Across the span also has to be a tangent continuous curve - so no discontinuities to create a vortex.

So they could have the elements on top be longer than below to solve that problem? Or is it the tangent continious curve that stops it?

[SiLo]

http://support.ptc.com/help/creo/ced_mo ... eCont.html

For anyone trying to get their head around tangent continuous curves. I found this very helpful.

[jjn9128]

So they could have the elements on top be longer than below to solve that problem? Or is it the tangent continious curve that stops it?

To produce a vortex requires a pressure differential, so an abrupt termination of the flaps is ideal. In that event the lower element trailing edges being blocked by the upper elements would stop that flap termination.

Another way would be to have a really steep/sharp edge where a vortex could shed from which the tangent continuity prevents - there is also a maximum angle of subtention across the span, and a minimum spanwise radius of curvature of 200mm.

A Y250 type vortex would be hugely beneficial, especially at the front edge of the tunnels, but from my reading of these rules the FIA are desperate to prevent it.

[bartez1000]

What's the relation between the front wing and the nosecone?
The orange volume of RV-FW-PROFILES seem to protrude over the blue nosecone volume near its tip, so is it possible to a construct wing beginning "over" the nosecone, a bit like in the Theodore TY01?

It would be possible, but not ideal. The closer you can get the front wing to the ground the better it works.

Low amount of bodywork near the nosecone might result in encouragement of air flow under the nose. This seems to be a worthy goal, as Red Bull tend to spend much effort on sculpting the nose tip and adding holes to it. Maybe with short nose and high flaps mounting point something like IndyCar front wing center section would be possible? The more outboard sections of wing would be tasked with downforce generation.

[bartez1000]

What's the relation between the front wing and the nosecone?
The orange volume of RV-FW-PROFILES seem to protrude over the blue nosecone volume near its tip, so is it possible to a construct wing beginning "over" the nosecone, a bit like in the Theodore TY01?

It would be possible, but not ideal. The closer you can get the front wing to the ground the better it works.

On the second thought, it may not be possible to place wings over the nosecone.
The regulation 3.9.1.d, states that

d. The rearmost point of every closed section must be visible when viewed from below

The nosecone would obscure part of the wing if the wing was connected from below.

On the other hand, maybe there is some way to hang the wing from below of nosecone, instead of attaching it to the sides of the nosecone? There seems to not be any kind of neutral zone in the center of the wing.
Like in the Penske PC-27, but not so extreme. Even if there is not much space, placing the profiles under the nosecone may allow for sculpting the underside of the nosecone.

Also, what if one would create a "transparent" material and use it in the nosecone? There seem to be no definition of "visible" in the technical regs, and single info about it is from the "Article 3.13.3 Scoop" that specifies that

For clarity, apertures as referred to in this Article are considered to be mathematical surfaces
that are coincident with the surfaces constructed in accordance with Article 3.13.3 and bound
by their periphery. Any criterion of visibility in this Article will consider these surfaces to be
non-transparent

But this paragraph clearly it to be used only in the context of Article 3.13.3.

[Just_a_fan]

So they could have the elements on top be longer than below to solve that problem? Or is it the tangent continious curve that stops it?

To produce a vortex requires a pressure differential, so an abrupt termination of the flaps is ideal. In that event the lower element trailing edges being blocked by the upper elements would stop that flap termination.

Another way would be to have a really steep/sharp edge where a vortex could shed from which the tangent continuity prevents - there is also a maximum angle of subtention across the span, and a minimum spanwise radius of curvature of 200mm.

A Y250 type vortex would be hugely beneficial, especially at the front edge of the tunnels, but from my reading of these rules the FIA are desperate to prevent it.

Presumably the teams will do what they can with the inboard hinge for the adjustable flaps - the FIA's model has something just either side of the nose that looks like it might be usable - how effectively is the question, I suppose.



Expanding further on that thought, could a team effectively design the front wing so that they have to run the rear flaps at a high AOA compared to the section that joins the nose? That way you'd get a Y250-type discontinuity and an associated vortex.

[jjn9128]

Expanding further on that thought, could a team effectively design the front wing so that they have to run the rear flaps at a high AOA compared to the section that joins the nose? That way you'd get a Y250-type discontinuity and an associated vortex.

Certainly possible but you only get a 35mm offset at the trailing edge. How effective that would be I don't know, but I imagine all the teams have tested it. It does potentially limit your adjustability though if you're too dependant on it.

d. Compared to the original position of these profiles (as defined in accordance with Article 3.9.1), adjustment may only permit an increase of incidence of the slope defined in Article 3.9.1.g, and the maximum deviation for any point of these profiles from its original position must not exceed 35mm.

[jjn9128]

Part3: Rear wing
The rear wing has an important component for producing the “cleaner” wake desired by the 2022 rules. As Nikolas Tombazis (the FIA’s head of single seater matters and final author of the 2022 regulations) told the FIA’s Auto Journal in 2018,

The rear wing helps us when we’re trying to promote closer racing. It has two strong trailing vortices, which pull the flow up from close to the ground into the ‘mushroom’. This mushroom is pushed upwards quite violently and quickly, allowing clean air to be pulled in from the sides to take the place of the turbulent air being flung upwards. This clean air tends to be higher energy, which has a beneficial effect on the aerodynamics of the following car.”

To this end the rear wing is larger than the rear wings of the 2017-21 cars, with a wider span (1230mm vs 1050mm) and longer chord (415mm vs 350mm). The aspect ratio () of the wing is a little bit smaller as a result, which in turn will slightly increase the strength of the trailing vortices. The lack of a traditional endplate will also help high pressure air from the upper surface of the wing to leak around the side. The rear wing is also a little further from the ground, 910mm compared to 870mm at the top.


The rear wing is split up in a similar way to the front wing, with separate volumes for the wing profiles, endplate, and a blended section to join the two. There is also a lower “beam” wing which was outlawed in 2014 to cut the rear downforce of the cars.

• RV-RWEP-BODY Rear Wing Endplate Reference Volume
• RV-RW-PROFILES Rear Wing Profiles Reference Volume
• RV-RW-TIP Rear Wing Tip Reference Volume
• RV-RW-BEAM Rear Wing Beam Reference Volume
• RV-RW-PYLON Rear Wing Pylon Reference Volume
• RS-RW-RWEP Rear Wing Endplate Reference Surface
• RS-RW-BEAM Rear Wing Beam Reference Surface

As mentioned RV-RW-PROFILES (grey below) is longer than the current rear wing box, it is also slightly taller which will increase the camber possible from the rear wing for more downforce. More downforce strengthens the tip vortices, which as already described are important for the cleaner wake. Inside RV-RW-PROFILES the definition is similar to the front wing profiles, the number of elements is limited, in this case to two, with minimum concave radius of curvature on the aerofoil (100mm) and slot gap separations (10-15mm). Across the span the wing profiles cannot subtend by an angle greater than 20°, meaning that “spoon” shaped wings cannot be too aggressive, though as the FIA renders show the wings can still be fairly spoon shaped.


Rear wing endplates have become evermore complex since 2017 with numerous slots and vanes hanging underneath the wing profiles. For 2022 the endplate is being significantly simplified with only a single closed section (no holes or slots) permitted inside RV-RW-RWEP (purple above and below). The endplate will continue to narrow from top to bottom, to avoid fouling the rear tyre and brake ducts. While from the side projection the endplate must be bigger than RS-RW-RWEP (green below). There are not many other rules regarding the shape of the endplate but for a minimum curvature of 100mm. Despite the swoopy shape the rear wing endplates will still have to display the ERS/rain warning lights between 500mm and 870mm from the ground.

Like the front wing, RV-RW-TIP (red above) exists to smoothly blend the aerofoil profiles into the endplate. There are many rules for this tip region, but the important one is that the arc of the blend must be bigger than a radius of 20mm, like the front wing tip, to prevent sharp corners.


Returning for 2022 is the lower beam wing (RV-RW-BEAM, light blue above) which aids extraction of flow from the underbody tunnels by lowering the static pressure at the base of the car. The beam wing rules are similar to the other wing profile sections, with a maximum number of elements (two), a minimum concave curvature (50mm), and maximum angles of subtension across the span (15° when further than 175mm from and 60° for bodywork less than 175mm from ). To prevent the beam wing influencing the exhaust plume, no part of the beam wing may be within 10mm of the exhaust tailpipe. Finally the beam wing must leave no more than 80,000mm² of RS-RW-BEAM (orange below) visible when viewed from above - in other words covering at least 38% of the surface area of RS-RW-BEAM. To support the wing assembly no more than two pylons can be within RV-RW-PYLON (dark grey above). The overlap and small intersection between RV-RW-PROFILES and RV-RW-PYLON means a swan-neck type wing hanger will be the norm.


There has been some confusion as to whether the rear wing Drag Reduction System (DRS) overtaking aid will be retained in 2022, mostly because none of the renders released by FOM have shown it. Currently DRS is included in the rules, with the same 85mm letterbox as now. The opening section of the wing can only be up to 480mm from (the width of RV-RW-PROFILES) with the actuator fitting inside a cuboid measuring 60x30x30mm (LxWxH), though it can lie outside RV-RW-PROFILES and RV-RW-PYLON. The hinge about which rotation is achieved must be less than 20mm forward and up to 20mm below the trailing edge of the flap.

[Just_a_fan]

If the rear wing is intended to produce two large vortices to clear away the turbulence behind the cars, it will presumably be a high drag device at all circuits. Do the new regs allow for "Monza specials" and the like? And would a "Monza special" reduce the effectiveness of the close racing formula inherent in the car design?

[jjn9128]

If the rear wing is intended to produce two large vortices to clear away the turbulence behind the cars, it will presumably be a high drag device at all circuits. Do the new regs allow for "Monza specials" and the like? And would a "Monza special" reduce the effectiveness of the close racing formula inherent in the car design?

Monza will still require a low downforce package and yes the vortex strength will be reduced - vortex circulation is directly proportional to lift/downforce. I imagine that would mean the wake is "worse" in Monza, but probably also that will mean slipstreams are better at Monza.

Monza is not a track with a lot of medium speed corners where the loss of downforce is really noticed, so I don't think it'll be a huge issue. Maybe through the Lesmos following will be tougher, but probably still easier than it is with current cars.

[Marty_Y]

Don't know if this is the right place to post this, I don't want to step on the toes of the excellent work done by jjn9128.
If this isn't appropriate here can mods please delete or move it, thanks.

https://motorsport.tech/formula-1/f1-in ... on-changes

F1 in 2022 – how teams may interpret the regulation changes
By Craig Scarborough

[BlueCheetah66]

For the front wing, could you have the elements start flat close to the nose and then begin to curve to try and create a vortex?

I'm not sure if this would follow the regulation or if it would be even able to create a strong enough vortex but it seems possible.