Challenges in designing the new ground effect cars for 2022

[PlatinumZealot]

Have you got any diagrams that show what you mean? It might help me understand better.

I reccomend you look at this CFD.


It is noted that CFD interpretation can take a life time to master... Try to follow CpT sweeps in the x direction, these show the energy of the flow from front to rear.

Heh, neat to see this pop up where I don't expect it.

Anyway, I ask that you please include the article link when sharing the CFD, I want people to know not to take my results literally.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simulati ... id-penner/

Awesome work! I follow you on Linkedin. But I haven't added you, because I didn't want to seem pushy.


Looking forward to where you go from here.

[DP_CFD]

I reccomend you look at this CFD.


It is noted that CFD interpretation can take a life time to master... Try to follow CpT sweeps in the x direction, these show the energy of the flow from front to rear.

Heh, neat to see this pop up where I don't expect it.

Anyway, I ask that you please include the article link when sharing the CFD, I want people to know not to take my results literally.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simulati ... id-penner/

Awesome work! I follow you on Linkedin. But I haven't added you, because I didn't want to seem pushy.


Looking forward to where you go from here.

SMASH that connect button! I've had a few hundred connection requests since I published that article, trust me when I say you won't come off as pushy.

[Marty_Y]

[godlameroso]

So no inerter/heave springs next year, they can only use a spring/damper combo. Cars are essentially using GT3 technology to control the aero platform, bump stops.

[Stu]

So no inerter/heave springs next year, they can only use a spring/damper combo. Cars are essentially using GT3 technology to control the aero platform, bump stops.

I think that makes things very interesting! What is the point of building for peak downforce if you cannot control the platform.
Now, if only the FIA would do the same thing with the electronic adjustments of diff, mgu, etc (as I understand it drivers are not allowed to adjust anti-roll bars from the cockpit as it is classed as a driver aid - is this still correct?); but they have minute control over a multitude of other devices corner-to-corner that should also be classed as driver aids…

IT IS NOT THE FUTURE, IT IS A RABBIT-HOLE!!

[jjn9128]

So no inerter/heave springs next year, they can only use a spring/damper combo. Cars are essentially using GT3 technology to control the aero platform, bump stops.

I think that makes things very interesting! What is the point of building for peak downforce if you cannot control the platform.
Now, if only the FIA would do the same thing with the electronic adjustments of diff, mgu, etc (as I understand it drivers are not allowed to adjust anti-roll bars from the cockpit as it is classed as a driver aid - is this still correct?); but they have minute control over a multitude of other devices corner-to-corner that should also be classed as driver aids…

IT IS NOT THE FUTURE, IT IS A RABBIT-HOLE!!

This is a valid and intersting point (and a point probably nobody would be agree), but how far is too far when it comes to simplifying the technology to put drivers more at the fore? Manual gearboxes? No telemetry or once per lap telemetry dumps? No radio? Every suggestion would probably make cars a little slower, and people seem to like the "fastest cars" angle, similarly if we go backwards tech wise the "technological pinnacle" folks will be unhappy.

[godlameroso]

It's just another avenue to pour money into. Bump stops have varied designs, materials, hardness, deformation properties. Considering torsion bars tend to be linear, adding progressive rates to them via bump stops can make damper tuning interesting. It kind of forces you into strange compromises. Since dampers control oscillations and bump stops also have their own internal damping.

[Stu]

So no inerter/heave springs next year, they can only use a spring/damper combo. Cars are essentially using GT3 technology to control the aero platform, bump stops.

I think that makes things very interesting! What is the point of building for peak downforce if you cannot control the platform.
Now, if only the FIA would do the same thing with the electronic adjustments of diff, mgu, etc (as I understand it drivers are not allowed to adjust anti-roll bars from the cockpit as it is classed as a driver aid - is this still correct?); but they have minute control over a multitude of other devices corner-to-corner that should also be classed as driver aids…

IT IS NOT THE FUTURE, IT IS A RABBIT-HOLE!!

This is a valid and intersting point (and a point probably nobody would be agree), but how far is too far when it comes to simplifying the technology to put drivers more at the fore? Manual gearboxes? No telemetry or once per lap telemetry dumps? No radio? Every suggestion would probably make cars a little slower, and people seem to like the "fastest cars" angle, similarly if we go backwards tech wise the "technological pinnacle" folks will be unhappy.

I wouldn’t go as far as manual gearboxes, but I would limit telemetry bandwidth - although I wouldn’t limit what could be recorded & would allow data transfer during pit stops. It should be possible to build sufficient driver alerts into the ‘dashboard’ display, I think that they also currently use audible alerts too.

You can still be at the technological pinnacle, but (my own opinion) I don’t believe that the cars should every last bit of information read and analysed live either trackside or at ‘mission control’!
I would like to see some operational, engineering and driving decisions made ‘on the hoof’.

[godlameroso]

I think that makes things very interesting! What is the point of building for peak downforce if you cannot control the platform.
Now, if only the FIA would do the same thing with the electronic adjustments of diff, mgu, etc (as I understand it drivers are not allowed to adjust anti-roll bars from the cockpit as it is classed as a driver aid - is this still correct?); but they have minute control over a multitude of other devices corner-to-corner that should also be classed as driver aids…

IT IS NOT THE FUTURE, IT IS A RABBIT-HOLE!!

This is a valid and intersting point (and a point probably nobody would be agree), but how far is too far when it comes to simplifying the technology to put drivers more at the fore? Manual gearboxes? No telemetry or once per lap telemetry dumps? No radio? Every suggestion would probably make cars a little slower, and people seem to like the "fastest cars" angle, similarly if we go backwards tech wise the "technological pinnacle" folks will be unhappy.

I wouldn’t go as far as manual gearboxes, but I would limit telemetry bandwidth - although I wouldn’t limit what could be recorded & would allow data transfer during pit stops. It should be possible to build sufficient driver alerts into the ‘dashboard’ display, I think that they also currently use audible alerts too.

You can still be at the technological pinnacle, but (my own opinion) I don’t believe that the cars should every last bit of information read and analysed live either trackside or at ‘mission control’!
I would like to see some operational, engineering and driving decisions made ‘on the hoof’.

What sampling frequency you talking about? You don't need a lot of resolution to be particularly effective, 60Hz is a fantastic sweet spot for granularity and speed. Below that it's not that precise but still rather workable, above that its overkill especially if you're not using heave springs.

[Stu]

This is a valid and intersting point (and a point probably nobody would be agree), but how far is too far when it comes to simplifying the technology to put drivers more at the fore? Manual gearboxes? No telemetry or once per lap telemetry dumps? No radio? Every suggestion would probably make cars a little slower, and people seem to like the "fastest cars" angle, similarly if we go backwards tech wise the "technological pinnacle" folks will be unhappy.

I wouldn’t go as far as manual gearboxes, but I would limit telemetry bandwidth - although I wouldn’t limit what could be recorded & would allow data transfer during pit stops. It should be possible to build sufficient driver alerts into the ‘dashboard’ display, I think that they also currently use audible alerts too.

You can still be at the technological pinnacle, but (my own opinion) I don’t believe that the cars should every last bit of information read and analysed live either trackside or at ‘mission control’!
I would like to see some operational, engineering and driving decisions made ‘on the hoof’.

What sampling frequency you talking about? You don't need a lot of resolution to be particularly effective, 60Hz is a fantastic sweet spot for granularity and speed. Below that it's not that precise but still rather workable, above that its overkill especially if you're not using heave springs.

60Hz would be fine, but for live transmission I would really limit the amount of channels, for the data transfer at pit-stops they can fill their boots on what they do (it is all time, you could transfer a load of data, but it would cost you time during the pit stop).
I would also limit the pit-crew numbers there per corner, plus jack-persons AND spare Jack-persons, plus wing adjusters is too many, you could cut crews in half and ADD to the spectacle, plus have driver crews; they are there anyway so why not??

[PhillipM]

Was talking to a few lads at McL earlier - they reckon most of the work in the new cars isn't in what you can really see a lot of but a huge amount of effort will be in refining things like the connection of the new nose flaps to the nose, radius' where they join, etc, same for the forward floor strakes.

Amazed they're looking at tiny changes like that already when so much of the main aero has been changed, anyone got any thoughts on why?

[jjn9128]

anyone got any thoughts on why?

I'd say because a lot of the big parts of the car design are set by the rules.

[PhillipM]

I'd guess so, I just didn't think there'd be much to find there given the regs on radii, etc, are pretty well defined, unless they're doing tricky things with the nose.

[Big Tea]

I'd guess so, I just didn't think there'd be much to find there given the regs on radii, etc, are pretty well defined, unless they're doing tricky things with the nose.

Will that tyre wake fin and caps have much effect other than cleaning up?

[godlameroso]

I'd guess so, I just didn't think there'd be much to find there given the regs on radii, etc, are pretty well defined, unless they're doing tricky things with the nose.

Structure, stiffness/deformation, weight, small changes can be the difference when the rules are so prescriptive. Often we look at big changes and ignore the basics of what makes a good car. The rule set forces the iterative design process, step one will be to decide on a development direction, step two will be to exploit that direction with your understanding of what is going on.

There will be a huge learning curve, and what makes this interesting is the way development will ramp up across the season once teams understand where to focus their energies.

Controlling the volume of the tunnels will be key to exploiting their performance, that means that the tunnels will have an ideal attack angle at different speeds. Instead of decreasing rake, increasing rake will be necessary to maintain the aero balance. This is because the downforce comes from accelerating the under floor airflow, a smaller aperture will accelerate air quicker than a larger one especially when the mass flow is low.

At higher mass flows extreme understeer might set in if the channel becomes choked. Although this may not be a bad thing if it can be balanced with the front wing.