2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[jjn9128]

Yet of these Byrne with Head came up with an outright ground effect formula when they submitted their proposal for 2013, which was after the utter failure of the 2009 formula. Which doesn't support you stance.

I don't recall any studies being performed ahead of that proposal. We know the OWG used fondmetal/aerolab for their CFD and wind tunnel studies. I also don't recall seeing any spec other than the usual "ground effect" and "like the 80's" quotes. Neither of which actually define what it will look like - it could have still have had a massive rear wing like Indycar have.

You listed a bunch of names, but I doubt you could quote/reference each of them saying that ground effect is not the way to go. (Not that appealing to authority is not a common fallacy.)

I did supply quotes both from the original working group and the new FOM technical working group - the actual studies by F1 into overtaking.

Rather than us all piling on you, which seems a bit unfair and can get nasty as it continues, perhaps you can explain what it is about a shaped, as opposed to flat with a diffuser, underbody which makes following another car better/easier.

[FW17]

I still think they are going the wrong direction with this.

These changes are aimed at improving the overtaking and not on closing the field.

To close the field they should have implemented better measures.

Closing the field would require further standarization.

I'd prefer making the cars much less reliable, and taking away telemetry and data from both team and driver.

Aero has a benefit of giving a fast car but has no relevance in the real world.

It is also expensive to develop within the regulations set by FIA

I suggest not standardization but more open rule set with a limit on the weight of the car measured when on track.

[turbof1]

I still think they are going the wrong direction with this.

These changes are aimed at improving the overtaking and not on closing the field.

To close the field they should have implemented better measures.

Closing the field would require further standarization.

I'd prefer making the cars much less reliable, and taking away telemetry and data from both team and driver.

Aero has a benefit of giving a fast car but has no relevance in the real world.

It is also expensive to develop within the regulations set by FIA

I suggest not standardization but more open rule set with a limit on the weight of the car measured when on track.

Aero certainly has real world relevance, just not for road cars. Of course, aerodynamics in F1 are very narrowly applied on a very niche subject, but there's cross over to other industries.

The question also is: how relevant should F1 be. If want the fastest cars, then this kind of aerodynamics are kind of necessary. If we don't want standard cars, then we can't standarize.

I do like your idea of a maximum aerodynamic load.

[jjn9128]

Aero has a benefit of giving a fast car but has no relevance in the real world.

It is also expensive to develop within the regulations set by FIA

I suggest not standardization but more open rule set with a limit on the weight of the car measured when on track.

Yeah I'm with turbo - relevance isn't the only thing that F1 should be about. I'd argue Le Mans is where road relevance is more important as they're sports 'prototype' cars. i.e. they're supposed to be a future vision for production cars or have some sort of production run (they should be proper 2 seaters).

I'm coming around to setting a hard limit on aero loads. Measuring it accurately on track is tough though as the signal path is so noisy, you would get excessive peaks over kerbs. I would say FIA checks on CFD and wind tunnel studies would be easier to control - teams send their aero maps to the FIA and the FIA request a specific boundary condition for 10/15 ride height combinations to check all teams against.

You can then have a less prescriptive ruleset as teams are working to a safe limit on downforce.

[Just_a_fan]

Aero has a benefit of giving a fast car but has no relevance in the real world.

Neither does high top speed, high cornering speeds, high power engines etc. None of these are relevant to the real world where the speeds are limited to approx. a third/half of what a Formula 1 car can manage, and where going around corners at 100mph is likely to get you jail term in just about every jurisdiction. 1000hp is not relevant either - although some niche products are out there that provide it.

Be careful using "not road/real world relevant" arguments. You quickly show that F1 is entirely irrelevant - which, of course, it is.

[Shakeman]

Until F1 loses its predilection for extreme aero rules and development just keep rearranging those deck-chairs on the sinking ship.

There are vastly more areas that are much more relevant to road car development than aero such as active suspension, energy recuperation and tyre technology.

The best aero regulations F1 could come up with is the best possible aerodynamic shape for a following car, next to no wings but what is there is active and can be trimmed by the driver. Active suspension and durable sticky tyres to maximise mechanical grip. Every racing driver will tell you the difference between a good driver and great driver is in the corners so the rules have to be made such that following a car in the corners degrades car performance to the absolute minimum.

Combined with aero there should be incentives for drivers to push flat out during the race for boost bonuses such as a succession of purple laps against the driver in front. But that'll be off topic here. F1 needs holistically fixing not just the aero.

[mzso]

Your earlier statement about the ground effect cars racing closer also doesn't make sense as those cars operated with much less downforce than today. Sure we can remove a lot of downforce and have closer racing but then what separates F1 from any other series at that point?

What did separate F1 from all the rest before downforce?
By the way since when is hight downforce a defining feature of F1? Most formula series have hight downforce.
What distinguishes F1 is a horrible lack of on track action. That is what the complex, money-sink aero brought us.

These changes are aimed at improving the overtaking and not on closing the field.

To close the field they should have implemented better measures.

Well, if they also shed a lot of the downforce with the changes, that will bring the field much closer.

[mzso]

Aero certainly has real world relevance, just not for road cars. Of course, aerodynamics in F1 are very narrowly applied on a very niche subject, but there's cross over to other industries.

To what? Where could a morbidly complex system of flaps, winglets, whatnot could be utilized in a meaningful manner?

The question also is: how relevant should F1 be. If want the fastest cars, then this kind of aerodynamics are kind of necessary. If we don't want standard cars, then we can't standarize.

F1 was never about making the fastest cars possible, otherwise there wouldn't be rules.
Standardizing something like wings/body won't make the cars uniform. It will just open up other more meaningful and relevant fields for development. And would also prevent racing being destroyed by nasty aero as it had for the past 15 years or so.

[mzso]

Aero has a benefit of giving a fast car but has no relevance in the real world.

It is also expensive to develop within the regulations set by FIA

I suggest not standardization but more open rule set with a limit on the weight of the car measured when on track.

(I didn't get what you meant at first, because the weight of the cars don't change in motion)
I think that would be really detrimental. It wouldn't just not prevent aero that ruins following and overtaking, it would actively encourage it. Because if everyone is limited to exact same downforce levels, the only way to gain advantage is to spoil the air for the other cars. So the more turbulence, vortices the better.

And at the end of the day it would mostly just increase complexity, which again is an advantage to rich teams: So the teams would want to have the max downforce as soon as possible, but no more. Which would mean they would need to come up with convoluted designs with elements that start to create lift at highs speed so that downforce doesn't increase beyond the limit. They would also need to design all of this to a vast number of track characteristics. It sounds terribly complex, and financially ruinous to me. And as such it would also increase the divide between teams.

[turbof1]

To what? Where could a morbidly complex system of flaps, winglets, whatnot could be utilized in a meaningful manner?

Anything that touches fluid dynamics. Aviation both public and military, weather prediction models, wind turbine development, etc etc.

"But mooommmm, that's not the same as all those flaps, winglets!"

I talked about cross over. Specifically, getting a deeper understanding and getting better tools to predict turbulent airflow is generally applicable on anything that requires contact with airflow.

F1 was never about making the fastest cars possible, otherwise there wouldn't be rules.
Standardizing something like wings/body won't make the cars uniform. It will just open up other more meaningful and relevant fields for development. And would also prevent racing being destroyed by nasty aero as it had for the past 15 years or so.

If there were no rules, cars would atleast be 20s a lap faster yes. However, there are other considerations: road car relevancy (hence the current generation of power units), safety (probably the biggest factor in the regulations), costs, ability to follow closer,... . However, nobody here will deny F1 has the reputation of being the fastest series in regards of getting around a track in a car. Just because there's easily room for more speed, does not mean that reputation does not matter. Why you else think the 2017 regulations got introduced? They wanted the cars up to 5s quicker.

I don't want to look down you; you probably mean well, but trying to claim F1 is not about having the fastest race cars around is silly. Just because there are a pletora of other concerns around limiting the speed, does not mean that goal of speed is crossed out. It's a very tough balancing excercise.

[mzso]

Until F1 loses its predilection for extreme aero rules and development just keep rearranging those deck-chairs on the sinking ship.

There are vastly more areas that are much more relevant to road car development than aero such as active suspension, energy recuperation and tyre technology.

The best aero regulations F1 could come up with is the best possible aerodynamic shape for a following car, next to no wings but what is there is active and can be trimmed by the driver. Active suspension and durable sticky tyres to maximise mechanical grip. Every racing driver will tell you the difference between a good driver and great driver is in the corners so the rules have to be made such that following a car in the corners degrades car performance to the absolute minimum.

I thoroughly agree with you. Other areas would not only be more relevant, but wouldn't have an outright negative effect on racing. A more powerful PU or a better suspension wouldn't impair the performance of the car behing you.

I can't see why F1 couldn't work with standardizes aero kits or even without aerodynamic downforce.

[mzso]

I talked about cross over. Specifically, getting a deeper understanding and getting better tools to predict turbulent airflow is generally applicable on anything that requires contact with airflow.

But does even F1 deepen understanding? They use CFD tech from whoever they get it from and do a lot of trial and error in wind tunnels and on track to come up with something that works best for them. They use the tech, whether they ever add to it I have no knowledge of.

However, nobody here will deny F1 has the reputation of being the fastest series in regards of getting around a track in a car. Just because there's easily room for more speed, does not mean that reputation does not matter.

Easily done. Just provide higher downforce (low turbulance) aero kits when necessary, and be done with it.

Why you else think the 2017 regulations got introduced? They wanted the cars up to 5s quicker.

And how great of a folly it proved to be, in the name of such superficial reasons.

[FW17]

And at the end of the day it would mostly just increase complexity, which again is an advantage to rich teams: So the teams would want to have the max downforce as soon as possible, but no more. Which would mean they would need to come up with convoluted designs with elements that start to create lift at highs speed so that downforce doesn't increase beyond the limit. They would also need to design all of this to a vast number of track characteristics. It sounds terribly complex, and financially ruinous to me. And as such it would also increase the divide between teams.

That is quiet easy to overcome.

Currently let us assume your front wing generates 300 kg of down force, the rear generates 600 kg of down force

You lock down the figures, and allow for a front diffuser size that would generate 450 kg of down force by lowering it and removing the neutral section and a rear diffuser and wing that would generate 900 by increasing size of the diffuser

All teams would be able to achieve the desired down force and teams can then focus their efforts to reduce the drag that would give them an advantage in the straights while all cars will theoretically be able to corner in a similar manner.

[Shakeman]

I thoroughly agree with you. Other areas would not only be more relevant, but wouldn't have an outright negative effect on racing. A more powerful PU or a better suspension wouldn't impair the performance of the car behing you.

I can't see why F1 couldn't work with standardizes aero kits or even without aerodynamic downforce.

Unfortunately you're on a forum with a huge interest in aero dynamics so you're seeing a very pro aero argument and every problem has to be hit by the aero hammer.

I'm not against downforce but I am against it being generated in a particularly filthy way, I see absolutely no reason why previously banned technologies should not be used again like skirts and flexible floors. You could even standardise the flexible floor and allow the driver to control the flexible floor deployment like the DRS so it becomes a resource to be used during the race like DRS but only better.

Ultimately F1 is in a race with Formula E to be the future main global open wheel single seater series, the determining factor will not be the outright speed of an individual car but the racing spectacle itself and Formula E is much more of a racing spectacle than F1 right now. You can bet your life Formula E management will guard that asset like a hawk even when the performance has taken a few more steps forward in the coming years.

[jjn9128]

They use CFD tech from whoever they get it from and do a lot of trial and error in wind tunnels and on track to come up with something that works best for them. They use the tech, whether they ever add to it I have no knowledge of.

You're showing ignorance again. All F1 teams have a department in their aero group dedicated to CFD methodology - developing turbulence models, meshing software, improving correlation to track and wind tunnel. A lot of teams use Star CCM but it is not the commercially available software. Wind tunnel studies are also incredible complex, and they have facilities that road manufacturers could only dream of. It's "trial and error" to an extent, but only in the sense that a large number of parts go through testing ahead of putting it on the car, it's not guess work it's working out how scale testing translates to the track.

These are also simulations the accuracy of which improves as they get more. Road companies are moving away from scale testing because of expense, and because CFD is so good - a large part of that is trickle down from F1.