2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Just_a_fan]

I'm 110% behind the new rules. Watch a race from 2004,the drivers can just slam the car into the corners, it's visually so much more impressive than now, where visually go through corners about like Indy cars.

Some of that will down to the tyres too. If you need to look after the tyres then you are going to be more gentle in transitions.

[godlameroso]

Does anyone think we'll see cars with staggered tracks and short wheel bases? Or will they all be 2m wide rectangles?

I mean conventional wisdom would say that the ideal value of any number is as close as possible to the limit in the regulations but is this always the case? Take the hybrid system for example, the regulations allow up to 1000 volt limit, but no team is running anywhere near that, but they could. Now, can this same principle apply elsewhere? Do teams really need to run 2m wide cars especially when the floor width is only 1600mm? I mean they could, but is it the best way to exploit the regulations?

Just answering this question shows what a horrible waste of money the new regulations will be.

[Just_a_fan]

Yes, you'd run the widest track you could.

[bhall II]

Motorsport.com posted a writeup by Piola und Somerfield regarding next year's rules. For one reason or another, I don't want to post the whole thing, but it's worth a read.

In any case, here are the visual highlights...

[domh245]

Has the nose been specified in such a way that the stubs that have come to dominate of late are going to be illegal? All of the drawings have got a Mercedes/Renault style short nose, but will the teams actually run with that?

It's also interesting to see that the plank has been shortened slightly at the front. Would I be right in thinking that this would allow cars to run a higher rake angle?

[turbof1]

I am still confused about the beam wing part. Piola obviously drew it, but I haven't seen any solid indication yet it will return. It might turn out to be an important device to improve overtaking.

[Juzh]

5 second gain is gonna be easy pickings with those changes. Diffuser enlargement is greatly underestimated in the new regs imo.

All in all 20 extra kilos for the whole thing. That's about 0.6s on a normal circuit? Should still be overcome easily.

[Sevach]

I am still confused about the beam wing part. Piola obviously drew it, but I haven't seen any solid indication yet it will return. It might turn out to be an important device to improve overtaking.

With the upper wing lower and placed further backwards, wouldn't a beam wing interfere with it's airflow?

[flickerf1]

This might be a dumb question, but with the increase in diffuser size, is it possible to implement Double-Decker or Triple-Decker Diffusers like Brawn, Williams, and Toyota did back in 2009?

[turbof1]

I am still confused about the beam wing part. Piola obviously drew it, but I haven't seen any solid indication yet it will return. It might turn out to be an important device to improve overtaking.

With the upper wing lower and placed further backwards, wouldn't a beam wing interfere with it's airflow?

But that's exactly what you want. In the past the beam wing was important to link diffuser flow with rear wing flow. The resulting aero structure increased both rear wing and diffuser downforce through a bigger upwash.

[Sevach]

I am still confused about the beam wing part. Piola obviously drew it, but I haven't seen any solid indication yet it will return. It might turn out to be an important device to improve overtaking.

With the upper wing lower and placed further backwards, wouldn't a beam wing interfere with it's airflow?

But that's exactly what you want. In the past the beam wing was important to link diffuser flow with rear wing flow. The resulting aero structure increased both rear wing and diffuser downforce through a bigger upwash.

My question is, with the endplate being diagonal from side view the main wing will be placed further back from where it used to be, the beam wing however will be roughly at the same placement it had in 2013 i'm assuming.

Wouldn't this dirty flow coming from the beam wing placed ahead of the rear wing (the wing is also lower) interfere with it on a negative way?

You might need a pretty neutral beam wing (if they are even allowed in the first place).

[Henk]

Why would teams make the sidepods as wide as the floor? Every picture has shown that but I doubt that Newey is going to add that drag just for looks.

[hollus]

Maybe the lateral crash structure will be there anyways? Just guessing, don't really know the answer.

[Sevach]

Why would teams make the sidepods as wide as the floor? Every picture has shown that but I doubt that Newey is going to add that drag just for looks.

With the cooling requirements remaining the same(more or less) this extra area opens big oportunities in terms of packaging the radiators and shaping the sidepods.

The larger frontal area might be coupled with a killer undercut and smaller rear.

[bl4zar_]

Are the inclined rear wing and the V-shaped front wing going to be mandatory? These things made just for the look (which personally I don't even like) seem just dumb to me.