2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[izzy]

See it won't. For various reasons, one being that current top teams are already way ahead in the 21' spec development. Second, the worst part is that they'll see it didn't work as they would have hoped (and it wont mark my words), then they would load on further controls, we'll have more standardized parts, more aero restrictions, more budget controls, until they will practically homogenize all the cars... which will come to my initial point of that being F1 will become just like some motorsport series rather than F1 being F1.

It always was like this, always and ever, even more so. They are trying to make monkey act like a duck is what is going on with these bullshit rules.

i think you're right. They admit they're doing it to close up the field, but it doesn't help having smaller gaps if the gaps are consistent, which they will be of course like always. Ross goes on about parts we can't see, saying therefore we don't care if they're all the same, but it does matter: we do find out things from time to time and it creates this aura of awesomeness and mystique that other series don't have

[wesley123]

I guess you should read more motorsportmagazines (online as offline) and read this topic more often then you see what i mean

So that's a "no" on the evidence then.

I guess you'll downvote this post too...

the evidence is right in front of you so it's certainly not a "no"

I think you're mistaking your personal interpretation on it as evidence.

[hollus]

So, let's recap the last page and a half:

One user states his opinion in very, very colorful terms. Emotional language and all. Too colorful? Maybe, this is always in the eye of the beholder.

Then the whole thread dives down into whether he is entitled to his opinion or not, whether he is right or wrong, and whether he thinks the others are right or wrong.

Honestly, whether it is right or wrong, is irrelevant. It was stated with certain logic and as an opinion (IMO). Whether it is the majoritarian feeling or not is fully irrelevant.
It should be possible to let other's opinions stand and debate its merits, not its rightness or wrongness at a personal level. Or, you know, even ignore it and let it be?

And, most importantly, all of it is off topic. I am (IMHHHHHO) 1000% sure that none of you visit the site to pick fights, put other people down and try to prove others wrong.

So let's just not do it.

This site is at its best when the debate is about ideas and at its worst when it is about other users.

Back on topic, please.

[FW17]

F1 in the past had stiff suspension in the past, which changed around the 2010 with ban on refueling and the start of the high rake concepts.

In 2021 with tunnels returning, with stiff tyres, will it also be a return to stiff suspension to keep the tunnels working as in the past?

[FPV GTHO]

F1 in the past had stiff suspension in the past, which changed around the 2010 with ban on refueling and the start of the high rake concepts.

In 2021 with tunnels returning, with stiff tyres, will it also be a return to stiff suspension to keep the tunnels working as in the past?

I think it will go softer than current, just to compensate for the lost compliance in the tyre. But that's a good thing, as a soft suspension/stiff tyre is easier to calibrate than a soft tyre/stiff suspension.

[mzso]

See it won't. For various reasons, one being that current top teams are already way ahead in the 21' spec development. Second, the worst part is that they'll see it didn't work as they would have hoped (and it wont mark my words), then they would load on further controls, we'll have more standardized parts, more aero restrictions, more budget controls, until they will practically homogenize all the cars... which will come to my initial point of that being F1 will become just like some motorsport series rather than F1 being F1.

<>
It's pretty much guaranteed that the racing will be closer even if only the top 3 remain competitive due to that fact that it will be a lot easier to follow and overtake. I won't cry bitter tears if Renault, Racing point and Toro Rosso won't catch up to the top 3.
The rest of this baseless conjecture (presented as facts from the future...) is not even worthy of response.

[mzso]

F1 in the past had stiff suspension in the past, which changed around the 2010 with ban on refueling and the start of the high rake concepts.

In 2021 with tunnels returning, with stiff tyres, will it also be a return to stiff suspension to keep the tunnels working as in the past?

I doubt it. It wouldn't help the aero much. In the past they could lower the cars so the sidewalls touched the ground to seal the venturi tunnels. Now they would only accomplish the car bottoming out all the time, likely earning a DSQ because of the over-worn skidboards.

[dans79]

Honestly, I think those that think being able to follow closely will solve all the problems are severely short sited.

If passing is going to be as easy as so many claim (a big assumption), people will still bit** & moan, that the races are boring. Even if a drivers qualifies out of position, he will quickly get back into his natural position. if he gets under/over cut during pit-stops, he will quickly get back to his pre pit-stop position. We will end up with even more boring racing than we have now.

It will be worse than the early 80's, will be lucky to have more than 4 or 5 cars on the lead lap, and the Deltas will be huge. Unlike the early 80's we won't even have unreliability to spice things up.

[mzso]

If passing is going to be as easy as so many claim (a big assumption), people will still bit** & moan, that the races are boring. Even if a drivers qualifies out of position, he will quickly get back into his natural position. if he gets under/over cut during pit-stops, he will quickly get back to his pre pit-stop position. We will end up with even more boring racing than we have now.

Your conclusions are pretty baseless. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Just thinking of this year, a good many races would have provided good on-track action with better following ability and more robust tires. Also there's no assumption about it. They've been studying testing and developing the formula for two years or so.

The only way something similar to your doomsday scenario would happen if there was a big performance gap between the top 3 team, which doesn't seem likely, especially with the simplified aero.

[djos]

Honestly, I think those that think being able to follow closely will solve all the problems are severely short sited.

If passing is going to be as easy as so many claim (a big assumption), people will still bit** & moan, that the races are boring. Even if a drivers qualifies out of position, he will quickly get back into his natural position. if he gets under/over cut during pit-stops, he will quickly get back to his pre pit-stop position. We will end up with even more boring racing than we have now.

It will be worse than the early 80's, will be lucky to have more than 4 or 5 cars on the lead lap, and the Deltas will be huge. Unlike the early 80's we won't even have unreliability to spice things up.

I don't think that at all, but it will improve the racing as a whole imo.

I keep banging on about the late '90s/ early 2k's CART racing for a reason - the aero philosophy was broadly similar to what has been created for F1. The car weights are going to be similar and the power levels are similar. In CART the teams had the freedom to modify the Lola and Reynard etc chassis' and despite this, the racing was generally excellent and there were usually a handful of competitive top teams from names like Penske, Ganassi, Newman-Hass, Team Green etc.

There were always the top 4-5 teams who did better on average, however, you could still have 6 or 7 teams being competitive for race wins over the season.

I don't think that'll be quite the case in F1, however, I do think there will be 4+ teams capable of winning compared to the current 2. I also think the new suspension rules will be a contributor, almost as much as the Aero rules.

[FPV GTHO]

Closer racing will also open up more strategy options. Track position will be less valuable, so teams will gamble more in the hope of a pay off.

[Holm86]

I have always thought it was very narrow minded that FIA, LM and Ross Brawn only looked at the "easier to follow" philosophy.

I would have loved for them to also look at making the cars somewhat harder to drive as well, so it would be easier to follow, but ALSO harder to lead.

I've suggested a few things myself:
1. Make the cars shorter, limit the wheelbase to around 3100mm, that means you have around 1.5 meters less distance before you have overtaken your opponent. It would also make the cars more twitchy, not as lazy to change direction as the limos they are driving today.

2. Fewer gears. With the current 8 gears, there is almost no penalty for at bad gear change, theres almost no difference if you take a corner in 3'rd or 4'th gear. 6 gears would make that more challenging.

3. Peakier engine map. The current PU's are designed so that the power curve is almost completely flat between 10.500 rpm and 12.500 rpm, which is the range the engine is in constantly because of the many gears. The fuel map should be more progressive, not flat.

4. More power. It would be nice with a bit more power, that with the peakier engines, and fewer gears should make it more challenging not the lose the rear end. And encurage more throttle feathering, rater than just floor it mid corner as now.

[izzy]

I have always thought it was very narrow minded that FIA, LM and Ross Brawn only looked at the "easier to follow" philosophy.

I would have loved for them to also look at making the cars somewhat harder to drive as well, so it would be easier to follow, but ALSO harder to lead.

these cars are already extremely hard to drive, on the limit, because of the aero. They're always spinning, and they have too much power for a lot of the tracks already, that's a big part of why they can't pass. When they're cruising in the lead there's still a lot of skill involved, like to keep the tyres in the window, not too hot or cold, when as they wear down they run cooler, mustn't flatspot them etc etc, and they still have pace targets to meet

and the more you start prescribing the cars, the less interesting the engineering is. i think they're on the right track for 2021, apart from the weight and being too prescriptive already. Cars with a lot of aero like these are inherently hard to drive on the limit, as once it starts to go it loses downforce with the yaw and there you are in a death spiral

[mclaren111]

I have always thought it was very narrow minded that FIA, LM and Ross Brawn only looked at the "easier to follow" philosophy.

I would have loved for them to also look at making the cars somewhat harder to drive as well, so it would be easier to follow, but ALSO harder to lead.

I've suggested a few things myself:
1. Make the cars shorter, limit the wheelbase to around 3100mm, that means you have around 1.5 meters less distance before you have overtaken your opponent. It would also make the cars more twitchy, not as lazy to change direction as the limos they are driving today.

2. Fewer gears. With the current 8 gears, there is almost no penalty for at bad gear change, theres almost no difference if you take a corner in 3'rd or 4'th gear. 6 gears would make that more challenging.

3. Peakier engine map. The current PU's are designed so that the power curve is almost completely flat between 10.500 rpm and 12.500 rpm, which is the range the engine is in constantly because of the many gears. The fuel map should be more progressive, not flat.

4. More power. It would be nice with a bit more power, that with the peakier engines, and fewer gears should make it more challenging not the lose the rear end. And encurage more throttle feathering, rater than just floor it mid corner as now.

Amen... Agree 100%

[mzso]

2. Fewer gears. With the current 8 gears, there is almost no penalty for at bad gear change, theres almost no difference if you take a corner in 3'rd or 4'th gear. 6 gears would make that more challenging.

3. Peakier engine map. The current PU's are designed so that the power curve is almost completely flat between 10.500 rpm and 12.500 rpm, which is the range the engine is in constantly because of the many gears. The fuel map should be more progressive, not flat.

4. More power. It would be nice with a bit more power, that with the peakier engines, and fewer gears should make it more challenging not the lose the rear end. And encurage more throttle feathering, rater than just floor it mid corner as now.

Your proposals feel more artificial than the DRS. Both are counter-intuitive design changes.
Why would you need more power? There can always be more power, it adds very little.