2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[PABLOEING]

[PhillipM]

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/3470 ... 17-design/

that looks pretty accurate imo. But not eye-pleasing.
the side pods won't be that fat imo.
and nose will still have penis extension if possible reg. wise.

Yeah, the sidepods are way out width-wise.

[rjsa]

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/3470 ... 17-design/

that looks pretty accurate imo. But not eye-pleasing.
the side pods won't be that fat imo.
and nose will still have penis extension if possible reg. wise.

Rear of the car is completely undeveloped in that picture. this is far from what we'll see come melbourne.

New rules usually render undeveloped cars:

[SR71]

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/3470 ... 17-design/

that looks pretty accurate imo. But not eye-pleasing.
the side pods won't be that fat imo.
and nose will still have penis extension if possible reg. wise.

Yeah Mercedes proved you need the phallic extension to win WCC's.

[zac510]

I hadn't noticed that the rear wheels are quite a bit closer to the rear wing end plate. I suppose they will want to maximise the end plate size at its foot, to keep wheel turbulence out of the diffuser areas (if the rules allow).

[wuzak]

I hadn't noticed that the rear wheels are quite a bit closer to the rear wing end plate. I suppose they will want to maximise the end plate size at its foot, to keep wheel turbulence out of the diffuser areas (if the rules allow).

The rear wing is 250mm wider (1000mm vs 750mm). It was narrowed in 2009.

[Formula Wrong]

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/3470 ... 17-design/

that looks pretty accurate imo. But not eye-pleasing.
the side pods won't be that fat imo.
and nose will still have penis extension if possible reg. wise.

Yeah Mercedes proved you need the phallic extension to win WCC's.

Mercedes' Solution is just one of several possible solutions. For most other Teams that extension seems to work perfectly.

[zac510]

I hadn't noticed that the rear wheels are quite a bit closer to the rear wing end plate. I suppose they will want to maximise the end plate size at its foot, to keep wheel turbulence out of the diffuser areas (if the rules allow).

The rear wing is 250mm wider (1000mm vs 750mm). It was narrowed in 2009.

Yeah I remember that - I'm just trying to remind myself of the aerodynamic consequenses! It's an area that's been heavily developed with the 'brake ducts' and the vented rear wing end plates. It's hard to imagine the vented end plates existing in proximity to the moving wheel.

[FrukostScones]

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/3470 ... 17-design/

that looks pretty accurate imo. But not eye-pleasing.
the side pods won't be that fat imo.
and nose will still have penis extension if possible reg. wise.

Yeah Mercedes proved you need the phallic extension to win WCC's.

Merc could built shortest possible 85cm in classic design and pass crash test. No need for extension.

[RicME85]

People completely missing the sarcasm from SR71.

FS - you claimed that cars won't look like the Perrin as they will all go for the finger nose, SR71 pointed out that won't necessarily be the case, Mercedes went a different way and have won everything.

[FrukostScones]

People completely missing the sarcasm from SR71.

FS - you claimed that cars won't look like the Perrin as they will all go for the finger nose, SR71 pointed out that won't necessarily be the case, Mercedes went a different way and have won everything.

And why Merc could go different route? They can afford xxx crashtests and not 1 like Sauber in 2015.
And sarcsm is something else.

[RicME85]

Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull all could do something different. A finger nose isn't a given

[FrukostScones]

Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull all could do something different. A finger nose isn't a given

yeah, banana shape maybe
edit: I just wanted to say: Expect no beautiful fully noseScones. (not even on the Merc)

[aleks_ader]

Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull all could do something different. A finger nose isn't a given

yeah, banana shape maybe
edit: I just wanted to say: Expect no beautiful fully noseScones. (not even on the Merc)

Yeah with more "volumetric" work of diffuzer and underfloor that could change. Even nostrils could be very good way to accieve aka. high nose effect. Engineers will not forget what they learn from couple years back.

Even for low budget teams is probably better to use old knowledge that will provide them lowered the cost of initial evaluation of all possibilities in this new rules. Just for first year, play safe. And then make for 2018 overall overview what bigger teams find out.

But with that approach you somewhat negated the Brawn miracle, but in my opinion that is not possible anymore. There are no affective loopholes? Right? I believe.

[henry]

Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull all could do something different. A finger nose isn't a given

yeah, banana shape maybe
edit: I just wanted to say: Expect no beautiful fully noseScones. (not even on the Merc)

Yeah with more "volumetric" work of diffuzer and underfloor that could change. Even nostrils could be very good way to accieve aka. high nose effect. Engineers will not forget what they learn from couple years back.

Even for low budget teams is probably better to use old knowledge that will provide them lowered the cost of initial evaluation of all possibilities in this new rules. Just for first year, play safe. And then make for 2018 overall overview what bigger teams find out.

But with that approach you somewhat negated the Brawn miracle, but in my opinion that is not possible anymore. There are no affective loopholes? Right? I believe.

There may well be loopholes and there discovery probably won't rely on funding. My recollection is that double diffuser was initially recognised by two low funded teams, Williams and Super Aguri, and one with lots of money, Toyota. The Super Aguri idea was developed with Honda money before being passed to Brawn to earn the rewards.

On the likely form of the nose I think we may well see the return of Walrus Tusks, with existing nose designs, no doubt refined, and flying buttresses reaching forward 200 mm to pick up the neutral section of the wing. As you say feeding the larger diffuser is likely to be a priority.

As mentioned in this thread before the regs published on 29 April 2016 have a conflict in section 3.7.3 between the definition of the leading edge of the bodywork, the arrow, and the neutral profile drawing, drawing 7. My interpretation is that it is not possible to create a legal wing-and-nose to these requirements. Maybe this, or a clarification, might yield a loophole.