2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[FrukostScones]

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.

new 13.10.2016 version clarifies this I think

[henry]

Thanks FrukostScones I missed the publication. It will be interesting to see what else has changed.

[zac510]

In the Parr/Brawn book it's revealed that Williams learnt to dig deeper for more aero performance as a result of Brawn mentioning in the technical meeting that they're already back up to 2008 downforce levels.

Definitely when there is a big regulation change it's time to go for maximum development rather than sit back and wait to see what others do. All the most recent big technical regulation changes have also caused changes in the constructors order; 1998 (tyres, track), 2005 (tyres), 2009 (aero), 2014 (engine).
It's too good a chance to get ahead before the status quo of stable regulations sets in.

[henry]

In the Parr/Brawn book it's revealed that Williams learnt to dig deeper for more aero performance as a result of Brawn mentioning in the technical meeting that they're already back up to 2008 downforce levels.

This why I think the downforce levels of the tyre test mules are likely to be a long way off what the teams actually think they can achieve. My guess is for the best teams you can probably double the extra downforce they turned up with at the Pirelli tests. All the teams know this but they don't want to encourage anyone to search harder. Goal setting is a really important aspect of development. If you know something is possible it's much easier to go after it.

[PlatinumZealot]

Perrinn presents prototype 2017 design

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

Do you like?

[djos]

Perrinn presents prototype 2017 design

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

Do you like?

It's a bit simple.

[zac510]

This why I think the downforce levels of the tyre test mules are likely to be a long way off what the teams actually think they can achieve. My guess is for the best teams you can probably double the extra downforce they turned up with at the Pirelli tests. All the teams know this but they don't want to encourage anyone to search harder. Goal setting is a really important aspect of development. If you know something is possible it's much easier to go after it.

Quite possibly! If any team whinges that the Pirellis collapse under 20% more than anticipated downforce, or are too hard (conservatively designed) because the teams did not show their true predicted downforce levels, the blame lies squarely with the teams themselves.
There was a great quote in the Parr/Brawn book about the teams; they'd rather dominate a weakened F1 than participate in a competitive F1 field. The team's interests are rarely aligned with the good of F1.

[Blackout]

Got one question, I saw some articles and pictures suggesting that we are going to see the return of the beam wing? Is it true?

Yes beam wings were set to return in 2017 but they finally got dropped again because the cars would generate too much df with them, compared to the front (a lower bigger RW + a higher bigger diffuser + a beam wing between them = a huge amount of df) and according to Andy Green from FI (and turbo1?), the bigger 017 bargeboards will help them balance the front and the rear df... but how exactly? will they starve/underfeed the rear of the car a bit using the bargeboards so it doesnt generate too much df?
And I think because of this, we'll see some wider and drooping noses in 2017, noses that can make some more df on the front.
This E23/RS16 in 2017 specs render which seems to come from Enstone, got a wider nose...
Sources: http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 11039.html

[Holm86]

Got one question, I saw some articles and pictures suggesting that we are going to see the return of the beam wing? Is it true?

Yes beam wings were set to return in 2017 but they finally got dropped again because the cars would generate too much df with them, compared to the front (a lower bigger RW + a higher bigger diffuser + a beam wing between them = a huge amount of df) and according to Andy Green from FI (and turbo1?), the bigger 017 bargeboards will help them balance the front and the rear df... but how exactly? will they starve/underfeed the rear of the car a bit using the bargeboards so it doesnt generate too much df?
And I think because of this, we'll see some wider and drooping noses in 2017, noses that can make some more df on the front.
This E23/RS16 in 2017 specs render which seems to come from Enstone, got a wider nose...
Sources: http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 11039.html
https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/F ... 968522.jpg

Don't think thats how they work. Because they are bigger, they are better at directing the air, meaning the FW doesnt need to act as much as a flow director, and can be designed to produce more propper downforce.

[Just_a_fan]

the bigger 017 bargeboards will help them balance the front and the rear df... but how exactly? will they starve/underfeed the rear of the car a bit using the bargeboards so it doesnt generate too much df?

Bargeboards do two things: they help to turn airflow (pulling it out from under the nose) and they create vortices. The vortices are directed under and around the sidepods. The ones going under will help to generate downforce at the front of the floor.

By cleaning up the airflow coming from the front of the car - "scavenging the flow" is a phrase I've seen used - they also help the front wing to work more efficiently. Thus a downstream device (bargeboard) can positively influence an upstream device (front wing).

[henry]

This why I think the downforce levels of the tyre test mules are likely to be a long way off what the teams actually think they can achieve. My guess is for the best teams you can probably double the extra downforce they turned up with at the Pirelli tests. All the teams know this but they don't want to encourage anyone to search harder. Goal setting is a really important aspect of development. If you know something is possible it's much easier to go after it.

Quite possibly! If any team whinges that the Pirellis collapse under 20% more than anticipated downforce, or are too hard (conservatively designed) because the teams did not show their true predicted downforce levels, the blame lies squarely with the teams themselves.
There was a great quote in the Parr/Brawn book about the teams; they'd rather dominate a weakened F1 than participate in a competitive F1 field. The team's interests are rarely aligned with the good of F1.

If there is a problem the teams will dump it at Pirelli's door. The F1 public will be happy to have their opinion of the tyre manufacturer vindicated so they won't look for the true culprits.

Of course Pirelli know this. They've already asked the teams to bring more downforce to the next test. But in the end they will have to guess at what the tyres will actually experience when they get to Barcelona next March. And then hope the teams haven't held much back for the first race.

[mclaren111]

Perrinn presents prototype 2017 design

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

Do you like?

It's a bit simple.

Agree !!

[mclaren111]

This why I think the downforce levels of the tyre test mules are likely to be a long way off what the teams actually think they can achieve. My guess is for the best teams you can probably double the extra downforce they turned up with at the Pirelli tests. All the teams know this but they don't want to encourage anyone to search harder. Goal setting is a really important aspect of development. If you know something is possible it's much easier to go after it.

Quite possibly! If any team whinges that the Pirellis collapse under 20% more than anticipated downforce, or are too hard (conservatively designed) because the teams did not show their true predicted downforce levels, the blame lies squarely with the teams themselves.
There was a great quote in the Parr/Brawn book about the teams; they'd rather dominate a weakened F1 than participate in a competitive F1 field. The team's interests are rarely aligned with the good of F1.

Unfortunately this is applicable to everything in life these days

[mclaren111]

This why I think the downforce levels of the tyre test mules are likely to be a long way off what the teams actually think they can achieve. My guess is for the best teams you can probably double the extra downforce they turned up with at the Pirelli tests. All the teams know this but they don't want to encourage anyone to search harder. Goal setting is a really important aspect of development. If you know something is possible it's much easier to go after it.

Quite possibly! If any team whinges that the Pirellis collapse under 20% more than anticipated downforce, or are too hard (conservatively designed) because the teams did not show their true predicted downforce levels, the blame lies squarely with the teams themselves.
There was a great quote in the Parr/Brawn book about the teams; they'd rather dominate a weakened F1 than participate in a competitive F1 field. The team's interests are rarely aligned with the good of F1.

If there is a problem the teams will dump it at Pirelli's door. The F1 public will be happy to have their opinion of the tyre manufacturer vindicated so they won't look for the true culprits.

Of course Pirelli know this. They've already asked the teams to bring more downforce to the next test. But in the end they will have to guess at what the tyres will actually experience when they get to Barcelona next March. And then hope the teams haven't held much back for the first race.

A reminder that teams have to "share" some of their 2017 downforce development figures with Pirelli. The FIA must ensure this happens and should "audit" the teams to ensure this happens !!

[PlatinumZealot]

They did share their data, but it was a very wide down-force range.