2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Juzh]

More drag and lower straight line speed effectively makes the straights longer. Whether or not it's enough to offset potentially more difficult following of the car in front and higher corner exit speeds remains to be seen.

[Just_a_fan]

The ironic thing about the changes next year - less overtaking.

According to FI's Andy Green, the cars will be slower in the straights because of drag and quicker in the corners because of grip. That means shorter braking distances which means overtaking is even harder.

Great, even worse racing than today. Way to go F1!

How much shorter?

Considering the braking force of F1 cars some km/h slower top speed and some km/h faster corner speed entry will not change braking distance significantly. I don´t think this will affect overtaking sincerely, what they can or cannot do on a 100m braking will remain on a 90-95m braking

Really? Wow, that's a relief. There was me thinking that a car that brakes at 4-5g would require a noticeably shorter braking distance to go 300km/h to 100km/h than from 320km/h to 80km/h. Silly me.

After all, the current braking distances give the drivers lots of options to overtake. Indeed, overtaking is super-easy these days.








Oh no, wait...

[henry]

The ironic thing about the changes next year - less overtaking.

According to FI's Andy Green, the cars will be slower in the straights because of drag and quicker in the corners because of grip. That means shorter braking distances which means overtaking is even harder.

Great, even worse racing than today. Way to go F1!

How much shorter?

Considering the braking force of F1 cars some km/h slower top speed and some km/h faster corner speed entry will not change braking distance significantly. I don´t think this will affect overtaking sincerely, what they can or cannot do on a 100m braking will remain on a 90-95m braking

Really? Wow, that's a relief. There was me thinking that a car that brakes at 4-5g would require a noticeably shorter braking distance to go 300km/h to 100km/h than from 320km/h to 80km/h. Silly me.

After all, the current braking distances give the drivers lots of options to overtake. Indeed, overtaking is super-easy these days

Oh no, wait...

You missed a parameter there. Not only will the speed difference be lower but the average deceleration rate will be higher.

Edit: must learn to use the editor

[Blackout]

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

Wouldn't they want more air going underneath the car towards the bigger diffusor; thus keeping the thumb-noses we currently see on most cars?
Also, where does it say that the render comes from Enstone?

It's very similar to CFD models Enstone showed before and it's very detailled and very close to the real car (much more than the renders produced by Piola for example and which are the best IMO.
That's why I think this is made by Enstone and might even be a CFD model.

[Andres125sx]

The ironic thing about the changes next year - less overtaking.

According to FI's Andy Green, the cars will be slower in the straights because of drag and quicker in the corners because of grip. That means shorter braking distances which means overtaking is even harder.

Great, even worse racing than today. Way to go F1!

How much shorter?

Considering the braking force of F1 cars some km/h slower top speed and some km/h faster corner speed entry will not change braking distance significantly. I don´t think this will affect overtaking sincerely, what they can or cannot do on a 100m braking will remain on a 90-95m braking

Really? Wow, that's a relief. There was me thinking that a car that brakes at 4-5g would require a noticeably shorter braking distance to go 300km/h to 100km/h than from 320km/h to 80km/h. Silly me.

After all, the current braking distances give the drivers lots of options to overtake. Indeed, overtaking is super-easy these days.








Oh no, wait...

You can use irony as much as you want, but that will not change the fact braking distances will be very similar and overtaking will be the same (in that regard).

Or did you find more overtaking this season due to the higher top speed cars are reaching this season wich means longer brakings? No, it was exactly the same...

[Just_a_fan]

The cars will have more grip so can brake harder than this year i.e. deceleration will be higher. They will be braking from a lower top speed and carrying more speed in to the corners. So that means braking distances will be reduced. Any reduction in braking distance reduces the chances for a driver to be a bit later on the brakes. That means it's harder to overtake.

[Andres125sx]

This looks like a deja vu, so I´ll just repeat my reply

Considering the braking force of F1 cars some km/h slower top speed and some km/h faster corner speed entry will not change braking distance significantly. I don´t think this will affect overtaking sincerely, what they can or cannot do on a 100m braking will remain on a 90-95m braking

Braking differences affecting overtaking are when you compare a car with DF and a car without, so you´re comparing 400m braking distances with 100m braking distances. That makes a difference, but 100m vs 95m makes no difference in real world I think, IMO aero will still be the main factor so overtaking being easier/harder will still depend on how close the trailing car can start the straight. If he still need to keep 10m distance overtaking will continue being as difficult as today, if new rules allow the trailing car to only be 5m far from the car in front, overtaking will be easier

To me that will make the difference, aero less sensible to dirty air or not, but some meter shorter braking when brakings already are extremely short will make no significant difference

[Gaz.]

The cars will have more grip so can brake harder than this year i.e. deceleration will be higher. They will be braking from a lower top speed and carrying more speed in to the corners. So that means braking distances will be reduced. Any reduction in braking distance reduces the chances for a driver to be a bit later on the brakes. That means it's harder to overtake.

Although it should be considered that the extra drag will also create increased slip streams effects. The 2017 rules may reduce outbraking but they may set up chances elsewhere.

[zac510]

Basically nobody has a clue what will happen.

[bhall II]

I think it all boils down to the tires - as always.

More durable rubber can somewhat offset the effects of wake turbulence and shorter braking distances by allowing drivers to sustain attacks longer and with less fear of the increased wear/degradation that usually results from the added slip encountered when trailing closely behind another car. The downside is that cars shod with durable tires are unlikely to have "organic" performance differentials significant enough to facilitate regular overtaking. But, that's nothing new.

If the tires can't withstand the abuse, then nothing else matters. Drivers will still have to be mindful of delta times, and the cars will arguably be even easier to drive, because the additional capability afforded by wider tires, increased track-width, and greater downforce means they'll be that much further away from true performance potential. (Regardless of speed, I think consistently toeing the absolute limit of a car's capability is the root of all driving difficulty.)

On the aero side, it's possible that the new front wings will be less sensitive to the effects of wake turbulence, since combining a longer span with a non-zero sweep angle can't help but exert more influence on incoming air flow. In other words, the front wing could be its own flow conditioner.

Also, it's more or less guaranteed that next year's cars will produce less upwash than current models, because the rear wing's reduced height and the staggered arrangement of a diffuser kink line that's farther forward, a diffuser trailing edge that's unchanged, and a more aft placement of the rear wing's trailing edge simply will not allow it.


Unrealistic and greatly exaggerated to illustrate effect

That said, all bets are off if radically new design trends emerge.

[mycadcae]

I think it all boils down to the tires - as always.

More durable rubber can somewhat offset the effects of wake turbulence and shorter braking distances by allowing drivers to sustain attacks longer and with less fear of the increased wear/degradation that usually results from the added slip encountered when trailing closely behind another car. The downside is that cars shod with durable tires are unlikely to have "organic" performance differentials significant enough to facilitate regular overtaking. But, that's nothing new.

If the tires can't withstand the abuse, then nothing else matters. Drivers will still have to be mindful of delta times, and the cars will arguably be even easier to drive, because the additional capability afforded by wider tires, increased track-width, and greater downforce means they'll be that much further away from true performance potential. (Regardless of speed, I think consistently toeing the absolute limit of a car's capability is the root of all driving difficulty.)

On the aero side, it's possible that the new front wings will be less sensitive to the effects of wake turbulence, since combining a longer span with a non-zero sweep angle can't help but exert more influence on incoming air flow. In other words, the front wing could be its own flow conditioner.

Also, it's more or less guaranteed that next year's cars will produce less upwash than current models, because the rear wing's reduced height and the staggered arrangement of a diffuser kink line that's farther forward, a diffuser trailing edge that's unchanged, and a more aft placement of the rear wing's trailing edge simply will not allow it.

http://i.imgur.com/vgfNlSy.jpg
Unrealistic and greatly exaggerated to illustrate effect

That said, all bets are off if radically new design trends emerge.

how about aerodynamics, before 2016 and after 2017?...pressure for rear wing?.

[Juzh]

Anyone knows what DRS dimensions and surface area for the slot opening are next year compared to 2016?

[wuzak]

3.17 Driver adjustable bodywork :
3.17.1 The incidence of the rearmost and uppermost closed section described in Article 3.9.2 may be varied whilst the car is in motion provided :
a) It comprises only one component that must be symmetrically arranged about the car centre line with a minimum width of 908mm.
b) With the exception of minimal parts solely associated with adjustment of the section, no parts of the section in contact with the external airstream may be located any more than 455mm from the car centre line.
c) With the exception of any minimal parts solely associated with adjustment of the rearmost and uppermost section, two closed sections are used in the area described in Article 3.9.1.
d) Any such variation of incidence maintains compliance with all of the bodywork regulations.
e) It cannot be used to change the geometry of any duct, either directly or indirectly, other than the change to the distance between adjacent sections permitted by Article 3.9.1.
f) When viewed from the side of the car at any longitudinal vertical cross section, the physical point of rotation of the rearmost and uppermost closed section must be fixed and located no more than 20mm below the upper extremity and no more than 20mm forward of the rear extremity of the area described in Article 3.9.1 at all times.
g) The design is such that failure of the system will result in the uppermost closed section returning to the normal high incidence position.
h) Any alteration of the incidence of the uppermost closed section may only be commanded by direct driver input and controlled using the control electronics specified in Article 8.2.

[Juzh]

3.17 Driver adjustable bodywork :
3.17.1 The incidence of the rearmost and uppermost closed section described in Article 3.9.2 may be varied whilst the car is in motion provided :
a) It comprises only one component that must be symmetrically arranged about the car centre line with a minimum width of 908mm.
b) With the exception of minimal parts solely associated with adjustment of the section, no parts of the section in contact with the external airstream may be located any more than 455mm from the car centre line.
c) With the exception of any minimal parts solely associated with adjustment of the rearmost and uppermost section, two closed sections are used in the area described in Article 3.9.1.
d) Any such variation of incidence maintains compliance with all of the bodywork regulations.
e) It cannot be used to change the geometry of any duct, either directly or indirectly, other than the change to the distance between adjacent sections permitted by Article 3.9.1.
f) When viewed from the side of the car at any longitudinal vertical cross section, the physical point of rotation of the rearmost and uppermost closed section must be fixed and located no more than 20mm below the upper extremity and no more than 20mm forward of the rear extremity of the area described in Article 3.9.1 at all times.
g) The design is such that failure of the system will result in the uppermost closed section returning to the normal high incidence position.
h) Any alteration of the incidence of the uppermost closed section may only be commanded by direct driver input and controlled using the control electronics specified in Article 8.2.

I've read the regs but this part is all gibberish to me

[Vyssion]

3.17 Driver adjustable bodywork :
3.17.1 The incidence of the rearmost and uppermost closed section described in Article 3.9.2 may be varied whilst the car is in motion provided :
a) It comprises only one component that must be symmetrically arranged about the car centre line with a minimum width of 908mm.
b) With the exception of minimal parts solely associated with adjustment of the section, no parts of the section in contact with the external airstream may be located any more than 455mm from the car centre line.
c) With the exception of any minimal parts solely associated with adjustment of the rearmost and uppermost section, two closed sections are used in the area described in Article 3.9.1.
d) Any such variation of incidence maintains compliance with all of the bodywork regulations.
e) It cannot be used to change the geometry of any duct, either directly or indirectly, other than the change to the distance between adjacent sections permitted by Article 3.9.1.
f) When viewed from the side of the car at any longitudinal vertical cross section, the physical point of rotation of the rearmost and uppermost closed section must be fixed and located no more than 20mm below the upper extremity and no more than 20mm forward of the rear extremity of the area described in Article 3.9.1 at all times.
g) The design is such that failure of the system will result in the uppermost closed section returning to the normal high incidence position.
h) Any alteration of the incidence of the uppermost closed section may only be commanded by direct driver input and controlled using the control electronics specified in Article 8.2.

I've read the regs but this part is all gibberish to me

It is basically talking about the DRS aerofoil.
Point "a" through "d" basically talk about how big it is allowed to be (length etc.) and that any change in angle of the ing element must not violate any of the normal dimensional regulations (e.g. when the wing is rotated, part of it extends out of the region with which the rear wing is allowed - would result in a disqualification)
Point "e" says that its function can (basically) only serve to change the aerofoil's angle.
Point "f" talks about the point of rotation that is allowed for the aerofoil to swing around whilst also saying where the maximum height and distance from the rearmost part of the wing it is allowed to be.
Point "g" says that if the DRS were to fail, then it would return the aerofoil to its normal position (i.e. high downforce) which means that DRS must be a system where the aerofoil is moved under power and is simplistically "spring loaded" so it will spring back if the motor brakes or anything.
Point "h" says that only a driver input can move the aerofoil which basically means that you cant have it naturally drift upwards as your forward speed increases for example; it must be locked in place when the DRS button hasn't been pressed - and the actual actuation is controlled by a set of electronic settings specified elsewhere in the regulations.