2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Formula Wrong]

“And there's a detail in the rear-wing endplate regulations; they step in - and that curviness is another styling feature that adds to the general 'aura' around the new shape.”

Not a lot of the renders of 2017 cars we've seen so far show the "curviness".

How will teams interpret this curviness ?? How strict are the rules in this regard ??

Any ideas Aero Guys ??

Maybe a "curviness" like this is what we'll see? (Formula Renault 2.0)

[mclaren111]

McLaren's Tim Goss:

Goss also believes the larger bargeboards will be a key visual indicator in the change of regulations and is confident all cars will look more aggressive and attractive, as set out by the requirements of the 2017 regulations revamp.

“The rear wing is also wider and lower - which helps make the whole car look lower and wider,” he said. “And there are some visual styling cues that have been introduced: the rear is swept back in side-view, and the sidepod intakes are angled in plan-view. It's definitely a 'meaner' look.

“And there's a detail in the rear-wing endplate regulations; they step in - and that curviness is another styling feature that adds to the general 'aura' around the new shape.”

Not a lot of the renders of 2017 cars we've seen so far show the "curviness".

How will teams interpret this curviness ?? How strict are the rules in this regard ??

Any ideas Aero Guys ??

Surprised you didn't quote this part

"A lot of the flow structures and physics on the car are fundamentally the same, how the flow is established at the front of the car and then travels back down the car, starts off in a fairly similar way to last year.

“Now what you’ll find is that, in the detail, things start to behave differently, which prompts you to change direction. The 2017 cars will look pretty similar to the layman, but the aero guys have been battling to correct flow-structures at different ride heights for months and months now. We’ve had to rethink lots of different areas on the car, because they’re behaving differently to how they did before.”

Also we'll see some P1 inspired barge boards, nice wavy multi element designs.

http://www.thecheckeredflag.co.uk/wp-co ... 40x760.jpg

Sorry, but I fail to see what this has to do with the Rear-wing Endplate "curviness" ??

[JonoNic]

Hey guys. I really enjoy the technical posts and replies on this forum. I do not know much about engineering but was wondering if the following could be done.

Give teams licence to design a racer with no restrictions on aerodynamics, the only thing is that the car ahead cannot disrupt (negatively affect) the aerodynamics of the car behind it more than a certain predetermined figure.

How this could work: Have all F1 2017 cars tunnel tested by FIA / FOM before the start of the season to find out how much they interfere with a car driving behind it and make it a numerical figure (layman talk here). Once all the cars have been checked then a benchmark figure is calculated for that specific year. Most likely half the cars will be under this figure and others over it. A car with an interference figure higher than the bench mark will then need to clean up their aerodynamics within a set period of time to make it interfere less with other cars. The initial benchmark figure will not change again for the year, but the cars can be randomly tested throughout the year in order to ensure that teams comply.

The positive side effect is that cars can race closer together and still maintain high levels of grip. The idea is crude but it could be an excellent way to ensure progress in the sport but allow for close racing too.

Note: This interference coefficient benchmark can be dropped each year by the FIA / FOM as aerodynamics become better understood.

[FPV GTHO]

Would need to become part of the pre race scrutineering, not just a yearly one-off so would be incredibly expensive as well as near impossible trackside. That's if you could put a unit on how much the cars are disrupting the air.

[Blackout]

McLaren's Tim Goss:

Goss also believes the larger bargeboards will be a key visual indicator in the change of regulations and is confident all cars will look more aggressive and attractive, as set out by the requirements of the 2017 regulations revamp.

“The rear wing is also wider and lower - which helps make the whole car look lower and wider,” he said. “And there are some visual styling cues that have been introduced: the rear is swept back in side-view, and the sidepod intakes are angled in plan-view. It's definitely a 'meaner' look.

“And there's a detail in the rear-wing endplate regulations; they step in - and that curviness is another styling feature that adds to the general 'aura' around the new shape.”

Not a lot of the renders of 2017 cars we've seen so far show the "curviness".

How will teams interpret this curviness ?? How strict are the rules in this regard ??

Any ideas Aero Guys ??

Is he talking about this endplate shape?

[FrukostScones]

https://albrodpulf1.wordpress.com/2016/ ... la-1-2017/

[KeiKo403]

https://albrodpulf1.wordpress.com/2016/ ... la-1-2017/

I know that's only a drawing but wow....I wouldn't mind be stuck looking at the back of one of those next year....fat, wide and low

Just a side question. With the rear wing being wider and lower now will we see any different wing mirrors? Not that I particularly give a @#!% but just curious to know if the placement will change much.

[mclaren111]

Blackout:
Is he talking about this endplate shape?
Picture of ferarri 2016 Perelli test car included

Yes. Thank you guys.

Does not look like an area where there will be big differences between teams.

[godlameroso]

The green rectangle means the curve can be anywhere in that area.

[Nickel]

Does not look like an area where there will be big differences between teams.

Interesting. My first thought was that this is an exploitable area. There doesn't seem to be anything preventing the curve from creating some downforce in and of itself.

Not only that but it can potentially help create upwash to link the RW and diffuser.

[Pierce89]

With the wider front tyres is it at all conceivable for a front wing to direct the air around either side? And an inwash and an outwash design?

I can kind of imagine it in my head but even if it would be a poop idea I'd love it if someone could draw it so see what it'd look like on a car....

Could there be any benefit of what I'm now going to refer to as 'the okey cokie front wing'?

Renault tried it in 09 and it absolutely sucked.

[bhall II]

Actually, if my long-held and occasionally contentious ( ) theory is correct, that's pretty much how current front wings operate.

Outwash is what happens when a change of steering angle removes the downstream blockage caused by the outside wheel. Inwash, or something akin to it, is what happens when a change of steering angle removes the downstream blockage caused by the inside wheel. If I'm right, that means every turn results in both outwash and inwash at the same time.

You can even (maybe) see the pressure release...



That's the other reason why I don't understand speculation about the possibility of inwash designs. I imagine it's tied to what I feel is the erroneous belief that front wing endplates are designed to manage wheel wake. What's more likely is that front wing endplates are designed to operate in spite of wheel wake.

(Note: the CFD image above was taken from a crosswind simulation, not a cornering simulation. So it doesn't account for steering angles. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure it's not so different as to be considered wholly unrepresentative.)

[godlameroso]

That's an interesting theory. I have a feeling it's something along those lines, more forcing the turbulent air into obedience than purely channeling air around the tire.

More interesting is all the little legality volumes that are being opened up on the floor, under the crash structure, the barge boards.

I can see a lot of teams with floor instability, changing the span of a wing sometimes has unintended consequences. Where you had very good laminar flow with your old diffuser, a few tiny details can make it not work as well or as consistently with the extra dimensions, and then you don't gain the downforce you planned on which makes the car difficult to drive and so forth.

[bhall II]

I don't see how it can be any other way. You have spanwise flow over the wing that ultimately becomes the high-pressure component of edge vortices that are shed directly into the tread of the front tires. Until that blockage is removed, I think it would be perfectly valid to refer to the concept as a nowash design.

For me, the evidence is quite compelling...




Source: Scarbs' Toro Rosso factory tour (and it's based upon a full-width front wing)


Source: Honda 2009 tech review, Development Methodologies for Formula One Aerodynamics (and I'm pretty sure it's based upon a pre-2009 front wing)

If you wanna get really outlandish, sometimes I wonder if the idea behind giant brake ducts is less about cooling the brakes and more about either delaying separation when cornering (more downforce) or reducing the steering angle change necessary to unblock the wing (more consistent downforce).

[roon]

McLaren's Tim Goss:

Goss also believes the larger bargeboards will be a key visual indicator in the change of regulations and is confident all cars will look more aggressive and attractive, as set out by the requirements of the 2017 regulations revamp.

“The rear wing is also wider and lower - which helps make the whole car look lower and wider,” he said. “And there are some visual styling cues that have been introduced: the rear is swept back in side-view, and the sidepod intakes are angled in plan-view. It's definitely a 'meaner' look.

“And there's a detail in the rear-wing endplate regulations; they step in - and that curviness is another styling feature that adds to the general 'aura' around the new shape.”

Not a lot of the renders of 2017 cars we've seen so far show the "curviness".

How will teams interpret this curviness ?? How strict are the rules in this regard ??

Any ideas Aero Guys ??

Surprised you didn't quote this part

"A lot of the flow structures and physics on the car are fundamentally the same, how the flow is established at the front of the car and then travels back down the car, starts off in a fairly similar way to last year.

“Now what you’ll find is that, in the detail, things start to behave differently, which prompts you to change direction. The 2017 cars will look pretty similar to the layman, but the aero guys have been battling to correct flow-structures at different ride heights for months and months now. We’ve had to rethink lots of different areas on the car, because they’re behaving differently to how they did before.”

Also we'll see some P1 inspired barge boards, nice wavy multi element designs.

http://www.thecheckeredflag.co.uk/wp-co ... 40x760.jpg

I haven't been able to suss out which regulations define the new bargeboards. If there is any wording similar to the RW endplate regulations, for example a surface area limit when viewed from above. If there is, then the depictions we've seen of a thin, sheet-like part might be accurate predictions.