2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[CBeck113]

There is a catch to the swept wing though: with an increasing ride height of the rear, like RB, then the end plates of the fromt wing will move further away from the ground, since their bottoms have to be parallel to the reference plane. I almost wonder if this was deliberate.....the two alternatives are to let the elements twist even more, or make the FRIC replacement system work even harder to sink the rear at higher speeds.

The end plates will move further from the ground vis-a-vis an unswept wing but raising rear ride height will still lower the whole wing as it's pivoting about the front axel. Raise the height behind the front axel and the height in front will drop, regardless of sweep.

Correct, but the point of the wing will be the limiting factor (lowest point), with the geometry under the wing and therefore its aerodynamic "behavior" being much different - since the wing is swept back the plates won't be as low as the center point, unless the floor / reference plane is parallel to the ground. I'm wondering what the engineers will win from this design - they always find something.

[FPV GTHO]

The limiting factor isn't really the front wing though, but the splitter. That will be shorter so the front wing will be able to get much closer to the ground.

[bhall II]

If the new geometry proves to be a challenge, I think it'll be because front wing ride height for a raked car will be proportional to distance from the car's centerline, and that's an entirely new dynamic. Naturally, that means endplates will have the highest ride height, even though it's ordinarily more beneficial for them to have the lowest ride height in order to generate strong force-enhancing edge vortices. So, that's something to follow.

In general, I wonder if the new rules offer the potential to exploit some degree of vortex lift (downforce)...



It's through vortex lift that delta-winged aircraft are able to operate at high angles of attack, since vortices shed along the leading edge keep air flow attached to the low-pressure side of the wing. Other aircraft, mostly fighters, use leading edge extensions to create the same effect.

If the scope for vortex downforce exists, there are all sorts of possibilities that may very well exceed anything envisioned by FIA. In fact, since the rules were derived from Red Bull concepts, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the "cosmetic" changes bring with them the potential to extract performance gains.

[trinidefender]

If the new geometry proves to be a challenge, I think it'll be because front wing ride height for a raked car will be proportional to distance from the car's centerline, and that's an entirely new dynamic. Naturally, that means endplates will have the highest ride height, even though it's ordinarily more beneficial for them to have the lowest ride height in order to generate strong force-enhancing edge vortices. So, that's something to follow.

In general, I wonder if the new rules offer the potential to exploit some degree of vortex lift (downforce)...

http://i.imgur.com/iIzzoZk.jpg

It's through vortex lift that delta-winged aircraft are able to operate at high angles of attack, since vortices shed along the leading edge keep air flow attached to the low-pressure side of the wing. Other aircraft, mostly fighters, use leading edge extensions to create the same effect.

If the scope for vortex downforce exists, there are all sorts of possibilities that may very well exceed anything envisioned by FIA. In fact, since the rules were derived from Red Bull concepts, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the "cosmetic" changes bring with them the potential to extract performance gains.

Highly unlikely. The angles provided by the new front wing design are too shallow to provide leading edge vortices to form.

Here is a good NASA research paper on the subject. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 003842.pdf

[Juzh]

http://i.imgur.com/iIzzoZk.jpg

By the looks of it the right picture of the FW does not take new wing width dimensions into account (in proportion to the tires). Only the slope back.

[bhall II]

That particular image wasn't meant to emphasize anything beyond the planform of next year's wings. Even so, I definitely chose the wrong example to illustrate my line of thought.

Controlled Separated Flow or Leading Edge Vortex Flow. This is a half-way stage between steady streamline flow and unsteady flow described later. Due to boundary layer effects, generally at a sharp leading edge, the flow separates from the surface; the flow does not then break down into a turbulent chaotic condition but, instead, forms a strong vortex which, because of its stability and predictability, can be controlled and made to give a useful lift force. Such flows are found in swept and delta planforms particularly at the higher incidences.

In context, such a wing could theoretically sustain a higher AoA, and it could also reduce, or altogether eliminate, the need to mount strakes to the low-pressure side, which might then offer a greater degree of control and/or design flexibility.

[Eddie_Temple]

That particular image wasn't meant to emphasize anything beyond the planform of next year's wings. Even so, I definitely chose the wrong example to illustrate my line of thought.

Controlled Separated Flow or Leading Edge Vortex Flow. This is a half-way stage between steady streamline flow and unsteady flow described later. Due to boundary layer effects, generally at a sharp leading edge, the flow separates from the surface; the flow does not then break down into a turbulent chaotic condition but, instead, forms a strong vortex which, because of its stability and predictability, can be controlled and made to give a useful lift force. Such flows are found in swept and delta planforms particularly at the higher incidences.

http://i.imgur.com/BwVuiwF.jpg

In context, such a wing could theoretically sustain a higher AoA, and it could also reduce, or altogether eliminate, the need to mount strakes to the low-pressure side, which might then offer a greater degree of control and/or design flexibility.

Since our wings are upside down, would those vortices still form with ground effect? Or do you see those vortices still forming on the top edge of an F1 front wing, the high pressure surface?

[Just_a_fan]

If the new geometry proves to be a challenge, I think it'll be because front wing ride height for a raked car will be proportional to distance from the car's centerline, and that's an entirely new dynamic. Naturally, that means endplates will have the highest ride height, even though it's ordinarily more beneficial for them to have the lowest ride height in order to generate strong force-enhancing edge vortices. So, that's something to follow.

In general, I wonder if the new rules offer the potential to exploit some degree of vortex lift (downforce)...

http://i.imgur.com/iIzzoZk.jpg

It's through vortex lift that delta-winged aircraft are able to operate at high angles of attack, since vortices shed along the leading edge keep air flow attached to the low-pressure side of the wing. Other aircraft, mostly fighters, use leading edge extensions to create the same effect.

If the scope for vortex downforce exists, there are all sorts of possibilities that may very well exceed anything envisioned by FIA. In fact, since the rules were derived from Red Bull concepts, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the "cosmetic" changes bring with them the potential to extract performance gains.

Not sure the leading edge angle to the flow is sufficient for vortex lift in the Delta wing sense. Also, vortex lift generally comes in to play as the angle of attack of the wing increases. F1 front wings don't have much alpha. [edit, just saw Tridefender's post so this is a bit of agreement with him]

It's an interesting idea, however. As is the link to RedBull being behind the overall rule concept. If RedBull don't beat Mercedes with these rules then questions will be asked, I think.

[Just_a_fan]

Since our wings are upside down, would those vortices still form with ground effect? Or do you see those vortices still forming on the top edge of an F1 front wing, the high pressure surface?

Also, as the wing is close to the ground, how likely that the vortex might burst? Even if the vortex is generated and maintained, would it block flow under the wing. In effect the vortex would be generating lift and starving the wing behind.

[bhall II]

Not sure the leading edge angle to the flow is sufficient for vortex lift in the Delta wing sense. Also, vortex lift generally comes in to play as the angle of attack of the wing increases. F1 front wings don't have much alpha. [edit, just saw Tridefender's post so this is a bit of agreement with him]

Also, as the wing is close to the ground, how likely that the vortex might burst? Even if the vortex is generated and maintained, would it block flow under the wing. In effect the vortex would be generating lift and starving the wing behind.

I'm sorry, have we met? The Just_a_fan I know is scarcely this far from reality.

F1 wings are run at absurdly high alpha, aka angle of attack.

By definition, vortices shed from the suction surface of an inverted airfoil in ground effect will never generate lift, because vortices never form on a high-pressure surface. In other words, if there's no downforce, then there can be no vortices.

"Starving" the front wing is a necessary step toward realizing front wing nirvana, because maximum downforce is created after vortex breakdown within the highly elusive region that exists between force enhancement and force reduction.

(And did you not catch my updated example?)

It's perhaps serendipitous that I just put this together for Mr. Temple...


(Click to enlarge)

You were briefly possessed by demons, right?

(Occasionally, everything on the left side of my brain shuts down, save for a single, incessant voice that tells me to go --- myself. Is that weird?)

[Eddie_Temple]

Not sure the leading edge angle to the flow is sufficient for vortex lift in the Delta wing sense. Also, vortex lift generally comes in to play as the angle of attack of the wing increases. F1 front wings don't have much alpha. [edit, just saw Tridefender's post so this is a bit of agreement with him]

Also, as the wing is close to the ground, how likely that the vortex might burst? Even if the vortex is generated and maintained, would it block flow under the wing. In effect the vortex would be generating lift and starving the wing behind.

I'm sorry, have we met? The Just_a_fan I know is scarcely this far from reality.

F1 wings are run at absurdly high alpha, aka angle of attack.

By definition, vortices shed from the suction surface of an inverted airfoil in ground effect will never generate lift, because vortices never form on a high-pressure surface. In other words, if there's no downforce, then there can be no vortices.

"Starving" the front wing is a necessary step toward realizing front wing nirvana, because maximum downforce is created after vortex breakdown within the highly elusive region that exists between force enhancement and force reduction.

(And did you not catch my updated example?)

It's perhaps serendipitous that I just put this together for Mr. Temple...

http://i.imgur.com/sTNli3w.jpg
(Click to enlarge)

You were briefly possessed by demons, right?

Thanks for that. It seem's a bit of a no brainer - but I agree with you that these new swept wings and who exploits them best will be a strong development thread for 2017.

Looking forward to some interesting end plate designs, due to this proportionally changing ground clearance issue you've highlighted.

Good catch.

[bhall II]

For the avoidance of doubt, I just want to make sure it's clear that the concept described in that excerpt is not the source of my speculation; it's simply background information about interactions that have been exploited and refined for as long as F1 cars have had wings. What I've suggested is certainly related, but it's not the same.

[Blackout]

Interesting.

Where does that Mercedes render (the top view) come from?
Edit: https://www.behance.net/gallery/3116768 ... G-Petronas

[rileykirn]

Question for the aero guys regarding the 2017 rules: Would it be possible, per the rules, to leave a space between the bottom of the sidepod & the top of the floor, from the tub/engine out? The sidepod would therefore be mounted to the tub/engine & there would be a channel for air beneath the tub intake above the floor(all the way from outer edge of floor to the tub vs the existing undercut of the sidepod)? My thought is that air would be split in three areas there. (1)Below the floor to feed the diffuser, (2)between floor/diffuser & sidepod & then(3) the sidepod intake. The thought would be that more air in this section could then be manipulated(say sped up or conditioned via vortex generators) to effect the flow of the diffuser exit air vs trying to keep it attached around the undercut of he sidepod.

[FW17]

Question for the aero guys regarding the 2017 rules: Would it be possible, per the rules, to leave a space between the bottom of the sidepod & the top of the floor, from the tub/engine out? The sidepod would therefore be mounted to the tub/engine & there would be a channel for air beneath the tub intake above the floor(all the way from outer edge of floor to the tub vs the existing undercut of the sidepod)? My thought is that air would be split in three areas there. (1)Below the floor to feed the diffuser, (2)between floor/diffuser & sidepod & then(3) the sidepod intake. The thought would be that more air in this section could then be manipulated(say sped up or conditioned via vortex generators) to effect the flow of the diffuser exit air vs trying to keep it attached around the undercut of he sidepod.

This has been done in recent past; not sure of its benefits