If a modern aerodynamicist went back to 1992

[gold333]

This thread got me thinking:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23669&start=15


Why specifically 1992?

One could arguably say that it was the pinnacle of "free" F1 car evolution.
Every year prior to '92, F1 cars had gotten wider and lower and had the maximum width tires seen in F1. It went downhill after '92

1993: Car width reduced from 220cm to 200cm
1993: Tire width reduced from 18 to 15 inch
1993: Rear wing height reduced from 100cm to 90cm
1994: Rear wing height reduced from 90cm to 80cm
1994: Banning of electronic driving aid systems
1994: (At midpoint, post Senna fatality) Flat bottom replaced with stepped bottom and wooden plank (persists until today).
1995: Engine displacement limited to 3000cc
1995: V12 engines banned
1998: Car width reduced to 180cm (until extended back to 200cm in 2015)
1998: Banning of slick tires (until 2009)
2006: V10 engines banned
2014: V8 engines banned

If '92 had the widest, lowest F1 cars that have ever existed (including the widest tires), how would a modern aerodynamicist have interpreted those regulations?

Lets say the best car on that grid, the Williams FW14B.

How would that car have looked different with modern knowledge.

And aero expert care to take a shot?

[wesley123]

I don't think cars would have been all that much different.

[gold333]

I don't think cars would have been all that much different.

I'd disagree with that.

26 years of evolution.

A 1992 F1 car is considerably different to a 1966 F1 car. Same difference.

And we could say that technology improves at an accelerated rate, so the differences should be even more profound with 2018 knowledge.

Even me (a simple photographer let alone someone with a degree in aerodynamics) could say that one diffence would be that rear wing end plates would have had slits, the sidepods would have angled vertical walls and the front wings would not have been flat surfaces.

I was hoping for someone who doesn't just take pictures for a living to shed his expert thoughts on it.

[Big Tea]

Its not just the knowledge, its the materials and computational power to design etc.
F1 Cars more than most other things are 'of their day'.

I have a relative working on the new nuke subs and he cannot believe how dated the electronics are already.
They were designed 10 years ago.

F1 cars of this year were designed last year and are often out of date my year end. The people do not suddenly get a brainwave or intelligence boost, things have to come together.

( anyone know Sheldrake? I found that fascinating https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance)

[Edax]

<snip>
I have a relative working on the new nuke subs and he cannot believe how dated the electronics are already.
They were designed 10 years ago.
<snip>

I would not say dated. Matured would better fit the bill.

New electronics nodes are released in nu a 2-3 year cadence. That is increadibly fast, and as they are ramping they are still working out the kinks.

If your application has a low failure tolerance, like in Military/aviation/space you will not use it straight out of development. You need a couple of years for the product to mature before you can begin to certify it (which in itself takes years). I suspect that F1 would also use MIL standard electronics, as they value robustness in a pretty harsh environment.

As for the OP's question. I suspect that lightweighting would be one area where there are big changes. With FEM based design and modern inspection techniques we can design moer complex/much closer to the limit. So you can put skinnier and more complex structures on the cars exterior and trim down the load bearing components inside.

Whether you would really get a weight/Cog advantage depends on whether you want to retain 1992 safety standards.

An other area would be thermal management, both in simulation as application (radiators, insulation).

What that would look like in terms of design I don't know (not in aero), but they would certainly have a lot more design freedom than the had then.

[turbof1]

The car wouldn't have looked to differently. You have to understand that we have a lot better manufacturing processes today. I doubt it was possible to produce the highly 3D shaped pieces we have currently in 1992.

However, the understanding of floor aerodynamics is much better in the present. I think that info would be crucial, even without the cfd and much better windtunnel capabilities we have today. Also how flow works around a tyre is much better understood today.

[Just_a_fan]

Lets say the best car on that grid, the Williams FW14B.

How would that car have looked different with modern knowledge.

And aero expert care to take a shot?

It's not just aero knowledge, it's also what the rules allow. Would the rules in '92 have allowed the sort of addenda that current cars run, for example?

Also, the FW14B was an active car designed run the flat bottom at an optimum position relative to the ground. Modern aero devices work the air below the car in a very different way - all of the clever vortices that the current designers feed under the sidepods wouldn't work with the FW14B as there is no room for them. The FW14B had an exhaust blown diffuser too.

They might have been able to seal the floor edge better using some vortices if the rules allowed for devices to be placed where they would be needed. The FW14B already had devices running inside the front wheels to control front tyre wake - the current cars aren't allowed those which is why the front wing is so complicated.

[gold333]

I think people are misunderstanding it.

Considering the 1992 regulations (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23669&start=15)

What if the Adrian Newey of today went back and became the Adrian Newey of 1992... With his current aerodynamic knowledge. 26 years in advance of the Adrian Newey of 1992.

EXACT SAME REGULATIONS and manufacturing standards as 1992. He simply went back in time.

Same manufacturing processes as back then, same materials, etc. Just in his mind 26 years advancement in aero knowledge.

How would the FW14B have looked different?

As I speculate the rear wing end plates would have at least had gills. The front wing would be curved. The side pods would have channeled the air around the cars more instead of being vertical edged.

I'd like an actual modern aerodynamicist to give his 0.2c on this.

[Just_a_fan]

What do you mean by the front wing being curved? Do you mean the little raised section near the end plates? These form the start of vortex tunnels which may, or may not, have been beneficial on a '92 car. Any flow structures set up by the front wing have to be dealt with by the car behind and this might not have been easy with the regs at the time.

Likewise the sidepods. Unless the rules allowed for devices that could create flows that might utilise the space provided by an undercut, for example, then it might not have been beneficial to provide an undercut.

It's actually a really interesting question and one that would be great to send to Newey on the off chance he gave an answer.

[gold333]

What do you mean by the front wing being curved? Do you mean the little raised section near the end plates? These form the start of vortex tunnels which may, or may not, have been beneficial on a '92 car. Any flow structures set up by the front wing have to be dealt with by the car behind and this might not have been easy with the regs at the time.

Likewise the sidepods. Unless the rules allowed for devices that could create flows that might utilise the space provided by an undercut, for example, then it might not have been beneficial to provide an undercut.

It's actually a really interesting question and one that would be great to send to Newey on the off chance he gave an answer.

That's a great idea! I'd love to get him to read this thread if someone had contact info.

Yeah the examples you state are what I mean.

The 1992 regulations were a lot more simple than today with a lot more room to play.

I'm interested in the large paradigm shifts that have occurred in the past 26 years.

I mean, just think of the similar "If a 1992 F1 aerodynamicist went back in time 26 years to 1966. How would he design a 1966 F1 car (to 1966 regulations and 1966 manufacturing technology) with his knowledge from 1992?"

1. He would put wings on it!
2. He would attempt to have wider tires made.
3. He would likely eliminate the nose radiator and introduce sidepods.
4. He would likely attempt some form of pneumatic valve technology.
5. He would likely introduce a sheet metal flat floor and exhaust blown diffuser
6. He would likely attempt to introduce skirts (ground effect was banned in 1992 but not in 1966!)
7. He would probably attempt an interconnected suspension system (banned today, allowed in 1992 and not thought of yet in 1966!)

Etc. all of these would have been allowed within the 1966 regulations.

The interesting thing is how much weight do you add considering you're unlikely to change the engine output by considerable amounts.

The car would look weird. Definitely 1966 technology and materials, but odd. And obviously it would blow away the competition.

That's what I mean.

If Newey went back to 1992 what would he have done differently.

Mass dampers come to mind.
FRIC systems likely not as they would have been inferior to the Williams active ride of the time.
Double diffusers?
F-Ducts?

What else?

I mean I'm just a simple photographer, I'm sure actual engineers could answer this "what if" question far better than me.

The icing on the cake would be (after getting answers from engineers on this forum) to pose the question to Adrian Newey himself and get his actual reply.

It's an engineering exercise.

[wesley123]

I don't think cars would have been all that much different.

I'd disagree with that.

26 years of evolution.

A 1992 F1 car is considerably different to a 1966 F1 car. Same difference.

And we could say that technology improves at an accelerated rate, so the differences should be even more profound with 2018 knowledge.

Even me (a simple photographer let alone someone with a degree in aerodynamics) could say that one diffence would be that rear wing end plates would have had slits, the sidepods would have angled vertical walls and the front wings would not have been flat surfaces.

I was hoping for someone who doesn't just take pictures for a living to shed his expert thoughts on it.

Sorry, I meant the cars would look very much the same as they'd do today. Same tricks, just adjusted to what was allowed in 1992.

[gold333]

I don't think cars would have been all that much different.

I'd disagree with that.

26 years of evolution.

A 1992 F1 car is considerably different to a 1966 F1 car. Same difference.

And we could say that technology improves at an accelerated rate, so the differences should be even more profound with 2018 knowledge.

Even me (a simple photographer let alone someone with a degree in aerodynamics) could say that one diffence would be that rear wing end plates would have had slits, the sidepods would have angled vertical walls and the front wings would not have been flat surfaces.

I was hoping for someone who doesn't just take pictures for a living to shed his expert thoughts on it.

Sorry, I meant the cars would look very much the same as they'd do today. Same tricks, just adjusted to what was allowed in 1992.

Again I may disagree with you here. The modern F1 cars' pedigree (high nose, underbody airflow, etc.) can be traced back to 1995 with the introduction of the stepped bottom and wooden plank post Senna and Ratzenberger's deaths in 1994. This was the main contributor to the 25-35% reduction in downforce mandated by the FIA after the fatal accidents in 1994.

The same way the halo now was in response to Bianchi's death.

That stepped bottom paved the way for splitters and a focus on underbody aerodynamics. Ride height now is measured in inches. In 1992 it was measured in millimetres.

In 1992 the current stepped underbody and wooden plank was not the direction F1 was headed in. Cars had a flat bottom.

In actuality I think that if Newey went back to 1992, that theoretical parallel universe '92 car, lets call it the WF-14B would in all likelyhood be much faster around a single lap than a current 2018 car.

Even considering that future Newey would not have access to modern CFD computers and would be limited to CF manufacturing standards of '92. I.e Far less torsional rigidity, fidelity and density of carbon fibre resin casting.

[Just_a_fan]

Mass dampers come to mind.
FRIC systems likely not as they would have been inferior to the Williams active ride of the time.
Double diffusers?
F-Ducts?

No need for mass dampers when you have active suspension, similarly FRIC (active does that anyway).

Double diffusers would be unnecessary / wouldn't work with a flat floor running millimetres from the ground.

F-Duct? Maybe.

[Just_a_fan]

In actuality I think that if Newey went back to 1992, that theoretical parallel universe '92 car, lets call it the WF-14B would in all likelyhood be much faster around a single lap than a current 2018 car.

Not so sure - the cars in '92 didn't have the power of today's cars so any aero would need to work hard to minimise drag too. Indeed, it's possible that Newey might say "enough downforce, how to lose some drag?".

An alternative suggestion is to think how fast current cars might be if some of the banned things - active suspension comes to mind - weren't banned. Active suspension, traction control, launch control, ABS would all make for faster lap times. Of course, ABS, traction control etc aren't widely liked as they are seen as reducing the skill required to drive the cars. But assuming one built a car like that (in the way Porsche has built the 919 special), how fast might it be?

[gold333]

In actuality I think that if Newey went back to 1992, that theoretical parallel universe '92 car, lets call it the WF-14B would in all likelyhood be much faster around a single lap than a current 2018 car.

Not so sure - the cars in '92 didn't have the power of today's cars so any aero would need to work hard to minimise drag too. Indeed, it's possible that Newey might say "enough downforce, how to lose some drag?".

They had about 750 hp. The Honda V12 had 764 hp (@14400rpm) and 297 lb/ft of torque (@11900rpm). 805hp on the special fuels banned partway through 1992. There is that Japanese Honda RAE paper floating around the internet on the 1992 RA122E engine. They weren't slow. Heck Hamiltons qualifying top speed on Suzuka's back straight last year was identical (to 1 km/h) to Senna's 1991 top speed on the same straight. 27 years apart, identical top speed. Therefore Senna's 1992 top speed in MP4/7A may even have surpassed today's.

Yes which is why I think he would have put gills on the rear wing endplates (I believe they reduce drag off the vortices.. you could see them in damp conditions on the 90's cars.).

Also it's why I thought he would have introduced curved front and rear wing surfaces (like MP4-23) had contemporary carbon fibre resin casting processes allowed it. Heck he did it in 1994 with the anhedral rear win on the FW16. I never did understand why all his subsequent designs abandoned that anhedral concept.

An alternative suggestion is to think how fast current cars might be if some of the banned things - active suspension comes to mind - weren't banned. Active suspension, traction control, launch control, ABS would all make for faster lap times. Of course, ABS, traction control etc aren't widely liked as they are seen as reducing the skill required to drive the cars. But assuming one built a car like that (in the way Porsche has built the 919 special), how fast might it be?

Haha, my good fan, you have hit a sore spot of mine with that comment. Every few years I try to get a thread going on that very premise but there appears to just not be enough older fans that take part.

The crux of the issue isn't how fast a modern car would be if the electronic aids that were banned in 1994 were reintroduced (heck, traction control came and went since 1994 a few times, and we know active suspension gives about 1.5-2.0 seconds a lap.)

The more interesting thing is how modern cars would look if the entire DESIGN philosophy had not changed so radically in 1995 (stepped bottom/underbody aerodynamics). If Senna had not died to put it simply.

The Weickershof protocol (search that word on the net and strangely enough only my name will come up. I remember reading about it in a 1993 Autosport magazine but it appears to have been lost to the black hole of the pre-internet dark ages) was a protocol decided late 1993 during a meeting (at a place called Weickershof I believe) on the period 1995-2000 for the future of F1 cars. The future viewed from late 1993. For us now existing only in a parallel universe, where no drivers died in 1994. The reduction to 3000cc was in there, but I don't believe the stepped bottom was.

The modern F1 car with its stepped bottom came about BECAUSE of the deaths in 1994 and a 1995 mandate to reduce downforce by around 35-40% to prevent future accidents. Raising the cars off the ground achieved that by in effect crippling them.

The modern F1 car is oddly enough the "crippled" descendant of the 1995 cars.

It's indeed interesting to speculate what kind of F1 cars we would have today had Senna not died. -> Likely no stepped bottom, no high noses, and a lot less safe. It's part of the reason I disagreed with Wesley123 who stated the cars that future 1992 Newey would design would be no different from today. They would be very, very different.

But how exactly I can't say.