New 2013 F1 aerodynamic formula

[WhiteBlue]

Recent publications about the 2013 engine working group have revealed a number of interesting points regarding the intended 2013 aerodynamic regulations.

• ground effect to increase and wings to be more restricted
• sidepots moving forward to increase driver protection will increase frontal floor area
• engines with lower power will necessitate drag reduction to maintain performance
• KERS energy/lap to rise to 2.2 MJ necessitating front wheel KERS
• fuel flow and/or fuel load limitation to freeze and reduce engine power successively

There are further data which can be estimated from the available information on engines.

• engines likely to be 650 bhp (485 kW) in line four cylinder design with much reduced width compared to V8
• available energy for drag to be reduced by 12% compared to 2010
• drive compartment in front of the driver to take 30kg of front KERS equipment

Previous proposals for drag reduction have included:

• use of venturi tunnels in the floor like champ cars featured for a long time
• adaptive and flexible wings
• movable or retractable wings
• flexible floors

I wonder if the aero and chassis guys can give us some more insights into the numbers for 2013.

What is the current distribution of downforce between the front wing, the rear wing and the floor?
What is the efficiency of the front wing, the rear wing and the floor?
How would those percentages and efficiencies have to change to meet a drag reduction target of 12% at the same downforce?
How would the body work and floor probably look like (design drawings) ?

[ESPImperium]

Personally what id have is theese:

* Venturi Tunnels
* Full length skirts that arnt moveable
* Flexable rear wings
* Mechanichaly operated F-Duct for 10 seconds a lap
* Moveable front wings that can be moved unlimited ammounts per lap
* The above to be allowed to be operated in the cars multi map for lap time optomisation
* Banning of step wings on front wing, only allow a front wing like the Virgin VR/01 in pre season testing this year
* Return to the front wing rules of circa 2008 (to contradict above, i know)
* Allowance of a change of spec to wings (and front and rear crash structures) 3 times a year, but also a spec of wing must last at least 3 races, meaning Monaco and Monza specs would be a thing of the past, unless you would want to be optomised for thse races and not be for the ones before or after.
* Each team to have a "performance differenciator" that is currently banned, no traction control tho, im thinking things like Mass Dampers or Torque Transfer Bars.

Those would be some of my ideas that i think would make the sport better, arguably. My ideas would not be the same as others.

[megz]

I think two standardised tunnels running down the left and right of the car with a small short open development single deck diffuser between the two tunnel exits would be a good start so that the major downforce contributor is equal amongst teams to allow for closer racing while the diffuser will encourage inovation and allow for some performance differentiation. I don't see wing dimensions being changed as yet but it'd be nice to see more active aero to try and help reduce losses in wake.

[SiLo]

Definitely ground affect, but with very small wings/flat wings. This way there is less "dirty" air coming off the car infront, meaning you can follow much more closely. Engines no lower than V6's as anything else doesn't scream F1 to me. No moveable devices, no f-duct, no flexi wings. The use of huge venturi tunnels would mean the sidepods would be bigger to accommodate, giving more space to sponsors also.

[Just_a_fan]

I note the inclusion of adaptive / active aero systems in the vote list. I rather like the idea of adaptive aero e.g. wings that change shape according to aero need rather than solid profiles that have their AoA altered by some hinge mechanism.

Whatever system is used, however, I think the most important issue is the failsafe position. Any active system should be required to failsafe in the maximum downforce configuration. The obvious corollary being that any active system must therefore use power to reduce downforce. For example, a wing that is powered to a low downforce angle but which, on loss of power for whatever reason, will move to the higher downforce setting used. If the front wing goes in to failsafe then the rear wing must also be made to do so to prevent destabilising CoP movements.

The thought of a car going in to Monza-spec wing positions for a straight and then being unable to reset to high downforce for the following corner, just as the driver asks for it, is frightening. At least the current f-duct systems are directly driver controlled and appear to be inherently failsafe to high downforce.

[PlatinumZealot]

I would like to see Suction Fans.Just imagine: there be no need to depend on "clean air" when you can get whatever down-force you want at the turn of a knob!

I think the fans will be fairly safe because of the sustained low pressure atmosphere underneath the car. Some safety issues could be: Ejected debris such as sand, stones and water spray from the fans; and broken fan blades flying from the cars in an accident (But this is a similar threat to a broken turbocharger blade). All in all I think serious investigation needs to be done on the prospect of having diffuser Suction fans in back Formula 1.

[WhiteBlue]

Do we have some base numbers to determine how much power we are talking here for the fans?

[Pingguest]

I have quite a radical and probably unpopular opinion: get rid of wings and diffusers. To me downforce is, as Ross Brawn once said, the bane of Formula 1.

[Just_a_fan]

Others have suggested the same sort of thing. However, as was pointed out to them, no-downforce open wheel series already exist around the world.

F1 is a downforce series and has been for the majority of its history. Downforce is what lets the cars corner and brake as well as they do and the combination of these two aspects is what marks F1 out above other series.

[ESPImperium]

Personally, if you want wings, but want to reduce downforce and drag from them, you take all the little step wings off the front one and make it a single element front wing either side, meaning there is even more emphisis placed on wing end plates.

As for rear wings, make them the width of circa 2008, but make them a single element wing supported via either the ALMS gooseneck design or the CART design from below. But allow the wing end plates to be the same as current, without a wing supporting them from below. Think Monza spec, but simpiler, almost back to the 70s designs to a poiint. Also alow them to flex to a point, as modren lay-up techniques will provide strong enough rear wings.

As for diffusers, give 2 large underfloor venturi channels that are specified, but the little bit in the middle is completly open, as long as it dosnt come into the venturi areas and past the rear crash structure.

[Pingguest]

Others have suggested the same sort of thing. However, as was pointed out to them, no-downforce open wheel series already exist around the world.

I don't think that's a valid argument against getting rid of wings and diffusers or at least reducing downforce to road sport car levels. Formula Ford is the only open-wheel 'zero aero' racing series I can think of, hence there are more series with downforce.

F1 is a downforce series and has been for the majority of its history. Downforce is what lets the cars corner and brake as well as they do and the combination of these two aspects is what marks F1 out above other series.

Most other open-wheel series are feeder series. Its logical that those series don't have cars equally fast or even faster than in Formula 1. However, if Formula 1 would ever drop its flawed high-downforce concept, the feeder series are very likely to follow suit.

[Just_a_fan]

However, if Formula 1 would ever drop its flawed high-downforce concept, the feeder series are very likely to follow suit.

Why is it "flawed"?

And do you really think the rest of the industry would say "oh, better follow F1 and go wingless"? If, for example, GP2 said "we'll stay with wings thanks" they'd just be the replacement for F1 because they'd be the quickest cars around a track - which is what F1 is all about.

[rich1701]

The idea of using a 650 bhp engine is disappointing. The use of venturi tunnels, ground effects and flexible wings presumably mean more downforce than the cars have at the moment, and significantly less power. The challenge of driving a Formula 1 car would be diminished, again.

IMO a modern F1 engine has to have between 800bhp and 900bhp. With 650hp i would find it hard to justify calling F1 the Pinnacle of motor sport.

[WhiteBlue]

No downforce is equally bad as too much downforce. The sensible thing is probably an optimization towards the most efficient ways to produce downforce followed by a gradual reduction of downforce levels and making sure that F1 remains the top road going open wheel single seater formula.

[747heavy]

if you reduce overall downforce levels, you will reduce the speed of the cars through the corners, and increase straight line speed.

To an extend you can offset this a bit with tire grip (wider tires), but F1 will risk to fall behind Indycars, if they go too low on engine/KERS power.

One of the reason, that a F1 car is faster, is that the cars are a fair bit lighter then most other cars with similar power.

The only reason why F1 uses "inefficient" aero solutions, is because the rules forces them to do so.

If they go back to full wide floors with tunnels, wings will become much simpler. The cars´s will probably look closer to Champcars, with the wider sidepods around the cockpit.





and later with the 15"-17" rims/tires

I´m not sure, if I would like the look, of a full ground effect car like in the mid 80`s , without front wings