2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Stu]

There does not seem to be much focus on the front wing end plates in most of the discussions here.
Normally this area of the car is not attracting too much attention, however now the defined regulations do not allow the endplate to block the migration of air coming in under the front wing from the sides, as the front wing is mandated to join the endplate seamlessly, so it does not extend below the bottom of the front wing profile.
The end plate cannot be shaped as aggressively as in the past to create out wash ether.
So this area will now define most of what happens downstream behind the front wheels.
Most of the teams on the grid in 2020 were already dropping off the angle of attack on the front wing In front of the tyre to limit the effects downstream of the dreaded tyre squirt.
Only RB we’re running an aggressive outer wing profile in front of the outer edges of the front tyre. Merc experimented with it briefly towards the back end of the 2021 season with a new wing but they did not race it.
The front tyre squirt will hypothetically effect the tunnel entrance fences predominantly the outer fence, hence the vertical angle of the outer tunnel fence could highlight how successful each team is in solving the front tyre squirt problem.
If the outer tunnel fence is straight on the new cars then we can maybe assume that the squirt is under control, as the teams will want to maximise the tunnel entrance volume.
If it’s angled inwards (not so wide at the bottom) then the squirt is still a big problem.
Tyre squirt migrating into the tunnel entrance is definitely not desirable.
The shape and profile of the new front wings will also be interesting if this problem becomes the performance differentiator between cars.
Ramping up the wing profile in the section in front of the tyre and brake ducts will at a guess create more inwash and tyre squirt, so we may also get a surprise when we see the new 2022 front wing profiles.
If we’re expecting wings that look like the conventional wing profiles we’re accustomed to looking at we may get a surprise also.
Any thoughts?

I'd say the innermost tunnel vanes are creating low pressure and downforce, while the outermost are dealing with the front tyre wake. Bear in mind also there are now prescribed/common vanes on the brake drums to help deal with tyre squirt. It's obviously part of what FOM want to achieve - by allowing less optimisation the effect of the wake is less severe - because surfaces are less optimised for free running.

The wheel cover also doesn't get as much focus for how significant an effect it will have on overall aerodynamics. It's all about the floor which punters think they understand, but really don't. See driver61 video ^above.

Do you think that the front wing and end plate interaction will create a vortex similar to that created by dive-plane that will be maintained by the wheel covers to ‘hold’ the wheel wake into the airflow around the vehicle?
The inner face of the wheel (incorporating the upper and lower horizontal fins) look to be useful for wake (upper) and squirt (lower) control created by the wing/tyre.

[jjn9128]

Do you think that the front wing and end plate interaction will create a vortex similar to that created by dive-plane that will be maintained by the wheel covers to ‘hold’ the wheel wake into the airflow around the vehicle?
The inner face of the wheel (incorporating the upper and lower horizontal fins) look to be useful for wake (upper) and squirt (lower) control created by the wing/tyre.

Not sure I follow.

[Stu]

Do you think that the front wing and end plate interaction will create a vortex similar to that created by dive-plane that will be maintained by the wheel covers to ‘hold’ the wheel wake into the airflow around the vehicle?
The inner face of the wheel (incorporating the upper and lower horizontal fins) look to be useful for wake (upper) and squirt (lower) control created by the wing/tyre.

Not sure I follow.

The FOM ‘models’ have shown the front wing/end-plate without any foot-plate and slot-gaps continued into the base of the end-plate. I think that this will create an anti-clockwise vortex from the base of the end-plate (as the high-pressure airflow from the upper surfaces tries to merge with the lower pressure flow that should be present on the lower surfaces). Because of the wide front wing this vortex should (in theory) be directed around the front wheel. The smooth wheel disc will eliminate turbulence from within the wheel ‘holding’ the vortex close to the wheel, low pressure caused by the front wheel wake will then encourage this flow back towards the centreline of the car and into the flow around the side pods and onwards to the rear of the car and rear wheels.

That is how it works in my head, anyway!!!

[Scalexf1]

Do you think that the front wing and end plate interaction will create a vortex similar to that created by dive-plane that will be maintained by the wheel covers to ‘hold’ the wheel wake into the airflow around the vehicle?
The inner face of the wheel (incorporating the upper and lower horizontal fins) look to be useful for wake (upper) and squirt (lower) control created by the wing/tyre.

Not sure I follow.

The FOM ‘models’ have shown the front wing/end-plate without any foot-plate and slot-gaps continued into the base of the end-plate. I think that this will create an anti-clockwise vortex from the base of the end-plate (as the high-pressure airflow from the upper surfaces tries to merge with the lower pressure flow that should be present on the lower surfaces). Because of the wide front wing this vortex should (in theory) be directed around the front wheel. The smooth wheel disc will eliminate turbulence from within the wheel ‘holding’ the vortex close to the wheel, low pressure caused by the front wheel wake will then encourage this flow back towards the centreline of the car and into the flow around the side pods and onwards to the rear of the car and rear wheels.

That is how it works in my head, anyway!!!

Maybe everything will work fine until the wheel is steered,

[jjn9128]

The FOM ‘models’ have shown the front wing/end-plate without any foot-plate and slot-gaps continued into the base of the end-plate. I think that this will create an anti-clockwise vortex from the base of the end-plate (as the high-pressure airflow from the upper surfaces tries to merge with the lower pressure flow that should be present on the lower surfaces). Because of the wide front wing this vortex should (in theory) be directed around the front wheel. The smooth wheel disc will eliminate turbulence from within the wheel ‘holding’ the vortex close to the wheel, low pressure caused by the front wheel wake will then encourage this flow back towards the centreline of the car and into the flow around the side pods and onwards to the rear of the car and rear wheels.

That is how it works in my head, anyway!!!

I'm not sure there will be a strong vortex there because the curved tip and forced decrease of camber should ease the pressure gradient.

[Slo Poke]

I have a question JJN9128, that is you choose to have a go at it. I admit I did leave you hanging some time ago but it was due to recurring illness; right shoulder pain and very severe headaches. No matter, Apologies anyway.

My question is; what is going to happen to, or where is the relatively stationary atmospheric air that the rearward facing diffuser beneath the driver’s thighs fails to do anything with in terms of ram? There’s going to be a considerable bow wave created in that area and any spillage from it can termed as wake. I can’t visualise it all hugging the side of the object that creates it and as such it’s likely to wash out into the path of an overtaking car. SNAFU!

[godlameroso]

In air planes we use the curved winglets at the tips because they reduce drag. The reason they reduce drag is because the wing tip vortex creates an upwash. When that upwash interacts with the winglet, the winglet is angled in such a way that it pushes the aircraft forward. It also mitigates adverse yaw to an extent. Adverse yaw is the tendency of an aircraft to yaw away from the direction of roll. It is why planes have vertical rudders.

In these new sleds the front wing has the bulk airflow spinning CC, but the winglets at the edge produce a CW vortex themselves. So from the looks of it we have co-rotating vortices at the tips.

[Henri]

These car are gonna be faster than the current ones in a number of tracks.. the tires have more grip plus ground effect

[djos]

These car are gonna be faster than the current ones in a number of tracks.. the tires have more grip plus ground effect

F1 cars never stopped having ground-effect.

[k.ko100v]

I'm surprised these nose examples by jjn9128 haven't been posted here:


It's almost a little sad to see how restricted the nose has become, I hope we see a little more variation than this.

I am wondering is a solution like this possible:

[jjn9128]

I'm surprised these nose examples by jjn9128 haven't been posted here:


It's almost a little sad to see how restricted the nose has become, I hope we see a little more variation than this.

I am wondering is a solution like this possible:
https://imgur.com/egW8uBb.jpg

There's a couple of rules you might be up against, minimum radius of curvature in plan-view and minimum angle of tangency as projected from the leading edge angle of the wing volume.

[godlameroso]

This might be relevant to these cars, considering the fairings near the brake ducts, I thought it was interesting.

[west52keep64]

I am wondering is a solution like this possible:
https://imgur.com/egW8uBb.jpg

I've been thinking about a similar solution, but also if it is possible to make the nose tip shorter and higher to allow more air to flow under towards the floor tunnels.

[Stu]

I am wondering is a solution like this possible:
https://imgur.com/egW8uBb.jpg

I've been thinking about a similar solution, but also if it is possible to make the nose tip shorter and higher to allow more air to flow under towards the floor tunnels.

We will see what they come up with but the minimum radius is quite a limitation (I’m pretty sure that it is 500mm, but am now going to check!)

Edit: copied from the regs…
k. The rearward most point of every closed section, when projected in Z on to the reference plane, must produce a single tangent continuous curve with no radius of curvature smaller than 200mm.

[OO7]

I'm surprised these nose examples by jjn9128 haven't been posted here:


It's almost a little sad to see how restricted the nose has become, I hope we see a little more variation than this.

For what it's worth, my favourite design is the skinny full length nose (the middle design on the right), although I think the skinny short design is likely to be aerodynamically the best solution.