2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[west52keep64]

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.

So if I've understood that correctly, it applies to the trailing edge of each of the front wing elements? Does that mean there is greater flexibility for the leading edge?

[jjn9128]

So if I've understood that correctly, it applies to the trailing edge of each of the front wing elements? Does that mean there is greater flexibility for the leading edge?

On the plan projected radius of curvature. But there are MANY other rules.

[Stu]

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.

So if I've understood that correctly, it applies to the trailing edge of each of the front wing elements? Does that mean there is greater flexibility for the leading edge?

If I am reading them correctly the front edge has a minimum radius of 50mm applied to it and must have a chord length of at least 50-60mm to comply with the trailing 40mm part of the regs.
Apologies for the lack of spacing in the part below, it has pasted in like this!

Ref:
3.9 Front Wing (FW) 3.9.1 Front Wing Profiles
Bodywork declared as “Front Wing Profiles” must lie within RV-FW-PROFILES.
In any Y plane, the following conditions apply:
Theremustbenomorethanfourclosedsections.
Noclosedsectionmaycontainanyconcaveradiusofcurvaturelessthan50mm
The distance between adjacent sections must lie between 5mm and 15mm at their closest position.
Therearmostpointofeveryclosedsectionmustbevisiblewhenviewedfrombelow.
Withtheexceptionoftherearmostclosedsection,therearmostpointofeveryclosed section must not be visible when viewed from above.
Assessing each closed section independently, the part of any closed section visible when viewed from beneath may contain no concave radius of curvature.
Within40mmoftherearward-mostpointofeachclosedsectionalinetangenttoany part of the section visible from beneath must have a positive slope. The slope of this line will be considered in the Y-plane.
Within40mmoftherearward-mostpointofeachclosedsection,nopartofthe section visible from above may be more than 8mm distant from the section visible from beneath, if outboard of Y=500, or 15mm if inboard of Y=500.
Inboard of Y=300, the forward-most two closed sections, must have a maximum thickness of at least 25mm when measured in the Z direction.
Furthermore, when considering the entire profiles, the following conditions apply:
j. The normal to any point of the profiles surface must not subtend an angle greater than 25° to a vertical plane that is normal to RS-FW-SECTION for the forward most two profiles and 30° for any other profiles.
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.
l. The Front Wing Profiles must be arranged such that, when viewed from below, no part of RS-FW-PROFILES may be visible.
Once the Front Wing Profiles are fully defined a Gurney of up to 10mm may be fitted to the trailing edge of the upper surface of the rearmost section. This Gurney need not satisfy the provisions of section (b) and its inner and outer extremities need not satisfy section (j) of this Article.

[godlameroso]

On the nose, there is impedence on swept back wings like the FW is, the impedence is right where the two sweeps meet. Possibly the reason to favor a flat wide nose? A narrow nose may increase the impedence since there's physically less space between the wing sweeps. With a thinner nose the air that spills over from the front wing will be closer to the air that spills over from the other side. The air will also have an easier time reaching the camera fairings with a wide nose.

[Scalexf1]

On the nose, there is impedence on swept back wings like the FW is, the impedence is right where the two sweeps meet. Possibly the reason to favor a flat wide nose? A narrow nose may increase the impedence since there's physically less space between the wing sweeps. With a thinner nose the air that spills over from the front wing will be closer to the air that spills over from the other side. The air will also have an easier time reaching the camera fairings with a wide nose.

We will find out in due course, as it will be hard to conceal the nose design once the cars start to run due to the crash test limitations and timescales plus expenses involved to change the design.
So at least we will see the teams commitments in that choice come February testing.
The FW is another story! For me, I think there will be gamesmanship there as the later the teams reveal their FW philosophy the harder it will be for the others to analyse it, understand it and start to simulate it.

[Blackout]

Interesting thoughts about the nose and FW design here

[Stu]

Interesting thoughts about the nose and FW design here

This highlights the effect that I was discussing with @jjn9128 the other day.
Nice video, good bit if honesty from the guy too. I cannot wait to see the initial solutions from everyone (and what areas of the car appear to make a performance difference with these new regulations).

[jjn9128]

On the nose, there is impedence on swept back wings like the FW is, the impedence is right where the two sweeps meet. Possibly the reason to favor a flat wide nose? A narrow nose may increase the impedence since there's physically less space between the wing sweeps. With a thinner nose the air that spills over from the front wing will be closer to the air that spills over from the other side. The air will also have an easier time reaching the camera fairings with a wide nose.

We will find out in due course, as it will be hard to conceal the nose design once the cars start to run due to the crash test limitations and timescales plus expenses involved to change the design.
So at least we will see the teams commitments in that choice come February testing.
The FW is another story! For me, I think there will be gamesmanship there as the later the teams reveal their FW philosophy the harder it will be for the others to analyse it, understand it and start to simulate it.

I'm expecting teams to homologate the shortest/thinnest crash structure they can then shrouding it in a thin carbon aero-cover.

[jjn9128]

Interesting thoughts about the nose and FW design here

This highlights the effect that I was discussing with @jjn9128 the other day.
Nice video, good bit if honesty from the guy too. I cannot wait to see the initial solutions from everyone (and what areas of the car appear to make a performance difference with these new regulations).

He says he expects teams to drop the AOA at the tips, the rules require it!!

[godlameroso]

Bell shaped front wing profile, with a lot of twist, where have I seen that before?

Will these front wings work better with a fair bit of front body roll? Since we are limited in how low the static ride height can be, and how we can manipulate the suspension through steering, the only thing left is roll or chassis warp. With the wing tips we can actually design these front wings to have proverse yaw so body roll away from, would increase yaw into the turn.

[Tommy Cookers]

With the wing tips we can actually design these front wings to have proverse yaw so body roll away from, would increase yaw into the turn.

you seem to be designing a flying machine
one that now needs no directional stability

what are you on ?

[Scalexf1]

On the nose, there is impedence on swept back wings like the FW is, the impedence is right where the two sweeps meet. Possibly the reason to favor a flat wide nose? A narrow nose may increase the impedence since there's physically less space between the wing sweeps. With a thinner nose the air that spills over from the front wing will be closer to the air that spills over from the other side. The air will also have an easier time reaching the camera fairings with a wide nose.

We will find out in due course, as it will be hard to conceal the nose design once the cars start to run due to the crash test limitations and timescales plus expenses involved to change the design.
So at least we will see the teams commitments in that choice come February testing.
The FW is another story! For me, I think there will be gamesmanship there as the later the teams reveal their FW philosophy the harder it will be for the others to analyse it, understand it and start to simulate it.

I'm expecting teams to homologate the shortest/thinnest crash structure they can then shrouding it in a thin carbon aero-cover.

Now there is an interesting thought.
Providing the front wing attachment to the nose is not compromised it is an option.
Will it also bring back the flexible nose?

[Blackout]

I wonder if some teams will take advantage of the new cooling louvers this way: by putting a part of their centerline cooling system near them, a bit like Toro Rosso between 2014 and 2018, in order to close the rear exits more, and lower the COG and push it forward a bit.
Can teams fully open that area?
The louvers would be roughly in the green area

[BlueCheetah66]

I wonder if some teams will take advantage of the new cooling louvers this way: by putting a part of their centerline cooling system near them, a bit like Toro Rosso between 2014 and 2018, in order to close the rear exits more, and lower the COG and push it forward a bit.
Can teams fully open that area?
The louvers would be roughly in the green area
https://i.imgur.com/ziKPIeg.jpg

I'm very excited to see how tight the sidepods are going to be with these louvres.

[jjn9128]

I wonder if some teams will take advantage of the new cooling louvers this way: by putting a part of their centerline cooling system near them, a bit like Toro Rosso between 2014 and 2018, in order to close the rear exits more, and lower the COG and push it forward a bit.
Can teams fully open that area?
The louvers would be roughly in the green area
https://i.imgur.com/ziKPIeg.jpg

Not a bad shout, I've been pondering how much wants to be on the centreline of the car. It all depends on how the RV-CH-MIN-MID and RV-CH-MID-STRUCT volumes and the RS-FWD-FUEL-LIMIT surface force the shape at the rear of the monocoque. (none of these are described in the appendix so I've no idea about what they look like)