2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[JordanMugen]

This is the thing with engineering, it is not a book subject, because the key part is seeing how the maths, the physics play out and how different systems interact with each other.

Having actually run college level physics labs, this is very true. It was obvious to me when a concept "clicked" with students.

You have to explain it in a way that is straight-forward, which is not hard with (non-supersonic) fluid mechanics as it is obviously human-scale and quite visual (not so much thermodynamics/combustion or vehicle dynamics!).

I.e., a hot coffee cup obviously has the same jet pattern you get in the textbooks for example (albeit distorted by ambient breeze in the room). Or our friends, the ol' hairpin vortices.

Some demonstrators seem to struggle with this and make things needlessly confusing instead of as simple as possible!

[AeroDynamic]

hope this is the right thread?

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/the- ... s/8163012/

The early trends that have eased fears over identical F1 2022 cars

Formula 1's new rules era has arrived with the regulations being much tighter than they were in the past for teams.

Matt Somerfield

With strict constraints about many elements of design, there were fears that the F1 grid could be filled with cars that all looked the same.

However, as we have started seeing the first real cars emerge, such worries have proved unfounded – and in fact there are a lot of big contrasts between the challengers already.

Taking a close look at the two real cars we've seen so far – the McLaren and the Aston Martin - as well as renders from Haas and AlphaTauri it is clear that teams have approached the exact same regulations in very different ways.

Focusing on the real cars and kicking things off with the front wing, we have to temper our analysis a little, as whilst we've seen physical versions of both cars, only one has had a shakedown so far.

That's not to say what we've seen from McLaren is inaccurate, it's just that with such a fast rate of development expected in the opening few months of these regulations, there's bound to be changes.

Also it's worth bearing in mind that the renders of the MCL36 differed from the physical version shown at the factory – as was highlighted in a photo published by Sky F1 pundit Karun Chandhok.

However, there are already suggestions of there being two schools of thought emerging already about how teams want to set up the airflow on a path that will reap further benefits downstream.

Where we see the biggest contrast between the two is their approach to the design of the mainplane, with some scope available to the teams in terms of its height relative to the ground.

Click here to continue reading the article

[Just_a_fan]

This is the thing with engineering, it is not a book subject, because the key part is seeing how the maths, the physics play out and how different systems interact with each other.

Having actually run college level physics labs, this is very true. It was obvious to me when a concept "clicked" with students.

You have to explain it in a way that is straight-forward, which is not hard with (non-supersonic) fluid mechanics as it is obviously human-scale and quite visual (not so much thermodynamics/combustion or vehicle dynamics!).

I.e., a hot coffee cup obviously has the same jet pattern you get in the textbooks for example (albeit distorted by ambient breeze in the room). Or our friends, the ol' hairpin vortices.

Some demonstrators seem to struggle with this and make things needlessly confusing instead of as simple as possible!

As has been attributed to several famous people over the years: if you can't explain something to a child, you don't understand it yourself.

[jjn9128]

As has been attributed to several famous people over the years: if you can't explain something to a child, you don't understand it yourself.

As someone who couldn't explain milk to a cow, I disagree with this sentiment.

[Just_a_fan]

As has been attributed to several famous people over the years: if you can't explain something to a child, you don't understand it yourself.

As someone who couldn't explain milk to a cow, I disagree with this sentiment.

But you can explain it to a child, surely?

The idea behind the sentiment is that in order to understand something you will know the first principles of the subject. If you know the first principles then you can frame them in ways that people can understand, often by analogy for example.

Of course, some subjects are just too complicated and require understanding of complex ideas even to begin looking at them, but on the whole, if you can explain something to a child then you have a decent understanding of it yourself.

As for milk, in simple terms the mammary glands are modified sweat glands and milk is, in effect, modified sweat.

Think about that when you put some in your coffee...

[djos]

Honestly, that idea is nice in theory, but it doesn’t l hold up in practice. If it did I wouldn’t have a big part of my job (explaining IT incidents and actions during them to business ppl).

[jjn9128]

As for milk, in simple terms the mammary glands are modified sweat glands and milk is, in effect, modified sweat.

Think about that when you put some in your coffee...

Yum. But I have my coffee black

[AeroDynamic]

does the water vapour here correlate with what aero people expect to see wake wise from these new cars? (particularly at the rear)

[jjn9128]

does the water vapour here correlate with what aero people expect to see wake wise from these new cars? (particularly at the rear)

I'd say so, looks like there's less aggressive outflow behind the front tyre. Nice big rooster tail. It's probably perfect weather to see that - not so wet that the water droplets are big.

[Dynamicflow]

does the water vapour here correlate with what aero people expect to see wake wise from these new cars? (particularly at the rear)

I'd say so, looks like there's less aggressive outflow behind the front tyre. Nice big rooster tail. It's probably perfect weather to see that - not so wet that the water droplets are big.

Definitely less outwash from the front, however the image perspective makes the assessment of the in-wash behind the rear wing a bit difficult.

[Dynamicflow]

Another case of confused terminology. Car's will make "better" use of the VENTURI effect this year. The Bernoulli principal is that change in dynamic pressure results in an inverse change in static pressure.

As for ride height sensitivity, there is in the rules a minimum throat area, which basically all teams will run to. This should keep the worst of the stall behaviour away. Meaning the venturi throat never gets so low that the flow will choke. CFD and wind tunnel methods are also far more advanced than in 1982 so the cars are tested over a wide array of roll/yaw/pitch/ride height/steer angle/cornering (in CFD) to test the car in more than 1 idealised position. The optimal being to program in a benign characteristic which changing ride height. Even maybe trying to stall out the floor above a certain speed - with car taken that the hysteresis loop is small when trying to reconnect the flow.

Ground effect and the Venturi in particular are incredibly sensitive to even small ground clearance changes, so dropping over the back of a kerb will reduce the peak load momentarily - but this is no different to the past generation of cars, which optimized the floor for downforce. This is why I wrote "better" above - as the floors in the past generation still used Venturis but the 2022 spec should be better as the suction peak is around the middle of the car not right at the rear.

One possible issue to consider for these designs are the strengths of the vortices under severe braking or running too much rake where the strakes end up getting too close to the ground. This results in vortices bursting earlier than required and causing a sudden change in flow condition under the car and a corresponding loss of down-force and funny balance changes..

[AeroDynamic]

does the water vapour here correlate with what aero people expect to see wake wise from these new cars? (particularly at the rear)

I'd say so, looks like there's less aggressive outflow behind the front tyre. Nice big rooster tail. It's probably perfect weather to see that - not so wet that the water droplets are big.

Great. I really want these regs to work. Hopefully we can get some more pics of the C42 creating vapour like that as well, im really intrigued to see what you guys think.

[Slo Poke]

I see same old, same old! More importantly, has there been any word on what the driver had to say about it? What’s the betting on, “Bloody ‘orrible!”.

[godlameroso]

does the water vapour here correlate with what aero people expect to see wake wise from these new cars? (particularly at the rear)

https://i.imgur.com/tk0dcPf.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/nrvO9Gh.jpg

Well will you look at that, they made a cape out of the inner section of the front wing, I wonder where they got that idea from, other forum experts assured us it was illegal to do so.

[AeroDynamic]

does the water vapour here correlate with what aero people expect to see wake wise from these new cars? (particularly at the rear)

https://i.imgur.com/tk0dcPf.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/nrvO9Gh.jpg