2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[KeiKo403]

I’m not suggesting a double skinned floor with a void in between, more of a carbon sandwich where the lower half would deform to create a void, I know there would need to be a way to allow air in and out of the void. As for the X/Y cross sections, if a floor was theoretically cross sectioned couldn’t the team just claim it has been cut, structural integrity blah blah blah that why there’s now a gap?

I don’t have answers and it might be a terrible idea, but could it be done and would it be advantageous?

Wouldn't that be blatant cheating?

I really don't know. There isn't anything that says 2 layers of carbon fibre need to be 100% adhered to each other over their entire surface.

I guess it's like the holes in the floor edges from a few seasons ago, where it wasn't a hole because it was a slot.
I'm sure F1 engineers (or their lawyers) can find a way to make it legal, is it beneficial though?

----------------------------
After thought...
...it would surely be designed with the intent to deform and therefore fall under the movable aero rules making it illegal.

[SmallSoldier]

I can't imagine that creating Formula Ford-like racing in Formula One is possible, sadly. I believe the goal rather is to allow a closely matched car to follow closely behind another without the second car killing the tyres or losing the aero balance, or ultimately without needing to rely on DRS to catch back up on the straights after losing time in the corners, such that DRS can eventually be eliminated?

Of course it's possible. F1 was like that until 1967.

Yes, but back then the cars were just very powerful Formula Fords, in effect. Simple chassis, excess power, no downforce.

Watch vintage racing today and the cars are comically slow by modern standards. Indeed they weren't even as quick as a modern BTCC car.

For me, the biggest difference is in brake distances… The cars are so fast and the brake distances so short, that we don’t have long enough straights for them to catch up and not enough braking zone to make a difference.

[Just_a_fan]

Of course it's possible. F1 was like that until 1967.

Yes, but back then the cars were just very powerful Formula Fords, in effect. Simple chassis, excess power, no downforce.

Watch vintage racing today and the cars are comically slow by modern standards. Indeed they weren't even as quick as a modern BTCC car.

For me, the biggest difference is in brake distances… The cars are so fast and the brake distances so short, that we don’t have long enough straights for them to catch up and not enough braking zone to make a difference.

Braking distance is a result of downforce. That and the associated drag.

[SmallSoldier]

Yes, but back then the cars were just very powerful Formula Fords, in effect. Simple chassis, excess power, no downforce.

Watch vintage racing today and the cars are comically slow by modern standards. Indeed they weren't even as quick as a modern BTCC car.

For me, the biggest difference is in brake distances… The cars are so fast and the brake distances so short, that we don’t have long enough straights for them to catch up and not enough braking zone to make a difference.

Braking distance is a result of downforce. That and the associated drag.

Absolutely, as well as better tires compounds and brake materials… I was reading the conversation comparing today’s F1 to the one from “decades ago”

[Hoffman900]

For me, the biggest difference is in brake distances… The cars are so fast and the brake distances so short, that we don’t have long enough straights for them to catch up and not enough braking zone to make a difference.

Braking distance is a result of downforce. That and the associated drag.

Absolutely, as well as better tires compounds and brake materials… I was reading the conversation comparing today’s F1 to the one from “decades ago”

This. Compounds, modern carbon brakes, and downforce all contribute.

Remove downforce, half the width of the tires + bias ply + harder compound, and steel brake rotors and brake distances get a lot longer.

Even vintage classes are a lot faster. Modern vintage compounds are better, brake pads are better, we know how to make more horsepower within the same block / heads. A fast vintage Alfa Romeo 2L GTV is 12s a lap faster at Road America today than the front running ones were in period, and that track is relatively unchanged since then.

I will say longer braking zones does make wheel to wheel racing better.

[Chuckjr]

This. Compounds, modern carbon brakes, and downforce all contribute.

Remove downforce, half the width of the tires + bias ply + harder compound, and steel brake rotors and brake distances get a lot longer.

Even vintage classes are a lot faster. Modern vintage compounds are better, brake pads are better, we know how to make more horsepower within the same block / heads. A fast vintage Alfa Romeo 2L GTV is 12s a lap faster at Road America today than the front running ones were in period, and that track is relatively unchanged since then.

I will say longer braking zones does make wheel to wheel racing better.

100%.
I wish they would go back to steel brakes (and foot clutches with old school manual transmissions), but they won’t.

[jjn9128]

This. Compounds, modern carbon brakes, and downforce all contribute.

Remove downforce, half the width of the tires + bias ply + harder compound, and steel brake rotors and brake distances get a lot longer.

Even vintage classes are a lot faster. Modern vintage compounds are better, brake pads are better, we know how to make more horsepower within the same block / heads. A fast vintage Alfa Romeo 2L GTV is 12s a lap faster at Road America today than the front running ones were in period, and that track is relatively unchanged since then.

I will say longer braking zones does make wheel to wheel racing better.

100%.
I wish they would go back to steel brakes (and foot clutches with old school manual transmissions), but they won’t.

Steel brakes don't have a significant performance difference to carbon. Moving away from carbon-carbon is on the cards because of the dust pollution.

[mzso]

Good point!

I wonder, did the 1500cc cars produce better racing than the 2500cc cars due to having less power (and therefore slipstreaming being more important, if that is even a correct notion)? If so, why a change to 3000cc that would make the racing worse?!

It's not about the engine displacement/power, it's about wings starting to appear in 1967.
Until then without aerodynamic down-force naturally there was no there was no reduced ability to follow behind another car, only the slipstream which helped drivers to get closer.

[mzso]

And the current implementation cures that same conspiracy theory, how?

They probably don't--just a general statement about how budget caps might be fallible. Like with large organizations generally (corporate, governmental, etc.) the bigger, more resourced the group, the more bureaucratic or legalistic activities they can engage in. So, could a bigger teams remain at an advantage despite sudden implementation of a budget cap?

Yeah. Just lock in a team of engineers for each team in a warehouse for a few months, give them some resources to spend and see what they come up with. Impossible to cheat this way.

[mzso]

This. Compounds, modern carbon brakes, and downforce all contribute.

Remove downforce, half the width of the tires + bias ply + harder compound, and steel brake rotors and brake distances get a lot longer.

Even vintage classes are a lot faster. Modern vintage compounds are better, brake pads are better, we know how to make more horsepower within the same block / heads. A fast vintage Alfa Romeo 2L GTV is 12s a lap faster at Road America today than the front running ones were in period, and that track is relatively unchanged since then.

I will say longer braking zones does make wheel to wheel racing better.

Not sure if steel brakes would contribute much in this regard. According to Ross Brown their braking power is similar to carbon brakes, they're just really heavy. I guess the most straightforward would be the tires, narrower and less grippy would in itself could be a monumental change.

[mzso]

While I hated Mosely and Ecclestone - at least they had a vision. We'd have had a proper budget cap 12 years ago.

What would that be? Throw in half (or quarter) thought out rules on a whim and see what happens? I'm sure that 40 million budget cap would have been a disaster one way or the other. This makes me recall the double points last race that one year, and Ecclestone's idea for medals.

One of them was just an uncaring business man who sacrificed anything for more money, and created this dysfunctional, political, bureaucratic mess. His buddy oversaw decades of ineffective regulation changes, some of which were remarkably stupid. With the only advances in car safety.
(Both of them contributed to the wretched circuits that typifies the contemporary calendar.)

[mzso]

Liberty/FIA has a vision, and to achieve it they will do whatever it takes, no matter how distasteful it is to more cultured fans!

https://acegif.com/wp-content/gifs/raining-money-5.gif

That photo should have Bernie in it...

[mzso]

Chainbear's video got me thinking. If the front wing is the most vulnerable to downforce loss, why on earth they made the floor so rear biased? Why didn't they just extend the tunnels all the way to the front of the the front wheels. And reduce the front wings to little more than its intended use for managing turbulent air. (which is, if I understand correctly is about creating in-wash via the huge endplates)

[jjn9128]

Chainbear's video got me thinking. If the front wing is the most vulnerable to downforce loss, why on earth they made the floor so rear biased? Why didn't they just extend the tunnels all the way to the front of the the front wheels. And reduce the front wings to little more than its intended use for managing turbulent air. (which is, if I understand correctly is about creating in-wash via the huge endplates)

The front wing is not the most vulnerable to downforce loss is why - the whole car loses downforce. The front end typically has lost more downforce, but it's not just the front wing.

[Hoffman900]

This. Compounds, modern carbon brakes, and downforce all contribute.

Remove downforce, half the width of the tires + bias ply + harder compound, and steel brake rotors and brake distances get a lot longer.

Even vintage classes are a lot faster. Modern vintage compounds are better, brake pads are better, we know how to make more horsepower within the same block / heads. A fast vintage Alfa Romeo 2L GTV is 12s a lap faster at Road America today than the front running ones were in period, and that track is relatively unchanged since then.

I will say longer braking zones does make wheel to wheel racing better.

Not sure if steel brakes would contribute much in this regard. According to Ross Brown their braking power is similar to carbon brakes, they're just really heavy. I guess the most straightforward would be the tires, narrower and less grippy would in itself could be a monumental change.

Power is similar, but they wear quicker so there might be some management, and adding weight to rotating mass is always going to add some distance. Tires and downforce are the largest factors, but steel brakes will add that last few % to extend brake distances.