Aero analysis for F1 2022 based on CFD result

[Stu]

By “big picture” are you talking about how the aero works as a whole, how different parts interact or where the bigger gains are coming from?

As opposed to the minutiae of design variations between teams. Because that's so dependent on getting the whole system working.

I find that ‘stepping back from the mirror’ helps in so many areas!!

For me problem-solving starts with looking at what you want, followed by what your starting point is; then working out how to use what you have to get what you want!!

[vorticism]

By “big picture” are you talking about how the aero works as a whole, how different parts interact or where the bigger gains are coming from?

As opposed to the minutiae of design variations between teams. Because that's so dependent on getting the whole system working.

It's an amateur CAD model on a public forum, the results will never be perfectly representative of a real car in motion. It's just to get an idea of effects. If you throw a McL t-tray on that model, or a RB beam wing, or a Merc sidepod, effects will be shown, and they will be valid to the extent that you can see how they affect the flow field regardless of upstream flow. Those elements aren't minutia, they're the meat and potatoes of this forum; minutia would be modeling all the mirrors and testing those. Which reminds me, I want to add one more element to the request list:

-model and test all the various rear view mirror designs

[godlameroso]

Something you can't analyze, if you get the floor working harder, it means you need less load from the rear wing, which means you can make it lighter because it has to deal with fewer loads. The rear wing is the highest part of the car, and raises COG the most.

For losing weight, machine learning is actually pretty darn good. Once you have a baseline design, you can use machine learning for maximizing strength and minimizing weight. Teams that have tie ins with big tech firms could certainly leverage the cloud for things like this.

[Andi76]

Thats really great stuff! Thank you for putting so much time and effort in! I am really looking forward to your sidepod comparison. I am still thinking this area is one of the key areas. It probably is too much details, but it would be great to see the differences between micro/zero-size-sidepods and Ferrari-Style sidepods in relation to the front-wheel wake(even if some of this was already in Vanjas CFD-Analysis if memory does not trick me) and how the high pressure zone under the air inlet on a car like the F1-75 affects the performance of the venturi-tunnels compared to a car like the Mercedes. Personally i would also be interested in the difference of the small airbox and engine cover Ferrari is using in comparison to Mercedes "big shoulders"-solution and how it affects the performance of rear/beamwing and underfloor or with other words - the difference between concepts which are putting their money more towards letting the rear/beamwing assembly drive the underfloor than concepts whos focus was more to get more air over the top of the diffusor. Its probably too much details, but just some suggestions which could be interesting and important in terms of performance.

[Latios]

GHz vs cores

I mean you need to test.
With cores increases, the calculation speed is not increased linearly.

when turbo starts?
If both has same turbo ghz doesnt that mean this with more cores is faster?

If really same GHz, more cores may be better, also depends on memory speed. So you'd better test it.

[Latios]

By “big picture” are you talking about how the aero works as a whole, how different parts interact or where the bigger gains are coming from?

As opposed to the minutiae of design variations between teams. Because that's so dependent on getting the whole system working.

It's an amateur CAD model on a public forum, the results will never be perfectly representative of a real car in motion. It's just to get an idea of effects. If you throw a McL t-tray on that model, or a RB beam wing, or a Merc sidepod, effects will be shown, and they will be valid to the extent that you can see how they affect the flow field regardless of upstream flow. Those elements aren't minutia, they're the meat and potatoes of this forum; minutia would be modeling all the mirrors and testing those. Which reminds me, I want to add one more element to the request list:

-model and test all the various rear view mirror designs

Yeah the mirrors are in todo list.
The result could not be same to a car in motion, that need dynamic mesh, which is beyond my current ability.

[Latios]

Something you can't analyze, if you get the floor working harder, it means you need less load from the rear wing, which means you can make it lighter because it has to deal with fewer loads. The rear wing is the highest part of the car, and raises COG the most.

For losing weight, machine learning is actually pretty darn good. Once you have a baseline design, you can use machine learning for maximizing strength and minimizing weight. Teams that have tie ins with big tech firms could certainly leverage the cloud for things like this.

Although rear wing is high, but it's not heavy, so maybe not impact COG much. The drag of rear wing will impact aero balance of the car.
optimization algorithm is definitely helpful, but what I'm doing is investigate the possible big design differences, so not planing to use optimization.

[Latios]

Thats really great stuff! Thank you for putting so much time and effort in! I am really looking forward to your sidepod comparison. I am still thinking this area is one of the key areas. It probably is too much details, but it would be great to see the differences between micro/zero-size-sidepods and Ferrari-Style sidepods in relation to the front-wheel wake(even if some of this was already in Vanjas CFD-Analysis if memory does not trick me) and how the high pressure zone under the air inlet on a car like the F1-75 affects the performance of the venturi-tunnels compared to a car like the Mercedes. Personally i would also be interested in the difference of the small airbox and engine cover Ferrari is using in comparison to Mercedes "big shoulders"-solution and how it affects the performance of rear/beamwing and underfloor or with other words - the difference between concepts which are putting their money more towards letting the rear/beamwing assembly drive the underfloor than concepts whos focus was more to get more air over the top of the diffusor. Its probably too much details, but just some suggestions which could be interesting and important in terms of performance.

Thank you for so much topics, they are noted!

[godlameroso]

Something you can't analyze, if you get the floor working harder, it means you need less load from the rear wing, which means you can make it lighter because it has to deal with fewer loads. The rear wing is the highest part of the car, and raises COG the most.

For losing weight, machine learning is actually pretty darn good. Once you have a baseline design, you can use machine learning for maximizing strength and minimizing weight. Teams that have tie ins with big tech firms could certainly leverage the cloud for things like this.

Although rear wing is high, but it's not heavy, so maybe not impact COG much. The drag of rear wing will impact aero balance of the car.
optimization algorithm is definitely helpful, but what I'm doing is investigate the possible big design differences, so not planing to use optimization.

The wing is high and when at speed, the aero increases the weight of the rear wing, doesn't it? Perhaps the rear wing affects both COP and COG at speed.

[Vanja #66]

The wing is high and when at speed, the aero increases the weight of the rear wing, doesn't it? Perhaps the rear wing affects both COP and COG at speed.

CoG is a "slang" for CoM, as in mass. Weight as a force depends on mass, but also on acceleration, ie gravity. Since we measure mass by measuring weight, we tend to use them wrongly as synonyms.

In any case, aerodynamic forces don't change the quantity of matter in the car, ie the mass of the car, so they don't change CoG. Engine burning fuel does that.

[godlameroso]

The wing is high and when at speed, the aero increases the weight of the rear wing, doesn't it? Perhaps the rear wing affects both COP and COG at speed.

CoG is a "slang" for CoM, as in mass. Weight as a force depends on mass, but also on acceleration, ie gravity. Since we measure mass by measuring weight, we tend to use them wrongly as synonyms.

In any case, aerodynamic forces don't change the quantity of matter in the car, ie the mass of the car, so they don't change CoG. Engine burning fuel does that.

Isn't air everywhere? Aerodynamic forces are the result of the quantity of matter(air) over in and around the car, downforce is measured in Nm, just like the wheel rate. I had to raise the spring rate and have my shocks revalved to handle the aero forces on my little home made kit. Even then I was still riding the rear bumpstops on the back straight. Hell, I had to get a bracket welded to the chassis to keep the upper control arms from getting pried off due to the extra forces.

[Just_a_fan]

The wing is high and when at speed, the aero increases the weight of the rear wing, doesn't it? Perhaps the rear wing affects both COP and COG at speed.

CoG is a "slang" for CoM, as in mass. Weight as a force depends on mass, but also on acceleration, ie gravity. Since we measure mass by measuring weight, we tend to use them wrongly as synonyms.

In any case, aerodynamic forces don't change the quantity of matter in the car, ie the mass of the car, so they don't change CoG. Engine burning fuel does that.

Isn't air everywhere? Aerodynamic forces are the result of the quantity of matter(air) over in and around the car, downforce is measured in Nm,

Downforce is measured in N.

Nm would be a torque, or a bending moment. Something with a lever arm application.

[godlameroso]

CoG is a "slang" for CoM, as in mass. Weight as a force depends on mass, but also on acceleration, ie gravity. Since we measure mass by measuring weight, we tend to use them wrongly as synonyms.

In any case, aerodynamic forces don't change the quantity of matter in the car, ie the mass of the car, so they don't change CoG. Engine burning fuel does that.

Isn't air everywhere? Aerodynamic forces are the result of the quantity of matter(air) over in and around the car, downforce is measured in Nm,

Downforce is measured in N.

Nm would be a torque, or a bending moment. Something with a lever arm application.

Truth! Appreciate the correction.

[Just_a_fan]

The wing is high and when at speed, the aero increases the weight of the rear wing, doesn't it? Perhaps the rear wing affects both COP and COG at speed.

CoG is a "slang" for CoM, as in mass. Weight as a force depends on mass, but also on acceleration, ie gravity. Since we measure mass by measuring weight, we tend to use them wrongly as synonyms.

In any case, aerodynamic forces don't change the quantity of matter in the car, ie the mass of the car, so they don't change CoG. Engine burning fuel does that.

Downforce does give an apparent increase in weight without the usually required mass increase. Which is why it's so good for going around corners, of course.

[Zynerji]

CoG is a "slang" for CoM, as in mass. Weight as a force depends on mass, but also on acceleration, ie gravity. Since we measure mass by measuring weight, we tend to use them wrongly as synonyms.

In any case, aerodynamic forces don't change the quantity of matter in the car, ie the mass of the car, so they don't change CoG. Engine burning fuel does that.

Isn't air everywhere? Aerodynamic forces are the result of the quantity of matter(air) over in and around the car, downforce is measured in Nm,

Downforce is measured in N.

Nm would be a torque, or a bending moment. Something with a lever arm application.

Isn't a car on wheels a lever with 2 compliant fulcrums?