2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[wuzak]

Maybe we should also account for shifts in aero-production. Since more downforce will be generated from the underbody, downforce can be removed from the wing where the l/d coefficient is lower. You'll probably end up with very flat wings for circuits like Monza.

You probably will see the much flatter wings at Monza than in the recent past, more along the lines of the early-mid 2000s



but for most tracks the maximum downforce will likely be used.

The odd track will use skinnier wings, like Baku or Spa, but most will not.

[henry]

------

They will be slower in the straight sections, which will reduce the mpg. But the increase in mpg through the corners and slower sections should mostly compensate for that, and at some circuits it will more than compensate for that.

Thanks for an interesting piece of reasoning.

As I understand it Mercedes were against raising the fuel amount to 105kg but the others for. Is it likely that the increased limit is to accommodate those who think they will be relatively slower next year?

[henry]

... Fuel consumption goes up something between the square and the cube of the speed...

Fuel consumption is 100kg/h. Regardless of the speed.

I meant overall use not rate of use.

@wuzak has offered a post that anyway this line of reasoning is probably wrong.

[henry]

Maybe we should also account for shifts in aero-production. Since more downforce will be generated from the underbody, downforce can be removed from the wing where the l/d coefficient is lower. You'll probably end up with very flat wings for circuits like Monza.

It seems likely that in the interest of aero balance they will not want to configure the rear wing for high downforce. I wonder if we might see some unusual designs trying to couple the wing to the diffuser.

[Juzh]

I'm still at odds with wuzak's post. Perhaps not with logic in it, but with the reality of the situation drivers have been vocal about for the last 3 years. Which is basically that when they have to save fuel they go slower, so much so in fact tires sometimes even fall out of operating range. Thus if cars in 2017 will be significantly faster, more fuel will be used to achieve that. It basically the same as this year, just on a larger, faster scale.

[henry]

I'm still at odds with wuzak's post. Perhaps not with logic in it, but with the reality of the situation drivers have been vocal about for the last 3 years. Which is basically that when they have to save fuel they go slower, so much so in fact tires sometimes even fall out of operating range. Thus if cars in 2017 will be significantly faster, more fuel will be used to achieve that. It basically the same as this year, just on a larger, faster scale.

The question is whether they fuel save because the regs restrict them or because the teams choose to underfuel. I think most of the time the latter, but not always.

The whole sport now is an ever more complex exercise in resource management. Fuel, tyres, brakes, power units, gearboxes, are all consumed through the race at predicted rates. Predictions made at increasingly finer granularity and increasing frequency all the way from regulation announcement to the last laps of each race. The role of a race leader is to manage the resources whilst keeping them in their operating windows.

Predictions of resource usage were made during the development of the regulations and these lead to the increase in fuel mass and also brake disk thickness. And probably others.

That's just a long winded way of saying I agree with you. Next year will be more of the same just faster.

[turbof1]

Maybe we should also account for shifts in aero-production. Since more downforce will be generated from the underbody, downforce can be removed from the wing where the l/d coefficient is lower. You'll probably end up with very flat wings for circuits like Monza.

It seems likely that in the interest of aero balance they will not want to configure the rear wing for high downforce. I wonder if we might see some unusual designs trying to couple the wing to the diffuser.

Depends, but you could very well be right as the aero load distribution seems to shift rearwards, with both a bigger diffuser and shorter splitter.

I also think front wing philosophy will change because of that, with more emphasis on downforce production and less on flow distribution.

[wuzak]

I'm still at odds with wuzak's post. Perhaps not with logic in it, but with the reality of the situation drivers have been vocal about for the last 3 years. Which is basically that when they have to save fuel they go slower, so much so in fact tires sometimes even fall out of operating range. Thus if cars in 2017 will be significantly faster, more fuel will be used to achieve that. It basically the same as this year, just on a larger, faster scale.

I think the issue in the past three years is that they couldn't go fast enough to race flat out so they had to save fuel, and they did so by using lift and coast, where the aero does some of the braking effort and a portion of the lap is done effectively using no fuel.

The quality of the tyres is to blame as well, as the drivers have to drive conservatively in order for the tyres to last the required length, which slows them further and requires more fuel saving.

That said, the trend from 2014 to 2016 has been for increased average lap speeds and, I think you will find, a reduced amount of fuel saving required.

Most circuits now don't require much, if any, fuel saving and often when it is done it is because, as Henry says, they have not loaded the car with the amount of fuel allowed by the regulations.

[henry]

Maybe we should also account for shifts in aero-production. Since more downforce will be generated from the underbody, downforce can be removed from the wing where the l/d coefficient is lower. You'll probably end up with very flat wings for circuits like Monza.

It seems likely that in the interest of aero balance they will not want to configure the rear wing for high downforce. I wonder if we might see some unusual designs trying to couple the wing to the diffuser.

Depends, but you could very well be right as the aero load distribution seems to shift rearwards, with both a bigger diffuser and shorter splitter.

I also think front wing philosophy will change because of that, with more emphasis on downforce production and less on flow distribution.

do you think the floor centre of pressure might move forward slightly? The diffuser kink line is further forward and the floor leading edge more or less in the same place.

Also while the rear wing is wider because it is lower the contribution to rear tyre load from wing drag will be reduced.

Given that the weight distribution is still set at the same as 2016 I would expect that the rules have been drafted to try to leave aero balance alone. Of course they don't always achieve what they intend.

[turbof1]

No I believe backwards. There is a big suction point at the splitter which creates negative pressure. With the splitter now allowed to be shorter, it moves backwards and as a consequence the suction point as well, which moves the centre of pressure backwards.

It is true that the suction point of the diffuser mouth moves forward, but also note that overall diffuser downforce will also increase. Especially with increased linkage with the rear wing. overall I see that also moving centre of pressure backwards. Perhaps not on the floor, but I am not sure on that. Across the whole car though, I think it will.

Note this is not necessarily a bad thing. The last few years rear downforce potential was always in deficit of front downforce potential. This might bring balance.

[godlameroso]

What about the much relaxed regulations regarding the barge boards? Will we see some interesting sculpted barge boards like in LMP1?

[skoop]

according to http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 73320.html red bull will have a longer wheelbase (20cm more than average) and merc has found a way to stop the airflow at the diffusor by lowering their rear axle. According to the article there are gps meassurements which Support the tesis.

[PhillipM]

From a chat I was having with someone a little while ago you should expect most cars to get a bit longer, as they'll widen the sidepods where they were undercut previously and move components forwards, letting the bigger bargeboards do the job + blockage from the front wheels so they can waist down at the rear more and bring the air back inboard of the bigger rear tyres - obviously too much taper/cokebottle would detach the flow so the wheelbases will probably grow a little on the cars instead.

[Juzh]

according to http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 73320.html red bull will have a longer wheelbase (20cm more than average) and merc has found a way to stop the airflow at the diffusor by lowering their rear axle. According to the article there are gps meassurements which Support the tesis.

Which is beneficial in what way?

[Thunder]

Which is beneficial in what way?

Stalling the Diffusor for increased Top Speed.

The correct Translation would be Mercedes stops the Airflow underneath the Diffusor by lowering the Rear. Take it with a big grain of Salt though. When AMuS says something is rumoured there is a good chance it's nothing. Should be fun on bumpy Tracks when the Floor gets lowered to the ground.