2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[PhillipM]

Very simple, if you have wing covering the tyre, you don't need outwash as much, because you can generate upwash in front of the whole tyre and loft air over it instead.

[Vanja #66]

There's a lot of important changes that don't seem so at first - design box for front wing is not only wider, it's taller as well. I'm afraid we'll be seeing a lot of punctures again next year, unless there's something in the rules for bigger radii of endplate elements.

Everything "outwash" about current wings is banned basically, so a lot of work will be done for 2019 cars. This will make barge board area even more important now.

Rear wing changes all amplify DRS effect, it might make overtaking a bit too much push-to-pass. I honestly hope DRS will be scrapped in 2021.

Basically, rules allow more theoretical downforce on wings, but cars might get reduced downforce from floor, because of less displacement of low-energy air by front wing and with lack of blown wheel hubs. So barge board area will definitely be a bigger thing next year.

[Nickel]

I can't help but feel like f1 should just bite the bullet and cover the wheels.

[godlameroso]

I thought blown hubs were still allowed, but not winglets on the front ducts.

[jjn9128]

This remains the only official press release from the FIA about the 2019 rules https://www.fia.com/news/fia-formula-on ... ic-changes

There's been so much misinformation (as ever) from teams and confusion from journo's (as ever) about this. I'm going to wait until the actual draft regs for 2019 are released, going by previous seasons that should have been the end of April, but as this vote happened on the 30th... maybe that'll be a few weeks.

[jjn9128]

[media]https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/993479756640407558[/media]
As if to prove my point... "span" is a technical term... it means the width, if he's talking about the length he should use "chord". If I didn't laugh I'd cry at the butchering of my field.

[djos]

As much as I love the intricate details of the current front wings (works of art really!), I think these aero rule changes are quite sensible and likely to improve the ability to race closer together as per Ross's explanation.

[trinidefender]

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/993479756640407558
As if to prove my point... "span" is a technical term... it means the width, if he's talking about the length he should use "chord". If I didn't laugh I'd cry at the butchering of my field.

You would think that journalists who have been in this game for so long would know better. Maybe I should screenshot his tweet and send it back to him when the rules come out to demonstrate that span actually is span and not chord.

There's another particularly popular journalist I heard talking about rear wing end plate vortices recently and I honestly shook my head at his explanation....probably shouldn't say his name as many here might vilify me.

Sad really.

[jjn9128]

You would think that journalists who have been in this game for so long would know better. Maybe I should screenshot his tweet and send it back to him when the rules come out to demonstrate that span actually is span and not chord.

There's another particularly popular journalist I heard talking about rear wing end plate vortices recently and I honestly shook my head at his explanation....probably shouldn't say his name as many here might vilify me.

Sad really.

Oh go on tell us who

For the record I have no issue with journalists trying to explain/simplify technical subjects for the masses, but I get irritated when they bastardize technical terms to do so. I have the same issue with the use of "turbulence" as a encompassing word for a wake.

[trinidefender]

You would think that journalists who have been in this game for so long would know better. Maybe I should screenshot his tweet and send it back to him when the rules come out to demonstrate that span actually is span and not chord.

There's another particularly popular journalist I heard talking about rear wing end plate vortices recently and I honestly shook my head at his explanation....probably shouldn't say his name as many here might vilify me.

Sad really.

Oh go on tell us who

For the record I have no issue with journalists trying to explain/simplify technical subjects for the masses, but I get irritated when they bastardize technical terms to do so. I have the same issue with the use of "turbulence" as a encompassing word for a wake.

Well he also spoke about how on the rear wing there is "laminar flow. I'm not sure if people understand how such a fickle thing laminar flow is. I'm not sure most people understand that most flow over a wing is not in actuality laminar but in fact turbulent and turbulent does not mean separation.

For all, here is a picture of a bug on a wing

The flow behind the bug is turbulent yes however there is no measurable separation caused by it.

I challenge anyone to show me anywhere on an F1 car that has laminar flow.

[OO7]

Just found this (clicking onto Scarb's twitter) based on what we were talking about. Chap did some CFD of cars from 50's through to 90's, they're pretty basic geometries but you see the wider area affected by the wake as the cars get more complex and start diverting the front wheel wake outboard. Brabham BT52 seems to have the smallest wake of the 'modern cars' (front and rear wings with a flat+diffuser underbody), smaller even than those Lotus Venturi cars!
https://siemensplm.i.lithium.com/t5/ima ... 1.0&px=999 Source:https://community.plm.automation.siemen ... a-p/488689

RE: imgur, I'm signed up for so much stuff now its almost impossible to remember where and what passwords I used. I don't want my info in any more places

Nice image. The McLaren MP4-4(?) has the largest wake/upwash it seems. The diffuser and massive rear wing are probably the primary contributors compared to the others.

[jjn9128]

Nice image. The McLaren MP4-4(?) has the largest wake/upwash it seems. The diffuser and massive rear wing are probable the primary contributors compared to the others.

Crikey yes!! Just look at the energy in those rear wing tip vortices, 3-element, long chord, ~1m wide and deeper than modern wings. I'm not sure how accurate each model was, they look externally quite good if maybe he doesn't have internal flow. He also doesn't give downforce and drag numbers, so we don't know how they compare in that regard, but I imagine drag for that late-80s car is the highest of any of them.

[Vanja #66]

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/993479756640407558
As if to prove my point... "span" is a technical term... it means the width, if he's talking about the length he should use "chord". If I didn't laugh I'd cry at the butchering of my field.

When I read something like that (from Tobi)...

[jjn9128]

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/993479756640407558
As if to prove my point... "span" is a technical term... it means the width, if he's talking about the length he should use "chord". If I didn't laugh I'd cry at the butchering of my field.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/828689 ... 40x627.jpg

When I read something like that (from Tobi)...

[jjn9128]

As I'm trying to avoid anything about the race until after the UK highlights program tonight, here's Vettel's take on the ever changing aero rules. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13598 ... al--vettel

I have to say I agree with him in part, but not about asking the drivers... wasn't it him who said in the past [paraphrasing]"don't ask the drivers we're only in it for ourselves"? He and Hamilton were also some of the chief moaners about the pre-2017 cars being too slow, and that post-2017 it's impossible to pass... So I'd say the drivers need to be consistent in their own opinions and criticisms before moaning about the rules.

I think anyone with any sense saw the 2017 rules were going the wrong way for entertaining racing.