Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

How to simplify F1 Aero rules


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 17 March 2018 - 11:41

There is a lot of complaining about the current aero focused F1 cars. weird looking front wings and barge boards. People want simpler looking cars that are cheaper to produce.

And as a result i have been thinking about ways to allow innovation/creativity without just dictating how for instance the front wing should should be (dictating number of wings elements etc.)

And my best idea is to simply have regions where the edges can not have a radius less than X mm

 

So for front wing region you would trim off many of the smaller devices by stating that the edges can not have a radius less than for example 10mm

 

The smaller devices today would simply become nonfunctional once the radius goes beyond a certain size.  And the cool part about this is that it still allows the teams to build a wing that works for their specific car. 

 

Benefits:

 

1. Simpler to build

2. Cheaper to build

3. Easier to develop/research

4. Less aero sensitive (probably)

5. Looks better/less fancy aero warts everywhere.

 

6. Still allows teams to be innovative/different to each other.

7. Saves weight

8. Likely less debris on the track after a crash/incident

9. Easy to start implementation of (you can start with a low number and gradually go up)


Edited by MatsNorway, 17 March 2018 - 11:43.


Advertisement

#2 Sterzo

Sterzo
  • Member

  • 1,302 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 17 March 2018 - 12:01

Intriguing, MatsNorway. Just so so I understand, does this mean that the leading and trailing edges of each front wing element, including the endplate, would have to be a minimum of 20cm thick?


Edited by Sterzo, 17 March 2018 - 12:01.


#3 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 17 March 2018 - 14:27

Intriguing, MatsNorway. Just so so I understand, does this mean that the leading and trailing edges of each front wing element, including the endplate, would have to be a minimum of 20cm thick?

It was implied that the radius limit applied to the front. You could have a Gurney flap.  :)

 

I would limit the number of artificial aerodynamic elements on a car. I'd permit a single blade on the front wing, two blades or flaps on the rear wing. I'd ask for a "flat floor" with random protuberances (different floor from an arbitrary selection of panels at different races). Get rid of winglets. Require that suspension elements are made of tubular steel.



#4 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 17 March 2018 - 21:11

I stated radius. To the edges, or just the leading edge. you can have it as thick as you want. I prefer to discuss the idea, not the details tho. The radius can be tweaked to from being basically irrelevant to so severe that the wings/entire car looks funny. Having a sensible radius limit/sharpness limit would not affect normal wings as the bigger wing elements already have a radius beyond that. Big wings have big radius on the leading edge.


Edited by MatsNorway, 17 March 2018 - 21:25.


#5 rms

rms
  • Member

  • 143 posts
  • Joined: June 07

Posted 18 March 2018 - 01:50

So an engineer will straight away say " the rules do not stipulate that the minimum radius must cover a minimum angularity"  --- " so I can put a 10mm radius on a 3mm panel"

 

You then need a rule to correct the previous rule ..... and so it goes on !



#6 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 18 March 2018 - 12:16

ha.  you define minimum arc length as well. ++

 

or you use words like "at any point of defined section"
If this one(right side) does not have a air gap in the middle when you use it at any point of the relevant wing section.. the radius is too low..++

 

 

VM1049-7_l.jpg


Edited by MatsNorway, 18 March 2018 - 14:06.


#7 rms

rms
  • Member

  • 143 posts
  • Joined: June 07

Posted 19 March 2018 - 08:52

The point I was trying to make was that, as anyone writes a specification there WILL be a loophole that an engineer worth his salt will find and use. It has always been that way and always will.



#8 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 19 March 2018 - 11:36

Loop holes happens. So do patches. And suddenly you have a decent ruleset. That allows F1 cars to be F1 cars instead of some boring spec car with a really high price.



#9 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 48,867 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 19 March 2018 - 12:07

Ban front wings.  Simples.



#10 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,262 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 22 March 2018 - 21:25

Currently they have minimum radius of 5mm and thickness 10mm for outer parts of front wing to prevent tyre damage.



#11 Bikr7549

Bikr7549
  • Member

  • 88 posts
  • Joined: May 16

Posted 22 March 2018 - 22:27

Since the focus of F1 to make it more ‘relevant’ to future motoring needs getting rid of all the external trinkets makes sense. I havent seen much F1 aero on road cars, ignoring the silly trim skirts that started after ground effects arrived. Having said that the near lack of movable aero devices on the F1 cars seems only to be old fashioned.

#12 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 23 March 2018 - 12:38

Currently they have minimum radius of 5mm and thickness 10mm for outer parts of front wing to prevent tyre damage.

I guess they can expand that rule to count for all front facing edges on the wing. supports and everything. Could be great.



#13 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 24 March 2018 - 12:07

Since the focus of F1 to make it more ‘relevant’ to future motoring needs getting rid of all the external trinkets makes sense. I havent seen much F1 aero on road cars, ignoring the silly trim skirts that started after ground effects arrived. Having said that the near lack of movable aero devices on the F1 cars seems only to be old fashioned.

I pay little interest to supercars or homologation production cars for GT racing, but even I've seen practical applications of underfloor downforce. So it's present on about 0.01% of road car production. At an intellectual level, it's fascinating that underfloor downforce can be generated without skirts.

 

Four downforce generators have been identified for racing cars -- downforce from body form ("wedge" or "wing" profiles), front wings, rear wings and underfloor aero. Five if you include extractor fan systems. Fans are banned and the other four are regulated.

 

Aero engineers have responded with controversial rule interpretations (Lotus twin chassis, Ferrari gearbox/exhaust combo assembly, twin diffusers) which may or may not be permitted briefly before a loophole is clarified. In the meantime, teams play expensive catchup games. I don't see how a perfect set of rules will ever be created unless it is so prohibitive to make cars identical.

 

The other response from aero engineers has been to create gadgets and widgets to manage air flow without creating downforce in themselves. So we have a front wing that does create downforce, plus extra (drag creating) elements to redirect air or to create vortices which create flow directions through and over the front suspension. And then there are elements on the cockpit sides which direct air into ducts. At the back of the car, there are further vanes to create extractor vortices or make artificial high pressure areas so that air passes through the diffuser optimally.

 

The surprising thing about these vanes, widgets, whatever you call them is that they're worth a second a lap until they get walloped off in an accident. The drivers complain that the car doesn't handle as well (I believe them) but sometimes they lose less time than predicted... 

 

I think the rules have to be more prescriptive than MatsNorway suggests with his clever proposal. If the intent is to get rid of flaps and vanes, define rules for a continuous overground body form (recognising the need for vents, mirrors and TV cameras), circular or rectangular section suspension elements, simple 1975-style front and rear wings with vertical end plates.

 

The most useful thing would be for F1's regulators and participants to think a bit harder about the balance between pure sport, entertainment, marketing, engineering development and "relevance". 



#14 Osiris

Osiris
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 27 March 2018 - 21:13

Can they utilize the floor to generate a majority of the downforce and enable the cars to follow closely? Then the front wing is not so dependent for downforce generation at the front and you don't get the washouts when they get too close.

I would prefer to see them race around the corner on the inside and outside passing each other.

My suggestion would be downforce generated by the floor, harder tires to reduce the klagg so it's okay to go off line, same size tires for good mechanical grip, front wing's purpose would be to primarily provide airflow control over the rest of the car.

Okay, tech gurus, butcher it up......

#15 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 19,230 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 28 March 2018 - 23:20

To save mountains of cash, only allow one basic aero bodywork spec for the entire season. Allow changes in wing angle or add/subtract spec gurney flaps plus rake and suspension set-up to suit individual circuits, but require the car bodywork and actual wings to be identical from season opener to last race. Like with fixed ratios, it would force each team to make hard choices for optimizing at particular types of circuits, meaning nobody can dominate at all track types.  



#16 Boss

Boss
  • New Member

  • 1 posts
  • Joined: March 18

Posted 30 March 2018 - 13:22

Ground effect via the floor, or bin the wings. Of course 'ground effect' is dirty talk the the FIA,  who long since banned it in F1, Same as they should be. :clap:



#17 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 30 March 2018 - 14:16

Reliability on ground effects is scary due to lack of downforce when you clip curbs and hit bumps. It causes cars to be extra low too. which is bad for the show++


Edited by MatsNorway, 30 March 2018 - 14:21.


#18 Osiris

Osiris
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 03 April 2018 - 11:49

Reliability on ground effects is scary due to lack of downforce when you clip curbs and hit bumps. It causes cars to be extra low too. which is bad for the show++


So are you saying that is a way to keep them on the race track and not cut the corners?? Huh?? Huh???

😒😏

#19 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 03 April 2018 - 15:53

Sure. Within moderation. But if you can go 6G with it and only 2G without it you will have some nasty accidents tho.



Advertisement

#20 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 03 April 2018 - 16:43

Reliability on ground effects is scary due to lack of downforce when you clip curbs and hit bumps. It causes cars to be extra low too. which is bad for the show++

There were some quick laps around the Nurburgring in F2 cars,



#21 Osiris

Osiris
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 03 April 2018 - 19:42

Sure. Within moderation. But if you can go 6G with it and only 2G without it you will have some nasty accidents tho.


Really???? I had no idea it was this high. 6G. Whoah. I need to look this up and read about it. Thx.

#22 RDV

RDV
  • Member

  • 6,762 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 03 April 2018 - 22:23

This= https://twitter.com/...952706923970560



#23 Osiris

Osiris
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 04 April 2018 - 01:30

I am all for using ground effects. Limit the design to the sidepods within a certain frame. No skirts and still have FIA plank so the downforce is limited to close to current levels, but since the wings are limited in their use for downforce the cars can follow each other closely and promote passing.

This is where Indy is heading for their 2018 aero.


Edited by Osiris, 04 April 2018 - 13:08.


#24 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,262 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 04 April 2018 - 11:24

News sources say Indycar of 2018 generates 60% of downforce with floor, which is same as current F1 cars.

 

It could be more in speedway trim, though. Those wings look tiny. But then if F1 ran such tracks with 500-600hp they would trim the wings way down too.

 

The key differences are spec chassis that is designed with turbulence in mind and overall less downforce, not the floor to wings ratio.



#25 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 04 April 2018 - 13:15

Indy got bodywork in front of the rear wheels. Surely that helps reduce the turbulence.

 

Also.. mandating max elements on the rear wing should lower the turbulence surely.  Alternatively you could reduce the height* of the wing element, that way teams still get to tailor the wing for their package. 

*From underside of wing to top of gurney.

 

Same can be applied to the front.. reducing total height reduces the effect of multiple elements as they would be in the wake of each other, making a single bigger more efficient. This allows again the teams to tailor for their needs/package.

 

Add some weight reduction and generally smaller wings and you could get similar laptimes. Trick is to let them actually get some slipstreaming on the straights. That is easier with a lighter car as you will hit the "wall" of air resistance faster with less power. (assuming similar laptimes but with lighter and less powerful car)


Edited by MatsNorway, 04 April 2018 - 13:18.


#26 Nathan

Nathan
  • Member

  • 4,956 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 April 2018 - 19:10

Id like to see simplified front wings & end plates all around, and maybe an aero token system similar to what the engines use to have.



#27 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 16 April 2018 - 13:09

I am not sure how the token system works. But having a limit to for instance three designs pr. season sounds reasonable. 


Edited by MatsNorway, 16 April 2018 - 13:10.


#28 R Soul

R Soul
  • Member

  • 1,504 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 27 April 2018 - 19:29

A token system could lead to a scenario where the second fastest team has used all their aero tokens and are still down on the leaders. From that point on we'd know that the other team would have the fastest car.



#29 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 2,116 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 09 May 2018 - 14:46

To save mountains of cash, only allow one basic aero bodywork spec for the entire season. Allow changes in wing angle or add/subtract spec gurney flaps plus rake and suspension set-up to suit individual circuits, but require the car bodywork and actual wings to be identical from season opener to last race. Like with fixed ratios, it would force each team to make hard choices for optimizing at particular types of circuits, meaning nobody can dominate at all track types.  

 

The problem with that is if one team nails it then you have a run away winner with no way for anyone to beat them.



#30 kumo7

kumo7
  • Member

  • 1,914 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 10 May 2018 - 14:48

Ban front wings. Simples.


geez my opinion idem ditto

Edited by kumo7, 10 May 2018 - 14:48.


#31 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 May 2018 - 18:35

THIS! is why i want a minimum radius and limits to the elements. It allows innovation without wings looking like a cheese grater

 

5a39cfd8d554e3cb62904695b55fdbb1.jpg


Edited by MatsNorway, 11 May 2018 - 18:37.


#32 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 19,230 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 12 May 2018 - 21:30

When the aero solutions look ridiculous, it's because the aero regulations are ridiculous.  In no rationally-administered world (think aerospace, whether civil, commercial, or military) would a wing looking remotely like that ever be an optimal solution. The modern F1 front wing is a handy topological map of irrationality.



#33 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,712 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 14 May 2018 - 05:02

In this case driven by that most artificial of all rules - the "open wheel".



#34 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,162 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 May 2018 - 13:09

When the aero solutions look ridiculous, it's because the aero regulations are ridiculous.  In no rationally-administered world (think aerospace, whether civil, commercial, or military) would a wing looking remotely like that ever be an optimal solution. The modern F1 front wing is a handy topological map of irrationality.


Wings would never look like that, but flow conditioners absolutely would. I think it pretty much points to much of the work being done in F1 being about conditioning airflow. It doesn’t really work well for racing though.

#35 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 21 June 2018 - 21:13

 

Apparently there has in the past been defined radiuses ++ for sidepods.. i guess we are going in circles a bit.