f1-technical

[short ether]

I'm hoping that's what the new floors curl have

[vernal elk]

I bet by the end of the season their lap times will be the same as they were before the new floor regulations.

[short ether]

Oh yeah, but they'll have maybe more turbulence, which really worries me

[mortal lynx]

e

no need to remind

i already know

[quiet python]

I have a technical question

[mortal lynx]

what about it?

[quiet python]

We saw the mercedes spin a few times back in testing

[crimson granite]

Yes

[mortal lynx]

yes

[crimson granite]

You’re ending it there?

[mortal lynx]

lmao

[quiet python]

how did the low rake concept effect its performance that much?

[mortal lynx]

thought ending just here but he still legit typing

😂

[abstract pawn]

Nobody really knows from what I have gathered

Because on paper it should not have affected them that much

[quiet python]

sorry i forgot to use the word "concept"

[abstract pawn]

On paper the higher rake cars should have been affected more

Based on what I have gathered from TLPUs explanations

[quiet python]

Then why is the Aston Martin affected by it too?

[crimson granite]

Could be the way that the diffuser stalls

[mortal lynx]

never forget this copy W10 moment

[crimson granite]

Because it has low rake

[abstract pawn]

Can you not interrupt the conversation with this kind of stuff

[mortal lynx]

ok

[quiet python]

But didnt you say that on paper that it shouldve not affceted it that much?

[abstract pawn]

On paper low rake cars should not have been affected that much, no.

[crimson granite]

Yep

[mortal lynx]

ye

[abstract pawn]

But seemingly they have.

Seemingly, low rake cars have somehow been affected more by these new regulations compared to high rake cars.

And not even our own technical expert, TLPU knows why I think.

[crimson granite]

TLPU?

Oh lmao

[quiet python]

If sam collins was here heh

[crimson granite]

Sams nice

https://the-race.com/formula-1/gary-anderson-have-new-f1-rules-hurt-low-rake-mercedes/

This might help

[mortal lynx]

yeh

[soft shadow]

Armchair experts claim the reason this likely affects Low rake teams is because of the lack of airflow now channeling to the rear wheels and from what I heard, Red Bull works because they added more weight to the front of the car

[granite tundra]

my theory is that the issues with keeping the rear sealed on high rake cars ended up being a lot less of a problem than anticipated

so since rb etc. have been able to keep the sealing, running a high rake means they're better equipped to recover lost downforce through running a higher diffuser angle and larger volume

scarbs also put out a theory yesterday that the rear brake ducts have also meant it's easier to keep sealing and minimise diffuser losses on a high rake car, although i haven't looked at that in depth yet

[short ether]

I heard that but there was also a change to the brake duct wings as well. The wings at the lower half are now shorter. They create downforce thats directly fed to the wheels, and by shortening them, they reduced the production of downforce.

More info can be found at formula1.com

[granite tundra]

"downforce that is fed directly to the wheels"
what the hell

[short ether]

Read the article, I have photographic evidence...

[granite tundra]

i'd like to see who wrote that article

because that phrase is nonsense

[short ether]

Shall I post the link?

[granite tundra]

yeah yes please

[short ether]

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.aero-tweaks-new-tyres-and-the-cost-cap-the-2021-f1-rules-and-regulation.r1cq36aI6bvzMeZtiFru3.html

The writer.

[granite tundra]

greg stuart, never heard of him

doesn't have a technical background either

[short ether]

you should apply to replace him

[granite tundra]

"feeding downforce to the wheels" is such a bizarre (and wrong) sentence

[short ether]

You just cannot assume that though... Have you been testing the aero on the F1 cars? No...

[granite tundra]

the brake duct winglets are part of the solution to manage tyre squirt and preserve diffuser efficiency

[granite tundra]

you can because you don't 'feed downforce' anywhere

[crimson granite]

Wait what lmao

[granite tundra]

i think what he's trying to say is that they're there to condition squirt and the turbulent airflow around the rear wheels

[short ether]

Anyhow, I don't think they would post wrong information on formula1.com.

[granite tundra]

but on their own they're not particularly significant downforce generating fixtures

[granite tundra]

well it is lol

there's a lot of misinformation when it comes to aerodynamics

just look at all of the articles about ground effect 'coming back'

[short ether]

but ground effect is dangrous!!!

[crimson granite]

Referring to the ground effect cars?

[tribal cedar]

It never left

[short ether]

it just changed form

not huge venturi channels inside the sidepods

[granite tundra]

yep

[short ether]

I think they mean that the air rushes next to the tires, I also don't really get what they mean...

[short ether]

Man looking at the wheelhubs directly... That assembly of the rear brake fins is gorgeous

[short ether]

I can't tell how serious this statement is

it's taking the piss at people who say this, using like 1982 as a referential

Right

Using the Ferrari's of 1982 is a poor example when they got to Carbon late...

https://www.formula1.com/content/dam/fom-website/manual/Misc/techtuesday/101.20-BRAKES-FINS-2021-RULE--jpg.jpg.transform/9col/image.jpg

This full image is just gorgeous

That's Form over Function I can get behind

Thats not really technical discussion is it? xD

looks like it is

Maybe not but what's the point of putting it in general when it's a Technical illustration and will just be told to put it in Technical?

I wonder how much downforce just those absolute turbine rakes make standalone?

[short ether]

U mean the brake duct wings?

Yes bruv

Not a drastic much I'd imagine... They are a very small part of the car, the diffuser prob gets the air and creates downforce more than they do.

... Yes of course it would

[short ether]

That was the most useless I have ever been on this channel... xD

[short ether]

And I know probably sidepod design feeds it

But I'd assume those could beat downforce levels of the suspension kounted wings of old by a fair amount

[void ibex]

This might be a dumb question but after 2024 could red bull purchase the division of honda that develops their power units and just work with them to make one of their own?

[short ether]

They could but Honda wouldn't. The reason that Honda is leaving F1 is that they want to reduce their carbon footprint, and switching to electrical components (like every other manufacturer does). Even if RB takes charge of the ICE production line, it will still be in Honda's factory. I think they would need to make a new factory to produce it, because Honda will no longer go for ICE.

[short ether]

They could buy the IP to make the ICE somewhere. But rn they're made in Sakura, japan iirc

[crimson granite]

I didnt get you

[short ether]

Ground effect never left f1

[crimson granite]

Oh yea

But the effect of it did change right?

[zenith pumice]

No? Ground effect’s effect stayed the same

[crimson granite]

No i meant how much it influences a cars aero has changed right?

[short ether]

Well, yes the wings and etc. have been developed and changed and these days cars produce more downforce than the previous generations... If thats what you mean.

[abstract pawn]

https://twitter.com/nicolasf1i/status/1381558235321237504?s=21

nicolas carpentiers (@NicolasF1i)

Here is the 2021 Mercedes power unit, with its revised plenum. The front view shows the Aston Martin ducting to the intercooler located in the left sidepod.
#F1 | #TechF1

Likes

176

Twitter · Apr 12, 2021, 10:42 AM

[short ether]

The Ground Effect in and of itself was never banned because they went to flat floors underneath the car with a diffuser from 1983... However before the late 70's, teams didn't have a "floor", as the underside was exposed I assume for cooling

[crimson granite]

Ahhh okay

[short ether]

Like basically as soon as it was done first, Underbody downforce has been a thing

But it's just been heavily restricted

[floral tusk]

can someone explain the ers system to me bc everyone else is confusing me greatly

i though i knew but now im not so sure

[short ether]

what do you think you've understood

[pale shell]

Simple terms = ERS uses energy from Battery to get more power depending on the mode it is and saves energy when breaking or decelerating

[floral tusk]

i thought i knew how it worked but someone in another server keeps giving contradicting answers

[pale shell]

thus the car will do more vroom vroom

[floral tusk]

saying that brakes collect energy (?) and that its nothing like the previous kers while sending screenshots of an article that says its an updated version of kers

[pale shell]

It is an "updated version" of kerss

While mostly it's automatic they can still press a button to deploy even more energy than the current mode they are in

[floral tusk]

ok

so when you brake it collects energy off the flywheel, correct?

[short ether]

... No

[pale shell]

Braking regenerates energy

[floral tusk]

its the brakes?

ok

[short ether]

Yea

[pale shell]

ye

[floral tusk]

how do they do that exactly?

[short ether]

Idk what part has the rechargers on, but it assists in rear braking

[floral tusk]

ok so that is right

[pale shell]

It's through mechanical ways I believe, it's just braking transforming energy and stuff like that

[short ether]

Which cannot done with the fronts because the fronts have no drive

[floral tusk]

the other person went between saying it was the crankshaft and the brakes themselves

[pale shell]

He high af

[floral tusk]

so the brakes collect it through the MGU-K and put it in the energy store

correct?

[short ether]

The MGU-K is like a Starter and Alternator, which takes energy to recharge passively off of the engine, and puts it back in

[floral tusk]

yeah

and then to deploy it it just spools up the turbo faster correct?

[pale shell]

https://youtu.be/DnByDRKO9JA?t=465

[floral tusk]

thanks

[pale shell]

I've put a specific timeline which goes directly to what you want :))

[floral tusk]

ok, ty

[short ether]

That's the... MGU-H kinda

[floral tusk]

oh ok

[short ether]

Right lemme put it in a list
MGU-K: works like an alternator does to recharge some energy off of the engine, and takes all the energy to be like a 160bhp starter motor when deployed
MGU-H: under pressure conditions, it helps limit turbo speed to 150,000rpm, and adds extra load to the turbo to push against, generating energy. Under no-pressure conditions it uses some energy to keep the tjrbo from stalling

[floral tusk]

ok

[short ether]

See I don't know if regenerative braking works as separate units, or if it works off of the engine by form of the MGU-K, and just puts a ton of load on the engine to slow it down

[floral tusk]

neither do i

[short ether]

I haven't found any images of the units if they are on the rears themselves

But essentially you can grouop most Hybrid tech as alternator and Starter Motor... But like ONE thing

[floral tusk]

ok

thank you

[short ether]

aHence why the MGU-K is worth it

Yet the H isn't

[zenith pumice]

So considering that the Mercedes is black, and they say it has no effect on the temperatures... did they design it considering that Kirchhoff’s Radiation Law would cause minimal heating issues

In other words: does the KRL apply here

(Kirchhoff’s Radiation Law states that all the heat energy absorbed by a body will be the same as the heat energy radiated by the body in a state of thermal equilibrium)

[short ether]

... I would assume so

Like how you have the Black Penske or... Something

Something dark will give off as much heat as it can take in

[zenith pumice]

Yeah so does the KRL actually hold true in this scenario of motor racing

[short ether]

Well I'd assume so

Because otherwise we'd have no dark coloured cars

[pallid wolf]

well

its not that easy

see krl only holds true if its in thermal equillibrium

thats when 2 or more substances that are in contact w eachother dont exchange any heat due to their contact

in racing u have tyre heat from friction so that doesnt work, but were talking about the body so aerodynamic heating is a thing. how severely a black car is affected by aero heating is questionable tbh, or if its known then i dont know it

but krl only works if the body is in thermal equillibrium

[zenith pumice]

Interesting, so can you estimate how much aero heating is taking place on a black car instead of a lighter coloured car?

[pallid wolf]

ye theres a formula for it

lemme try something

[short ether]

I would assume more heat would be radiated into the boundary layer before it spills off tho

[pallid wolf]

its not that simple i dont think, i mean like heat will of course be radiated off into the boundary layer but theres heat that always remains

thats what causes heating in a car p sure

theres a lot of factors to consider in this question, because its not immediately clear on the impacts of a black paint

im going to say that black paint on a car will not cause significant heating issues just because its black, so krl holds to some extent in this case

but again you cant be fully sure exactly the impacts of this with respects to krl and aerodynamic heating

[zenith pumice]

I mean clearly if it impacted it severely then Mercedes wouldn’t have kept it

[pallid wolf]

ye lmao

[short ether]

Unless the idea is too put more heat out of the car into the airstream behind so it punishes people who follow even harder

[pallid wolf]

no thats not how it works

heat disicipates surprisingly fast in air

so unless like youre 1cm behind the mercedes the heat radiated from it wont do anything

the only way it would is if the air is dry and even then its not even that large of an effect on dissipation

[short ether]

Awh damn

[pallid wolf]

i mean dont get me wrong it will affect it but it wont be significant in an f1 race

[paper wing]

Congrats @pallid wolf, you're now on lap 5

[pallid wolf]

if the air is dry then everyone will suffer and a little extra radiation from a car wont do anything relatively relevant

[worldly tangle]

What is the average life span and cost of a F1 engine?

[short ether]

Well lifespan now is six races? Coz they're allowed 3, which is about 2,400km

If perfectly ran

isn't it 8 races?

well, they were gradually improved for that

[molten bay]

7.6 races an engine needs to last

[short ether]

Well that'll be close to 3,000km

[molten bay]

well if a minimum race needs to be 305km long (minus monaco)

an estimate would be

[short ether]

Yes, but that isn't just the race

[molten bay]

too much for my brain to think

[short ether]

BMW for their things estimated it as about 400 km for a Grand Prix weekend

[zenith pumice]

Did you ever figure this out

[pallid wolf]

nope sorry

forgot about it

but @zenith pumice the thing is that aerodynamic heating has basically negligable effects are subsonic speeds, if anything then the car should be heating up only from the sun. i read that mercedes had a silver lining underneath their black paint so it shouldnt really be an issue there also

to apply the kirchhoff law here would basically be pointless because aerodynamic heating isnt a problem here.

[zenith pumice]

You said that the sun shouldn't be an issue either

Why

[pallid wolf]

cuz they have a silver lining which reflects the hear

keeps the cat cool

read it from racefans

[zenith pumice]

Ok, thanks

So Kirchhoff's Law doesn't apply here or would it just not make sense to apply it here

[pallid wolf]

doesnt make sense to apply it here

think about it

krl only is applicable when theres thermal equillibrium

thats when 2 bodies are in contact but dont exchange heat from being in contact

if we talk about aerodynamic heating, its only really a problem when you exceed mach 2

at lower subsonic speeds like f1 i dont think teams even consider aero heating to be a problem

[zenith pumice]

Ok

[pallid wolf]

its effects at this speed are negligable

[zenith pumice]

Thanks for the answer

[pallid wolf]

np

if i gave you the wrong impression yesterday that it will apply then thats not the intention

[zenith pumice]

It's fine

[pallid wolf]

*apply to a significant extent for it to be a factor

[short ether]

Aero heating is not a big issue considering the rest of heating problems caused in a F1 car. Also, there have been many black liveries before such as: Renault (twice), Lotus and Haas. The affect of it will be so low on a F1 car these days, because there are many clever tech to cool vital areas of the car. It will not change the speed or the handeling as fugato said.

[pallid wolf]

im going to assume that theres going to be less radiation but tbh its not even that large of an issue

[pallid wolf]

mercedes themselves have said that they didnt find any heating issues with the radiator

[short ether]

Radiation???

[pallid wolf]

radiation of heat

[short ether]

Oh I see

[pallid wolf]

not from inside the car thats a silver heat absorbing lining

but because its black i assume less radiation

[zenith pumice]

So in the end does KRL still work in this context, because then radiation shouldn’t change should it?

Or is it not in a state of thermal equilibrium

[pallid wolf]

its not

wind temp and speed is constantly changing so krl will not apply for long

sometimes theres powerful winds sometimes theres not

[short ether]

Hmm, don't think that black certainly means less radiation... But maybe it may.

[pallid wolf]

no it will, like i said if youre going to try and use kirchhoff radiation law then it doesnt work

its not in thermal equillibrium = no krl

or if its in thermal eq then not for long

[soft shadow]

I wonder if even average "Just new guy" fan knows that F1 cars don't have Cooling Fans

[pallid wolf]

anyways it doesnt matter because the only source of heat here is the sun and the engine

[short ether]

If they watch F1, they will see crew putting fans to the inlets, so I guess yes...

[pallid wolf]

the sun wont damage too much because mercedes use a silver paint underneath the black coat

so its basically the same as everyone else

and the engine tbh they have some system

to cool it

or to minimise the effects

[short ether]

Using silver paint won't necessarily mean that the black colour on top will not receive any heat...

[pallid wolf]

ofc not it just means that the main components underneath the paint wont be harmed by the heat

[short ether]

Yes, the heat insulators and etc.

[short ether]

Oh, yes by that it is correct.

[pallid wolf]

yep thats the main idea of it

[short ether]

But even if they do, they have high heat tolerance, usually the important parts are next to the engine, which produces so much heat.

[pallid wolf]

yes of course

when you consider the factors the black paint isnt actually that bad

its minimal performance wastage

[native tulip]

@short ether #f1-games for this please, this channel is for the technicalities of actual f1 😄

[short ether]

ohhh mb

[quick wind]

The only contexts you might want to look into for Thermodynamics is mainly surrounding the brakes, wheels and engine components of the car. Areas of the car that are usually designated as dynamic-energy systems in some contexts, usually have much more relevance to your question. As an effect for aerodynamic thermal interactions, you have quite the opposite, the air itself serves a purpose to cool under ideal parameters such as humidity and velocity etc, rather than to actively heat the car.

There is a very very specific circumstance where you can explore air as a result of creating heat - but those would be mainly in the context of output. Such as the heat that surrounds a high-energy component conducted by air i.e. the brakes or wheels or engine itself.

[violet smelt]

https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega/status/1382688530569236490?s=20

Albert Fabrega (@AlbertFabrega)

Detalles del suelo del Williams.

Details of Williams floor.

Twitter · Apr 15, 2021, 1:33 PM

[short ether]

Bruh talk about a bulgy wulgy

They couldnt take a better pic? xD

[spiral gyro]

Tbh the pic is fine

[short ether]

Mmmm, its decent... Should be enough for RacingPoint to copy...

[paper wing]

Congrats @short ether, you're now on lap 5

[thorny thistle]

what

[short ether]

Hold up a sec...

Those were not the full pic

ahahaha

Im dumb xD

When you click, its the full pic

this is quite embarrassing...

[short ether]

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.braking-performance-first-of-six-new-f1-insights-powered-by-aws-graphics-set.5Ko3cyGoOoqkbgWVO5T1Nb.html

That's actually an interesting one

[short ether]

Are you gonna talk about the images or what? xD

[spiral gyro]

Is it possible for you to tell which team the 2nd and 4th pic

[versed inlet]

3rd is RB

[spiral gyro]

Oop I meant second

[versed inlet]

2nd is AT

[spiral gyro]

Oh k

And last?

[versed inlet]

You can see the white and blue pinstripe

Can’t tell the last

[spiral gyro]

Yea I see now

[tight wharf]

last one is redbull or ferrari most likely

redacted

it's deff ferrari

red wall

and redbull has diff brake ducts

[abstract pawn]

Every image in order is

Ferrari

AlphaTauri

Red Bull

McLaren

[versed inlet]

Ah that’s papaya not red

[abstract pawn]

You can see the papaya there too

[short ether]

That's also Sauber Romeo...

Tho maybe not that far down

[versed inlet]

Alfa only has a thin blue pinstripe, with red above it

In that image is a thin blue pinstripe, with blue above it

[spiral gyro]

Wdym that’s not an Alfa

[versed inlet]

Alfa doesn't even have a blue pinstripe up until the more front part of the nose

[spiral gyro]

Yeah it’s not an Alfa it’s a mclaren

[versed inlet]

Believe he was referring to the 2nd photo

[spiral gyro]

That’s totally not an Alfa none of them are

The second pic is an alpha tauri

[versed inlet]

Yes and we've already cleared that

[short ether]

Well I didn't know all pics were from 2020 or more recent

https://sm.imgix.net/19/09/alfa-romeo.jpg?w=640&h=480&auto=compress,format&fit=clip

I meant these

Oh they're the other way around

[versed inlet]

Those pics that Slendis showed were from Imola yesterday I believe

Evident it's 2021 with the Oracle sponsor on the RB

[short ether]

Oh wait wh-

I find it interesting that the RB's brake calipers have their outer two columns of holes in the same orientation

[abstract pawn]

The Swedish commentators mentioned that during Free Practice 1 it seemed like Mercedes had a higher rear ride height than they had in Bahrain.

Could them having a higher rear ride height be a reason why they have the new rear diffuser? Or the other way around?

That the new rear diffuser allows them to rise the rear ride height a bit?

[pale shell]

I think it's the 1st option

[pale shell]

Can barely see the difference One photo has about 10 pixels and the other has about a million

[abstract pawn]

ok 🙂

[short ether]

Bottom is the new one?

[violet smelt]

bottom is bahrain, top is imola

[pale shell]

From the 1st pic it actually looks slightly lower

[short ether]

Ye figured this, but it looks like the top has lower rake

[reef pine]

Top is imola due to Syntium

Does the top look lower because of the worse lighting?

[pale shell]

Yep

[short ether]

yeah

bottom one has artificial lighting and a better camera

[pale shell]

In the 2nd photo you have a good perception of how close the rear is to the ground due to the lighting

Top pic is a screenshot

[short ether]

kek

[blazing saffron]

no TeamViewer logos yet 🤔

[abstract pawn]

Monaco

[blazing saffron]

the deal will come then?

I'm guessing they're still negotiating

[abstract pawn]

No the deal is already signed but the logos will appear in Monaco

[blazing saffron]

only there?

[abstract pawn]

No from Monaco onward

[blazing saffron]

ah

[abstract pawn]

Today’s announcement also provides a sneak preview of the branding that will appear on the Mercedes race cars in Formula One and Formula E, as well as on the driver overalls and teamwear, from the respective Monaco races in each series – the Monaco E-Prix will be held on 8th May, with the Grand Prix de Monaco following two weeks later, on 23rd May.

[blazing saffron]

I see

[abstract pawn]

Packaging differences

[abstract pawn]

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/1383042277614841856?s=20

Tobi Grüner 🏁 (@tgruener)

Red Bull won't be too happy about those images we've got.... #AMuS

Twitter · Apr 16, 2021, 12:59 PM

[jolly patrol]

https://twitter.com/racingtech5/status/1382999302075686912

Racing Tech (@racingtech5)

Ferrari SF21 Floor - new floor edge tested in FP1. #TechF1 #F1 #ImolaGP

Twitter · Apr 16, 2021, 10:08 AM

[soft shadow]

Didn't expect Alpine's packaging would be thicc asf than Ferrari

Also surprised that of all the teams, only 3 of them followed the basic 2021 floor rule set design

[loud needle]

That McLaren has a different shape to all the others.

It seems to work well

[abstract pawn]

@pastel tundra Can you not use this channel to send emotes and then delete them, thanks 🙂

[pastel tundra]

ye sorry i test a think

sorry

[abstract pawn]

@granite tundra, sorry for the ping but I thought I would ask you in here to not interrupt the conversation elsewhere.

You seem to know the regulations quite well, and my friend and I are having a small discussion about the Safety Car restart after the red flag.

Where Verstappen lost the car through the first Rivazza, and went onto the kerb and the grass or whatever.

Would Leclerc have been allowed to overtake Verstappen at that moment, considering Verstappen was "off the track"?

[granite tundra]

Uh I wouldn't say so, off the top of my head the car ahead has to be going unreasonably slowly for you to overtake

Would have to double check though

[short ether]

second question, was Hamilton allowed to use his reverse gear when he did? Like is the usage of reverse only prohibited in the pits?

[granite tundra]

Iirc yes, although it's not a great thing to be doing

I didn't like seeing it though

[abstract pawn]

So even if Verstappen went completely side ways, would Leclerc not have been able to overtake him?

[livid lintel]

he would

[granite tundra]

The other thing to consider is that at that point, verstappen is controlling the pace of the field

So he is allowed to go slowly without being overtaken

Although that probably stretches the definition of going slowly

[abstract pawn]

Gotcha

[granite tundra]

I think even if it wasn't a restart, it would be a bit marginal for the guys to overtake him

In which case, better to be safe than sorry

[abstract pawn]

Yep

Thanks!

[tight wharf]

imola was slippery af

even when the track was drying

[rich gust]

Does the regulations say you cant fill your tires with helium

[short ether]

pirelli fills the tyres

the teams provide them with the rims

and they make the wheels that way

[short ether]

That'd be a bit of an awful idea but, they're mandated to be filled with air, or Nitrogen

Mainly the latter because it's inert

[rich gust]

This gave me an idea

What if they managed to create a gas that was able to heat up really easily and stores that temp for a really long time

Would filling tyres with it help with temps

[short ether]

it might overheat quickly with that

since your idea doesn't free energy a lot.

[rich gust]

Are the teams allowed to fit a gas turbine helicopter engine onto the car

https://youtu.be/wQM_TyyRye4

[reef pine]

[sturdy crater]

[grand silo]

You don’t want something that stays warm

With Pirelli’s they already overheat all the time

[vernal elk]

Why doesn't Ferrari use their 2018 engine as it seemed to have .ore power and reliability over the new engines after the FIA investigated them?

[void ibex]

^ I’ve actually wondered the same thing, I’ve always just assumed that it was illegal in 2018 too but it was never investigated as that engine just wasn’t as insane as 2019

I could be completely wrong though that’s just a total guess

[abstract pawn]

If only it was that easy

[polar hearth]

not compatible probs

[crimson granite]

hey @granite tundra could you explain what exactly is the difference between the 2016 and 2017 cars?

[violet smelt]

people are literally explaining it in #formula-1 atm

[crimson granite]

yea what my explanation was pretty much the size of the car changed

[tight wharf]

stop

[crimson granite]

and the rear became wider

[tight wharf]

you were warned if you continuted that there would be consequences

[crimson granite]

dude i asked a question

I'm not having an argument with you here

[obsidian abyss]

stop

[crimson granite]

why cant i ask a question about it i dont get it

[thorny thistle]

you can ask a question, but you need to listen to the answer

this is #f1-technical it's a serious channel, so talking to @tight wharf here too, we expect some more civility in here than in general.

[zenith pumice]

Because we’ve explained it to you so many times... George linked articles, I showed you 3 diagrams explaining the changes but in the end if you say “yea but only the size changed” then there’s not point to answer your question again and again and again

[thorny thistle]

If TooLow has a better way of explaining it, with his knowledge, I don't see why he can't have a crack

But if he does, please listen to him.

[crimson granite]

Its not like I'm not listening. What my point is apart from size of the car changing what other significant

[zenith pumice]

Okay so then every major regulation change just “changed the size of the car” right

[crimson granite]

I already had this discussion with him and he explained the regs were pretty much increasing the size of the car

[thorny thistle]

Okay?

[crimson granite]

so i just wanted to clarify what else changed

[thorny thistle]

Those were the significant changes, as explained in the article I linked

[crimson granite]

no... a lot of the 2017 car is identical to the 2016 car. whereas take an example of 2009 where the entire car changed

[thorny thistle]

what

[crimson granite]

what?

[thorny thistle]

In 2017, they changed the tyres, the front wing span, the width of the cars, the height and shape of the rear wing, the diffuser, the weight, and allowed sharkfins again.

The entire car changed.

[tight wharf]

there's a copy of the 2017 technical regulation changes in text form right?

[thorny thistle]

well this article explains it, but I can probably grab the regs too

https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/inside-f1/rules-regs/2017-season-changes.html

[subtle inlet]

Ohh nice

[thorny thistle]

https://www.fia.com/file/54257/download/18380?token=5JfbyV2g

pink means they changed something

[tight wharf]

aka the whole car...

[crimson granite]

because like we've said, 2017 was essentially a new front and rear wing bolted on, with slightly larger dimensions for the diffuser and front of the floor

quoting TLTP

[subtle inlet]

Plus Wider tyres

[crimson granite]

yea that too

[thorny thistle]

and 2009 was just 2008 but with smooth surfaces

Being reductive here hides the complexity that makes it a major regulation change

[crimson granite]

and all 2017 was was a more aggressive front/rear wing, an essentially unchanged floor, and a slightly bigger diffuser

[thorny thistle]

again

[zenith pumice]

Cars get lower, tyres get wider, floor gets larger and more effective, front and back wings completely change... how you can say this?

[crimson granite]

im quoting TLTP

[thorny thistle]

Seriously, click that link and scroll through the regs, and just pick a single section

And look at how much has changed

[short ether]

What do you want to state by an "aggressive front wing"?

[crimson granite]

just the size increased

and width

[short ether]

And thats where you are wrong.

[zenith pumice]

You do realise that if the size and width increases then the performance of the car majorly changes

Hence making it a major rule change

[crimson granite]

I'm not saying it doesnt

[short ether]

Exactly, they increased the size not just for show.

[zenith pumice]

This is what changed

[crimson granite]

Why am I wrong?

[short ether]

Not just the size of each component was increased. Johann posted a very useful picture. Check it and you will see the technical changes as well.

For example: Look at the first picture

[zenith pumice]

Rake changed, wheel changed, floor changed, everything changed

[crimson granite]

i cant see any difference between the 2 front wings apart from the size

[crimson granite]

the floor didnt change much

[zenith pumice]

the floor didnt change much

didnt change much

????

The yellow is what changed

[short ether]

Its not a perfect angle, but the 2017 car has a slightly more angled parts, the "pieces" are more horizontal.

[short ether]

Hold up there

[thorny thistle]

Snoo, you're effectively saying "I know there was a major change to every aero surface, the size of the cars, and their weight, but what else changed". That was the major change.

[zenith pumice]

So apart from the major changes, what else changed majorly

Is basically what I’m reading it as

And the answer is nothing... the major change changed majorly

Nothing apart from what changed was changed

[crimson granite]

I mean what I'm saying is the aero philosophy from 2016 to 2017 is not too different

[zenith pumice]

Hmm, let’s count

[short ether]

And thats where you are wrong

[crimson granite]

Where the 2017 regulation takes a lot of inspiration from the 2016 cars

[thorny thistle]

If you're saying that, you'd be wrong.

[zenith pumice]

1. Wider floor
2. Larger front wing
3. Larger and lower rear wing
4. Increased rake
5. Angled parts

How... exactly has the aero philosophy “not changed”

[thorny thistle]

Like, sure, we all fully admit it's a bigger change for 22

[short ether]

Most obvious answer to that is the rear wing. Even blind eye can see that major changes have been made, guess for what? More downforce maybe, because that is what teams aim for???

[thorny thistle]

But that doesn't make 2017 a minor change

[crimson granite]

yea the rear wing. The front of car is very similar to the 2016 car

[short ether]

It just isn't, do you have proof to convince me that?

[crimson granite]

"Despite early talk of a much taller diffuser with a large central section, the floor regulations for 2017 are a just slight tweaks to what the cars have now. "

[thorny thistle]

Except for all of its dimensions

[obsidian abyss]

man are yall still going at it

[short ether]

I think you have not seen this pic...

[blazing saffron]

bruh how is a regulation change that changes every major part of the car except for the engine "not major"

all I'll say here

[thorny thistle]

Snoo, you're just wrong here, what you think are "small" changes, are not, which is why we're saying they aren't.

[blazing saffron]

by that logic the 1998 changes weren't major

or the 2009 changes

[zenith pumice]

Once again, here’s how the aero philosophy changed

[thorny thistle]

We've linked pictures, articles, and the LITERAL technical regulations.

[zenith pumice]

Wider cars

Larger tyres

Lower floor

Increased rake

[thorny thistle]

All of the information to explain it to you is in front of you.

[crimson granite]

https://www.racefans.net/2016/05/10/side-side-compare-f1-cars-2016-2017/

[thorny thistle]

This argument is semantic.

[zenith pumice]

You just answered your own question

[quick wind]

Did someone say aero

[zenith pumice]

Read that article

[zenith pumice]

Okay so was there a major change in aero philosophy from 2016 to 2017

[short ether]

The drawing of the front wing is inaccurate, if we are going to be precise, we need real images. Pics wont do any favour.

[quick wind]

Depends what you mean by philosophy but there are no doubts that some changes exist.

[zenith pumice]

“Some” changes? All the major aero bits changed

The floor, the rake, the wheels, the wings... it all changed

[short ether]

Would you agree that there has been quite visible and large changes to the rear wings of the F1 cars, in order to create more downforce?

[thorny thistle]

and increase top speed

and also to just make them look faster, which is hilarious

[zenith pumice]

Lol

[crimson granite]

what was the aerodynamic concept change then?
because a larger front/rear wing and diffuser isn't a concept change

Again I'm quoting TLTP

[zenith pumice]

A literal shift to larger downforce parts

A wider body

[crimson granite]

I'm quoting TLTu

[quick wind]

Yes, there were significant alterations to do with systems that dealt with flow control

[zenith pumice]

I’d like to hear it from TLPU by himself

[short ether]

First of all, quoting does not mean its definitely correct.

[quick wind]

Rear wings in terms of a qualitative sense, not so much

[crimson granite]

He know more about Aero than us

[quick wind]

I mean, its a very board question

[short ether]

So the changes were not exactly focused on creating downforce, but more in terms of airflow?

[thorny thistle]

Would you say 2017 was a major regulation change?

[quick wind]

Oh I don't disagree with the downforce components in concept

[thorny thistle]

Which was the original wording Snoo's arguing against

[zenith pumice]

No chance, why else would they add a wider floor and increase the rake

[quick wind]

2017 was marked by increases in downforce. No doubt.

[zenith pumice]

It’s to generate more downforce

Why else would the car be widened

[quick wind]

What is everyone having a argument about sorry?

[crimson granite]

.

[quick wind]

Ahh

[zenith pumice]

Snoohamster is saying that 2017 was not a major regulations change

[thorny thistle]

As I said, this argument is largely semantic

[quick wind]

It is I'm afraid

[crimson granite]

I'm saying there are so many similarities between the 2016 and 2017 cars

[thorny thistle]

However, general consensus is, yes it was.

But we obviously are not able to convince Snoo of this.

So

I don't see the point

[quick wind]

I can say that qualitatively, there are significant changes in regulations in terms of technical aero - I had to modify my scrutineering approaches for a majority.

[zenith pumice]

Isn’t that just saying it’s not a major regulations change in a different way

Or I am misreading?

[short ether]

There are, they both are F1 cars. We are talking about aero changes though, which were quite significant.

[crimson granite]

No I'm just saying there are similarities between it thats it

[thorny thistle]

And, again, no one's saying the 2022 regs aren't more major

[quick wind]

I'm not sure where you're drawing similarities from snoo

[zenith pumice]

Well then there’s similarities between all regulations

[quick wind]

or. where you establish the fine line of said similarity

[zenith pumice]

Doesn’t mean they’re not major

[crimson granite]

no thats not my argument

[zenith pumice]

I mean I’ve shown you 5 pictures of the cars getting wider, floor getting more aggressive, rear wing getting lower, rake getting increased... so where is indeed the similarities

[quick wind]

I can officially state, that there were significant modifications concerning the bodywork and dimensions of the 2017 cars. As per highlighted in the 2017 Formula 1 Technical Regulations 9 March 2017.

23 Additional technical directives have been modified as a result to adapt to this I believe

[crimson granite]

I mean the front wing is very similar. The body is somewhat similar. The 2017 car looks like an oversized 2016 car

[short ether]

If he could explain where the similarities are, maybe we can help him better. However, now, he is stating that aero changes were minimal, which is incorrect as you have said. So, @crimson granite, could you tell us the similarities you mean, so we can discuss better?

[zenith pumice]

Even thought the front wing was widened and angled differently but sure

[crimson granite]

Not minimal. There definitely was quite a difference but a lot of the car was just widened or the size of the component was increased

[thorny thistle]

Those changes are the major changes though

[quick wind]

Please note the body work and dimensions of the F1 car changes is referring to the following:

Front wing,
Front body work,
Rear Bodywork,
Rear wing and impact structure,
Floor and diffuser
Aerodynamic Influence
Bodywork Construction

Article 3.

[thorny thistle]

They weren't "just" anything

[zenith pumice]

I think if someone saying that it was major and went beyond widening the body works at formula 1, then perhaps he’s right

[quick wind]

I appreciate that snoo, you're incorrect - perhaps look into your wording carefully, and that you are curious about this topic. But it would be wise if we all were a bit more constructive rather than condescending to someone who's also curious in the field.

[crimson granite]

I'm just taking this as an example. I can hardly see a difference of the fundamental components of the front wing

[zenith pumice]

Angled differently and widened

[short ether]

The point is, we have explained to them about their questions, however as far as I am aware, the question changes every time. I believe thats why we cannot achieve a solution.

[quick wind]

You can't make a comprehensive evaluation from one image unfortunately

[thorny thistle]

aside from the shapes and sizes

[crimson granite]

i see

[thorny thistle]

and also that's just Ferrari's implementation, once, they'd've brought different wings to different tracks

[zenith pumice]

Here’s 2 more again if you need to see wing changes

[thorny thistle]

And that, being a press image, might not even be a 2017 wing?

like an actual one they used?

[short ether]

First of all, the 2017 car has 4 layers on the front wing which is 1 more than the 2016 car.

[upper ivy]

Just some increased (or decreased) dimensions describes every single aerodynamic rulechange in the last 30 years. Because that is what the cars are. The rules basically give you boxes which form the boundaries of where you can (and can't) put your bodywork. Changing the sizes and/or positions of these boxes does significantly alter the entire philosophy of how exactly the aerodynamics of the car work, how you can influence their airflow, how you have to influence it etc.

Let's take the 2014 rule changes for example. Aerodynamically they didn't seem too significant either. Smaller front wings, lower noses, no more beam wing. This however meant less downforce overall which made the cars a lot more unstable and e.g. the lower noses also lead to a different airflow underneath the car. So a seemingly small optical change had very big aerodynamic effects!
In 2017 it was exactly the other way round. The teams suddenly had MORE room to work with, including larger bargeboards, which meant they suddenly had many more "tools" to guide the air in whatever way they wanted.

[quick wind]

If you're looking into something that's more standardised: Refer to this document, rather then make conclusions from images.

You can see areas highlighted in pink, that demonstrate changes.

[crimson granite]

oh okay thanks

[quick wind]

The majority of changes on the surface can be spotted in the index of the booklet

You'll be able to make a distinction that a lot of Article 3, is in pink.

[short ether]

https://tenor.com/view/antman-what-the-hell-happened-here-avengers-gif-18240147

[quick wind]

a seemingly small optical change had very big aerodynamic effects!

I completely agree with this - couldn't phrase it better. Performance-wise, a small angular change can dramatically affect the aerodynamic performance of a car. Aerodynamics is severely complex in mathematics and most components and forces don't scale in a linear fashion in respect to their changes in size and angles.

Often this relationship is sinusoidal which is why small changes can be dramatic for small changes in angles.

[zenith pumice]

Funny how a small change in the way air moves can change the whole stability and performance of a car

[upper ivy]

yeah

(that's also the reason for the dick-noses, they wanted to meet the rules but still get as much air under the car as possible)

[crimson granite]

so is it okay to say that the 2017 cars were an optimization of the 2016 cars?

[upper ivy]

I can see where you're coming from; but they did have to more or less start from scratch with the cars.

[zenith pumice]

I mean that’s all regulations changes

[short ether]

It deoends what you mean by optimisation

[quick wind]

Really these questions are phrased in an open-ended way. There isn't a narrow answer for your questions that would be of any use @crimson granite

[short ether]

Is 2009 an optimised 2008?

I wouldn't say so at all

[zenith pumice]

Okay I’ve also always wondered this, what effect is there from changing this frontwheel angle?

[crimson granite]

No because 2009 was a completely new formula where as this wasn’t

[upper ivy]

did it actually change regulation-wise?

[short ether]

I meant more in reply to Johann

[zenith pumice]

No, just curious

[short ether]

... Camber angle is free, my gamer

[zenith pumice]

At least I don’t think it changed from the regs

[crimson granite]

Oh okay yea just saw that

[zenith pumice]

Well, most regulations changes are just to optimise the cars isn’t it?

[short ether]

Most yes, but I'm pedantic, so not all

[zenith pumice]

My bad then 👍

[crimson granite]

What I meant it the regs could have been there to unlock the potential of the 2016 cars

[zenith pumice]

But yeah most of them

[short ether]

More Camber angle would mean the outwash wings would have to work harder to make the vortex get around the tyre, as the thing is essentially further out, but on top I'd assume it reduces drag by reducing frontal area

For inwash wings I assume more front camber can be more aerodynamically beneficial

[zenith pumice]

I don’t think that’s the best way to phrase it, because the fundamental car changed in 2017 for terms of width, height, aero where it was not similar to the 2016 car...

So not really unlocking the full potential of the car?

Maybe it makes sense only to me

[crimson granite]

I guess but a lot of the car was derived from the 2016 cars

[zenith pumice]

Yes but again, most regulations changes did that too

[short ether]

I hope one day we can have a season where the season that follows has no rule changes from the previous year

[zenith pumice]

That’s basically impossible

[short ether]

Very unlikely tho

[upper ivy]

Out of curiousity, what would you count as a big, or non-derivative, rule-change? E.g. I'd say from 2014-2016 they were mostly just optimized, then for 2017 there was a big change, and for 2019 it was smaller changes derived from the previous regs.

[crimson granite]

2015 to 2016?

[zenith pumice]

Because think of it, you cannot just design an f1 car completely from scratch with no inspiration from the previous time you did it

[subtle inlet]

2010 to 2013?

2020 to 2021

oh wait

[crimson granite]

Nah there were changes

[subtle inlet]

in 2021 they had rule changes

[subtle inlet]

oh

[short ether]

without ugly cars

[crimson granite]

Hehe floor

[zenith pumice]

2014 was a large one

[crimson granite]

F

[short ether]

[upper ivy]

yeah 2009-2013 were largely the same base, but they still visibly changed - not even just from the regs; just look how much more complex the front wings became over the years

[short ether]

Well the regs changed too, with double diffusers, a tighter leash on exhausts and flexi wings

[upper ivy]

double diffusors were banned, eventually blown diffusors too, we had the F-duct vor a while before it was banned, the noses were lowered slightly resulting in the stepnoses from 2012, then they were allowed to add vanity panels...

[crimson granite]

Even the stepped nose lmao

[short ether]

Optimizing yes, but what aspect? Sometimes it's just the show

[upper ivy]

I think in most cases it's either to slow the cars down or to try to make dirty air less bad

e.g. 2009 was about dirty air; 2014 was about cutting cornering speeds

2017 was a bit of an exception because the main goal was "GO FAST"

[crimson granite]

I still don’t get why they came up with the 2017 cars?

Was there not enough research about the dirty produced from the car

[upper ivy]

they literally just wanted to make the cars faster and more "cool"

[crimson granite]

That’s weird lmao

[upper ivy]

In 2014 there were many complaints about the cars being soooo slow and boring as a combination of the quieter V6-engines as well as the slower laptimes (which, honestly, you'd only notice when looking at the times... in terms of top-speed those cars were even faster than 2013 on some tracks)

[zenith pumice]

You’ll find a lot of regulation changes are not “necessary”

[crimson granite]

What were the lap differences between 2016 and 2013

So I took Hungary as reference

P1 in quali for 2016-1,19.9

[upper ivy]

Just grabbed some random examples.
Malaysia fastest laptime:
2013: 1.39.199
2016: 1.36.424

Silverstone fastest laptime:
2013: 1.33.401
2016: 1.35.548

Silverstone Qualifying:
2013: 1.29.607
2016:1.29.287

[zenith pumice]

On average 2.5s faster jesus

[upper ivy]

well it depended on the track

[zenith pumice]

Damn they really help

Clearly not on Silverstone

[upper ivy]

So I would say that by 2016, at least on some tracks, they already caught up with 2013 laptimes or were even better. Even though the rules had been mostly the same since 2014.

I'm actually curious how well 2014 cars would have done with the V8 engines. Or how well the V6 would have done with Aero from 2013.

[crimson granite]

What was the hp difference between the V8 and the 2014 V6?

[upper ivy]

I think they were roughly supposed to have the same overall output (~750 HP)

[short ether]

They wanted faster cars with similar aero to what existed, I assume the idea was to encourage that through mechanical means with a continuous aero progressions but that didn't happen
Not to mention, Outwash is inherently more dirty than inwash and despite knowing the cars are more dirty than ever, they don't seem to want to fix it

[crimson granite]

So the only difference would be size?

[upper ivy]

less displacement, turbocharged, fewer cylinders, lower RPM-limit, fuel-flow-limit, and a bigger hybrid-unit

[crimson granite]

And the V6 in 2014 was more efficient than the V8?

[upper ivy]

overall they are more efficient, yes

[crimson granite]

Also there was an engine freeze during the V8 era right?

[violet smelt]

yes

[crimson granite]

What was the reason behind that?

[upper ivy]

costs

[crimson granite]

Was this voted by the manufacturers or did the FIA themselves choose this?

[upper ivy]

not sure

probably a bit of both

[violet smelt]

it was an agreement between both

[short ether]

They were frozen from 2008

They went from 750-765bhp, to similar engine power + hybrid 160

[harsh escarp]

the rear is a copy and paste of the Mercedes

[burnt carbon]

Hi can come one explain what drs is

I been hearing it a lot

Just got into f1

[void ibex]

DRS stands for drag reduction system. As you can see, all of the cars have a huge rear wing on the back which is great for downforce but it causes a lot of drag on the straights and ultimately slows them down. DRS was implemented a while back to encourage overtaking, it can only be used in certain zones of the track when the driver is within 1 second of the car ahead

@burnt carbon

DRS opens the rear wing to let air flow more freely, hold on ill find a pic

The top pic has DRS activated

[inner copper]

im also pretty new and i was wondering, whats the difference between soft medium and hard tires?

[void ibex]

So for tires, soft, medium and hard refers to the rubber compound that the tires are made out of. The softer tires provide more grip as they are soft and stick to the track easier, this ultimately results in faster laps. However, as the tires are softer, they also wear down quicker. The hard tires are the opposite so they wont grip the track as well as the softs but they will last longer. And then obviously the mediums fall right in the middle

[inner copper]

thanks

[void ibex]

No problem, as you'll learn quickly, tire and pit stop strategies are a huge part of F1

[inner copper]

yeah ive been playing some f1 2019 lately, so i was just confused about the options

[burnt carbon]

Oh thanks a lot @void ibex

Makes sense now

[granite tundra]

oh i see i've kicked something off by being quoted

@crimson granite i think i owe you an apology, because when we initially discussed the 16-17 change i think i should have been more clear about what i meant with it being a less significant change in comparison to other reg changes, i.e. 2022

and i.e. the general theme of 2017 was more towards enlarging existing aerodynamic furniture and opening up the boundary boxes

2017 was definitely a major aerodynamic change, but i think what i explained poorly in my original argument was that while it was significant, it wasn't anywhere near a fundamental shift similar to what we can expect to see for 2022

it also doesn't help that dev time was comparatively limited for the switch, so that didn't help teams when trying to adapt to it

[short ether]

I really hope 2022 cars look good...

[crimson granite]

Oh okay my bad

Were there any aero changes between 2005 and 2006?

[short ether]

I don't think so

I can't find any

No, they changed the engines and put the tyre changes back

[short ether]

Favourite technical changes?

[short ether]

2005

it was purely aimed at breaking Ferrari's domination, and it achieved just that.

[short ether]

Ehhh, not a fan imo

From an aesthetics standpoint, I think the aero changes were saved by latter cars coz of spoon wings

[reef pine]

2009

[wanton badger]

2014

I hated the 2010-2013 noses

[reef pine]

really?

even these?

clyde wtf

[wanton badger]

I'm just built different.

[crimson granite]

So you liked the strap on noses?

[wanton badger]

strap?

[crimson granite]

Nvm lmao

[short ether]

Not 2010-2013 but definitely 2014 noses. I mean its designed for 18+...

[tacit bridge]

I like the 2014 noses

[short ether]

Was there a particular reason for this type of nose?

[tacit bridge]

they look good

[wanton badger]

make it 2010-2014

[tacit bridge]

there was some regulation change

[short ether]

I know about the regulation change about "making safer and etc..." but never understood the full purpose

[tacit bridge]

I think the FIA wanted lower noses incase of a T-bone accident but i am not 100% sure

[zenith pumice]

I assume the penis nose was to direct more air in a specific way towards the floor for better downforce

[reef pine]

I thought the penis nose was because of a minimum nose length reg

or height

[zenith pumice]

Probably that too, they probably also wanted to put the air in a specific way towards the floor

[tacit bridge]

http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/nose_cone_2014_rules.html

[short ether]

I am pretty sure that the "penis nose" will not channel air towards the floor, its not a very complicated design, I imagine it will not channel air... But it could be.

[zenith pumice]

Look at the TR

And the McLaren

[reef pine]

because lotus had one phallus longer than the other

[zenith pumice]

They have small channels behind the dong

Same for RBR

[reef pine]

I love how we are describing complicated aero pieces with "dong" "phallus" and "penis"

[zenith pumice]

correct

I swear there are pictures of the channels I was talking of ^^

I am not sure where they are right now

But I can probably find them

[short ether]

So this article says that it is a change to prevent severe crashes.

"Rules were written in good faith to improve a safety of the cars in case of 90 degree T-bone crashes and to prevent cars launching off the back of other cars - if a following car was to hit the rear tire of a car in front then it would get kicked up in the air, but a lower nose would prevent that."

[reef pine]

ah so a regulation to lower nose heights for safety

[green marlin]

Where can I learn technical things about F1?

[short ether]

You can ask your questions here and we will try and help you understand them. 🙂

Or you can always go on google to find documents and articles about your particular question.

[green marlin]

Ah, ok. Thank you.

[upper ivy]

it doesn't directly channel it towards the floor but it was the easiest way not to block the air from the floor for most teams

obviously Mercedes and Ferrari showed that other solutions were possible

[upper ivy]

that is correct! https://www.instagram.com/p/CMU55RsH8CM/

[short ether]

Pain.

[granite tundra]

the switch to low noses were done for a couple of reasons

there were quite a few concerns with how the high noses were interacting with the side impact structures and anti-intrusion sheets during t-bone accidents, because back in the day with the true high noses they would be impacting the survival cell too high up

[reef pine]

what, 2009 was the predecessor to some of my favourite cars

[granite tundra]

the FIA tried to mitigate this when switching to the step nose design (also a result of needing to change driver seating position iirc), and again in 2014

[short ether]

PAIN

[granite tundra]

after 14 they started mandating more aggressive cross sectional volumes at a maximum height, which led to the thumb noses that are still pretty common today

of course, the problem with low noses is that they make it more likely for the car to submarine under barriers or another car

[zenith pumice]

So why was this done? What benefit would come out of "mandating more aggressive cross sectional volumes at a maximum height"

[granite tundra]

basically guaranteeing that you're placing a substantial proportion of the 'useable' crash structure at a height where it doesn't pose a risk to another car in a side impact

and the penis noses were a way of meeting the max height regulations while still keeping the rest of the nose as high as possible

[zenith pumice]

Yeah makes sense

[granite tundra]

so the regs after that were partly done to improve the looks of the cars, and partly to guarantee there was actually 'enough' nose at a safe height

and the thumb nose that was so popular was effective because it let you have your crash structure at the legal height, while the rest of the nose could still remain slightly higher for aerodynamic reasons

[zenith pumice]

So a higher nose means what, more streamlined airflow?

[granite tundra]

on balance a higher nose is more workable aerodynamically

but it's simultaneously a bit conflicting, because you also want a low front wing to maximise downforce

with a high nose you generally have more real estate to try and condition flow as it's moving back across the car, and iirc i think it's also easier to prevent flow separation?

ill tag @quick wind because he's a better aerodynamicist than me

[paper wing]

Congrats @granite tundra, you're now on lap 30

[granite tundra]

excluding CFD meshing of course

[quick wind]

You go for pints during your meshing please shut.

Generally, higher nose means a larger volume of air is channelled below the car and therefore has its effect on ground effect accordingly. That is one part to consider

[granite tundra]

actually yes

[quick wind]

Inb4 the nose went flacid I think that was a method to remove downstream blockage from very high AoA

[granite tundra]

though the tradeoff to that is that you're accelerating the air less with a larger gap to the ground

[granite tundra]

the 2014 noses?

[quick wind]

I'm looking at the evolution from 2001 to 2008 (my knowledge is quite sparse on this hold on)

then if i can recall, you had those spoon-looking wings people called that tried to deal with said blockage and vents to allow upwash through the nose, those were my favourite aero times to work with tbh.

I think boundary layer control is not so important on a quantitative perspective if we compare having volumes of air pushed below and the larger gap to the ground

[granite tundra]

are we talking about designs like this?

[quick wind]

YES, omg im wet

[granite tundra]

yeah the other advantage to that was (through a high nose), you could extend the fw mainplane across the entire legal width

[granite tundra]

yeah wasn't convinced when i said it.. i know there are measurable benefits/drawbacks wrt narrow vs skinny noses, just wasn't sure if that also applied to low vs high

[quick wind]

Hold on im talking absolute jack

With a non-venturi styled ground plate, It's illogical to get more air underneath the car

iirc there were some pitch changes to the car (ride height), which resulted in the loss of DF

[granite tundra]

why though? you can still induce ground effect with a non-venturi design, so the volume of air being expanded is still relevant

of course the tradeoff is that you're sacrificing how much you're accelerating the air in exchange for having a larger volume

[quick wind]

I had imagined, that teams were trying to stabilise such changes in pitch by ensuring that flow is better evolved along the sides of the car, the bargeboard VTX generators etc etc. okay maybe yes. i need to think aaaAAAAA

Im seriously terrible with my aero knowledge historically. I should read on this more

[granite tundra]

well on balance, you're always going to have more opportunity to keep the flow doing what you want if you've got a larger volume under the nose

which i would probably hazard a guess and say is more beneficial than any potential degradation in ground effect from having a high nose

[quick wind]

Im trying to think when this isn't beneficial

Obviously having a large volume of air is good

But on a practical basis, you'll become so aerodynamically reliant for it producing DF which isn't good at all when following another car

Clean airflow is extremely important for the frontal profile

[zenith pumice]

So what will be the solution?

For this uh, following another car issue

[quick wind]

You can probably create better flow structures form the bargeboards etc etc

[granite tundra]

yeah but you''re always going to have sensitivity to airflow conditions at the front end of the car, even if you end up with a low nose

[quick wind]

urgdhjafghasdf i dont have the data for this sorry

i got to see if they archived any research

[granite tundra]

its fine ill do some cfd again

[quick wind]

petition to rename to Not an alcoholic

[granite tundra]

yes

time to make t h e m e s h

[quick wind]

I can actually run a few simulation studies using Autodesk CFD 💀 later this week. Because im not spending hours on openfoam lmao

[granite tundra]

i've seen like 5 minutes worth of openfoam and it was enough to make me want to switch to a degree in basket weaving

[quick wind]

STAR-CD gang

[granite tundra]

CD?

[quick wind]

ccm

brainfart

[granite tundra]

yes

much better

i do like starccm

though i dont think it likes me when i try my patented mesh technique

have you ever used roblox?

https://devforum.roblox.com/t/i-made-wind-tunnels/28816

[quick wind]

particles with momentum lol

i cant even

[granite tundra]

wait

[pallid wolf]

wtf lol

[granite tundra]

hold up let me send something to you

[quick wind]

but yes.

if someone reminds me i will perform CFD analysis on erect and flaccid F1 cars

it'll be highly inaccurate, but if it looks fancy-schmancy then im happy

[granite tundra]

thats where my tactic of having a 0.00001m mesh comes in

the results would be garbage but the colours would look good

[short ether]

if it's trash, might as well look good

[short ether]

https://maxtayloraero.wordpress.com/2021/04/21/2021-williams-f1-cfd/

Pretty stuff

[void ibex]

How tf does someone just casually get a cad model of the 2021 Williams car

[upper ivy]

I doubt it's the actual model they use (if it is that would be a major security issue on williams' side)

probably just something "close enough" for promotional stuff or video games.

[short ether]

That picture is not detailed enough, its a simple-made version of the actual one where the aerodynamic areas are not incredibly detailed so teams cannot copy or use the data.

Yeah I know but it was... Moreorless a basic one of their car

[short ether]

Their ARG Release had the files leaked beforehand and it turns out it was the actual car model

[void ibex]

thats so cool

poor Williams tho having their whole ass car leaked

[paper wing]

Congrats @void ibex, you're now on lap 10

[rich gust]

Why wont teams do this

https://m.imgur.com/3xCO7yW

[short ether]

erm this is only useful for a used engine?

Why would they want to?

[rich gust]

Gives you more horsepower apparently

[short ether]

It'd give that coz it's polishing the cylinders and removing echy stuff

But... Engines are sealed in F1 after they make one so like

[pallid wolf]

to have a rocket engine in f1 youd need a short nozzle

to at least not kill efficiency completely

[violet smelt]

here

[pallid wolf]

yes

[violet smelt]

this one goes to orbit

so your point being?

[pallid wolf]

and it has many of them

[violet smelt]

yeah and for it to work on a car you'd just need one

[obsidian abyss]

well yeah its not like the falcon 9 has only one engine

[pallid wolf]

fair

[violet smelt]

and then it's like the side of a normal f1 engine

maybe even smaller

so i do fail to see what your point is

[pallid wolf]

most rocket engines used by major space companies are large

like for the falcon 9

[obsidian abyss]

depends on the rockets

[violet smelt]

yeah but that's not what we're talking about is it

you were saying that no rocket engine could fit on a car

we proved you wrong

[pallid wolf]

i accept

indeed it might work

[granite tundra]

here so i actually have designed a rocket nozzle

[obsidian abyss]

The SS-520 #5 is the smallest orbit capable rocket

[zenith pumice]

Hold up wtf

Was it fun

[granite tundra]

absolutely fucking not

[zenith pumice]

[obsidian abyss]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeW-Qqu9-8U earrape warning

[granite tundra]

with this geometry you were reaching up to something like 78kN of thrust at mach 20/180k ft, with a fuel load of 1140kg and burn time of ~75 secs

and that's not a particularly big nozzle

[zenith pumice]

Okay wait why do they narrow before expanding?

Is it just to increase thrust in some way I probably don't understand

[obsidian abyss]

to increase exhaust velocity

[pallid wolf]

purpose of the flare is to increase the gas flow to its maximum speed

for subsonic gasses converging nozzles increases the exit velocity

for supersonic gasses its the opposite

[obsidian abyss]

basically

air goes faster

rocket more efficient

[zenith pumice]

Yes

I know that

Just wanted to ask why it converges at a point

[granite tundra]

it converges so that you're choking the flow coming from upstream of the nozzle and lets you expand it out through the divergent section

[pallid wolf]

also @zenith pumice the converging part accelerates the gas to supersonic and then the flare widening increases the supersonic flow even more

[granite tundra]

you want choked flow to properly expand the volume after the throat

[obsidian abyss]

can you explain that in your own words or is that just from google

[pallid wolf]

i just explained

[granite tundra]

no it doesnt, the converging part chokes the flow

which is the point of having the throat

[pallid wolf]

huh

[granite tundra]

so at the throat, it's sonic

[pallid wolf]

yes thats the point, when tubes coonverge they accelerate subsonic gasses

[granite tundra]

yes but not to supersonic, to sonic

[pallid wolf]

i mean isnt the gas supersonic at that point anyways

[granite tundra]

..no?

[pallid wolf]

thats why the widening exists innit

[granite tundra]

how could the throat decrease inlet velocity from supersonic to sonic?

[zenith pumice]

Wait I am confused

[granite tundra]

the aim of the throat is to have sonic conditions at that point

[zenith pumice]

So what is the final reason for the convergence

Is it to accelerate the gas to supersonic or is it to make ideal conditions for sonic-travelling gasses

[granite tundra]

to accelerate the subsonic inlet flow to sonic (choked) conditions, and to allow it to be further accelerated downstream of the throat

the acceleration to supersonic happens when the geometry starts diverging

[zenith pumice]

Okay so at the convergence it’s not supersonic or is it subsonic?

[granite tundra]

it's neither, it's sonic lol

[zenith pumice]

So travelling at the speed of sound?

[granite tundra]

yep

[zenith pumice]

Okay makes sense

Thanks, continue the other discussion

[granite tundra]

choked flow generally means m = 1, and if your nozzle is designed correctly then the throat should be inducing choked conditions

[short ether]

so exactly sonic is what they want?

[granite tundra]

yeah, it's sort of what they have to have anyway

[short ether]

how large is the window for the sonic behaviour? in terms of speeds

[zenith pumice]

So I also assume that because they converge, it’s different for every engine. Is there like a general “rule” for how much it has to converge?

[granite tundra]

in terms of actual numbers, i don't actually know

but it should be very very close to m = 1

[short ether]

ok 🙂

[granite tundra]

yep, it depends on a bunch of things

[short ether]

won't ask for more, cause rocket science is all greek to me

[granite tundra]

you can generally get higher pressure ratios if the nozzle exit is proportionally larger than the throat area

iirc.. it's been a while since i've done this

[zenith pumice]

So the higher the pressure the higher the area of the converging part or?

[granite tundra]

yep, so as the ratio of nozzle exit to nozzle throat area increases, the pressure increase goes up

[zenith pumice]

Nozzle exit = wide part yeah?
So if we have a small throat and a large exit, there’s more pressure = more thrust?

Or does it not work like that

[violet smelt]

it depends on the atmospheric pressure

also

[granite tundra]

broadly simplified, yes

although you need to give some consideration as to whether the flow is over or underexpanded at the nozzle exit

because over a certain exit pressure you're overexpanding flow and that has its own issues (mostly efficiency iirc)

[violet smelt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4SaofKCYwo

[violet smelt]

this video goes through it really well

[granite tundra]

so you actually want to be matching exit pressure with atmospheric pressure

[deep elm]

what did i start

i just said lets strap a spacex rocket to an f1 car

[violet smelt]

basically someone said that wouldnt be possible because rocket engines are too big, we proved them wrong and then the conversation delved into more technicalities of how the engines actually work and how to best utilize them

[granite tundra]

but to try and loop it back to f1, rocket nozzle design isn't actually too different from how 2022 floors work

same use of a converging-diverging geometry to accelerate the fluid, and if you're not choking the flow through the throat then the nozzle is actually just acting like a venturi channel

[zenith pumice]

Can I DM you for this because I have another question (if it’s not an issue)

[granite tundra]

yeah go for it

[abstract blaze]

rocket car already exists lmao

[zenith pumice]

Does that thing even produce downforce

Or is it just pure t h r u s t

[deep elm]

the great british flag

produces all the downforce u need

[zenith pumice]

Downforce produced by Her Majesty the Queen and the Grace of God 🙏

[abstract blaze]

[zenith pumice]

Honestly if you get into that thing the grace of god is all you’re going off of

[deep elm]

isnt that what nearly killed off hammond

[short ether]

It didn't run until top gear was over for them lot bruh

[zenith pumice]

Yeah I don’t think Hammond was ever in that

[deep elm]

https://youtu.be/GKezmOrfNqA

beta version

with much less thrust

[granite tundra]

he crashed the vampire

i think it was a jet-only dragster?

[deep elm]

yeah it was made for

land speed record

[short ether]

By Beta version you mean... Not... related considering the beta was the thrust SSC?

[green marlin]

Good actual question. Could you answer me that question?

[short ether]

he's not an aero guy

[quick wind]

It does produce downforce.

But dont listen to me, im not an aerodynamacist.

I cant think of any situation apart from paper flying at highspeeds faced parallel to the flow of travel that would produce downforce.

Yet again, if the paper was low enough to the ground you'd start to get some forces...

[short ether]

what does ers stand for?

energy recovery system

ight thx

[soft shadow]

Haha, turbo and brake heat go "Pzzzztt!! Mo powah"

[quasi gulch]

still dont get how it gets more power from the heat tbh, like the technical parts of it

[short ether]

It's kinda deceptive, tho it does make sense
The MGU-H in recovery works like an electric brake to try and keep the revs of the turbo more consistent and doing so, the force that the exhaust gasses push against the Turbine, which turn against the stopping force of the MGU-H, generate electricity
It's kinda like a Steam generator in some way. It's not like you'll chuck it in a microwave and it'll generate made Kilowatt-hours, but the energy of the hot exhaust gases do