2021 F1 Concept car

[René]

You've probably all seen it but I must say the design of this 2021 (concept) car doesn't look bad at all. The simpler wings and the 18" wheels are the most striking new features. The shape of the body looks nice and the car even looks more compact compared to 2018 cars. Hopefully no DRS.


© Autosport

[Carl]

Sept 13, 2018 19:15:07 GMT René said:

You've probably all seen it but I must say the design of this 2021 (concept) car doesn't look bad at all. The simpler wings and the 18" wheels are the most striking new features. The shape of the body looks nice and the car even looks more compact compared to 2018 cars. Hopefully no DRS.


© Autosport

An interesting concept, looking much like a current Champ Car if you relax the lateral curvature of the front wing, remove the squatting alien above the cockpit and substitute Champ Car wheels with Firestone tyres.  Then the resemblance is remarkable.

How many cameras are essential to a race car attaining top speed?  Do the barge boards angled behind the front wheels double as emergency stools, thus reinforcing the bathroom imagery of the hallowed toilet seat?

- a Welsh curmudgeon              Attachment Deleted

[mikael]

It's true, as Mark Hughes writes in his article on this 2012 concept, that F1 saw larger changes from the 50's to the 60's and then again from the 60's to the 70's, than we have seen during the last 40 years. But these change were dictated by speed alone, and new shapes were coined by brilliant designers, not by a design committee.

I feel that this new 2021 initiative - which seems too reminiscent of the Indycar concept - goes against the "DNA" of Formula 1, in the sense that the cars are too "pre-designed". It effectively turns F1 into a spec-car series, doesn't it?

It would be much more interesting if the designated "design committee" racked their brains to come up with a shrewd set of new regulations that would challenge the designers and force them to start designing on, basically, a clean slate.

For example, a maximum allowable curvature of all surfaces could be specified. This would eliminate the possibility of vortex generators and winglets.

In this way you wouldn't tell (dictate) the once designers how the car should look like. Rather, they would be able to show what they could do with smooth surfaces.

[robmarsh]

Sept 17, 2018 2:47:42 GMT mikael said:

It's true, as Mark Hughes writes in his article on this 2012 concept, that F1 saw larger changes from the 50's to the 60's and then again from the 60's to the 70's, than we have seen during the last 40 years. But these change were dictated by speed alone, and new shapes were coined by brilliant designers, not by a design committee.

I feel that this new 2021 initiative - which seems too reminiscent of the Indycar concept - goes against the "DNA" of Formula 1, in the sense that the cars are too "pre-designed". It effectively turns F1 into a spec-car series, doesn't it?

It would be much more interesting if the designated "design committee" racket their brains to come up with a shrewd set of new regulations that would challenge the designers and force them to start designing on, basically, a clean slate.

For example, a maximum allowable curvature of all surfaces could be specified. This would eliminate the possibility of vortex generators and winglets.

In this way you wouldn't tell (dictate) the once designers how the car should look like. Rather, they would be able to show what they could do with smooth surfaces.

  You raise an interesting point Mikael. On listening to the Sky F1 coverage and reading various articles the concept is not finalised yet. The pics were leaked which forced Ross Brawn to hold a conference to explain. Hopefully these are just examples of what the cars could look like once the rules are finalised and there will be enough freedom in the rules to allow the designers to find different solutions to the same problem.

[chrisb]

sadly true Mikael, F1 = spec series, although, at the time I wasn't a great Can-Am fan I am slowly being drawn more and more towards the concept, all F1 needs to do with a financial limit imposed is to say, the race lasts this long and you have so much fuel get on with it - [c] the cars have to pass stringent safety checks,

I wish, or plan B  ban the manufacturers - as if...

[René]

Some very good points Mikael but I wouldn't look at this artist impression as a guideline what the cars should look like. It's an impression, no more. In the end the technical rules define how the cars will look, it always has been like that. The only difference is that in the past there was simply more freedom (i.e. a thinner rulebook).

But it's certainly possible to write the rules in a manner that the outcome produces a more attractive car. I believe this is the idea of this study. F1 cannot be a pre-defined spec series, even if it is already partly like this.

To create more creativity in the designs of the cars, you should actually forbid the use of computers and wind tunnels and leave it to the imagination of the individual designers again. But that will never happen. You cannot undo knowledge and how can F1 be the pinnacle of racing in a world that turns around computers if they can't use them themselves?

[Jamie]

One thing that I really hope the 2021 rules change is a move to shorter wheelbases, or should I say wheelbases that look a little more ‘in proportion’.

Also, do we know what the final 2021 engine regs are yet?

[robmarsh]

Sept 18, 2018 6:55:52 GMT Jamie said:

One thing that I really hope the 2021 rules change is a move to shorter wheelbases, or should I say wheelbases that look a little more ‘in proportion’.

Also, do we know what the final 2021 engine regs are yet?

Hi Jamie

From what I have gathered so far it looks like the engine regs are going to stay as is. No other engine manufacturer was prepared to commit to F1 and so the current manufacturers,  quite rightly in my view, have said why should they go to all the extra expense of developing new engines. There is probably more chance of achieving engine parity under the current regs and current manufacturers than if they through all the balls in the air again with new engine regs.  

[Jamie]

Yes, no point in changing for changes sake (much as I’d like 3.5 ltr V10’s).

[chrisb]

it would be so good to see a change in formula one power units, but I can't see it happening whilst the manufacturers still dominate. Which begs the question, history shows us that car manufacturers come in and out of F1, mainly driven [arghh- sorry] by market forces, so, given the state of the economy worldwide, with export/ import tariffs used as a Monopoly game - can the car makers remain? if not - for me personally that would be good. Now given that Ferrari, whilst owned by a huge corporation, is essentially a motor racing organisation I hope they would stay, the others, less so and where would that leave or lead us?

[mikael]

Regarding the 2021 concept: in some images it appears as if the plan is to go back to "Formula 3 tyre width". I hope it's not the case, and that they stay as they are now, with 305 mm width front and 405 mm rear (or something like that). These "classic" wide tyres, that's one great "plus" in the appearance of the present cars ...

[Carl]

Dec 17, 2018 1:03:13 GMT mikael said:

Regarding the 2021 concept: in some images it appears as if the plan is to go back to "Formula 3 tyre width". I hope it's not the case, and that they stay as they are now, with 305 mm width front and 405 mm rear (or something like that). These "classic" wide tyres, that's one great "plus" in the appearance of the present cars ...

I completely agree, Mikael.  Wide tyres were part of the glory years of Formula One and do the best job of putting the power down without undue drama. 

The front wing on the Mercedes at the bottom is beautiful, amazingly with three basic planes instead of forty per side!  But its halo device appears not only lower but also more stout than earlier examples and is likely too massive for good driver vision both to the front and side.  Can computer artists sometimes get carried away with aesthetics?

Cheers, Carl 

[Carl]

Sept 17, 2018 2:47:42 GMT mikael said:

It would be much more interesting if the designated "design committee" racked their brains to come up with a shrewd set of new regulations that would challenge the designers and force them to start designing on, basically, a clean slate.

For example, a maximum allowable curvature of all surfaces could be specified. This would eliminate the possibility of vortex generators and winglets.

Mikael,

              I start each day on a clean slate.  No-one has ever complained about my basic design and my girlfriend rather enjoys my vortex generation and has some choice words for Ross Brawn if he calls.

Cheers, Carl Slate

[mikael]

Some drawings of updated plans for the 2021 cars have appeared at the German "Auto Motor und Sport".

www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/formel-1/f1-2021-auto-bilder-infos/

It seems, to me, to be an improvement over the previously published layout. The cars look less futuristic and simpler. An interesting little detail is that they want, apparently, to use "wheel covers" (enclosed wheelrims) again (as they did some years back).

[mikael]

MSM now have posted an article with the title: "Ground effect to make a comeback in 2021 F1 rules proposals".

www.motorsportmagazine.com/news/f1/ground-effect-make-comeback-2021-f1-rules-proposals

This appears to be a misnomer. Here is an extract from the Auto Motor und Sport article, run through Google translate (and unedited!):

For better clarity, we have summarized the key points in a nutshell:

- A simple front wing with three elements and straight end plates
-  A deep nose
- Two small fenders over the front wheels
- Fully clad rims to prevent the swirling air from being diverted to the outside.
- Complete elimination of baffles to pass the turbulent air inside the wheels.
- Long side boxes with well-defined cooling inlets and air deflectors in front of the rear wheels to pass the flow between the fairing and wheels.
- An underbody with two tunnels to the right and left of the reference plane. They reach to the diffuser.
- A rear wing with under wing. Both adapt to the shape of the diffuser and direct the air upwards in interaction.
- Simplere tailfitting end plates to avoid the creation of virtual wake vortices

The ground effect under the car technically has nothing to do with the model of the late 70s. At that time, wing profiles were screwed under the side boxes and with sealing by means of aprons, an encapsulated space was created for generating contact pressure. The ground effect of the future has to be thought of as a huge diffuser. Within the tunnels under the fairing, no wing structures are allowed.

Original text:

Der besseren Übersichtlichkeit wegen haben wir stichwortartig die Eckpunkte zusammengefasst:

- Ein simpler Frontflügel mit drei Elementen und geraden Endplatten
- Eine tiefe Nase
- Zwei kleine Kotflügel über den Vorderrädern
- Voll verkleidete Felgen, um zu verhindern, das verwirbelte Luft nach außen abgeleitet wird.
- Kompletter Verzicht auf Leitbleche, um die verwirbelte Luft innerhalb der Räder vorbeizuleiten.
- Lange Seitenkästen mit klar definierten Kühleinlässen und Luftabweisern vor den Hinterrädern, um die Strömung zwischen Verkleidung und Rädern vorbeizuführen.
- Ein Unterboden mit zwei Tunneln rechts und links der Referenzebene. Sie reichen bis zum Diffusor.
- Ein Heckflügel mit Unterflügel. Beides passt sich der Form des Diffusors an und lenkt im Zusammenspiel die Luft nach oben.
- Simplere Heckfügelendplatten, um die Erzeugung von virtuellen Wirbelschleppen zu vermeiden

Der Groundeffect unter dem Auto hat technisch nichts mit dem Modell der späten 70er Jahre zu tun. Damals wurden unter die Seitenkästen Flügelprofile geschraubt und mit Abdichtung durch Schürzen ein abgekapselter Raum zur Erzeugung von Anpressdruck geschaffen. Den Groundeffect der Zukunft muss man sich als riesigen Diffusor vorstellen. Innerhalb der Tunnel unter der Verkleidung sind keinerlei Flügelstrukturen erlaubt.