2021 F1 Concept car

[Carl]

I've always liked the look and presumed aerodynamic impact of wheel covers, which were briefly popular at Indianapolis in the 1980s. It's possible engineers were unimpressed about their benefit or regulations written to disallow them, but they sure looked cool!

Rick Mears and his pole and race winning PC-17 in 1988

                                                                                  

                                                                                  

[mikael]

I think the 2021 design group really are on to something that looks right this time. To have a large diffuser that generates the main part of the "downforce", and to let this diffuser be fed with air from tunnels equipped with guiding vanes, that "straighten out" the flow (or "cleans" the "dirty" airflow) - this seems to be the right way to do it.

If one looks at a wind tunnel, at the so-called test section, where the test item (i.e. a car model) is suspended, then this test section is also fed with a "clean" (low-turbulence)  airflow, which has been led through a long section which includes a "flow straightener" (which looks like a large bunch of drinking straws packet together).

Maybe the wind tunnel has been the inspiration behind the new tunnel-diffuser system ...

[René]

Jul 18, 2019 6:43:13 GMT mikael said:

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.

Very interesting article but I don't entirely agree with the statement that the 'new' groundeffect has nothing to do with the groundeffect principle of the late 70s. The idea of creating a low pressure area underneath the car by forcing the airflow through venturi tunnels is basically the same. Of course cars will not be allowed to use sliding skirts (to seal off the underside) but those were already not allowed for 1981 and 82 while the cars still had groundeffect. However, technology has come a long way since then so I'm sure it will be much more advanced and effective.

Comparing the groundeffect cars of the late 70s/early 80s with the newly proposed ground effect:

I think this is a very good direction for F1 to take and for which I (and many with me) have been advocating for a long time. Indycar is showing over and over again this principle is much better for close racing.

I also read today F1 is set to abandon high-deg tyres in 2021, another sensible choice so I think there is truly some reason for optimism. Even if Jean Todt's idea to reintroduce refueling is a bad idea but there's not much support for that anyway.

[robmarsh]

I think the less Jean Todt has to do with ideas for new F1 the better. He has not impressed me in his role as head of the FIA.

I am not sure if I like the wheel covers but if the racing is good then they won't worry me.

I still think that F1 needs to de-couple itself from being seen as a development place for motor vehicles and should be seen as an out and out racing series and sport. The current method is like asking football to develop shoes for the high street or balls for the beach. Le Mans and the other endurance races should be seen as the test beds for the future. All the hybrid power units, tyres, efficient bodywork that are important to road cars can be dealt with there.

I also think that the big manufacturers should only be allowed to enter F1 as engine suppliers and only if they have a team entered in the world endurance championship. The bar could be set at number of road vehicles built in a year and set high enough that sports car manufacturers such as Ferrari, Lotus, Aston Martin etc are under the bar and hence can enter F1 as a manufacturer. Only Renault, Mercedes would be affected as teams and they can supply engines and enter WEC.

This, coupled with simpler engines, less staff allowed at races, less data allowed to broadcast from the pits to home bases would go a long way to reducing costs without having to try and measure cost caps. Just count the legs and divide by two.

They also need to make the cars much smaller and lighter and they will not do this with the current power units. As it is the teams struggle to get down to the minimum weight of 743 kgs. That is half again of the cars in the 90s. The world should be moving to smaller cars not bigger. The less weight the less energy to dissipate in a crash.

I could go on and on.

[charleselan]

It is being said that these new rules are too prescriptive, including some of the teams, and that all the cars will look the same except for the colour schemes. Brawn has countered by saying that his mate Pat Symmonds has done a study of current cars and claims that with all decoration removed they also all look alike. A very political answer if I may say so which hasn't convinced some fans who have highlighted certain differences, just in the nose cone design!

To my way of thinking the more prescribed a series the more it becomes a spec formula, F1 is now very much becoming like Formula E which is where all the major manufacturers are going to end up, if not already.

[Carl]

Shocking news from a reliably dubious source:



theluggnutt.com/2019/08/22/f1s-2021-1-24th-scale-wind-tunnel-test-car-is-actually-just-a-full-scale-1991-f1-car/

[mikael]

Sept 3, 2019 4:24:05 GMT Carl said:

Shocking news from a reliably dubious source:

theluggnutt.com/2019/08/22/f1s-2021-1-24th-scale-wind-tunnel-test-car-is-actually-just-a-full-scale-1991-f1-car/

Thanks Carl. But a somewhat confusing text. "The 1/24th scaled test model, oddly, is just a typical, full-scale car that raced during the 1991 Formula 1 season" !?

Just a typical full-scale car? Certainly the wind tunnel test model is a scale model.

If the design of the 2021 "test mule" really is based on the 1991 Ferrari 642, then no harm is done. Quite on the contrary - that was an exceptionally beautiful Formula One car.

[René]

Sept 3, 2019 4:24:05 GMT Carl said:

Shocking news from a reliably dubious source:



theluggnutt.com/2019/08/22/f1s-2021-1-24th-scale-wind-tunnel-test-car-is-actually-just-a-full-scale-1991-f1-car/

Whoaha, that is brilliant Carl!

I also read that Mercedes’s new car transporter is actually a second hand NASA Space Shuttle transporter that Toto got a good deal on. It fits exactly two W10’s!

[chrisb]

uh? is it April all over again? mind you if the 1991 car is a 1/4 of the size of these current monsters, that isn't good, so wondering why they aren't including hover jets

[Carl]

Sept 3, 2019 20:01:09 GMT chrisb said:

uh? is it April all over again? mind you if the 1991 car is a 1/4 of the size of these current monsters, that isn't good, so wondering why they aren't including hover jets

Yes, the "reliably dubious source" is satirical

[mikael]

There's a quite interesting article by Mark Hughes at MSM on the proposed 2021 regs, saying that, "as things stand, Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull are against introducing the proposed changes – including the extensively-researched aero regulations", and that they (and particularly Ferrari) could vote against them.

Link:
www.motorsportmagazine.com/opinion/f1/mph-ferrari-veto-would-shatter-f1s-2021-plans-closer-racing-0

It's really a delicate matter. On one hand, the Indycar series has shown that, what essentially is a spec-series, can provide close and really good racing. On the other hand, F1 really shouldn't be a spec series. It should remain to be a "mobile laboratory". Hence, thinking about it, the 2021 plans might really be a mistake ...

Mark Hughes argues that, "F1 must have enough downforce to be, without question, the fastest cars (on the planet)". I don't agree on this point. The 1500cc F1 cars of the early 60's were not the fastest cars on any circuit, yet they were pure F1 cars. Although small, they were state of the art high tech (at the time) - and driven by the best drivers in the World. In those years, the 1500cc Formula One remained to be the premier motor racing category.

Also, in a certain sense, I don't agree on the saying that, "what  is learned cannot be unlearned". When the wing cars technology of the late 70's was banned, the technology was essentially "unlearned."

When the turbo engines were banned some years later, this was yet another technology that was essentially "unlearned".

(One can perhaps also draw parallels to the transformations to "Green energy" that are taking place in the present years. In the future, many "quick-and-dirty" ways to acquire energy will be banned - hence these approached/technologies will also be "unlearned".)

I'm convinced that it would be possible to ban wings and winglets. It should not be applied to F1 alone, though. If external wings and winglets were banned in all FIA categories, that is, in F1, F2, F3, and F4 (downforce by under-floor diffuser only, say), the problem would be solved!

Back to basics - why not? Even if Indycars were significantly faster than F1 then - this wouldn't be an issue. As a commenter point out at MSM, the immensely powerful Can-Am cars were also faster than F1 at the time.

If the designers remained to have "free hands", under the restriction of no bolted-on wings and no winglets -- I believe that would be an almost-optimal solution.

[robmarsh]

Hi Mikael I had very similar thoughts to you about Hughes' column. It looks like he could be getting sucked into the myopic F1 bubble like the rest of them.

[Carl]

Mikael,
            Excellent thoughts and well presented. Ross Brawn would do well to consult with you!

Cheers, Carl

[chrisb]

great post Mikael, really well thought through and I agree, we do 'unlearn' so much, all the ground effects and electronic gadgets were banned but the racing continued, my argument with so many things including the UK's welfare state is simplify things, and when you look at what could be achieved by just some basic changes, ach well

[René]

Sept 28, 2019 4:12:35 GMT mikael said:

There's a quite interesting article by Mark Hughes at MSM on the proposed 2021 regs, saying that, "as things stand, Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull are against introducing the proposed changes – including the extensively-researched aero regulations", and that they (and particularly Ferrari) could vote against them.

Link:
www.motorsportmagazine.com/opinion/f1/mph-ferrari-veto-would-shatter-f1s-2021-plans-closer-racing-0

It's really a delicate matter. On one hand, the Indycar series has shown that, what essentially is a spec-series, can provide close and really good racing. On the other hand, F1 really shouldn't be a spec series. It should remain to be a "mobile laboratory". Hence, thinking about it, the 2021 plans might really be a mistake ...

Mark Hughes argues that, "F1 must have enough downforce to be, without question, the fastest cars (on the planet)". I don't agree on this point. The 1500cc F1 cars of the early 60's were not the fastest cars on any circuit, yet they were pure F1 cars. Although small, they were state of the art high tech (at the time) - and driven by the best drivers in the World. In those years, the 1500cc Formula One remained to be the premier motor racing category.

Also, in a certain sense, I don't agree on the saying that, "what  is learned cannot be unlearned". When the wing cars technology of the late 70's was banned, the technology was essentially "unlearned."

When the turbo engines were banned some years later, this was yet another technology that was essentially "unlearned".

(One can perhaps also draw parallels to the transformations to "Green energy" that are taking place in the present years. In the future, many "quick-and-dirty" ways to acquire energy will be banned - hence these approached/technologies will also be "unlearned".)

I'm convinced that it would be possible to ban wings and winglets. It should not be applied to F1 alone, though. If external wings and winglets were banned in all FIA categories, that is, in F1, F2, F3, and F4 (downforce by under-floor diffuser only, say), the problem would be solved!

Back to basics - why not? Even if Indycars were significantly faster than F1 then - this wouldn't be an issue. As a commenter point out at MSM, the immensely powerful Can-Am cars were also faster than F1 at the time.

If the designers remained to have "free hands", under the restriction of no bolted-on wings and no winglets -- I believe that would be an almost-optimal solution.

An interesting post Mikael.

I agree F1 can never be a spec series because than it wouldn't be Formula One anymore. And this is where Ferrari (the only team with a veto right) has doubts about the new regulations. The new rules are too prescriptive but it's mainly the use of too many standard parts where they have an issue with. But it remains very difficult. 

I understand your 'unlearn' reasoning but that only works when you shut down a development route through strict rules. And with the knowledge and computer technology available of the modern age, you will end up with prescriptive rules anyhow. The Can-Am series you mentioned were wonderful but they effectively imploded because there were no rules.

I like the idea of ground effect and having less downforce generated by wings is also good but having no wings at all on a Grand Prix car would not be my choice. I like the wings and F1 cars were only wingless for the first 17 years. And I also think F1 should be the fastest series, that's why it's called F1. The 1500cc cars were really too light and slow for F1. They didn't call it 'return to power' for nothing when bigger engines were allowed again. 

Just my thoughts...