F1 Car designers are the speedrunners of the engineering world. Trying every trick and optimization, chasing an increasingly diminishing infinitesimal advantage.
They're engineers in the truest sense. Solving problems using sophisticated math under a veriety of constraints. Its a really complicated optimization problem. And they do a great job
Finally, Autosport puts out a normal video, with good quality technical analysis and no cringey "jokes" and stock footage. More of this please, it's good stuff.
@@johnsmith1474 Yeah thinking back on it I'm probably being pretty generous with my wording. But as someone who has always been rather confused about the purpose of bargeboards, I did learn a bit about their role in managing turbulent air off the front tires. I also think the historical comparisons are a nice way to approach the subject. Basically the video had a good concept, but you're right it would have been much better if they'd gone into some actual technical detail (as The Race has started to do with Gary Anderson). In any case this video is miles better compared to some of the other stuff on this channel.
@@jakeboxall-legge640 doesn't matter as he is totally right. If thats an analysis about barge boards then its not a good one. Bargeboards did a much bigger job than the large endplates did. Also there is no word of the suction of air- one of the most important effects why barge boards are on a F1 car. And protecting the floor - thats a mix a bs and truth. The creation of vortices is mentioned, but only also with half of what they are really doing... - and what they tell in relation to the undercuts is rubbish. The undercuts sealed the floor. And the bargeboards had not much to do with that, also not with the flow of air to the back. A little bit yes...so half is truth, half is bs. Also the bargeboards of 1992 and 2021 do absolutely not work in the same way! So he is right. Its not really a good technical analysis.
@@cademckee7276 mate im talking about the propwr venturi model....along the sidepods.......like the ones lotus had in the 70s......also diffuser is a part of ground effect isn't it
@@rionpereira5407 “Ground Effect” is a made up term for underbody downforce. A “Venturi Tunnel” is a diffuser. What Lotus had under the sidepod was just a sealed primitive diffuser. Tunnels along the whole length of a car actually produce less downforce. Diffusers create downforce from air going from high pressure to under a flat floor to low pressure because they are allowed to expand with the diffuser. “Ground effects” was never banned, they just banned skirts and limited the sizes of diffusers. All the new regs are changing in that regard is making the diffuser much bigger.
I know it creates turbulence and all, but i do have to agree that it's a piece of art..... just thinking about the evolution and complexity of it is awesome.... and the level of development that f1 has is also amazing..... imagine where will the teams invest in 2022?? where will their findings turn something simple into a complexity??
What I am betting will happen is much like 2015. One team will begin to dominate again and teams will complain that there aren't enough room for varied developments making the FIA return some complex aero features. I think maybe in 2025-26.
I like F1 because of these crazy designs, pushing the boundaries to earn every fraction of second as it's possible. I'm going to miss those little ugly monsters, but if it's for the good of competition, let them be gone...
me too, im pretty sure they dont get data like this from the team. probably hired a bunch of CAD guys to model after pictures (i assume its more than one, they have the models pretty early in the season)
"How Formula 1's Bargeboards Became So Complicated"? Easy. F1/FIA told the teams to stop making complicated/complex front wings after the 2018 season. F1 Teams asked if they could play with the Bb and the FIA said yes; sure; have it.
Art work? It looks more like a bunch of skin tags. They are also extremely expensive to design, build and prevent the cars from wheel to wheel racing. Do they help to reduce lap times, sure, but it is all relative since it helping everyone. The same with the wider tires they allowed. This would all be great if F1 races were timed events where it is you vs the clock, you can't see the cars go a second a lap quicker. These cars only recently started to break track records from 15 years ago. Plus the trickle down to the road cars justification is largely gone for this because no one Is going to build a road car with all of that hideous, expensive and fragile crap all over it. Like these ridiculous "hybrids" currently running. Is the tech impressive? Maybe as a science experiment, but this is auto racing and they are getting very big and heavy. It isn't supposed to be just auto racing, but auto racing at the highest levels. F1 is pure automotive gluttony and is wasteful by nature, but it is so small in the grand scheme of things, who cares if you saved a few gallons of gas over the course of a year. Tree huggers, just go to formula E and let go of F1 for the fans sake.
"Rediculous" is a bit much. I think they are awesome and the tech that makes me love F1. I duno why whoever wrote this script is against them but i love it
@@tlreclipse1126 And spectacle. As the comments on this video illustrate, a lot of people don't like the massive complexity of modern-day bargeboards. If a concept proves unpopular with spectators, F1 has to get rid of it, or it risks turning them away.
Me too. I get the function of the barge boards but the recent versions aren’t very aesthetically pleasing (in my eye). I think “ridiculous-ness” is an apt description of them as they’re *so* complicated now. Roll on 2022.
Gentlemen, a short view back to the past. Thirty years ago, Niki Lauda told us ‘take a monkey, place him into the cockpit and he is able to drive the car.’ Thirty years later, Sebastian told us ‘I had to start my car like a computer, it’s very complicated.’ And Nico Rosberg said that during the race - I don’t remember what race - he pressed the wrong button on the wheel. Question for you both: is Formula One driving today too complicated with twenty and more buttons on the wheel, are you too much under effort, under pressure? What are your wishes for the future concerning the technical programme during the race? Less buttons, more? Or less and more communication with your engineers?
But do you know how much time it takes to do that. That's called art work and the engineering technique which is all f1 engineers need and if anyone is simple then the whole world can be in f1.
@@saitarun8074 Can't deny that the engineers in F1 do a hell of a job figuring everything out and I love seeing them trying to alter and break the limits of the current rules. But in the end it's still a sport and the changes to remove them are in the best interest of the sport to make it more interesting and exciting on track instead of on the blueprints.
I love the barge board designs in modern f1 cars. Pushing the limits of how a human can change and control nature. It kinda sad to think they aren’t allowing as much development in the 2022 car.
Misguided? the 2017 cars were fantastic. After many years of snowplow front wings, skinny tall rear wings, narrow tracks and ever increasing laptimes, it was a breath of fresh air to see the aggressive and fast 2017 cars.
Did we just skip over the space ships of 2008? I guess it wasn't really the barge boards that were the reason for the cars looking like there were zero aero rules.
The more they "work" the air, the greater the effect on the trailing cars. One thing I've never understood about today's cars and the engineers is why during FP they avoid running in the wake of another car almost 100% of the time. Unless you were Mercedes and knew you had a massive advantage, it would seem to make sense to prioritize the effects and tune the car the best you can to run in traffic. While simpler, Indycar and NASCAR do just that and will often say the car is quick when in traffic because they have set the car up to handle the airflow in that turbulent environment.
Too many variables to chase with turbulent air. The hardest part of aero is modeling to maintain the flow structures with steering lock and yaw. Add in a leading car with it's own complexities and it's just not worth it. I will say tho, kinda wish they were forced to design a car that can follow itself in cfd. Might make a better show.
@@BTcaice kinda my point and I get what you're saying but there is no reason for a car at the trailing end of the mid pack to design a car for clean air when it never exists in the race.
So you’re saying F1 could learn a trick from NASCAR and Indy Car lol. 😂 No, the issue is you watch Channel 4 and SKY F1 TV and that is where you get your knowledge from. Or silly videos like this. Those little fins are creating guided vortexes which create barriers of air, kinda.
@@GrandPrixDecals I know what the f there are. Don't be so smug. I was only referencing the other series for what they do. Who the hell do you think you are? Don't judge who you don't know.
@@ronknox3376 I'm not convinced any teams are capable of designing a competitive car for traffic but rather they just lose less from peak performance as compared to a top team. There might be something in it with rake angle or out/in-wash front wing loading. Also may just as well have to do exclusively with tire loading/heating. That's all beyond my limitations tho...
And this is the kind of thing that causes development costs to spiral out of control, putting the leaders further ahead and the stragglers further behind
I would like to see an F1 car with no restrictions to aero parts. Not for racing tho because of strange dirty they will leave behind, but just to see what would be possible.
In twenty years' time we will look on the bargeboards of 2020 like we now look on 80's mullets. They were sooo cool at the time, and so ridiculous from a distance.
Outside just doing everything possible to slow the cars down after the near death of Rubens and deaths of Senna and Ratzenberger, is there a legitimate reason for axing the long trailing edges of the front wings? That detail of F1 cars somehow only became apparent to me when you pointed to it in this video. I do also wonder why the small rear wings attached to the outer edges of the main rear wing were banned also.
This reminds me of natural selection in a way, with their shapes mutating and changing over time based on various pressures in the regulations and competition, with those that perform poorly dying out and those that perform well multiplying.
I'm a geek when it comes to new F1 tech, but am not a huge fan of how bargeboards have become so complex and "busy" looking. So I'm glad to see them go away. They are just not an elegant design. F1 cars, to me, should look sleek and sophisticated. So I'm glad to see those and the horrendous phallic noses go away into oblivion!
3:03 - I am not an aerodynamicist but it seems to me that the profile was made 'upside-down' to what it was supposed to be. It does looks like it would generate low pressure at the top producing lift and if it were 'mirrored' it could generate downforce instead… Anyway hope the teams won't find a loophole to keep those things anymore. I always thought those plates in the 90s made the cars look ugly but nowadays it's just ridiculous…
You might be right, but as far as I know from general aerodynamics, they would allow this air to flow under the car by a small area just after the support wing and leaves the undertray in a larger cross section area, causing the air to suffer from a gradient of pressure, then the car would rather be attatched to the ground. On top of that, by all means, I think there were great Aerodynamicist Engineers studying the airflow over the bodies. As I said before, I might be completely wrong.
It's really weird, I thought exactly the same. It has a clear positive angle of attack, which would induce quite a lot of lift, yet it was said in the video that it was meant to direct airflow downwards, that would inevitably create lift (Newton 3rd law). As for the profile itself, it doesn't look particularly reversed, especially the leading edge has that characteristic bulge on the top. However that may be because I can't see properly (the angle on the photo at 3:11 messes with my depth perception). I think it may be a symmetrical profile, which would direct air downwards but would produce a lot less lift than the profiles you see in airplanes. That way, you would gain the advantage of directing the airflow (funnelled into the diffuser this could lead to huge gains in downforce) with a little bit of lift as accepted collateral damage.
I thought I'd written a reply but apparently I didn't click 'send' or whatever... Anyway this did made me curious so I had a look online and in all the pictures I've seen it still looks like a deep camber airplane mini-wing which by the looks of it in theory should produce lift not downforce. It is really puzzling but since neither of us have access to its blueprints and wing tunnel tests we can only speculate. I am aware they do have aerodynamicists and I am very aware my knowledge in this matter is basic at best however I also know something about F1 history and they do have an habit of throwing *** in the wall to see what sticks and this seems exactly like one such instance. And lift or not it might've paid of after all by the number of pictures I've looked it seems they raced with it the entire year so... it worked better than it would if it weren't there I suppose. I did NOT do a full research though... if someone does do that and is willing to correct me I would be glad to learn :)
I don't get how they're so offensive to you and others. They don't affect the cars' profiles. They're never anything but bare carbon fiber. Is it like trypophobia or something?
@@BTcaice the bargeboards generate way too much turbulent air. Watch any video here in youtube that showcases the dirty air that modern F1 cars generate. Because the air is so turbulent, that makes it really difficult for cars behind to catch up. The aerodynamics pieces of the car behind stop fuctioning. F1 cars need clean air to generate downforce.
@@BTcaice if you even actually watch F1, you'll notice how the drivers complain or struggle a lot when trying to overtake cars in front. Take Raikkonen in Brazil, Sainz in Monza, and Verstappen in Bahrain. They lose a lot of downforce because of the cars in front, and so the tires have to work harder to maintain grip. And since the tires work harder, they wear out even quicker.
@@skygrasper_47 might be a bit unfair to the bargeboard. Thinking ugly things create ugly air. They're there to seal the floor. If not them, something else will be tasked. Banning them alone would not solve the following problem. Alternative vortices are available. Also the tires... F1 asks too much of their single supplier and they get a compromised product. The tires slide, overheat and ruin races. Let's not bash the bargeboards unduly.
Description nailed. Bargeboards today are outright ridiculous. Can't wait for this season to be over so I that can say goodbye to the turbulent air they cause.
I personally love the complexity of the bargeboards! Without them, cars would be much slower and less unique than they are. Technological progress and simplicity simply don’t go hand in hand.
@@dianamaioru497 well guess what, loving the complexity of the bargeboards and hating on DRS don't go hand in hand, either. Have you seen how Sainz struggled in Monza last year? Or Verstappen in Bahrain two weeks ago? The current F1 cars are not sustainable. That's why the fans are looking forward to next year's regulations.
Bargeboards do not cause turbulent air. They funnel turbulent air created by the wheels away from the car, and the consequence of that is that yes it lowers total pressure for the cars behind and that sucks. 2022 will help, but you're never going to get rid of the depression from an object passing through a fluid. Next year's plan should help by effectively displacing the depression above the following car, but that means slipstream won't be as effective, DRS will probably stay... At least the 2s "wall" 's effect should be reduced by a lot. Should help cooling, brake and tire management.
They're trying to split up the eddies coming off the wheels (diffuse them), separate them from the clean air coming from the front wing, push the eddies out of the way to the side, and then create their own vortices and direct them down and to the side to seal the undercarriage of the car to get as little 'leak' from the venturi tunnel as possible. That's the theory. In practice, no one but the teams themselves has any data on how the flows behave before and after the bargeboards. For example the turning vanes would behave very differently if they had laminar or turbulent flow coming to them, and there's just no way we can know what's upstream, so a proper analysis isn't possible, unless a team goes public with that. Since each team has a different philosophy and different designs, I doubt they'll go giving that information away to the general public, since that would give them to the other teams as well.
If FIA and F1 technical directors didn't like bargeboards this complex, they could have just done what they did with the front wing: set a fixed amount of maximum elements the bargeboards' array can have.
@@shadowwsk3507 - Like they did with the studies they made with front wings and the only five main elements rule that derived: bargeboards are similar in structure with all their plates and winglets arrays so they could have come up with some limitations for bargeboards too - and expecially bargeboards became this complex, they could have done something before they did. I know it's easier said than done, that that area of the car is a mess to regulate given the amount of aero development teams do in that area and I'm no engineer, but there is a way they could have done it.
