Design of a Formula One Front Wing for the 2014 Season (with regulations)

Design of a Formula One Front Wing for the 2014 Season
Josh Stevens - 19041584
Hallam University Project Report Page 1
Abstract
Josh Stevens: - written for BEng Mechanical Engineering at Sheffield Hallam
University
Title: - Design of a Formula One Front Wing for the 2014 Season
The speeds that Formula 1 cars are able to corner at are extremely impressive. This
impressive feat is made possible by numerous factors such as the wide profile tires,
mechanical grip and downforce produced from the aerodynamics of the car’s
bodywork. The most influential components of the downforce production are the
wings of the front and rear of the cars. As with all of the aspects of the car there are
rules and regulations set in place each year.
This report intends to progress through the design stages to produce a Front Wing
which complies with the FIA regulations of the 2014 season. This includes the
research and understanding of the published regulations available. From there the
initial design was modeled on Computer Aided Design software. This model was
then imported into Computational Fluid Dynamics software where several
simulations were performed to obtain initial results and visualizations. From these
results and visualizations the Wing was improved upon by the addition of several
downforce producing elements and airflow deflectors to reduce the drag created by
factors such as the front wheels.
The final design results, all be them theoretical, have produced a good outcome for
an initial starting point. With the limited student licensed software and hardware used
the ultimate potential of the design was unable to be tested. The theoretical results
gained through splitting the geometry into suitable elements and sections. The
results were then combined.
This combination method provided results which produced a greater amount of
downforce than the researched values from a Journal on the CFD analysis of a
PACE F1 car. The drag produced was significantly more but this was down to the
simulations being performed to include the wheel assembly. The inclusion of the
wheel assembly was so the air deflection caused by the end plates, elements and
wing can be looked into in order to reduce the drag caused by the wheels. This was
made possible with the visualizations of the software used which showed the path
lines of the airflow, enabling the redesign of the elements to deflect the flow where
required.

Acknowledgments
One does not simply write a dissertation on their own. The undertaking of this project
has been one of the most challenging academic tasks I have faced in my educational
years. The support and guidance offered by the following people made it possible to
complete this study. I owe my upmost gratitude to these people.
 David Tipper, my supervisor, for helping me through my project as without his
guidance, like a poor marksman, I'd have kept missing the target.
 Steven Brandon, IT specialist, was the man I was looking for transferring my
design into the analysis software. Without him I would have hit a wall very
early on.
 Qinling Li, helped show me numerous roads which would help lead me to the
same simulations in CFD. This came in usefulness with increasing the
accuracy but not affecting the convergence time too much.
 James Stevens, my older brother, who assisted me structuring this project by
making it so that he engaged helping me out
 Alistair and Susan Stevens, my parents, who helped understand to do, or do
not, as there is no try.
 Sam Rogerson, Liam Beard and his brother, Jordan, my course mates and
close friends, who kept encouraging me to see the light when all other lights
had gone out.

Contents
Abstract...................................................................................................................... 1
Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................... 2
Contents..................................................................................................................... 3
List of Abbreviations................................................................................................... 5
List of Figures............................................................................................................. 6
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 7
Background ............................................................................................................ 7
Aims ......................................................................................................................... 10
Objectives............................................................................................................. 10
Methodology ......................................................................................................... 11
Research.................................................................................................................. 12
Dimension requirements....................................................................................... 12
Specification Requirements .................................................................................. 13
Aerodynamics .......................................................................................................... 17
History of the Aerodynamics in Formula 1 ............................................................ 17
Importance of Downforce...................................................................................... 19
Downforce and Drag............................................................................................. 20
How Downforce is created.................................................................................... 21
FIA Regulations........................................................................................................ 22
Regulations which are required for this Project: ................................................... 22
Article 1: Definitions .......................................................................................... 22
Article 3: Bodywork and Dimensions................................................................. 22
Drawing 7: Front Wing Section – Side & Front View......................................... 22
Limitations................................................................................................................ 23
Initial Design............................................................................................................. 25
Design of the Initial Front Wing............................................................................. 25
Reasoning behind the design ............................................................................... 27
Testing ..................................................................................................................... 29
CFD ...................................................................................................................... 29
Advantages and disadvantages of CFD ............................................................... 29
CFD Process summary......................................................................................... 29
CFD Types ........................................................................................................... 30

Mesh..................................................................................................................... 30
Testing of the Initial Design .................................................................................. 32
Setup .................................................................................................................... 33
Reynolds Number................................................................................................. 34
Results.................................................................................................................. 35
Calculations.......................................................................................................... 36
Calculated Drag and Lift co-efficients................................................................ 37
Finalised Design Front Wing................................................................................. 39
Nose and Wheel assembly ............................................................................... 39
Original Wing Test............................................................................................. 40
Original Wing Test and nose combined Comparison ........................................ 40
Front Wing Analysis Only ..................................................................................... 41
Redesign 1 Wing Test....................................................................................... 41
Redesign 2 Wing Test....................................................................................... 41
Element Testing.................................................................................................... 42
Redesign 1 Elements........................................................................................ 42
Redesign 2 Elements........................................................................................ 42
Finalised front wing .................................................................................................. 43
Reasoning behind Design Choice ........................................................................ 43
Theoretical Final Design Results .......................................................................... 44
Rendering of the Final Design.................................................................................. 45
Conclusions.............................................................................................................. 46
Future Development................................................................................................. 47
References............................................................................................................... 48
Appendices .............................................................................................................. 53

List of Abbreviations
1. FIA - Federation Internationale de l'automobile
2. CAD - Computer Aided Design
3. F1 - Formula 1
4. ViDoc – Video Documentary
5. CFD - Computational Fluid Dynamics
6. CITS - Centre for Integrated Turbulence Simulation
7. LES - Large Eddy Simulation
8. FEA - Finite Element Analysis

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 - F-Duct system (ScarbsF1, 2010)
Figure 1.2 - Example of a 'T-bone' incident (Scott, 2010)
Figure 1.3 - Example of a 2008 front wing (Collantine, 2009)
Figure 2.1 - Changes to F1 cars from 2012 to 2014 (Top Sport Racing, 2012)
Figure 2.2 - PACE F1 front wing downforce and drag results (Chandra, Lee, Gorrell,
& Jenson, 2011)
Figure 3.1 - 1968 Lotus 49B (LotusEspritTurbo, 2011)
Figure 3.2 - 1928 Opel RAK1 (Arndt, 1997)
Figure 3.3 - 1928 Opel RAK2 (Arndt, 1997)
Figure 3.4 - Lotus 72 Cosworth Lotus 72 R4 (Melissen, 2013)
Figure 3.5 - Lotus 72 Cosworth Lotus 72 R6 (Melissen, 2013)
Figure 4.1 - FIA regulated wing section (Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
(FIA), 2011)
Figure 5.1 - Full Front Wing without Complete Wheel
Figure 5.2 - Complete Wheel
Figure 5.3 - Half Front Wing without Complete wheel
Figure 5.4 - Assembled Half Front Wing and Complete Wheel
Figure 5.5 - Mercedes Five-Element 2013 Front Wing from Jerez, Pre-season testing
(Anderson, Formula 1: Pre Season Testing, 2013)
Figure 5.6 - Diagram of the purpose of a 'Wing Endplate' (F1 Country: Technology
Behind Formula 1)
Figure 6.1 - Smoothness (Bakker, 2002)
Figure 6.1 - Aspect Ratio (Bakker, 2002)
Figure 6.3 - Fairmount hairpin, Monaco (Fish, 2011)
Figure 6.4 - 130R, Suzuka Circuit (REDBULL, 2012)
Figure 6.5 – CFD Mesh Settings
Figure 7.1 – Visualisation of the pressure on the upper & lower surfaces of the Wing
Figure 7.2 – Streamlines round the geometry

Introduction
This Project will focus on the design and analysis of a simple Formula One Front
Wing. A plan has been imposed to investigate the changes made to the regulations
that the FIA (Federation Internationale de l'automobile) have imposed for the
upcoming 2014 season and the challenges that this will present to the Formula 1
engineers and science teams in order to adhere to them. Using this information, a
further plan is to attempt to design a FIA compliant Formula 1 front wing using CAD
(Computer Aided Design) Software.
Background
Each year 11 Formula One teams compete with one another to produce the two best
cars for their drivers to compete with over the 19 races which make up the
championship (Formula 1, 2013) although this is usually 20 races and is more than
likely to contain 20 races for the 2014 (BBC Sport, 2013) season due to the New
Jersey inaugural race being postponed for a year, this was down to financial
constraints (BBC Sport, 2012).
The design of the vehicle is meticulous, as not only do the engineers and scientists
from each team have to create a car complying with the ever changing FIA rules and
regulations, but also the individual preferences and driving style of the drivers behind
the wheel. Nico Rosberg explained this in a ViDoc (Video Documentary) he made
with the Mercedes AMG team. In it he described how his feet are elevated compared
to the rest of his body and how he and the team communicated to optimise his
driving style (Rosberg, 2012). Every inch of the car is designed to be lightweight to
such a degree, that foam, for supporting the drivers in the seat, is regarded as 'very
heavy' (Rosberg, 2012). This can involve tinkering with the V8 engines to gain
horsepower which is lost over races. Each team is permitted 8 engine changes over
a season or face a ten place grid penalty (Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
(FIA), 2011). As internal combustion engines are powered on the components rub
against each other they wear out even with lubrication. This action causes loss in the
compression required in the operation of a combustion engine. By cleaning the
engine thoroughly it frees up any dirt which could increase the rate of wear and keep
the horsepower produced to a maximum.

Gear ratios are altered between races to achieve greater acceleration for the more
complex tracks, to make the most of short straights like Monaco’s street track or to
maximise the potential straight line speed on tracks like Belgium’s Spa circuit where
the final gear tends to be lengthened.
The aerodynamics have become a huge feature of the cars. The aspects of the
aerodynamics range from the rear wing, bodywork, diffuser, front wing and even the
air intakes required to keep the engine from overheating (Formula 1, 2013). The
combination of these parts produces the huge amount of downforce which amount to
enough for the car to theoretically drive upside down at speeds upward of 120mph
(Anderson, 2012).
"The forces reacting on an F1 car push it into the ground and make it lean on its
tyres but the car doesn't care if the ground is above it - or below. So in theory the car
could probably drive along upside down in the roof of a tunnel at about 120mph and
it would support its own weight, which is how aerodynamics work in aeroplanes."
(Anderson G, 2012)
The Front Wing is one of the most iconic parts of a Formula 1 race car as well as
being a major aspect of the aerodynamics of the car; as it produces 30-40% of the
total downforce produced (Suzuka, 2010). This enables the car to manoeuvre
corners at high speed. However, the design must also incorporate drag into the
design to optimise top speed on the straights of these high speed circuits.
Each year the regulations laid out by the FIA change due to the ever evolving nature
of the sport. Newly realised safety factors brought about by the increasing speed and
manoeuvrability of the cars, realised and taken advantage of by the exponentially
advancing automotive technology: The FIA rules and regulations are also changed
however, to aid the competitiveness of the championship; Aiding the inadequately
funded teams by removing or limiting certain technologies. These might not have
been available or immediately accessible for research by all the F1 teams. A recent
example of this would be the 'F-Duct', a design which enabled the driver to cover a
hole in the cockpit to alter the airflow to the rear wing (see Figure 1.1 below). This
alteration in the airflow caused a stalling phenomenon which enabled the loss of
most of the Downforce and

Drag produced (Scarbs F1, 2012).
The FIA banned the 'F-Duct' from
the 2011 season onwards (Formula
1, 2011) as it was deemed by some
teams to break the rule on
moveable aerodynamic devices
(Benson, F1 teams decide on 'F-
duct' ban for next season, 2010).
The evolving design of formula 1 vehicles has meant that for the reasons explained
above, the FIA has been forced to impose ever changing regulations governing the
design of the front wing since the introduction of regulations surrounding front wings
in the 1970 season (Formula 1, 2013).
For the 2014 season, the FIA have ruled that the nose of the car must not exceed
certain heights as it progresses further forward of the front wheel centre line. For
more detailed information, please see appropriate FIA regulations listed below. The
theoretical reasoning behind this is to improve the safety of the drivers. The design
has been created to reduce the risk of the nose of the car impacting at head height
of colliding vehicles in the event of an accident (see Figure 1.2). This would largely
come about in a collision know commonly as a 'T-Bone' (see Figure 1.2). These new
regulations will cause the nose and wing assembly (and consequentially, this
project's design), to bear a closer resemblance to those seen in the 2008 season
(see Figure 1.3), rather than the more flamboyant designs of the 2009-2012 seasons.
Figure 1.1 - F-Duct System
Figure 1.2 - T-Bone Example Figure 1.3 - 2008 McLaren F1 Car

Aims
Design and test a Formula 1 Front Wing and Nose Assembly that meets the criteria
of the 2014 season regulations.
Objectives
 Research: - Perform extensive research into Formula 1 Front Wing properties
in order to gain a greater understanding of the principals that go into the
designs. In order for the Final Design to adhere to the FIA rules and
regulations, governing the design and limitations of the front wing for the 2014
F1 season, research and understanding of these regulations is required. To
conclude whether the final design is a successful one an investigation of the
average down force produced by Formula 1 Front wings at different speeds
will need to be undertaken.
 Initial Design: - Once the regulations set in place have been researched and
understood a design of a Front Wing assembly using Computer Aided Design
software will be compiled.
 Testing and Analysis of Design: - The initial design will be implemented into
CFD software in order to test and then analyse the results using values
obtained in the research.
 Final design with Testing and Analysis: - After analysing the test results
and deciding where the wing requires too produce more down force, less drag
or deflect the air flow appropriately, alterations to the design in an attempt to
gain the best possible final outcome will take place whilst continually testing to
ensure the project is progressing in the appropriate direction.
 Discussion of Results: - Once the design has been finalised and testing
completed the result of the project's design will be evaluated, highlighting
what works well and what could be improved by looking at the down force
produced and drag. From the outcome future work could be suggested if
granted more time.

Methodology
 Research: - Using the published FIA technical regulations for the 2014
season a design will be able to be created in accordance with the regulations.
Finding exact values for down force production will be difficult as these figures
are closely guarded but using averaged values and incorporating these
with % calculations should give a clear picture of what performance
specifications the project should be aiming to achieve.
 Initial Design: - With the information researched and calculated designing the
wing with in the regulation dimensions will be possible.
 Testing and Analysis of Design: - Once the preliminary design has been
finalised CFD analysis will be implemented on the design in order to analyse
the results with the performance specifications decided upon. With these
results the design can be altered in the appropriate areas to reduce drag or
increase down force production.
 Final design with Testing and Analysis: - Using the results from the
preliminary testing the design will be improved, sensibly, to attempt to
maximise the down force whilst minimising the drag produced.
 Discussion of Results: - Once the final design has produced and has been
run through the same simulations as the preliminary design the Final front
wing will be analysed and the resultant drag and downforce figures will be
compare against current figures and produce a conclusion on whether the
design is a successful one of if it falls short of the intended marker.
Comparing the design to current and past designs a difference in the general
design is intended to be noticeable.

Research
Dimension requirements
The dimension requirements are very easy to understand from the FIA regulations
(Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), 2011). An article from an Italian
Formula 1 blog also was available to indicate the main differences between the 2012
season and the 2014 seasons (see Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1 - Changes to F1 cars from 2012 to 2014
Morro - Height
Alerὀn - Width

Specification Requirements
Looking at a Journal of CFD on a PACE F1 car revived by 'Computer-Aided Design
and Applications (ISSN 1686-4360)' which is an Independently run, Internationally
peer-reviewed Journal, some data tables (see Figure 2.2) analysing the down force
and drag production of their version of a Formula 1 front wing at 3 different speeds
were discovered.
Figure 2.2 - PACE F1 front wing downforce and drag results
(Chandra, Lee, Gorrell, & Jenson, 2011)

These results give a range of down force production of between 2000N and 2750N
at top speed and an overall range of 500N to 2750N for speeds between 100Mph
and 220Mph (Chandra, Lee, Gorrell, & Jenson, 2011). It should also be noted that
these tests did not incorporate the front wheel assembly's which this study does
intended to do so.
As well as these figures, Yoshi Suzuka wrote an article in 2010, 'How much do we
really know about aero-dynamics?', in which he stated that current Formula 1 cars
produce between 1245-1360kg of downforce at 150mph when using the highest
downforce trim. However, when using the lowest downforce trim the produced
downforce falls to 860-910kg (Suzuka, 2010). The efficiency of the aerodynamics is
not affected greatly as the lift: drag ration is in the region of 3.0-3.3:1 for the whole
car (Suzuka, 2010).
Using the information acquired from the official Formula 1 website (Formula 1, 2012)
and the BBC Sport race reports (BBC Sport, 2012) I have been able to find the top
speeds of the modern F1 cars taken in the speed trap or other areas of the courses
that make up the 2012 Formula 1 season and use this data as an indication of the
Top Speeds the cars achieve. The information is outlined in the table below. These
traps tend to be placed at the quickest part of the race (Formula 1, 2013). However,
they can sometimes are positioned in a different place by different sources. The
speeds are taken from qualifying or the race itself as the cars are put under 'Parc
Ferme' conditions (Formula 1, 2013). This is the area where the cars are left after
qualifying until 5 hours before the race. During this time the work the teams can carry
out on the cars is limited to strictly-specified routine procedures. These procedures
are expanded when there is an example of a ' change in climatic conditions', for
example a wet qualifying session followed by a dry race. Bracketed times are
speeds posted in Practice sessions which were quicker than the qualifying or race
speeds, the reasoning behind these is due to the race and/or qualifying being
affected by wet weather or the set-up of the car being changed (Formula 1, 2013).
The table below also includes the ambient air temperatures from which I will use to
determine whether the speeds will create a Mach speed of 0.3 where the flow will be
compressible. From that temperature I will calculate the speed of sound for that
temperature. The Mach number is easily calculable from these speeds of sound.

Practice session temperatures were not available and hence the appropriate speed
of sound for each suitable session was not calculable.
A Table to show the top speeds attained at each 2012 Formula 1
circuit and the corresponding Mach Number
Race Top Speed
(KpH)
Air Temp.
(°C)
Speed of Sound
(ms-1
)
Mach Speed
Australia 316.7 (317.9) 22 344.632 0.255
Malaysia 312.7 (314.4) 26 347.056 0.25
China 322.4 (325.9) 22 344.632 0.26
Bahrain 318.1 (320.1) 27 347.662 0.254
Spain 323.2 22 344.632 0.261
Monaco 282.5 (282.6) 22 344.632 0.228
Canada 324.8 (325.6) 26 347.056 0.26
Europe 321.4 (321.6) 30 349.48 0.255
Great Britain 301.9 (310.7) 20 343.42 0.244
Germany 318.1 (319.9) 22 344.632 0.256
Hungary 305.2 30 349.48 0.243
Belgium 310.6 (327
BBC Report)
22 344.632 0.25 (0.264)
Italy 342.7 (345.4) 28 348.268 0.273
Singapore 294.9 (295.1) 28 348.268 0.235
Japan 311.7 (312.5) 23 345.238 0.251
Korea 325.1 21 344.026 0.262
India 323.2 29 348.874 0.257
Abu Dhabi 325.8 29 348.874 0.259
United States 320.4 (322.4) 24 345.844 0.257
Brazil 314.1 (321.9) 19 342.814 0.255
Average Top
Speed
315.775
(323.275)
24.6°C 346.2076 0.25325
(0.25395)
(Formula 1, 2012), (BBC Sport, 2012) and (F1-Fansite, 2012)

Using these speeds and knowledge of the cornering speeds on tracks after years of
following and analysing formula 1, I will decide upon various speeds to attempt to
keep the downforce performance in the low speed corners high whilst not inducing
too much drag for the high speed straights. With the two averages found a suitable
top test speed would be 320Kph (198.839mph).
These for the air temperature also show the speed of sound for that temperature
assuming the race takes place in dry air (0% humidity).
( )
cair = speed of sound in air
ϑ = temperature in degrees Celsius (°C)
The Mach number is then calculated using the equation,
M = Mach number
v = velocity of the source relative to the medium
a = Speed of sound in the medium = cair
From the calculated Mach speeds, the qualifying speeds were not included as the
temperatures would have been different to the race day. This proves that the Mach
speed does not exceed the value of 0.3 which keeps the flow incompressible.

Aerodynamics
The success of a modern Formula 1 car depends not only upon the horsepower
produced by the engine. Tens of millions of dollars are spent researching,
developing and testing the field of aerodynamics each year. The principle concerns
around the aerodynamics are the creation of downforce and the minimisation of drag
(Formula 1, 2012).
History of the Aerodynamics in Formula 1
The development of the aerodynamics seen on
the modern cars started in the 1968 (Brooks,
Surtees, Stewart, Mansell, & Coulthard, 1999)
when Colin Chapman and team Lotus began
pioneering the technical side of Formula 1 with the
Lotus 49B (see Figure 3.1). Although this wasn't
the first time aerofoils were attached to a high
speed vehicle (Yelverton, 2006). In 1928 Fritz von
Opel created the series of Rocket powered cars the 'Opel RAK's. These were the
first example of inverted aerofoils being attached to counter act the effects of high
speed lift. The RAK.1 (see Figure 3.2) had small inverted aerofoils, whereas the
RAK.2 (see Figure 3.3) incorporated oversized inverted aerofoils attached to a lever
which would enable the pilot to change the angle of attack (Droop Snoot Group,
2013).
Figure 3.2 - OPEL RAK.1 Figure 3.3 - OPEL RAK.2
Figure 3.1 - 1968 Lotus 49B

Even with these oversized Aerofoils when the RAK.2 was unleashed to the world at
the AVUS near Berlin, Fritz was fighting to keep the vehicle under control and
ultimately shut the propulsion down when the vehicle's front end began to lift
dangerously (Droop Snoot Group, 2013).
As the wings were developed, before the time that regulations were in place, the
designers consciously risked the safety their driver and potential destruction to their
vehicles, to increase the performance of the car. This was proved during the 1969
Spanish GP, where the identical wing designs on the both Lotus vehicles failed on
the same ridge (grandprix.com, 1969). Following this accident wings were banned,
yet would return shortly afterward in a limited form by restricting the tall movable
wings.
As the restrictive regulations were implemented the following year Colin Chapman,
once again, brought Formula 1 the first of the modern cars with the Lotus 72
variations (see Figures 3.4 and 3.5) and near identical to ones embraced by today's
team designers, as this design incorporated the thinking around the relationship
between downforce and drag.
Figure 3.4 - Lotus 72 Cosworth Lotus 72
R4
Figure 3.5 - Lotus 72 Cosworth Lotus 72
R6
Colin Chapman brought Formula 1 into the modern age but at a cost: As safety
specifications had not been brought into force at this point, competitive designers
pushed and consequently broke the boundaries of safety in search of glory. These
risks taken by the designers, described by Sir Jackie Stewart as 'Barbaric Excesses',
would be rightly exiled but only after Jochen Rindt clinched the 1970 World
Championship posthumously (Couldwell, 2010).

Importance of Downforce
As previously stated, the importance of the Front wing is a major aspect of the
design of a Formula 1 car. The major teams of modern formula 1 racing, such as
Ferrari, spend hundreds of millions of pounds developing their cars; whereas the
former Minardi team spent less than 50 million each season from 1985-2005 (One
Inch Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.). Although Minardi had little success, the team were still
able to score 38 points in the 20 years of racing in the Formula 1 World
Championship (Novikov, 2013).
At preseason testing for the 2013 F1 season in Jerez, Spain, Gary Anderson, BBC's
F1 Technical analysis, has analysed the Mercedes testing focusing upon the Front
Wing. He mentions the thoughts of Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes new driver who has
driven for McLaren Mercedes throughout his life (Benson, 2012). McLaren are
known to be a more competitive team than Mercedes and is shown initially when
Hamilton, who moved to the Mercedes Team from McClaren at the end of the 2012
season (Benson, 2012), was quoted saying that the downforce in the Mercedes is a
lot less than that of the McLaren’s from the previous year (Anderson, 2013).
Anderson goes on to state that from June in the 2012 season Mercedes have been
compromising their downforce production by taking downforce-producing
components off it, which from his calculations equates to 40kg (Anderson, 2013).
Now because of the estimated 40:60 ratio this 40kg becomes 100kg of downforce,
which is worth about 0.8seconds a lap (Anderson, 2013).
Mercedes claim to be focusing on the 2014 season to put them in a better position
like Brawn did for the previous big rule change in 2009 (Benson, 2012), which is
being doubted after a very successful pre-season testing for the 2013 season where
Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg both topped their respective final test days
(Benson, 2013) (Barretto, 2013). Although this is not always the evidence of which
car will be best suited to the new season as it is dependent on which tyres the other
drivers were using and if they were performing long or short stints of fuel loads. The
16th
of March 2013, when the Australian GP and the new season officially starts, will
give a better insight to which cars will be the main competitors (Benson, 2013).

When the 2014 season begins all the large regulation changes take place, like the
introduction of 1.6-litre V6 turbo engines which is giving Mercedes a huge advantage
as they are well down the road with development and integrating the new engine into
the car, but due to the small changes in the chassis the team need to prove they
understand the current rules in order to get the best of the aerodynamics (Anderson,
2013).
Downforce and Drag
Downforce is the force created perpendicular to the direction of travel when an object
travels through a fluid. Aerofoils are used to produce lift for aircraft and the simple
principle is that a Front wing is an inverted aircraft wing. Downforce is produced at
an unavoidable consequence, Drag. Drag is produced inevitably when an object
moves through a fluid and acts parallel and opposite to the direction of which it
travels (Formula 1, 2013).
Once the preliminary front wing assembly has been designed the geometry will be
imported in ANSYS fluent to be used in flow simulations; that will then calculate the
downforce and drag produced. This will then allow a more suitable front wing which
deflects the flow away from the wheels to be designed. This, hypothetically, will
counter the main drag inducer. The suspension bars are designed in the shapes of
aerofoils to reduce drag induced to a minimum (Formula 1, 2012).

How Downforce is created
After the discovery of aerodynamic downforce and the effects on the performance of
a race car, they have become fundamental to the design, with the simplest approach
of attaching inverted wings to the car. Lift is generated with the difference in pressure
according to Bernoulli’s principle. With the wing traveling through the air, the wing
deflects the flow, with some going above the wing and some below the wing. With
the curved top surface, the air’s velocity on the top side of the wing is larger than the
velocity on the underside of the wing where there is no curved surface. The air flow
traveling under the wing maintains the same speed and pressure. With the quicker
flow on the top of the wing less pressure is exuded. This difference in pressure
produces lift as the higher pressure air ‘pushes’ the wing upwards to the lower
pressure above the wing (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2010).
The wing for a formula 1 car is inverted and therefore the lower pressure is produced
on the lower part of the wing, meaning the wing is pushed towards the ground.
Although Formula 1 wings are not entirely the same as aircraft wings as found by
Katz in 1994 in which he summarised the technological transfer difficulties down to;
the wing’s operating within the strong ground effect of air flow; open-wheel race car
rear wings have an extremely small aspect ratio; and there being a strong interaction
between the wings and other car components, such as the body, wheels or even
other wings (Katz, 2006).

FIA Regulations
Regulations which are required for this Project:
The following Regulation numbers are required to be followed or relate to this Project.
Article 1: Definitions
The three sections listed relate to the parts of the car that are to be included in this
report with a definition from the FIA.
1.4, 1.5, 1.6
Article 3: Bodywork and Dimensions
These sections are required to be abided by in order for the design to be permitted
by the FIA. Appendix 2 includes the suitable pages from the FIA regulations and
contains all of the following sections. These sections include the permitted heights of
the wings and nose, maximum width of the Wheel outer tire walls and permitted
width of the front wing.
3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.6, 3.7.1, 3.7.2, 3.7.3, 3.7.4, 3.7.5, 3.7.7, 3.11.1,
3.11.2, 3.12.10, 3.12.11, 3.12.12, 3.14.1, 3.14.2, 3.14.3, 3.15, 3.17, 10.5.1, 12.4.1,
12.4.2, 15.1.1
Drawing 7: Front Wing Section – Side & Front View
A suitably cut down copy of the FIA’s 2014 F1 Technical Regulations accompanies
this Project for clarification, one of the pages in question contains information on the
FIA regulated Front Wing section, (Appendix 2) (Fédération Internationale de
l’Automobile (FIA), 2011).

Limitations
Attempts to contact numerous Formula 1 teams, such as Williams, Force India,
Caterham, but have either not heard back from the companies or in the case of
Williams, have been unable to visit the factory of operations due to the sensitivity of
the parts requested information on. A sliver of hope of hearing back from the other
teams contacted after enquiring to meet some professionals to gain advice on the
designs. Among the Teams which no reply has been received include Mercedes,
Marussia, Caterham, Lotus and McLaren. No attempt to contact Ferrari or Toro
Rosso due to their headquarters being located in Italy. (Appendix 1)
The software used to find the lift and drag values limited the accuracy as the system
was limited to 512000 cells. This will cause a decrease in accuracy for the more
advanced designs later in the analysis due to the increased complexity of the
geometry. In an attempt to increase the accuracy the geometry boundaries were
reduced; this in turn will affect the simulated flow of the air which could affect the
consistency of the testing. The test data gained by the PACE F1 stated a total of 3.1
million cells were used meshing the Formula 1 Car geometry alone (Chandra, Lee,
Gorrell, & Jenson, 2011). After many futile attempts to produce a mesh which would
have been worth testing a decision to split the test up into 2 parts was made. This
included using the constant geometry of the nose, regulated front wing section and
the wheel and suspension as a separate test and then the whole front wing without
the nose, wheel and suspension. Although this would have a small impact of the final
outcome due to the deflected air flow from the front wing not being tested in the later
designs.
As an outcome of trying to keep the number of cells to a minimum, any extra detail
that could have affected the design was unfortunately left out or made to be quite
basic. These details included the detailed wheel alloys and some details on the
suspension and turning bars connecting the wheel to the body of the car.
Another limiting factor was the computer used. In the PACE F1 journal (Chandra,
Lee, Gorrell, & Jenson, 2011), the testing used a Super Computer to perform the
simulations which reduced the simulation time from 22.5 hours to under 60minutes
per test. This Super computer used contained a mammoth 9592 core processors
with a total operating memory of 27.1TB, compare this amount to that of the

standard Dual-core processor computers which was initially used in the PACE
simulations and the computer used throughout the testing of this project it is a huge
difference (Chandra, Lee, Gorrell, & Jenson, 2011).

Initial Design
Design of the Initial Front Wing
The following shows the initial designs where the front wing is using only 1
component after the FIA regulated section of the wing.
Figure 5.1 - Full Front Wing without Complete Wheel
Figure 5.2 - Complete Wheel

Figure 5.3 - Half Front Wing without Complete wheel
Figure 5.4 - Assembled Half Front Wing and Complete Wheel

Reasoning behind the design
The initial design will be recognisable to persons who have an understanding of
Formula 1. However, those who are new to this sport will be left asking questions.
The design consists of the FIA regulated area where the aerofoil must lie within the
specified points that the FIA have set.
As the aerofoil extrudes away from this regulated area its design smoothly alters into
an exaggerated inverted aerofoil (see Figure 5.1 above). This style of front wing is
used to produce as much downforce whilst limiting the drag produced to a minimum.
By using the aerofoil profile the drag and downforce are optimised compared to other
profiles. This is required to give the car and its driver the best possible chance to
outperform the competition. Another reason for the exaggerated aerofoil is to deflect
the air flow as smoothly as possible away from features which would induce a lot of
drag; for instance, the front wheels (see Figure 5.2 above). The design intends to
divert the majority of the
flow up above the wheels
although the majority of the
drag produced is expected
to be induced by the wheels
as this preliminary design
only used 1 element to
divert the airflow away from
the wheels whilst modern
designs use up to 5-
elements on the front wing (Figure 5.5).
Another major aspect that will cause a large amount of drag will be the abrupt end to
nose design. This sharp edged design will cause drag but this is inevitable and
unfortunately, unavoidable due to the nature of the project only focusing upon the
front wing of a Formula 1 car and not the entirety of the vehicle itself.
Figure 5.5 - Mercedes Five-Element 2013 Front Wing

The end plates purpose is to deflect the airflow away from the wheels. Due to the
regulations the front wing is limited to a certain point, this point does not extend past
the wheel profile. The design of the end plates is to cause as little drag as possible
with retrospect to both the deflection process of the air flow and drag caused by the
end plate's profile. Using an aerofoil positioned on its side would deflect the flow well
due to the shape as well as producing as little drag force whilst performing the
intended purpose. Although the
aerofoils create a force perpendicular to
the direction the car would be traveling
in, the force would be cancelled out with
the symmetry of the Front Wing design.
The wing tips are intended to reduce the
amount of lift induced drag. The
pressure difference from the top of the
front wing is that much higher that the
low pressure on the underside 'sucks'
air in from all angles, not just the
direction of travel (see Figure 5.6). The endplates stop the encouraged act of the
high-pressure air rolling over the end of the wings to the low-pressure area. The dirty
air created by the front tires can also flow under the car and affect the downforce
created by the diffuser. The endplates secondary function is to reduce this effect but
the main antagonists to discourage the dirty air are splitters; vertical fences on the
under surface of the front wing to assist the endplate (F1 Country: Technology
Behind Formula 1).
Figure 5.6 - Diagram of the purpose of a
'Wing Endplate'

Testing
CFD
CFD stands for Computational Fluid Dynamics and can be summarized as "the
science of predicting fluid flow, heat and mass transfer, chemical reactions and
related phenomena by solving numerically the set of governing mathematical
equations." (ANSYS, 2011)
Advantages and disadvantages of CFD
CFD has become a significant aspect of engineering design, particularly in the field
of product development. As a powerful, cost-effective tool for the study of complex
geometry, CFD allows the user to input and test without having to write the program
of the calculations but there is no chance that an exact solution will be outputted (Li,
2013).
When comparing CFD to experimental methods, the advantages heavily out weight
the disadvantages. Not only is CFD a lot safer where uncertainties are involved with
high pressure cylinders but there is a quicker turn around as there is no need to
create the geometry and so therefore tends to be less expensive with the increase
cost of materials in this current economic climate as well as tooling costs (Li, 2013).
With the huge competition in Formula 1 car designs CFD has become a major
aspect of the team's car aerodynamic development. The car designs are put through
CFD where they hope to maximise downforce and minimise drag. If the results
produced are given only then will a team build a model for actual wind tunnel testing
(Williams F1, 2012).
CFD Process summary
When initially beginning a CFD analysis, it is critical that the problem is understood
and that a method of solving the issue has been identified.
Once the problem is defined the next requirement is to select or produce the correct
geometry. Not using the appropriate geometry will affect the results but there are
numerous settings that can be implemented to improve the accuracy of the results or
reduce the computational time but this would reduce the accuracy. These settings

include the mesh quality, number of control volumes and complexity of the shape
being analysed (Li, 2013).
CFD Types
The types which can be implemented for CFD analysis include Finite Volume and
Finite Difference. Commercial and Industrial applications are able to use structured
and unstructured meshes which are then implemented to analyse Finite Volume
CFD types (Li, 2013). This method is efficient and well developed with regards to
iterative solvers. The cell shapes are unrestricted and when using a coarse mesh
mass, energy and momentum are conserved. The Finite Difference uses in-house
coding, this type is easy to implement but is programed in-house for a specified
application and so cannot be used for different models (Li, 2013). Although this type
is restricted to simple grids and does not conserve mass, energy or momentum
when using coarse meshes.
Mesh
There are two types of mesh, structured and unstructured. Structured meshes force
the grid lines to pass through the entire domain. For this reason structured meshes
cannot be applied to very complicated geometries. With unstructured meshes the
cells are arranged in an arbitrary fashion to produce a random mesh which will
allows more complex shapes to be generated (Li, 2013).
The density of the mesh and the type of the
mesh can improve the accuracy of the results
and reduce the value of the inevitable truncation
error produced when using CFD analysis. A
dense mesh is able to record a lot more
features of the flow to give a higher accuracy.
To produce a fine mesh in close proximity of the
wall boundaries an advanced size function is
used on the Proximity and Curvature of the
geometry which resolves the boundary layer
flow. Quality of the mesh can be measured by the smoothness (see Figure 6.1). To
achieve good quality smoothness, a transition between the layers of the cells close
Figure 6.1 - Smoothness
Figure 6.2 - Aspect ration

to the geometry is required. The aspect ratio (see Figure 6.2 above) of a cell has an
impact on the accuracy of the results. Aspect ratio is the ratio of the longest edge
length to the shortest edge length. Ideally this aspect ratio should be equal to 1 for a
square or equilateral triangle (Li, 2013). Keeping this ration as close to 1 produces
an even results output for every direction the flow enters the cell.
A higher quality mesh will give a higher accuracy but this is at a cost of increased
memory usage and computational running time. Often a supercomputer is put into
use to analyse the model and keep the computation time low but does increase the
cost of simulation (Li, 2013).

Testing of the Initial Design
To test the design and visualise what occurs with the air flow the CFD package that
will be used is ANSYS 13; where the model will be imported and a sensible test
mesh is set up. After this process a set of parameters will be produced ranging from
30mph to replicate the slowest corner in F1, the hairpin turn on Monaco's track (see
Figure 6.3) to 200mph. This figure is the average top speed calculated using ‘A
Table to show the top speeds attained at each 2012 Formula 1 circuit and the
corresponding Mach Number’ (see above). Several focal speeds will be tested
between this range, for instance the maximum permitted speed of 111.847mph for
Formula 1 Wind Tunnels (Williams-F1, 2012), and 190mph to see the figures for the
highest speed corner in Formula 1, the 130R corner at the Suzuka Circuit in China
(see Figure 6.4). As the results can vary the testing will be carried out to a high
number of continuity to allow for fluctuations in the software.
The Selected test velocities of 13.4, 35.8, 50.0, 67.1, 84.9 and 89.4ms-1
with a lot of
focus on the 67.1ms-1
to compare the results to those gained from the PACE F1 car
journal (Chandra, Lee, Gorrell, & Jenson, 2011) (see Figure 2.2 above).
Figure 6.3 - Fairmont hairpin, Monaco Figure 6.4 - 130R, Suzuka Circuit

Setup
To generate the required mesh needed in ANSYS a method was undertaken where
the designs of the Front Wing assembly would be cut in half to enable me to produce
a high quality mesh (see Figure 5.3 above). This mesh would have a 'Symmetry' line
down where the centre of the car would usually be. This method allows a full model
(see Figure 5.4 above) to be produce without compromising on the quality of results.
The maximum number of cells, or elements, is 512000 (see Figure 6.5). By altering
the mesh options an attempt to get as close to this number as possible was made to
ensure the mesh was of as high a quality as possible.
Figure 6.5 – CFD Mesh Settings
These settings create a finer mesh close to the front wing's surface, to generate a
more accurate result through more iterations. After finishing testing the design and
additional wing elements have been added to the design these will change as the
complexity of the model will be altered and create a coarser mesh than the original.
This will decrease the accuracy of the results slightly but should still give a good
indication on how the design performs.
A choice was made to use a more accurate finite volume method third Order MUSCL
(Monotone Upstream-centred Schemes for Conservation Laws) to analyse the
system, when available to be used. This method is a lot more accurate than the

other options available and so will take longer to converge to a result. When the
simulations failed to converge a Second-Order Upstream method was used instead.
Reynolds Number
To determine the flow properties of this design, the dimensionless Reynolds number
is required to be calculated. Depending on the value of the Reynolds number, the
flow can be laminar, transitional or turbulent.
Re = Reynolds number ρ = Density of the fluid (1.225kgm-3
)
u = Velocity relative to fluid (ms-1
) L = Travelled length of the fluid (2.8615m)
μ = Dynamic viscosity of the fluid (1.7894x10-5
kg(ms)-1
)
Velocity (m/s) Reynolds Number
13.4 2627181.3
35.8 7005816.8
50.0 9794748.3
67.1 13135906.5
84.9 16638814.9
89.4 17514542.0
The flow is determined by the size of the Reynolds Number. The flow is deemed
Laminar when the Reynolds number is less than 2300, Turbulent when greater than
4000 and in Transitional flow when between these numbers (Kaminski & Jensen,
2005). As the Reynolds numbers calculated here are all above 4000 by a large
margin, then it is safe to say that the flow for the experimental data will be Turbulent
flow.

Results
The following tabulated results show the given values of Lift and Drag compared to
the velocity of the test. These results are for half the Front wing so need to be
multiplied by 2 to achieve the full assembly values.
Velocity (mph)
(m/s in brackets)
Drag (N) Lift (N) Total Drag (N) Total Lift (N)
30 (13.4) 23.42 -26.01 46.84 -52.02
80 (35.8) 143.38 -176.21 286.76 -352.42
111.847 (50.0) 272.75 -339.76 545.50 -679.52
150 (67.1) 480.31 -607.50 960.62 -1215.00
190 (84.9) 761.88 -975.83 1523.76 -1951.63
200 (89.4) 844.81 -1069.21 1689.62 -2138.42
With F1 teams maximising the minimum permitted weight of 642kg, which includes
the driver but no fuel, they use ballast which must be attached to the car securely to
achieve this weight (Formula 1, 2013). Using this minimum weight, equating to
6298N using the equation F=mg, the value of 50.0001m/s test data should make the
downforce produced at this value above the 30-40% mark of the total weight of the
car. This means that if the value is above 1889.4N-2519N then the design can be
considered a successful one. As the preliminary design is a simple inverted aerofoil
then the later designs are expected to achieve a value alto closer to this target with
the additional elements.

Calculations
Cd = Drag Coefficient Fd = Drag Force (includes Viscous and Pressure)
ρ = Mass Density of the Fluid (in this case the mass density of air: 1.225kg/m3
)
v = velocity of the object relative to the fluid. This will be taken as the velocities I'll be
testing by assuming there is no wind speed.
A = the projected frontal area 0.16387m2
for half the front wing or 0.32774m2
for
projected area of the full front wing and assembly.
CL = Lift Coefficient L = Lift Force (includes Viscous and Pressure)
ρ = Mass Density of the Fluid (in this case the mass density of air: (1.225kgm-2
)
S = Planform Area (0.60696m2
for half the assembly and 1.21392m2
for the whole
assembly)
v = True airspeed. For this it will be the car's velocity as the race tracks are at ground
level.
√
TAS = True Airspeed EAS = Equivalent Airspeed
ρ0 = Air density at standard sea level (1.225 kg/m3
)
ρ = density of the air in which the object is traveling
For the purposes of this report the density of air that the car is traveling in will be
assumed to be sea level. This means that the True Airspeed will be equal to the
Equivalent Airspeed which is test speed of the car.

Calculated Drag and Lift co-efficients
Using the equations previously stated the desired lift and drag co-efficients and
tabulate the results will be calculated.
For the Drag Co-efficient and for the Lift Co-efficient
Velocity (mph)
(m/s in brackets)
Drag Co-efficient Lift Co-efficient
30 (13.4) 1.30 -0.39
80 (35.8) 1.12 -0.37
111.847 (50.0) 1.09 -0.37
150 (67.1) 1.06 -0.36
190 (84.9) 1.05 -0.36
200 (89.4) 1.05 -0.36
Rearranging the equations gives the evidence that the total lift and drag produced is
dependent on the Planform area and the projected area.
And some sites state that the area used for calculating the co-
efficients should be taken as the same. By doing this it produces a constant for
although it is debated as to which area to use.
These results, along with the visualisations that ANSYS produced, allow to account
for where the air streams are causing the most drag and account for that by creating
elements on the upper and lower surfaces of the front wing in my redesign of the
initial concept.

Figure 7.1 – Visualisation of the pressure on the upper & lower surfaces of the Wing
The pressure values for above and below the wing at a speed of 89.408ms-1
(see
Figure 7.1). As can be seen the pressure on top of the wing is higher than the
pressure below. This is what causes the downforce. From the ANSYS calculations
the figure of downforce is given as 2138.43N at the speed of 89.408ms-1
. With the
forced regulated mid-section of the Front wing the profile follows the minimum and
maximum points required to abide by with the regulations.
The air flow streamlines surrounding the design (see Figure 7.2) shows that the flow
is deflected by a minimal amount
away from drag inducing features
but there is room for improvement.
The end plates do deflect the flow
quite well round the tyres but with
no air deflection on the main wing a
lot of the flow is affected by the
wheel and the induced drag caused
by it. This will be achieved by the
addition of smaller aerofoils on the
upper surface of the wing as well as
flow deflectors similar to the
endplates on the lower surface. Figure 7.2 – Streamlines round the geometry

Finalised Design Front Wing
After the testing and analysis of the initial design it was evaluated where the airflow
needed deflecting more to reduce the drag or increase the downforce produced. To
achieve this desired outcome additional elements will be incorporated to the design.
Using influence from the elements from other Formula 1 front wings a decision will
be made on the final design which will then be put through testing.
Due to the limitations on the number of cells permitted in the mesh it was decided to
keep the constant geometry separate from the changing front wing. This has leaded
to testing the wing section of the design separately from the rest of the assembly. By
doing this the rest of the design's geometry will not be included in the test but the
downforce produced by the front wing itself will be able to be simulated.
Again the results will have to be multiplied by 2 as only half the wing and symmetry
setup is being used.
Nose and Wheel assembly
Velocity (mph)
(m/s in brackets)
30 (13.4) 18.45 6.77 36.90 13.54
80 (35.8) 329.47 215.64 658.94 431.28
111.847 (50.0) 600.95 391.93 1201.90 783.86
150 (67.1) 1115.65 767.41 2231.30 1534.82
190 (84.9) 1757.18 1126.03 3514.36 2252.06
200 (89.4) 2010.16 1428.82 4020.32 2857.64
Plan form area = 0.634m2
Projected area = 0.345m2
Length = 1.49m

Original Wing Test
Velocity (mph)
(m/s in brackets)
30 (13.4) 6.32 -24.39 12.64 -48.78
80 (35.8) 43.43 -179.14 86.86 -358.28
111.847 (50.0) 84.78 -353.21 169.56 -706.42
150 (67.1) 152.50 -639.33 305.00 -1278.66
190 (84.9) 244.79 -1030.24 489.58 -2060.48
200 (89.4) 271.27 -1143.43 542.54 -2286.86
Projected area = 0.074m2
Length = 0.6m
Original Wing Test and nose combined Comparison
Combining the Original wing test with the constant geometry only test we can
compare the affect the Original front wing has on the rest of the geometry.
Velocity (mph)
(m/s in brackets)
Wing and Nose Test Separate Wing and Nose
Tests Combined
Total Drag (N) Total Lift (N) Total Drag (N) Total Lift (N)
30 (13.4) 46.84 -52.02 49.54 -35.24
80 (35.8) 286.76 -352.42 745.80 73.00
111.847 (50.0) 545.50 -679.52 1371.46 77.44
150 (67.1) 960.62 -1215.00 2536.30 256.16
190 (84.9) 1523.76 -1951.63 4003.94 191.58
200 (89.4) 1689.62 -2138.42 4562.86 570.78
Projected Area = 0.16387m2
Length = 0.6m
This combination of the results proves that even the original wing had a large impact
on the deflection of the air flow and so in turn aided the effect of the downforce
produced and in reducing the drag.

Front Wing Analysis Only
With the software limited to 512000 cells the more complex geometry couldn't be
used in conjunction with the nose and wheel assembly, this is due to the complexity
of the model being increased and restricting a final mesh quality to a poor standard
which would have produced inconsistent data to compare.
Redesign 1 Wing Test
Velocity (mph)
(m/s in brackets)
30 (13.4) 7.18 -21.76 14.36 -43.52
80 (35.8) 46.57 -152.92 91.14 -305.84
111.847 (50.0) 90.24 -300.46 180.48 -600.92
150 (67.1) 162.07 -544.20 324.17 -1088.40
190 (84.9) 259.85 -877.91 519.70 -1755.82
200 (89.4) 285.42 -966.97 570.84 -1933.94
Length = 0.6m
Redesign 2 Wing Test
Velocity (mph)
(m/s in brackets)
Drag (N) Lift (N) Total Drag
(N)
Total Lift (N)
30 (13.4) 6.66 -21.73 13.32 -43.46
80 (35.8) 45.62 -159.23 91.24 -318.46
111.847 (50.0) 88.69 -313.46 177.38 -626.92
150 (67.1) 158.34 -564.97 316.68 -1129.94
190 (84.9) 253.02 -909.10 506.04 -1818.20
200 (89.4) 279.78 -1006.96 559.56 -2013.92
Length = 0.6m
After testing both designs of the front wing it was decided test the elements added to
the design separately. this was due to the results produced being technically worse
than initially expected of them to be but this was realised and has been accepted as
a limitation of the software as with the complexity of the Elements added to the
design the Mesh still had quality issues regarding having to use a student licenced
software for what would be considered a commercial application.

Element Testing
The same CFD modelled elements would be used but gain some more accuracy the
reduced size in geometry allowed for a finer mesh to be generated initially. The
Endplates were kept in the elemental tests as they were required for the elemental
modelling. Yet again the results will be multiplied by two in order to gather a total
downforce produced by the symmetrical Wing.
Redesign 1 Elements
Velocity (mph)
(m/s in brackets)
30 (13.4) 2.84 -11.79 5.68 -23.58
80 (35.8) 19.58 -89.01 39.16 -178.02
111.847 (50.0) 38.24 -176.03 76.48 -352.06
150 (67.1) 69.07 -319.72 138.14 -639.44
190 (84.9) 110.74 -515.46 221.48 -1030.92
200 (89.4) 122.69 -571.68 245.38 -1143.36
Length = 0.6m
Redesign 2 Elements
Velocity (mph)
(m/s in brackets)
30 (13.4) 1.91 -5.79 3.82 -11.58
80 (35.8) 12.53 -42.62 25.06 -85.24
111.847 (50.0) 24.30 -84.17 48.60 -168.34
150 (67.1) 43.45 -152.50 86.90 -305.00
190 (84.9) 69.47 -245.96 138.94 -491.92
200 (89.4) 76.92 -272.82 153.84 -545.64
Length = 0.6m
From these two tests it's clear to see that the Redesign 1 Elements simulated to
produce better results than the Redesign 2. This is believed to be down to the initial
results from the Redesign 1's testing using a lesser mesh quality, causing the belief
that the design required fewer elements to produce an aerodynamically superior
design.

Finalised front wing
This section is implied to show what the final design looks like as well as explain the
differences between the preliminary design and the unrevised version.
Reasoning behind Design Choice
Unfortunately the results show that the up-revised version of the design is actually
worse than using a simple inverted aerofoil. It is believed to be a false representative
of the design potential. The mesh quality being reduced to incorporate the higher
complexity of the later designs is thought to be the cause. Having decided to test
only the wings the mesh quality was still not of high enough quality to allow the
program to run appropriately and to a high enough standard. An example of this is
the Boeing CFD analysis of a high-lift configuration of one of their wing designs using
22million cells, or the Centre for Integrated Turbulence Simulations (CITS) from
Stanford University which used a total of 94 million cells (Jameson & Fatica, 2005).
Another factor could have been the type of CFD method used. These figures
obtained from the paper 'Using Computational Fluid Dynamics for Aerodynamics' by
Antony Jameson and Massimiliano Fatica from Stanford University (Jameson &
Fatica, 2005) did suggest using a Large Eddie Simulation (LES) method but this
would require access to a super computer to carry out the analysis as well as a
unrestricted licence and a software with this Model incorporated on it.

Theoretical Final Design Results
As a result of this information a decision to combine the elemental results from the
redesign 2 directly on to the original Wing and Nose test to incorporate some of the
air flow deflection from the design round drag inducing features such as the wheels.
By doing this the following values for Lift and Drag plus the respective coefficients
were achieved.
Velocity (mph)
(m/s in brackets)
Total Drag
(N)
Total Lift (N) Coefficient of
Drag
Coefficient of
Lift
30 (13.4) 52.52 -75.60 1.14 -0.57
80 (35.8) 325.92 -530.44 0.99 -0.56
111.847 (50.0) 621.97 -1031.57 0.97 -0.56
150 (67.1) 1098.75 -1854.43 0.95 -0.56
190 (84.9) 1745.23 -2982.58 0.94 -0.56
200 (89.4) 1935.00 -3281.79 0.94 -0.55
Plan form area = 1.21 m2
Projected Area = 0.42 m2
Length = 1.49m
This data does not represent the data as accurately as that would have been liked to
but with the limited resources available it is believed to be a reasonable portrayal of
the potential of the design. With the final results unable to incorporate the additional
deflection elements of the wing the wing has the possibility to perform better than
that has been able to simulate with the aspects of drag. These combined results do
include the drag force produced by the end plate twice as well as additional material
from the elements which do not exist for the final design due to the merging of the
Elements to the wing.

The ratio of the drag to lift of the initial design at the top speed tested provided an
outcome of 1:1.27 and a ratio for the theoretical design values produced 1:1.70. This
33.86% increase in the ration proves that the theoretically achieved value has
improved the initial design.
Rendering of the Final Design
This rendering is to show the additional elements added to the upper surface of the
Front Wing design. The additional flow deflectors supporting the additional inverted
aerofoils are clearly seen next to the rear elements with the Sheffield Hallam decal
and on the forward elements next to the ANSYS and Solidworks Decals.
-3500
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Force(N)
Velocity (m/s)
Design Comparison
Final Design
Total Drag
Final Design
Total Lift
Initial Design
Total Drag
Initial Design
Total Lift

Conclusions
The knowledge of the effect of airfoils has on lift and drag was proved with the
inclusion of inverted airfoils. With the end plates deflecting some of the airflow
around the wheels it is believed that this design feature worked well and did inspire
some of the later designs which incorporated flow deflectors, not only for the
intended purpose of reducing drag, but also to provide support to the extra elements.
The support offered by these deflecting walls is hoped to provide sufficient stress
relief from the elements whilst performing their intended purpose of producing
downforce. Due to the restricted license it was not possible to test the airflow
deflection properties of these supports but due to the similar shape as the endplates
it is believe that the drag caused by the wheels would be reduced.
Comparing the results for 67.1ms-1
with those from the PACE F1 (Figure 2.2)
(Chandra, Lee, Gorrell, & Jenson, 2011), the theoretical values gained at this speed
of downforce is around 600N greater than the maximum value gained from that of
the PACE data. With the PACE test data not incorporating the wheel assembly in the
test the comparison of the drag is not essentially a good value to compare with the
final test. With the value attained not being as large as that predicted by Yoshi
Suzuka (Suzuka, 2010) it is thought that there is room for improvement with the
design.
The Front wing tests which only used the Wing geometry were unable to achieve a
high quality mesh and so the results achieved are unreliable barring the original wing
design. This design achieved a similar downforce value but when the drag was
compared it was nearly 3 times as much as that of the PACE car. It is assumed this
is because of fact that the PACE car design is a lot thinner geometry and the end
plates are not designed for the purpose of air flow deflection around the front wheels.
The reason why the geometry of this design was not made thinner was the thinking
of the forces acting upon the wing which could cause failure if the force overcomes
the yield strength of the Carbon fiber used in a Mechanical Failure situation.

Future Development
To further progress with this design in the future acquisition to a commercial package
of ANSYS or similar package would be required. It is felt that the initial work is a
good basis to continue with the expansive design of this Front Wing and would be
interesting to find out the effect the Aerodynamic Elements added to the design
could potentially make to the Drag and Lift if tested together.
It would also be required to perform Full FEA (Finite Element Analysis) testing to
ensure the design would be capable of withstanding the forces across the wing, on
the elements and into the Wing/Nose connectors. To perform this analysis a finalised
CFD result would be required to input the force imposed upon the wings. This force
would be required to incorporate a safety factor to cover the higher speeds attained
by the cars on circuits such as Spa, Belgium and if any of these high speeds
reached are whilst racing into a head wind. This analysis would enable possible
design changes such as creating thinner profile wings if the analysis would allow it.

References
Anderson, G. (2012, November 12). Formula for Success - Aerodynamics. Retrieved
April 5, 2013, from BBC Sport: Formula 1:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/20264490
Anderson, G. (2013). Formula 1: Pre Season Testing. Jerez: BBC.
ANSYS. (2011, January). Introduction to CFD. Retrieved Fabuary 26, 2013, from
SHU Blackboard:
https://shuspace.shu.ac.uk/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=n
ull&url=/webapps/blackboard/execute/courseMain?course_id=_262910_1
Arndt, R. (1997). Opel Rocket Vehicles (1928-1929) [Pictures]. Strange Vehicles of
pre-war Germany & the Third Reich (1928-1945).
Bakker, A. (2002). Lecture 7 - Meshing. Retrieved Febuary 7, 2013, from bakker.org:
http://www.bakker.org/dartmouth06/engs150/07-mesh.pdf
Barretto, L. (2013, March 3). Final day of Formula 1 pre-season testing as it
happened. Retrieved April 5, 2013, from BBC Sport: Formula 1:
BBC Sport. (2012). Formula 1 2012 Calendar. Retrieved December 2012, 30, from
BBC Sport: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/race-calendar/
BBC Sport. (2012, October 19). Grand Prix of America postponed until 2014,
organisers confirm. Retrieved April 5, 2013, from BBC Sport: Formula 1:
BBC Sport. (2013, March 8). Formula 1 chiefs confirm a 19-race season for 2013.
Retrieved April 5, 2013, from BBC Sport:
Benson, A. (2010, May 9). F1 teams decide on 'F-duct' ban for next season.
Retrieved April 5, 2013, from BBC Sport: Forumla 1:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8670795.stm
Benson, A. (2012, September 28). Hamilton looks for long-term success at
Mercedes. Retrieved April 5, 2013, from BBC Sport, Andrew Benson's Blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/andrewbenson/2012/09/hamilton_looks_for_long-
term_s.html
Benson, A. (2012, September 28). Lewis Hamilton to leave McLaren after signing
Mercedes contract. Retrieved April 5, 2013, from BBC Sport: Formula 1:

Benson, A. (2013, March 2). Lewis Hamilton sets outright fastest test time in
Barcelona. Retrieved March 5, 2013, from BBC Sport: Formula 1:
Benson, A. (2013, March 3). Stage set for enticingly close Formula 1 season after
final test. Retrieved March 5, 2013, from BBC SPORT:
Brooks, T., Surtees, J., Stewart, J., Mansell, N., & Coulthard, D. (1999). 68: A Year
of Change. In T. Brooks, J. Surtees, J. Stewart, N. Mansell, D. Coulthard, & B.
Jones (Ed.), 50 Years of the Formula One World Championship (pp. 100-103).
London: Carlton Books Ltd.
Chandra, S., Lee, A., Gorrell, S., & Jenson, G. C. (2011). CFD Analysis of PACE
Formula-1 Car. http://www.cadanda.com/CAD_PACE_1__1-14.pdf.
Collantine, K. (2009). Mclaren, 2008 F1 grid [Lewis Hamiltons 2008 MP4-23].
F1Fanatic The Formula 1 Blog.
Couldwell, C. (2010). Formula One: Made in Britain. Croydon: Virgin Books.
Droop Snoot Group. (2013). RAK.2 - Opel's contribution to the Space Race.
Retrieved from droopsnoot.co.uk: http://www.droopsnoot.co.uk/rak2.htm
F1 Country: Technology Behind Formula 1. (n.d.). Aerodynamics Features of the F1
Vehciel. Retrieved Febuary 20, 2013, from F1-Engineer: http://www.f1-
country.com/f1-engineer/aeorodynamics/f1-aerodynamics.html
F1-Fansite. (2012, November 25). F1 2012 Results. Retrieved Febuary 20, 2013,
from F1-Fansite: http://www.f1-fansite.com/f1-result/
Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA). (2011). FIA Regulations. 2014
Formula One Technical Regulations, 77.
Fish, J. (2011, October 25). New Jersey to Host Formula One Grand Prix in 2013
[Picture: Gilham, Paul - Getty Images]. The Epoch Times: English Edition, p. 1.
Formula 1. (2011, Febuary 3). 2011 rule change - F-duct ban. Retrieved March 3,
2013, from Formula 1:
http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2011/0/823.html
Formula 1. (2012, November 25). Formula 1: Results: Season. Retrieved December
2012, 30, from Formula 1: http://www.formula1.com/results/season/
Formula 1. (2012). Inside F1: Understanding The Sport: Suspension. Retrieved
Febuary 1, 2013, from Formula 1:
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/understanding_the_sport/5285.html

Formula 1. (2013). 2013 FIA Formula One World Championship Race Calendar.
Retrieved 2013, from Formula 1:
http://www.formula1.com/races/calendar.html
Formula 1. (2013, March 4). Inside F1: Rules & Regulations: Parc Ferme. Retrieved
March 4, 2013, from Formula 1:
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/sporting_regulation
s/8685/
Formula 1. (2013). Inside F1: Understanding the Sport: Aerodynamics. Retrieved
November 16, 2012, from Formula 1:
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/understanding_the_sport/5281.html
Formula 1. (2013). Technical Regulations: Weight. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from
Formula 1:
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulation
s/8711/
grandprix.com. (1969, May 4). Grand Prix Results: Spanish GP, 1969. Retrieved
January 15, 2013, from grandprix.com:
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr175.html
Jameson, A., & Fatica, M. (2005). Using Computational Fluid Dynamics for
Aerodynamics. Stanford: Stanford University.
Kaminski, D. A., & Jensen, M. K. (2005). Introduction to Thermal and Fluid
Engineering. Troy, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Katz, J. (2006). Aerodynamics of Race Cars. San Diego State University,
Department of Aerospace Engineering. San Diego: San Diego State
University.
Li, Q. (2013, January 1). Finite Volume Analysis and Computational Fluid Dynamics:
Learning Materials. Retrieved March 23, 2013, from SHU Space Blackboard:
https://shuspace.shu.ac.uk/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=n
ull&url=/webapps/blackboard/execute/courseMain?course_id=_262910_1
LotusEspritTurbo. (2011). Lotus Models [Picture of a 1968 Lotus 49B]. Retrieved
November 15, 2012, from LotusEspritTurbo.com:
http://www.lotusespritturbo.com/Lotus_Models.htm
Melissen, W. (2013). Lotus 72 Cosworth. Retrieved December 18, 2012, from
Ultimatecarpage.com: http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/pic/276/Lotus-72-
Cosworth_13.html

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2010, September 21). Aerodynamic
Forces. Retrieved December 22, 2012, from NASA:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/presar.html
Novikov, A. (2013). Minardi F1 Team. Retrieved April 5, 2013, from All Formula One
Info: http://www.allf1.info/teams/minardi.php
One Inch Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (n.d.). Formula 1 for Beginners. Retrieved January
8, 2013, from F1Scarlet: http://www.f1scarlet.com/f1_beginners.html
Performance Composites Ltd. (2009, July 1). Mechanical Properties of Carbon Fibre
Composite Materials. Retrieved April 13, 2013, from Performance Properties:
http://www.performance-
composites.com/carbonfibre/mechanicalproperties_2.asp
REDBULL. (2012, October 1). Suzuka Circuit Guide [Picture: Ferraro, Andrew - LAT
Photographic]. Retrieved March 5, 2013, from REDBULL:
http://www.redbull.com/en/motorsports/f1/stories/1331577002525/suzuka-
circuit-guide
MERCEDESAMGPETRONAS (Director). (2012). Nico Rosberg explains his driving
position [Motion Picture]. YouTube.
Scarbs F1. (2012, March 4). Blown Rear wings: seperating and stalling. Retrieved
March 3, 2013, from ScarbsF1 everything technical in F1:
http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2010/03/04/blown-rear-wings-seperating-and-
stalling/
ScarbsF1. (2010, March 25). Sauber: F-Duct detail [F-Duct system picture].
Retrieved March 4, 2013, from ScarbsF1 everything technical in F1:
http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2010/03/25/sauber-f-duct-detail/
Scott, C. (2010, August 31). Button Says Vettel Doesn’t Deserve Title, While
Whitmarsh Calls Him a ‘Crash Kid’ [Sebastian Vettel's Red Bull T-boning
Jenson Button's McLaren at Spa]. formula1nexus, 1.
Suzuka, Y. (2010). How much do we really know about aero-dynamics? Musings -
Yoshi Suzuka, 1-3.
Top Sport Racing. (2012, July 19). Formula 1 2014 will be 5 seconds slower.
Retrieved October 30, 2012, from topsportracing:
http://topsportracing.com/formula-1-2014-will-be-5-seconds-slower/
WilliamsF1TV (Director). (2012). Williams in 60 seconds: Wind Tunnel [Motion
Picture].
Williams-F1 (Director). (2012). Inside Formula 1 [Motion Picture].

Yelverton, M. (2006, November 18). F1 History Part 4:. Retrieved Febuary 21, 2013,
from The Truth about Cars: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2006/11/f1-
history-part-4-using-the-downforce/

Appendices
This section of the report is intended as extra reading or evidence which is related to
the project but not necessarily required in the bulk text.
1. Reply form Williams F1 regarding the sensitive nature of the section of the car
information was requested on
2. Copy of the suitably edited FIA Regulations for the 2014 season follows.

2014 F1 Technical Regulations 1 / 77 14 July 2011
© 2011 Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
2014 FORMULA ONE TECHNICAL REGULATIONS
SUMMARY
ARTICLE 1 : DEFINITIONS
1.1 Formula One Car
1.2 Automobile
1.3 Land Vehicle
1.4 Bodywork
1.5 Wheel
1.6 Complete wheel
1.7 Automobile Make
1.8 Event
1.9 Weight
1.10 Cubic capacity
1.11 Pressure charging
1.12 Cockpit
1.13 Sprung suspension
1.14 Survival cell
1.15 Camera
1.16 Camera housing
1.17 Cockpit padding
1.18 Brake caliper
1.19 Electronically controlled
1.20 Open and closed sections
1.21 Power train
1.22 Power unit
1.23 Engine
1.24 Energy Recovery System (ERS)
1.25 Motor Generator Unit - Kinetic (MGUK)
1.26 Motor Generator Unit - Heat (MGUH)
1.27 Energy Store (ES)
ARTICLE 2 : GENERAL PRINCIPLES
2.1 Role of the FIA
2.2 Amendments to the regulations
2.3 Dangerous construction
2.4 Compliance with the regulations
2.5 New systems or technologies
2.6 Measurements
2.7 Duty of competitor
ARTICLE 3 : BODYWORK AND DIMENSIONS
3.1 Wheel centre line
3.2 Height measurements
3.3 Overall width
3.4 Width ahead of the rear wheel centre line

3.5 Width behind the rear wheel centre line
3.6 Overall height
3.7 Front bodywork
3.8 Bodywork in front of the rear wheels
3.9 Bodywork between the rear wheels
3.10 Bodywork behind the rear wheel centre line
3.11 Bodywork around the front wheels
3.12 Bodywork facing the ground
3.13 Skid block
3.14 Overhangs
3.15 Aerodynamic influence
3.16 Upper bodywork
3.17 Bodywork flexibility
3.18 Driver adjustable bodywork
ARTICLE 4 : WEIGHT
4.1 Minimum weight
4.2 Ballast
4.3 Adding during the race
ARTICLE 5 : POWER UNIT
5.1 Engine specification
5.2 Other means of propulsion and energy recovery
5.3 Power unit dimensions
5.4 Weight and centre of gravity
5.5 Torque control
5.6 Exhaust systems
5.7 Variable geometry systems
5.8 Fuel systems
5.9 Ignition systems
5.10 Energy Recovery System
5.11 Engine ancillaries (coolant, lubricant and scavenge pumps)
5.12 Engine intake air
5.13 Materials and construction - Definitions
5.14 Materials and construction – General
5.15 Materials and construction – Components
5.16 Materials and construction – Pressure charging and exhaust systems
5.17 Materials and construction – Energy recovery and storage systems
5.18 Starting the engine
5.19 Electric mode
5.20 Stall prevention systems
5.21 Replacing power unit parts
ARTICLE 6 : FUEL SYSTEM
6.1 Fuel tanks
6.2 Fittings and piping
6.3 Crushable structure
6.4 Fuel tank fillers
6.5 Refuelling
6.6 Fuel draining and sampling

ARTICLE 7 : OIL AND COOLANT SYSTEMS AND CHARGE AIR COOLING
7.1 Location of oil tanks
7.2 Longitudinal location of oil system
7.3 Catch tank
7.4 Transversal location of oil system
7.5 Coolant header tank
7.6 Cooling systems
7.7 Oil and coolant lines
ARTICLE 8 : ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
8.1 Software and electronics inspection
8.2 Control electronics
8.3 Start systems
8.4 Data acquisition
8.5 Telemetry
8.6 Driver controls and displays
8.7 Driver radio
8.8 Accident data recorders (ADR)
8.9 Track signal information display
8.10 Medical warning system
8.11 Installation of electrical systems or components
ARTICLE 9 : TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
9.1 Transmission types
9.2 Clutch control
9.3 Traction control
9.4 Clutch disengagement
9.5 Gearboxes
9.6 Gear ratios
9.7 Reverse gear
9.8 Torque transfer systems
ARTICLE 10 : SUSPENSION AND STEERING SYSTEMS
10.1 Sprung suspension
10.2 Suspension geometry
10.3 Suspension members
10.4 Steering
10.5 Suspension uprights
ARTICLE 11 : BRAKE SYSTEM
11.1 Brake circuits and pressure distribution
11.2 Brake calipers
11.3 Brake discs and pads
11.4 Air ducts
11.5 Brake pressure modulation
11.6 Liquid cooling
ARTICLE 12 : WHEELS AND TYRES
12.1 Location
12.2 Number of wheels
12.3 Wheel material
12.4 Wheel dimensions
12.5 Supply of tyres

12.6 Specification of tyres
12.7 Tyre gases
12.8 Wheel assembly
ARTICLE 13 : COCKPIT
13.1 Cockpit opening
13.2 Steering wheel
13.3 Internal cross section
13.4 Position of the driver’s feet
ARTICLE 14 : SAFETY EQUIPMENT
14.1 Fire extinguishers
14.2 Master switch
14.3 Rear view mirrors
14.4 Safety belts
14.5 Rear light
14.6 Cockpit padding
14.7 Wheel retention
14.8 Seat fixing and removal
14.9 Head and neck supports
ARTICLE 15 : CAR CONSTRUCTION
15.1 Permitted materials
15.2 Roll structures
15.3 Structure behind the driver
15.4 Survival cell specifications
15.5 Survival cell safety requirements
ARTICLE 16 : IMPACT TESTING
16.1 Conditions applicable to all impact tests
16.2 Frontal test 1
16.3 Frontal test 2
16.4 Side test
16.5 Rear test
16.6 Steering column test
ARTICLE 17 : ROLL STRUCTURE TESTING
17.1 Conditions applicable to both roll structure tests
17.2 Principal roll structure test
17.3 Second roll structure test
ARTICLE 18 : STATIC LOAD TESTING
18.1 Conditions applicable to all static load tests
18.2 Survival cell side tests
18.3 Fuel tank floor test
18.4 Cockpit floor test
18.5 Cockpit rim tests
18.6 Nose push off test
18.7 Side intrusion test
18.8 Rear impact structure push off test
18.9 Side impact structure push off test
ARTICLE 19 : FUEL
19.1 Purpose of Article 19
19.2 Definitions

19.3 Properties
19.4 Composition of the fuel
19.5 Air
19.6 Safety
19.7 Fuel approval
19.8 Sampling and testing at an Event
ARTICLE 20 : TELEVISION CAMERAS AND TIMING TRANSPONDERS
20.1 Presence of cameras and camera housings
20.2 Location of camera housings
20.3 Location and fitting of camera and equipment
20.4 Transponders
20.5 Installation
ARTICLE 21 : FINAL TEXT

ARTICLE 1: DEFINITIONS
1.1 Formula One Car :
An automobile designed solely for speed races on circuits or closed courses.
1.2 Automobile :
A land vehicle running on at least four non-aligned complete wheels, of which at least two are
used for steering and at least two for propulsion.
1.3 Land vehicle :
A locomotive device propelled by its own means, moving by constantly taking real support on
the earth's surface, of which the propulsion and steering are under the control of a driver
aboard the vehicle.
1.4 Bodywork :
All entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air stream, except cameras,
camera housings and the parts definitely associated with the mechanical functioning of the
engine, transmission and running gear. Airboxes, radiators and engine exhausts are considered
to be part of the bodywork.
1.5 Wheel :
Flange and rim.
1.6 Complete wheel :
Wheel and inflated tyre. The complete wheel is considered part of the suspension system.
1.7 Automobile Make :
In the case of Formula racing cars, an automobile make is a complete car. When the car
manufacturer fits an engine which it does not manufacture, the car shall be considered a
hybrid and the name of the engine manufacturer shall be associated with that of the car
manufacturer. The name of the car manufacturer must always precede that of the engine
manufacturer. Should a hybrid car win a Championship Title, Cup or Trophy, this will be
awarded to the manufacturer of the car.
1.8 Event :
Any event entered into the FIA F1 Championship Calendar for any year commencing at the
scheduled time for scrutineering and sporting checks and including all practice and the race
itself and ending at the later of the time for the lodging of a protest under the terms of the
Sporting Code and the time when a technical or sporting verification has been carried out
under the terms of that Code.
1.9 Weight :
Is the weight of the car with the driver, wearing his complete racing apparel, at all times during
the Event.
1.10 Engine cubic capacity :
The volume swept in the cylinders of the engine by the movement of the pistons. This volume
shall be expressed in cubic centimetres. In calculating engine cubic capacity, the number Pi
shall be 3.1416.
1.11 Pressure charging :
Increasing the weight of the charge of the fuel/air mixture in the combustion chamber (over
the weight induced by normal atmospheric pressure, ram effect and dynamic effects in the
intake and/or exhaust system) by any means whatsoever. The injection of fuel under pressure
is not considered to be pressure charging.

ARTICLE 3 : BODYWORK AND DIMENSIONS
One of the purposes of the regulations under Article 3 below is to minimize the detrimental effect
that the wake of a car may have on a following car.
Furthermore, infinite precision can be assumed on certain dimensions provided it is clear that such
an assumption is not being made in order to circumvent or subvert the intention of the relevant
regulation.
For illustrations refer to drawings 1A-17A in the Appendix to these regulations.
3.1 Wheel centre line :
The centre line of any wheel shall be deemed to be half way between two straight edges,
perpendicular to the surface on which the car is standing, placed against opposite sides of the
complete wheel at the centre of the tyre tread.
3.2 Height measurements :
All height measurements will be taken normal to and from the reference plane.
3.3 Overall width :
The overall width of the car, excluding tyres, must not exceed 1800mm with the steered
wheels in the straight ahead position.
3.4 Width ahead of the rear wheel centre line :
3.4.1 Bodywork width between the front and the rear wheel centre lines must not exceed 1400mm.
Bodywork width ahead of the front wheel centre line must not exceed 1650mm.
3.4.2 In order to prevent tyre damage to other cars, any bodywork outboard of the most inboard
part of the bodywork used to define the area required by Article 3.7.5, and which is more than
450mm ahead of the front wheel centre line, must be at least 10mm thick (being the minimum
distance when measured normal to the surface in any direction) with a 5mm radius applied to
all extremities.
3.4.3 In order to avoid the spread of debris on the track following an accident, the outer skins of the
front wing endplates and any turning vanes in the vicinity of the front wheels (and any similarly
vulnerable bodywork parts in this area), must be made predominantly from materials which
are included for the specific purpose of containing debris.
The FIA must be satisfied that all such parts are constructed in order to achieve the stated
objective.
3.5 Width behind the rear wheel centre line :
3.5.1 The width of bodywork behind the rear wheel centre line and less than 150mm above the
reference plane must not exceed 1000mm.
3.5.2 The width of bodywork behind the rear wheel centre line and more than 150mm above the
reference plane must not exceed 750mm.
3.6 Overall height :
No part of the bodywork may be more than 950mm above the reference plane.
3.7 Front bodywork :
3.7.1 All bodywork situated forward of a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line, and
more than 250mm from the car centre line, must be no less than 75mm and no more than
275mm above the reference plane.

3.7.2 Any horizontal section taken through bodywork located forward of a point lying 450mm
forward of the front wheel centre line, less than 250mm from the car centre line, and between
125mm and 200mm above the reference plane, may only contain two closed symmetrical
sections with a maximum total area of 5000mm2
. The thickness of each section may not
exceed 25mm when measured perpendicular to the car centre line.
Once fully defined, the sections at 125mm above the reference plane must be projected
vertically to join the profile required by Article 3.7.3. A radius no greater than 10mm may be
used where these sections join.
3.7.3 Forward of a point lying 450mm ahead of the front wheel centre line and less than 250mm
from the car centre line and less than 125mm above the reference plane, only one single
section may be contained within any longitudinal vertical cross section parallel to the car
centre line. Furthermore, with the exception of local changes of section where the bodywork
defined in Article 3.7.2 attaches to this section, the profile, incidence and position of this
section must conform to Drawing 7.
3.7.4 In the area bounded by lines between 450mm and 1000mm ahead of the front wheel centre
line, 250mm and 400mm from the car centre line and between 75mm and 275mm above the
reference plane, the projected area of all bodywork onto the longitudinal centre plane of the
car must be no more than 20,000mm2
.
3.7.5 Ahead of the front wheel centre line and between 750mm and 825mm from the car centre line
there must be bodywork with a projected area of no less than 95,000mm2
in side view. Any
intersection of this bodywork with a lateral vertical plane or a horizontal plane must form one
continuous line.
3.7.6 Only a single section, which must be open, may be contained within any longitudinal vertical
cross section taken parallel to the car centre line forward of a point 150mm ahead of the front
wheel centre line, less than 250mm from the car centre line and more than 125mm above the
reference plane.
Any cameras or camera housings approved by the FIA in addition to a single inlet aperture for
the purpose of driver cooling (such aperture having a maximum projected surface area of
1500mm2
and being situated forward of the section referred to in Article 15.4.3) will be exempt
from the above.
3.7.7 No bodywork situated more than 1950mm forward of rear face of the cockpit entry template
may be more than 550mm above the reference plane.
3.8 Bodywork in front of the rear wheels :
3.8.1 Other than the rear view mirrors (including their mountings), each with a maximum area of
12000mm² and 14000 mm2
when viewed from directly above or directly from the side
respectively, no bodywork situated more than 330mm behind the front wheel centre line and
more than 330mm forward of the rear wheel centre line, which is more than 600mm above
the reference plane, may be more than 300mm from the car centre line.
3.8.2 No bodywork between the rear wheel centre line and a line 800mm forward of the rear wheel
centre line, which is more than 375mm from the car centre line, may be more than 500mm
above the reference plane.
3.8.3 No bodywork between the rear wheel centre line and a line 400mm forward of the rear wheel
centre line, which is more than 375mm from the car centre line, may be more than 300mm
above the reference plane.
3.8.4 Any vertical cross section of bodywork normal to the car centre line situated in the volumes
defined below must form one tangent continuous curve on its external surface. This tangent
continuous curve may not contain any radius less than 75mm :

Design of a Formula One Front Wing for the 2014 Season (with regulations)

Design of a Formula One Front Wing for the 2014 Season (with regulations)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Design of a Formula One Front Wing for the 2014 Season (with regulations)

Similar to Design of a Formula One Front Wing for the 2014 Season (with regulations) (20)

Design of a Formula One Front Wing for the 2014 Season (with regulations)