SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES

980399

Aerodynamic Design Considerations of a

Formula 1 Racing Car
Ben Agathangelou and Mike Gascoyne
Tyrrell Racing Organisation Ltd.

~~ E The Engineering Society

For Advancing Mobility
Land Sea Air and Space,

INTERNATIONAL
400 Commonwealth Drive,, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A.

International Congress and Exposition

Detroit, Michigan
February 23926,1998
Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760

980399

Aerodynamic Design Considerations of a Formula 1 Racing Car

Ben Agathangelou and Mike Gascoyne
Tyrreil Racing Organisation Ltd.

Copyright 0 1998 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT
This paper is intended to give a general overview of the
aerodynamic considerations in the design of a modern
Formula 1 racing car. The importance of aerodynamics
to a modern Fl car is quantified, and the effect of FIA
regulations on aerodynamic development discussed.
Current methods of investigation of the aerodynamics of
a racing car are presented, and the role of wind tunnel
testing detailed.
In recent years, increasing use is being made of
computational methods to aid understanding of the flow
complexities around the car. This is an area currently
fueled by a competitive commercial CFD market and
increasing experience in the benefits which may be
derived from the use of these mlethods. Areas on the car
which have proved suitable for numerical solution are
presented, along with some of the limitations of these
methods due to the inherently complex nature of the
flows, and the dominance of component interaction on
overall performance.
INTRODUCTION
Competitive advantage may be gained from a modern
Formula 1 (Fl ) car from relative improvement t o
competitors in one of three key areas; Engine, Tyres and
Aerodynamics. In general, each of Fls 11 current
constructors receive their engine from an outside
supplier, and have limited influence as to the
development of the motor. !Similarly the tyres are
currently supplied to all the tearns by two manufacturers
(Goodyear or Bridgestone), over which the team has
minimal individual influence. Aerodynamics is thus the
one biggest area of investmlent for the Formula 1
constructor.

The constructor must obviously eke every benefit from

all aspects of its chassis design. The chassis must be
both light and stiff, be capable of carrying enough fuel,
satisfy FIA crash test requirements and offer a good
working environment for the driver. The gearbox should
deliver the engine power efficiently with low internal
friction. Fuel, oil and water systems must be efficient,
reliable and light. The suspension system must be
designed with optimised geometry and maximum
adjustability to allow quick and easy changes of settings.
The cooling system is critical to engine efficiency and
reliability, and can be considered as part of the
aerodynamic package, since in general anything that
improves the cooling package in terms of mass flow
through the radiators is usually detrimental to the overall
aerodynamic performance of the car.
While all these components are essential to the
performance of the car, and a problem in any of these
areas can cause a car to be significantly slower, it is
difficult to obtain major advantages over the competition
in these areas. On the other hand, it is well understood
that on-track competitiveness will be proportional to the
magnitude of improvement to the vehicles aerodynamic
package. To this end, the constructor is forced to make
large investments in this area, and due to the potential
gains, development and design work is carried out in
secret to maximise the impact of any improvements
made.

Once validated and calibrated, the information from

circuit simulation codes identifies the potential gains
which the chassis constructor can achieve from
improvements to the aerodynamic package. It also
serves to illustrate the reasons for ever increasing
investment in aerodynamic facilities and understanding
by all Fl teams. The following section quantifies the
expected levels of return on this investment.

It can be seen that during the periods of relative

regulation stability for the seasons of 1989-1992,
systematic improvements were made to the aerodynamic
performance of the car. All seasons since 1992 have
seen changes to the regulations which have tended to
annul and increasingly outweigh the improvements
expected by development each year. The largest losses
were seen in the 1995 season, following the regulation
changes after the fatal accidents at lmola in 1994. The
scale of these losses were a direct consequence of the
enforced increase in ground proximity of the underbody.
Following this large loss in performance, aerodynamic
development has progressed at expected rates in terms
of downforce, but with reducing efficiency. This trend is
consistent with the fact that design emphasis has been
forced by regulation to shift from efficient body
downforce to other less efficient sources.

PROGRESS IN AERODYNAMIC PERFORMANCE AND

THE EFFECTS OF REGULATION
Within the last decade, changes in the regulations have
resulted in the annulment of many years of aerodynamic
development. Graphs 1 and 2 show how regulation
changes have affected the aerodynamic development of
Tyrreli Formula 1 cars since 1989.
Graph 1

The graphs also serve to illustrate the rate of

aerodynamic development that a constructor can
typically achieve. Changes in this rate relative to
competitors will be a major factor in determining
positions in the performance league tables.

Total Downforce 1989 to 1997

(Constant Aerobalamce of 36%)

DESIGN TOOLS
2.80

;
&

Wind Tunnel

2.70

Typically, all the major teams have either built their own
wind tunnel, or have access to a commercial wind tunnel
facility for all, or a large part of the year. Current state of
the art Fl wind tunnel testing is carried out at a model
scale of 4060% with target blockage ratios of 5%, and
testing velocities in the region of 40-70 m/s. Current
emphasis has seen all teams move toward larger scale
testing, the perceived benefits seen as closer Reynolds
Number modelling and improved accuracy in model
production. Due to the small ground clearances and
large negative pressures produced by the underbody of
these vehicles, accurate testing is not possible without a
rolling road facility required to reproduce track boundary
conditions.

2.60
2.50
2.40

Year

Graph 2
Efficiency 1989 to 1997
3.30

Most of the work undertaken in the wind tunnel is of a

parametric nature, relying on subtle variations in shape
and position of a particular component to highlight areas
of sensitivity and interest. This method of development
has proved very successful in the recent past, which has
led to the founding of a large database of experimental
knowledge available to each of the teams. It is the quality
of this database which determines which of the teams
will converge on the better solutions first.

3.20
3.10
3.00

3 2.90
.6 2.80
5 2.70
2.60
2.50

CFD

2.40
2.30

Due to the necessarily low aspect ratios of the lifting

surfaces and the dominance of tip flows, the flow
structures around a racing car are characterised by large
a r e a s o f vertical, unstable and separated flows.
Understanding the interaction of tyre jet vortices
3

The front wing produces Z-30% of the total downforce

of the car. The amount of downforce produced is very
dependent on the front ground clearance, and it is this
fact that produces most of the aerodynamic stability
problems. As the front of the car moves lower the front
wing produces more downforce due to increased ground
effectand more effective sealing of the endplate. This in
itself produces a forward shift in balance, but also the
increased upwash from the front wing reduces the rear
downforce, increasing the ballance shift. Designing a
front wing that is both efficient and is not sensitive to
ground clearance does greatly improve the driveability
and efficiency of a Fl car.

REAR WING
A typical rear wing configuration on a current Fl car
consists of a two or three plane wing, with the upper
element set varying between a low chord single element
wing at comparatively low incidence, to a large chord,
highly cambered three element wing. The range of
available rear wings is so as to allow tuning of downforce
levels to particular circuits.
The rear wing produces approximately 30-35% of the
total downforce of the car, and about 25-30% of the total
drag of the car. Optimisation of the individual elements,
and the interaction of the lower elements with the diffuser
is of critical importance to the aerodynamic design of the
car. The addition of the lower elements actually reduces
the downforce produced by the total rear wing layout
itself, but increases the efficiency of the car by
increasing the downforce produced by the undertray and
bodywork. Optimisation of rear wings is one of the few
areas where the use of isolated numerical studies is
applicable, especially for the highly cambered multielement upper wings which run in relatively clean
upstream flow conditions.

UNDERTRAY AND BODYWORK

From the FIA regulations the floor of a Fl car must
occupy two clearly defined planes between the rear edge
of the front wheels and the front edge of the rear wheels.
The surfaces of the floor in these planes must be flat,
rigid, and impervious. Downstream of the front edge of
the rear wheel, a diffuser section is used to lower the
pressure under the car and thus generate downforce.
About 40% of the total downforce of the car is produced
by the undertray and bodywork. In general the body of
the car can be thought of as a bluff body close to the
ground, with a large wake and associated form drag. In
general, improving the design of the diffuser and
producing lower pressures under the car does not lead to
an increase in drag, and so the production of downforce
by the body of the car is normally the key to an
aerodynamically efficient car.

WHEELS
As suggested above, the open wheels of an Fl car
cause much of the complexity in the flow around the car.
They produce about 40 % of the total drag of the car, and
also produce lift which is very difficult to measure
experimentally. This can often be a source of confusion
in experimental assessment. They further affect the cars
aerodynamics by producing strong cross flows in critical
areas of the car. Ultimately, a better understanding of the
interaction of the flow field around the wheels with the
rest of the car, including the effect of steering angles on
the flow field, could indicate ways of harnessing these
flow characteristics.

Again, the aerodynamic stability characteristics that the

diffuser implies on the car are of critical importance in
vehicle driveability. Thus stall phenomena should be
predictable and tuned to specific requirements, The
lower elements of the rear wing can be used as a
spoilerto set a base pressure condition and thus control
stall characteristics. The diffuser angle can also be used
to tune stall characteristics, where a higher angle of the
diffuser generally gives more downforce over the prestalled operating range, but causes the diffuser to stall at
higher rear ride heights, and vice-versa. The particular
diffuser angle chosen is normally a compromise between
aerodynamic efficiency and stability.

CONCLUSION
It has long been understood that the success of a
modern Fl car is heavily dependent on its aerodynamic
performance characteristics. This fact can be quantified
using various in house simulation tools. Analysis of the
progression in aerodynamic performance of Tyrrell
racing cars over the past few years suggests that, for
periods of stability in regulations, there is a linear rate of
increase in downforce. It is clear that regulation changes
result in reductions to this trend, but generally the Fl
constructor can expect a measurable return to any
investments made in the aerodynamic development of
the modern Fl car.

Due to the low aspect ratio of the undertray, and also

due to the presence of the rear wheels, the flow under
the diffuser is characterised by large areas of highly
vertical three dimensional flow. In general the full flow in
the underbody is little understood, and is very difficult to
investigate
experimentally.
Surface
pressure
measurements, surface flow visualisation and numerical
modelling are possible methods in attempting to
understand some of the aspects of this flow.