The bottom and diffuser of the new generation of ground effect cars have meant very different design challenges compared to the past and as such the learning curve remains quite steep.
Along with the sidepods (pontoons), these two areas have the most design freedom of the new technical rules, and that is the main reason why we are seeing so many variations.
However, as the Grands Prix progress, it’s understandable that we start to see some convergence, especially if teams find ‘shortcuts’ to extract more potential from their current designs before starting to develop more mature solutions.
We have also seen cases in which some teams have developed new parts that have been abandoned earlier than expected, either because they have realized that they do not offer the same performance on the track as in the simulator, or because they have found solutions that seem be more promising.
An example of this would be Red Bull’s attempt to follow in the footsteps of Ferrari, which applied a cut in the edge of the ground just in front of the rear tire and added an extension that protruded below the ground at the British Grand Prix.
That solution was used again at the Austrian Grand Prix. However, at the French Grand Prix it was scrapped when the team made other changes to the top that probably negated its need.
Red Bull had been the only team to combine a solution with two winglets on the outermost part of the floor earlier in the season, something that changed when Aston Martin unveiled its own reworking of the RB18’s overall concept. However, at Paul Ricard, the kit took a more classic approach with a single outer wing and three inner baffles.
Meanwhile, we’ve seen Ferrari go back and forth on its floor design, opting to follow a McLaren-like solution at first, with an L-shaped spoiler lip design that caught the eye. everyone during preseason testing [1].
They later switched to the “ice skate” solution that Red Bull had implemented on the floor of the RB18 and has since been copied by other teams, including Alpine.
This interpretation, which is quite different, is mounted in the lower part of the ground and not only helps to define the passage of the air flow in that area, but also serves to limit the path of the bottom towards the asphalt, which this year has caused the painful porpoisng .
At the same time, the Scuderia also adopted a “loin” type design seen on both the RB18 and MCL36 [2]. Although Ferrari opted for a single bilge or relief, while its rivals preferred a three bilge approach.
It is hoped that this design could generate useful vortices to help power the diffuser, but its function is likely to be more to improve flow stability at a given height of the car, as the bilges will smooth out the airflow and distribution. of pressure.
However, the latest version of the F1-75 floor significantly minimized the flanges, with its designers banking on another feature seen on the Red Bull , in which the lower front section of the floor is sculpted to work harmoniously.
Meanwhile, Mercedes has done a lot of work on the top surface of the ground since the start of the season, unlike the vast majority of its rivals.
This has not only involved constant changes in the aerodynamic aspect that presides over the edge of the floor as such, but also in the rigidity and/or flexibility of the different sections of the bottom.
The German team was the first to install a metal brace in the rear section of the floor to help reduce bottom flex during pre-season testing, and was likely relieved when the FIA introduced rule changes allowing all teams to use those braces on the first race of the course.
The wavy floor edge is a feature we’ve seen from Mercedes before, but it didn’t stick around for long as the team swapped it out for a simpler solution.
At first, Brackley’s men seemed reluctant to fit the kind of wing lip that is allowed by the regulations and can be found on many other cars, perhaps preferring to solve the other problems he was facing at the time.
However, as performance improved, a scythe-like edge spoiler was introduced, along with alterations to the geometry of the ground both in front of and behind it (illustrations below).
The changes that will be introduced in 2023 will undoubtedly have a direct impact on the tough development battle during the second half of the season, as teams change their approach and have to consider other development streams.
That does not mean that the research that the teams do for the next season cannot give its results this course, since they continue to be a different way of seeing a challenge that is similar.
Teams typically find performance that is transferable in these conditions, so developments in the final races of 2022 will need to be watched.
