Although there were certain regulations that provided specific guidelines, each machine had noticeable variations, especially in the sidepods which showcased a diverse range of design options.
Now, a year and a half into this regulatory era, we have started to see a wholesale shift towards one of these concepts – the downwash solution – as teams realise it best serves the overall aerodynamic needs of the current rules.
Alpine, AlphaTauri and Red Bull were the first to adopt this solution, and of these Alpine was the first to take its own unique development pathway, with the team making changes to its inlet design as early as the 2022 Azerbaijan Grand Prix in preparation for it.
The waterslide, gulley, or whatever terminology one might use to describe it, takes advantage of the fact that the bulk of the sidepod bodywork that’s being used under these new regulations is a facade, with the designers able to more tightly shrink-wrap the bodywork to the components, as they did under the previous regulations.
Alpine realised that with its aerodynamic objectives being met by the front portion of the sidepod, it could make better use of the upper bodywork of the sidepod to feed the airflow into the desired locations downstream.
And, while it can clearly take credit for this new branch of development, it also likely took some inspiration from Ferrari’s bathtub-like solution.
The sidepod bodywork used by Ferrari is wider than necessary to enclose the internal components, similar to the downwash ramp solution. A significant portion of this bodywork is dedicated to improving the turbulent airflow generated in front of it.
The curved top edges of the bathtub worked together with a set of cooling fins that were allowed by the regulations, resulting in smaller rear cooling vents.
Ferrari did implement modifications to the layout in 2022, although these were focused on optimizing the topography rather than making a significant conceptual change.
Aston Martin and Williams were the first to deviate in 2022 and transitioned from their original high-waisted and short-ramp approaches to ones that were more in line with the downwash trio’s philosophy.
Aston Martin made a significant change during the Spanish Grand Prix by trying to imitate the floor and sidepod solution of the RB18. However, they faced limitations due to the design of the sidepod’s inlet, which prevented them from adopting the open-top solution favored by Red Bull.
Meanwhile, Williams was one of the teams to have a design identity of its own when the season first began, with a novel approach taken by the team from Grove that included a bypass duct on the upper shoulder of the sidepod.
The team created a solution that allowed for airflow to be directed downwards when the duct was open, benefiting the floor behind it. Additionally, the duct could be closed to enhance cooling capacity.
Williams FW44 side view comparison2
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
Williams quickly recognized early on that their concept would not deliver the desired level of performance. However, they were unable to introduce their own variation of the extended downwash ramp until the Silverstone event.
Modifications were subsequently implemented to both the floor and engine cover to ensure that they worked together to enhance performance.
Mercedes stood out from the rest with its sidepod design. Initially, the team showcased a more conventional setup during its 2022 launch and later tested it at Barcelona.
The teams moved to the official pre-season test in Bahrain, where Mercedes unveiled its new solution, which would quickly be dubbed the zeropod.
Williams FW44 side view comparison2
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
The zeropod represented a stark contrast to many of the other solutions that had been presented by its rivals, with just a slender vertical inlet projecting out from the side of the W13’s chassis, which was responsible for cooling its internals.
The remaining part of the bodywork adhered closely to the enclosed components, just like all teams had done by wrapping their bodywork tightly during the previous regulatory era.
To accomplish its zeropod objectives, the team had to think creatively about the upper SIS, which was located in its own fairing positioned forward and above the main bodywork.
McLaren, like many of its rivals, started the season with its own concept but drifted towards something more akin to the downwash ramp solution seen on the Alpine, AlphaTauri and Red Bull. It was able to inject more of the latter team’s DNA into its design, as it also appropriated a similar inlet design.
This ‘underbite’ solution for the inlet was fully incorporated in McLaren’s design language for 2022, with the team conducting a full makeover of the sidepods, floor and engine cover at the Austrian Grand Prix and setting the scene for what has been a significant leap up the competitive order for the team.
McLaren side comparison (Silverstone endplate Inset)
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
It’s clear to see that barely a surface has been left untouched in the car’s revamp, with the underbite and inlet, undercut, flank geometry and length of the sidepod’s downwash ramp also increased. And, following in the footsteps of Aston Martin, McLaren has also incorporated a much deeper water slide on the upper surface of the MCL60’s sidepods.
The deeper water slide solution is a prime example of how F1 teams take an idea and then move the needle when incorporating it themselves.
The design of the AMR23, for instance, originated from a modified version initially observed on the Alpine A522 in 2022. This version has subsequently inspired numerous innovative concepts, one of which Aston Martin has further enhanced with a recent update unveiled in Canada.
Aston Martin AMR23 sidepods view
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
Ferrari has recently introduced its own version of the water slide feature, although it is a less steep variation. This modification was implemented during the Spanish Grand Prix when Ferrari updated its sidepods, moving towards a downwash ramp solution.
The modifications also led to the team needing to redesign its cooling gill setup. Most of the responsibility for this falls on the engine cover, although it still has the flexibility to adjust cooling by adding or removing interchangeable panels in the bodywork.
It retained its ‘S’ duct arrangement as part of the update, with the solution baked into the overall philosophy of its sidepod, given the vertical inlet beside the chassis is used to transport airflow from beneath the main inlet and deliver it out over the upper surface of the sidepod via the curved outlet beside the halo.
Mercedes’ unwillingness to acknowledge the flaws in the zeropod concept and their decision to persist with it until the beginning of 2023, led to the team adopting a more improvised approach, similar to a Frakenpod, when they eventually made the switch at the Monaco Grand Prix.
Due to the previously mentioned placement of the SIS fairing, it is not possible to alter it without requiring a new framework. This situation also impacts the design of the inlet, undercut, and upper bodywork of the sidepod, which are influenced by solutions observed in other places.
The Monaco update ended up being a temporary fix, as the team improved the inlet, the remaining sidepod bodywork, and the floor during the Belgian Grand Prix.
And, while it is still clearly able to squeeze more performance out of its new design, it will more than likely take a very different approach to this area of the car next season.
Mercedes W14 sidepods detail, Belgian GP
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
Red Bull is currently the tip of the spear and so it’s no wonder that the downwash ramp solution is often attributed to it, even though others also started their 2022 campaign with similar solutions.
And, while those in chasing pack have experimented with waterslide-style solutions, Red Bull has held its nerve thus far, as it continues to employ a more benign ramp in its bodywork down to the rear of their floor.
However, where it hasn’t held back is in its decision to improve the forward portion of the sidepod, with a significant emphasis placed on the RB19’s inlet and how that can influence the size of the undercut.
This journey began in Azerbaijan when the height of the inlet was reduced but widened to compensate. This was followed up with a more significant update at the Hungarian Grand Prix, as the team made changes to the sidepod’s internal components and ducting, while optimising the external bodywork for further aerodynamic gains.
The modifications focused on the entrance and lower jaw scoop, as the latter was extended towards the front, resulting in the entrance appearing smaller from specific perspectives. The advantage of this change is that it increases the undercut while safeguarding the entrance from the unpredictable and chaotic airflow generated by the car’s front end.
There is a noticeable trend in the teams’ development approach, although they are not all following identical paths. It will be intriguing to observe which solutions the teams select and whether any additional variations emerge from the primary development direction.
History repeating itself
The existing rules generally steer teams towards specific design directions, but frequently they will discover varied solutions to identical inquiries.
The differences in appearance observed in each of the mentioned sidepod solutions are certainly interesting, but this is not a unique occurrence. We have seen similar situations before, notably in the 2012 and 2013 seasons.
In 2010 and 2011, F1 had already experienced the exhaust blown diffuser phase. The FIA was determined to eliminate this effect by implementing new regulations. These regulations aimed to prevent the flattening of the exhaust and its placement on top of the floor. Additionally, the use of exhaust gases to enhance the diffuser’s performance would be prohibited.
Although the governing body implemented several modifications to the regulations regarding exhaust and bodywork, aiming to minimize the exhaust’s impact, the teams had different plans. They began utilizing the adjacent bodywork to develop an aerodynamic substitute for these tangible elements.
At first, several solutions were discovered by different teams before 2012. However, as expected, these teams began to align their ideas towards the most promising ones, just like what is happening today.
Mercedes W03 top view, yellow arrows depict predicted trajectory of the exhaust plume
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
The design of the periscope style was in line with the solution that the FIA had anticipated when they implemented the regulations. Many teams, including Mercedes as shown here, adopted this design right from the beginning.
Lotus E20 periscope style exhausts
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
The E20 sported Lotus’ initial periscope style exhaust solution too, with the hooded bodywork around the exhaust expected to help influence the exhaust plume.
Red Bull RB8 original exhaust solution exiting under upper wishbone, arrows depict predicted exhaust plume trajectory
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
Red Bull also signalled its intent to use a periscope-style solution when the car was unveiled.
Red Bull RB8 ‘Coanda’ exhaust ramp solution, blue arrow shows how air should travel under the ramp, yellow arrows show projected exhaust plume trajectory
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
Red Bull soon revealed their alternative approach, introducing a more intricate solution. They designed a rear section for the sidepod with a ramp, where the exhaust was located. Their intention was to combine the exhaust plume with the airflow over the sidepod bodywork, aiming to direct it towards the desired area previously achieved by the outgoing blown diffusers.
To add further complexity to its solution, Red Bull also had a tunnel in the sidewall of the ramped sidepod bodywork that aimed to flow out into the Coke bottle region.
McLaren MP4-27 semi ‘Coanda’ exhaust solution, gills added in front of rear suspension to reject heat
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
A competing solution that seemed to offer a similar trajectory for the exhaust plume, albeit without the bodywork in the lower half was McLaren’s semi-Coanda arrangement.
Ferrari F2012 ‘Acer duct’ style exhaust configurations at the start of the season
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
Ferrari had its own solution, dubbed the Acer duct, owing to the sponsorship placement on the bodywork. The team tried various iterations for the exhaust placements within the bodywork to release the performance it was looking for.
Red Bull RB8 ‘Coanda’ exhaust ramp comparison
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
Red Bull also made further adjustments to its design, specifically focusing on modifying the exhaust trough. The goal was to not only affect the direction of the plume but also improve its interaction with the airflow entering the crossunder tunnel below.
Red Bull RB8 exhaust solution change (older specification inset)
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
The solution kept changing, with modifications made to the design of the bodywork near the exhaust, the length of the ramp, the shape and frequency of the inlets inside the crossunder tunnel, and where they were positioned when exiting.
Red Bull RB8 enlarged crossover tunnels (see inset for comparison)
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
Another angle shows the lengthening of the cross-under tunnels and the ramp section. Also, note the three dividers placed beneath the driveshaft fairing to help influence the airflow’s trajectory over the top of the diffuser.
Mercedes W03 Semi-Coanda exhaust, predicted path of exhaust plume arrowed
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
Teams began transitioning to alternative solutions throughout the season, aiming for a more efficient version in the upcoming season. Mercedes, among others, opted for the semi-Coanda solution.
Leave a Reply