Crazy idea for flaps and chicanes

[manchild]

Finally, Manchild came with a great idea: once the car gets airborne, the propeller starts to turn and propels the car over the barrier, avoiding the crash:

Well, seeing Spyker flying, knowing their logo and slogan instantly inspired me.

"Nulla Tenaci Invia Est Via" - "For The Tenacious No Road is Impassable"

Back to topic. I like the idea with tubes connecting tyres but those bolts are just scary. They remind me on that medieval weapon called "mace" just waiting to smash 21st century helmet or to get launched into spectators. They should glue them instead.

[zac510]

Ciro, your referencing of that article is incorrect too, then, as it refers to cars 'flying' in yaw whereas the F1 examples you reference (the Spyker and Kubica) are ones were flying occurs due to great variation in pitch against the direction of travel.

In any case it doesn't make my comment any less valid - that the ACO have investigated flipping cars and implemented such mandatory features such as the blanking plates behind the rear wheels visible here: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/Courage-PL2.jpg

I don't mean to fight but I don't really understand what you are trying to 'fix'. To my knowledge there is no significant history of open wheel cars flying in yaw and when it occurs in pitch it is minimal (on a modern car) or instigated by wheels touching.

[checkered]

Of the flap, I wouldn't

have anything cutting into the minute ground clearance. Once the car gets airborne, it's a pretty safe bet that if it lands on "all fours" (the preferrable way) all of the suspension travel will be used - in which case the lower flap will meet the ground causing possible structural damage and voiding attempts to regain control as the forces aren't conveyed to the road solely by tyres.



I like the idea of "air brakes", though, because of the potential safety aspect, because such a system would "punish" for mistakes with a rapid deceleration and simply because it would add to the show (The commentators would have a field day: "BANG! the flaps opened - hehheh, how'bout that ... and Ralf makes a safe but spectacular landing."). The flaps could be situated on the top side of the car and released through a hydraulic valve connected to the suspension. Once all loads would be removed (or the suspension experiences a "negative load") from the tyres, as happens when the car gets airborne, the flaps would open. One problem though ... the system shouldn't work once the car gets jacked up in the pits. If it did, we'd see flying mechanics instead of flying cars ...



I don't see how the chicane would help, though. The swerving right hander is as much directed towards the wall as the first turn in the tighter chicane, after which the loads shift over once the driver turns into the ensuing left hander (where the risk of unassisted loss of control is the highest). Adding curves beyond that doesn't make a difference. Besides, accidents don't happen when drivers follow the line logically ... they happen when they're headed towards unintended directions.

That's why I much prefer the idea about researching the safest possible distances of protective walls you took up. If there's got to be a wall at all, it's either got to be close enough so that the propability of a dangerous high energy direction change is extremely unlikely, or far enough that something else (gravel, asphalt, ground rubber) definitely manages to dissipate some of the energy before the crash happens.

[modbaraban]

I like the idea of "air brakes", though, because of the potential safety aspect, because such a system would "punish" for mistakes with a rapid deceleration and simply because it would add to the show (The commentators would have a field day: "BANG! the flaps opened - hehheh, how'bout that ... and Ralf makes a safe but spectacular landing.").

once all the 4 tyres are off the ground this should happen

[Ciro Pabón]

Ciro, your referencing of that article is incorrect too, then, as it refers to cars 'flying' in yaw whereas the F1 examples you reference (the Spyker and Kubica) are ones were flying occurs due to great variation in pitch against the direction of travel.

In any case it doesn't make my comment any less valid - that the ACO have investigated flipping cars and implemented such mandatory features such as the blanking plates behind the rear wheels visible here: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/Courage-PL2.jpg

I don't mean to fight but I don't really understand what you are trying to 'fix'. To my knowledge there is no significant history of open wheel cars flying in yaw and when it occurs in pitch it is minimal (on a modern car) or instigated by wheels touching.

Sorry, I don't want to fight either, but I love to discuss...

Yes, I agree with you: that's what I tried to say. I mentioned the change in aerodynamics induced by yaw BECAUSE it's what NASCAR flaps are designed to avoid. It is, as you state, a different problem from pitch-induced lift.

Thanks for the photo. Now, I don't have the slightest idea about what part are the "blanking plates". How do they work?

Actually, what happened to Mercedes? I only know about the Le Mans Mercedes having some aerodynamic problem because the FIA article specifically mentions that this "incident" is not what the research on yaw is about. The article also says, same as you, that this issue has been addressed by ACO. Are they different issues or not? Why did that Mercedes fly?

Anyway, what FIA, not me, among other things, is "trying to fix" is:

- Flying cars when the attitude changes suddenly
- Uncontrollable cars when the car leaves the tarmac and goes into leca or grass.
- Crash barriers that doesn't deccelerate the car at under 80 G's
- Curves not well analyzed with software that predicts trajectories and produces wall specifications for each section of the track.

All this elements are mentioned in the "FIA Formula for Safety" pdf I linked. All this elements were present in Kubica`s crash, or so I think.

Manchild: the glued tires seems to me another good idea (besides the chicane ). I don't know if you get the same strength as with a bolt, but maybe. You can see that the membrane in the front (the idea suggested by SoftBatch) keeps the car isolated from the tires and bolts (or so it seems). It has been tested at 220 kph.



... FIA Safety Group article compares it with this, where in 1999 at British GP the wall was penetrated:

[zac510]

Thanks for the photo. Now, I don't have the slightest idea about what part are the "blanking plates". How do they work?

Ciro, the plates are the two carbon pieces behind the rear wheels. I was searching for some information on those plates but could not find anything. However, I did come across this:
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/aco2004.html

I'll keep looking for information but I expect they just limit more rear downforce and maybe even have an effect when the car is travelling backwards.

[modbaraban]

I've been discussing (and arguing with zac... ) about the subject of airborne cars, after Kubica's accident, here:

viewtopic.php?p=54313

Zac was the one that pointed me to read about LeMans 1999. Thanks to him, now I think that the problem is this:



It's not a wing (well, not strictly speaking) and it's not through adjustment, so scarbs is (as usual) right, as far as I know. Of course, you could mention that they modified the car for more downforce (and failed spectacularly).

I've been wondering if the shape of an F1 car shouldn't be like the inverse of the CLR model: an inverted wing, raising the nose, like in this (yes, horrible, I agree) sketch I made quickly:



There is also another problem that I talked about in that thread: the wing is designed to go straight ahead. It's sensitive to pitch (as the CLR shows), but the car could also be sensitive to yaw.

For example, we talked in that same thread about the NASCAR cars of old going airborne once they went backwards (when spinning on the track, of course). Like this:

Sequence I lifted from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt5XCCgwulA

Wouldn't that odd F1 shape make the car flip like that CLK GTR in normal conditions (going forwards)???

I think the real problem is the curbs and walls and how they are placed along each other.
Unlike all these examples F1 cars don't generate lift with yaw (correct me if I'm wrong).

Also wider and slick tyres would improve safety too, when the car goes spinning.

[Ciro Pabón]

Wouldn't that odd F1 shape make the car flip like that CLK GTR in normal conditions (going forwards)???

I think the real problem is the curbs and walls and how they are placed along each other.
Unlike all these examples F1 cars don't generate lift with yaw (correct me if I'm wrong).

Also wider and slick tyres would improve safety too, when the car goes spinning.

Yes, I think I'm bad at drawing, but you get the idea. I don't know if it's possible (or desirable or even legal) to give the car the appropriate longitudinal shape (not like my failed effort, but like a real wing).

I mean, perhaps there is a way to make the whole car behave like a wing, not just the diffuser. Again, I really don't think it's workable, it's just a YACI.

Actually, Zac's link shows more than that, I think.

I think it means that the shape of car has to be stable when it turns (even spinning) or it raises its nose (even bumping into something) or it loses an aerodynamic element (was that what happened to Kubica?

I think what the lessons at NASCAR and Le Mans teach is that the car has to be kept against the ground as much as possible, not "thrown into the blue sky" by "angles of attack" not taken in account in design.

I think you're right, it seems F1 cars generate lift with pitch changes only.

However, they also have open wheels, so they can launch each other, if a tire hits the tire of other car at the rear, like what happened to David Coulthard in the last "lucky-guy" accident.

Actually, now that you mention that, I don't know what happens when the flow is reversed over a car (if it spins 180 degrees), but I haven't seen cars flying in Indycar or CART this way. Does anybody knows what happens then? The diffuser, at least, would stop working, I think... actually, it would work in "reverse". Another point is what happens if an F1 car spins 90 degrees: what would do the shape of the car to its balance?

I also agree about the position of walls and their material. Here is a picture that shows how the car hit the "apex" of the wall, that forms part of an exit (it has an opening at the far side of the photo, where the yellow end of the wall is). It's clear the wall is "angled".

Mr. Kubitza did not have the chance to try to impact the wall laterally a little further down the track, because his car was airborne and, thus, uncontrollable. Anyway, the wall ceded very little... you can see that a block or two have been moved by the impact (directly to the left of the car). Sorry for the photo, I usually don't post this kind of images (taken from http://www.kubicarobert.com/).