Red Bull RB8 Renault

[wesley123]

What do you replace it with, a vacuum? I don't understand you proposal.

Brian

You just remove it. And removing a boundary layer can already be done by something as simple as a gurney tab.

[hardingfv32]

Remove or reduce its thickness?

Brian

[PlatinumZealot]

In fact it is very easy to over design it.

Not if you are concerned with weight. There is no intentional over designing in F1!

Brian

It is still easy to over design it! For example.. You typically design the thickness of an object starting with the area with the highest principal stress - especially an area with high shear stress. you get your base thickness after applying all the factors - like fatigue, corrosion (if metal), surface finish, impact, reliablility and a whole host of other factors... so OK you have designed the thickness for that area of the object.. Now all the other areas can be thinner up to a certain extent - this means you can do many more calcuations and find the minimum thickness for each area OR you can just save time and just use the same thickness throughout. this is an example.. but the principle applies to a lot of real life sceanarios.

Another example, a pressure vessel calculation - you get a tank wall thickness of 0.5mm to make it safe. Would you go out and buy 0.5mm steel or would you just get a 3mm thick steel instead? Because with 0.5mm some unexpected object hits into the side of the tank it's going to dent it. You might even use 3mm, because it allows you to weld on other objects to the tank. So even though 0.5mm can work in theory it is not practical in the real world.

The F1 chassis are very strong. And for practical reasons you need holes in the chassis. the layups are discrete too so 1,2,3,4,5 layers no 1.5 or 1.112 layers. You might want to design the chassis to be resistant against punctures, or heat.
All this other considerations usually make the chassis much much stronger than you would need for just twisting. I think that is why these guys can put so many holes in it.

The holes won't weaken the chassis the same way as steel, because of the matrix nature of carbon fibre. Fractures do not propagate like steel. I do not know exactly how fractures behave in CFRP, but I know it won't tear like steel.

[strad]

Nickel That fits with what I was saying about inner flow.

[hardingfv32]

Nickel That fits with what I was saying about inner flow.

But what does 'not fit' is why has it not been done before. There is absolutely no bases for this theory in science or the literature.

Brian

[wesley123]

Nickel That fits with what I was saying about inner flow.

But what does 'not fit' is why has it not been done before. There is absolutely no bases for this theory in science or the literature.

Brian

Oh for crying out loud, have you ever heard of such thing called ideas? or inspiration? When you think of that your question pretty much answers itself

[strad]

They have managed inner flow for decades,,I'm thinking it's not so much new as different. I believe the step gave them an opportunity to try another solution.

[hardingfv32]

They have managed inner flow for decades,,I'm thinking it's not so much new as different. I believe the step gave them an opportunity to try another solution.

OK, then exactly what is inner flow and what is its perceived benefit?

I say routing air flow into the cockpit opening does not improve anything. You have nothing that demonstrates this.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

Oh for crying out loud, have you ever heard of such thing called ideas? or inspiration? When you think of that your question pretty much answers itself

In the last 4-5 decades when has anyone ever found it beneficial to route air flow into the cockpit? This is very easy for even a amateur racer to test. You want us to believe that these guys just came up with a new idea in this area. Do you have even the smallest amount of logic supporting your position?

Brian

[raymondu999]

Do you have any logic that says otherwise? "Surely they must have thought of it" doesn't count.

[wesley123]

Indeed, that was my point in this.

hardingfv32; what you seem to think is that because something hasnt been done, it is unexisting and will never work at all, else it would have been done by now. Well I tell you something, as time evolves people come up with new ideas and invent new things.

If your case is true, then we would still live in castles and not have cars since in the year 531 'it hasnt been done'.

[Bomber_Pilot]

Islamatron all over again...

[PlatinumZealot]

wait till we see the bulkhead. My guts tell me it's for driver cooling + front wing f-duct.

[hardingfv32]

Do you have any logic that says otherwise? "Surely they must have thought of it" doesn't count.

My logic is very sound.

1) This is very easy to demonstrate in CFD. Why do we not see any examples?

2) We have had rear engine cars for 5 decades. You want us to believe that in that time no one ever considered routing the front radiator flow in to the cockpit as a simple experiment (disregarding driver comfort)?

3) Why are not other FI team doing this? Too difficult to perform CFD or test in the tunnel? You guys thought it up and 200 or so paid professional wouldn't? Does that sound logical?

Brian

[hardingfv32]

My guts tell me it's.... front wing f-duct.

On a practical note how is the flow routed forward? Is there a 180 deg duct? Where is it placed? Do you lengthen the chassis to find room? Is a second hole in the bulkhead required for the outlet of the 180 deg duct?

Do you guys ever run your ideas through some kind of mental feasibility test? Or do you just assume that the guys who have overlook 'inner flow' for so long can easily find the answers.

Brian