Crucial_Xtreme wrote:Also is everyone in agreement that having the exhaust blow directing onto the bottom side of the suspension arm giving/providing a little DF?
hardingfv32 wrote:Crucial_Xtreme wrote:Also is everyone in agreement that having the exhaust blow directing onto the bottom side of the suspension arm giving/providing a little DF?
1) You have no data describing the shape and flow gradient of the exhaust flow. I doubt that the size of the gradient is very small. That being the case the flows in contact with both sides of a suspension would not be that different.
2) That lack of visible insulation, gold or white materials, indicates that the flow has cooled due to mixing, thus demonstrating the growth of the gradient mentioned above.
Crucial_Xtreme wrote: you have no idea either way whether the flow has been cooled or not. You're only guessing.
hollus wrote:Brian, there is no problem with black thermal insulation as long as the temperatures don't get very high..... The idea would be for the exhaust plume to just graze it.
hardingfv32 wrote:flynfrog wrote:Its a cooling hole for something driver or KERS If it didn't work it wouldn't have made it to the car. No need to waste page after page on it.
His point is that it is not for driver cooling. Nothing has change that prevents the teams from using a simple nose tip opening if they wish to cool the driver. You would not have to modify the front bulk head if driver cooling was your goal.
It is also not KERS cooling because you can not duct the air flow through the foot/leg area without increasing the size of the chassis. The interior dimensions are clearly controlled in to rules. The exterior of the chassis in this area looks very much like the interior shape specified in the rules, so we can assume this is what controls the chassis size in this area.
So, there is no logical way to presume it is for cooling. the facts do not add up. It is some kind of aero benefit or maybe a misdirection on the part of RB. What if it does not matter. RB does this to cause confusion. They are the wonder-boys after all.
volarchico wrote:hardingfv32 wrote: Nothing has change that prevents the teams from using a simple nose tip opening if they wish to cool the driver.
driver cooling used to be at the nose tip. RB had the option to place it there, or at another high pressure region. The new rule set caused most teams to have the nose bump which causes a region of high pressure. The rules also mandate a maximum size for this opening. Therefore the opening has moved this year to a region of high pressure that hasn't been there in the past, and it is sized according to the regs (that's why it wasn't around in previous years, and that's why it's not bigger this year).
volarchico wrote:What do YOU think the inlet is used for, if not cooling? Easy to say what it isn't for, but let's hear your concept of what it is for.
hardingfv32 wrote:1) There is no evidence that this slot actually penetrates the front bulkhead.
2) Based on the varied designs from all the teams, I conclude that this area of the nose has NO aero significance. Assuming that most major teams have a well calibrated CFD program, one that represents real on track conditions, and a large number of paid personal motivated to try anything, I think my logic is very sound.
3) There is no general requirement for driver cooling. It is not an obvious option on all cars.
bhallg2k wrote:There's something else going on there. What? I don't know.
volarchico wrote:So if I understand correctly, #1-3 are your version of what is not happening and your actual answer to the question is contained in #4.
#4 basically says: "RB use the slot for aero reasons, but I'm not sure what those reasons are".
Users browsing this forum: atlantis, Bikeman, CCBot [Bot], f1rules, Francesc, JDC123 and 39 guests