Williams FW36 Pre-launch Speculation

[Pierce89]

Audi uses their Flywheel.

Yes and Porsche also used it in their hybrid 911 racer a couple years back.

[FW17]

The primary benefit of the low gearbox was a better airflow to the beam wing (which has been banned)
Also the regulations now dictate that the exhaust must be placed in the area above the gearbox, no wiggle room on that,.

I think those regulations will "kill" the low gearbox.
Maybe if they go even lower it will help the diffuser... but that's a stretch.

I think 2014 gearbox will be skinny as possible and a bit high/tall. Lack of beam wing changes all incentives in that area. I think rear suspension driveshaft, lower wishbone, and pullrod will be entirely at or higher than the rear wheel centerline.

They could make the turbo sit on top of the low gearbox, however not sure if turbo and TERS (which are on a common shaft) can fit in there.

[Sevach]

I think 2014 gearbox will be skinny as possible and a bit high/tall. Lack of beam wing changes all incentives in that area. I think rear suspension driveshaft, lower wishbone, and pullrod will be entirely at or higher than the rear wheel centerline.

I agree, we might even see pushrod rear.

[FrukostScones]

I think 2014 gearbox will be skinny as possible and a bit high/tall. Lack of beam wing changes all incentives in that area. I think rear suspension driveshaft, lower wishbone, and pullrod will be entirely at or higher than the rear wheel centerline.

I agree, we might even see pushrod rear.

I doubt that. Newey invented it 2009 for the small diffusers, now diffusers are even smaller... so why change it? Diffuser roof is even more important, I think pull rod is best to feed that.

[Tim.Wright]

I doubt that. Newey invented it 2009 for the small diffusers...

Invented?

[turbof1]

That statement is wrong in multiple ways. For one he didn't invented it, and for two the diffusers haven't become smaller since 2009. Newey designed it in the first place for a single deck diffuser, and even kept it in 2010 when they built a fully integrated multi deck diffuser.

For the rest it does seem unlikely that anybody will make a switch back to rear push rod.

[FrukostScones]

That statement is wrong in multiple ways. For one he didn't invented it, and for two the diffusers haven't become smaller since 2009. Newey designed it in the first place for a single deck diffuser, and even kept it in 2010 when they built a fully integrated multi deck diffuser.

For the rest it does seem unlikely that anybody will make a switch back to rear push rod.

wrong? in multiple ways. No.

You are right with 2010, he kept it in 2010 beside the downsides for a multi diffuser design, but he implemented (invented) it in 2009 because he wanted a good airflow to the diffuser roof because of the smaller diffuser in 2009 (compared to the old 2008 regs) (he didn't know that DD where possible, so he designed without DD in mind)

http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/pushrod_pullrod.html

http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2010/10/10/re ... odynamics/

with invented I meant he was the first to implement a pull rod rear suspension on a modern Formula 1 car the way he did
(when was it used at the rear before? in the 70ies? what cars please? )

2009 the diffusers became smaller, then DD accepted, 2010 DD were allowed, in 2011, 2012, 2013 they disallowed DD, the regs stayed same pretty much how 2009 regs wanted it without the DD loophole, in 2014 the diffuser will become even smaller I read in the 2014 article on f1technical...
http://www.f1technical.net/features/19020
maybe the diffuser changes shown there are incorrect, (if correct ,they are now even smaller how I said!, why should I ve been talking on 2013?)

somehow your answer does not fit to what I said...

[turbof1]

I think this will come more down to interpretation and saying the same in different words.

'Invented' wasn't good choice of words. He implemented it, but he never conceived the idea of pull rod suspension. That goes way back. You were much better off with using "implemented" from the beginning, as invented means something else:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invent

to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experimen

DD's weren't technically diffusers in the strict sence. They were manipulated bodywork above the actual diffuser. It's down on how you interpret it, but technically there wasn't a further restriction on diffuser size in 2011, just a clamp down on loopholes that allowed holes in the underbody:
http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2011/0/815.html

Although it did in practical sence made the diffuser larger, the rules didn't put any restriction on size in 2011.

In 2014 diffuser size will remain EXACTLY the same. There is no further restriction. Rather, the diffuser will work less efficiently due the loss of the beam wing. The drawing on which you are probably basing yourself on, isn't a smaller diffuser; it is a reference to the reduced rake, a consequence of no exhaust blowing.

[FrukostScones]

I think this will come more down to interpretation and saying the same in different words.

'Invented' wasn't good choice of words. He implemented it, but he never conceived the idea of pull rod suspension. That goes way back. You were much better off with using "implemented" from the beginning, as invented means something else:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invent

to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experimen

DD's weren't technically diffusers in the strict sence. They were manipulated bodywork above the actual diffuser. It's down on how you interpret it, but technically there wasn't a further restriction on diffuser size in 2011, just a clamp down on loopholes that allowed holes in the underbody:
http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2011/0/815.html

Although it did in practical sence made the diffuser larger, the rules didn't put any restriction on size in 2011.

In 2014 diffuser size will remain EXACTLY the same. There is no further restriction. Rather, the diffuser will work less efficiently due the loss of the beam wing. The drawing on which you are probably basing yourself on, isn't a smaller diffuser; it is a reference to the reduced rake, a consequence of no exhaust blowing.

ah, ok, I thought that the diffuser size stays the same before I saw the F1technical picture, you say it is a reference to the smaller rake? how can that be with that rear wing... will it be have bigger max height? I don#t think so. What is wrong with the image?

[turbof1]

It was a guess tbh; however I am 100% sure the diffuser size remains exactly the same. There also isn't any incentive to reduce diffuser size, so except for rake I really don't know why Steven drew that image like that. If not for that, then most likely it's an oversight. The grey area next to the, also grey, brake ducts should be completely symmetry. If there was a decrease in size, the article would definitely mention it.

If you aren't convinced, I can pull up the official rules from both 2013 and 2014.

[WillerZ]

If you aren't convinced, I can pull up the official rules from both 2013 and 2014.

We went through almost exactly this conversation in the Force India thread, so you can skip to the end. Diffuser height is the same but the gurney flap on top of it is no more.

[Huntresa]

Also perhaps they can run the same diffuser height cause of the lose of beam wing?

[LookBackTime]

https://twitter.com/WilliamsF1Team/stat ... 9802662913

[LookBackTime]

https://twitter.com/WilliamsF1Team/stat ... 2954278912

[zioture]

NEWS NEWS NEWS
NEW Williams