Toro Rosso STR10 Renault

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
Post Reply
User avatar
F1T
Administrative bot
Joined: 19 Dec 2011, 18:55

Cockpit edges: to round or not to round?

Post

Cockpit edges: to round or not to round? - Development blog

Since Toro Rosso introduced their shorter nose cone on the STR10, the team also added long fins on each side of the upper edge of the monocoque. It's a unique feature across all current cars and appears to be aimed at reducing air to spill over the edges of the monocoque.

This can be a particular issue under yaw, for example when the car is turning left. Air that is then flowing left of the monocoque could spill over the edge and end up in the cockpit opening area, one of the least efficient of a Formula One car, partly due to the movement of the driver's helmet.

The fins on the Toro Rosso may prevent this from happening. Similarly, Lotus has opted for a small radius in the rounding of the upper edges of its monocoque, creating the same effect as the fin on the STR10, except that the Toro Rosso has a slightly smaller frontal area. One negative of the Toro Rosso solution however is the increased surface area, increasing the boundary layer effect.

The design decisions made by Lotus and Toro Rosso are remarkable, as no other team appears to have gone this route. All other cars appear to have a rounding radius of close to the maximum allowed 50mm. The Red Bull RB11 and Mercedes F1 W06, both products from well funded teams are clear examples of that, so it remains to be seen whether Toro Rosso's recent addition will gather interest from rivals.

Image

BlackSwan
33
Joined: 07 May 2012, 10:17

Re: Toro Rosso STR10

Post

Image

n_anirudh
28
Joined: 25 Jul 2008, 02:43

Re: Toro Rosso STR10

Post

Image

Per
Per
35
Joined: 07 Mar 2009, 18:20
Location: Delft, the Netherlands

Re: Cockpit edges: to round or not to round?

Post

F1T wrote:Cockpit edges: to round or not to round? - Development blog
While these fins may indeed help keep the flow more in parallel with the longitudinal axis of the car, they are so tiny I don't think this effect is of any importance.

My understanding is, however, that sharp edges like this are used to have a stable separation point. When the car is in yaw, you're probably going to get some flow separation at the cockpit edge. With a round edge you can't predict exactly where that point will be as it varies with airspeed and yaw rate and will also be sensitive to the wind. With a sharp edge like this you know exactly where the separation will be in all circumstances and that gives an aerodynamicist a better base to work from.

emmepi27
141
Joined: 14 Jul 2013, 12:33
Contact:

Re: Toro Rosso STR10

Post

Carlos' front wing situation after crash at the start with Raikkonen. Big damage on the left, just a little on the right:
Image

User avatar
Blackout
1563
Joined: 09 Feb 2010, 04:12

Re: Toro Rosso STR10

Post

So nope, the STR10 still has the same classic intercooler layout
Top: STR10 and RBR11 left hand sidepod
Bottom: RBR11 right hand bottom
Image

User avatar
Callum
6
Joined: 18 Jan 2009, 15:03
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Re: Cockpit edges: to round or not to round?

Post

Per wrote:
F1T wrote:Cockpit edges: to round or not to round? - Development blog
While these fins may indeed help keep the flow more in parallel with the longitudinal axis of the car, they are so tiny I don't think this effect is of any importance.

My understanding is, however, that sharp edges like this are used to have a stable separation point. When the car is in yaw, you're probably going to get some flow separation at the cockpit edge. With a round edge you can't predict exactly where that point will be as it varies with airspeed and yaw rate and will also be sensitive to the wind. With a sharp edge like this you know exactly where the separation will be in all circumstances and that gives an aerodynamicist a better base to work from.
Another suggestion is that if a team is searching for torsional rigidity then it will try and make the chassis size as square as possible - a 'rounded' chassis will be less stiff.

Per
Per
35
Joined: 07 Mar 2009, 18:20
Location: Delft, the Netherlands

Re: Toro Rosso STR10

Post

There's a small gain in cross-sectional area by sharpening the cockpit edges but the effect will be negligible and the sharp edge will be a weak point in the structure which needs to be reinforced. So to increase rigidity it would be easier and overall probably lighter to add a ply of carbon on the inside.

Without a doubt the aero people are the dominant party in determining the outer geometry of the monocoque.

User avatar
bl4zar_
6
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 10:28

Re: Toro Rosso STR10

Post

Today a Toro Rosso engineer who works in the CFD department came to my university to talk about F1 cars design. He said that this year they consider themself really close to Red Bull in terms of aerodynamic and chassis, but the Renault engine is penalizing them a lot (he didn't say that directly, but he had it hinted) . He also talked about Sauber, that with their new "more 2014 than 2015" car but with the Ferrari engine is now in front of them, and about Red Bull saying that last year's car was superior to Mercedes both in chassis and aero, but Merc's engine was too strong.

Per
Per
35
Joined: 07 Mar 2009, 18:20
Location: Delft, the Netherlands

Re: Toro Rosso STR10

Post

Don't buy everything a CFD engineer says (with all due respect). If Red Bull was superior in aero and chassis then where were they in Monaco and how did Merc end up lapping all but two cars there?

User avatar
bl4zar_
6
Joined: 04 Mar 2013, 10:28

Re: Toro Rosso STR10

Post

Per wrote:Don't buy everything a CFD engineer says (with all due respect). If Red Bull was superior in aero and chassis then where were they in Monaco and how did Merc end up lapping all but two cars there?
When you have a stronger engine, you can afford also more drag in order to increment downforce. However, I know that I shouldn't believe everything he said, but he was persuasive :lol:

User avatar
joetoml1n
4
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 14:21

Re: Toro Rosso STR10

Post

bl4zar_ wrote:
Per wrote:Don't buy everything a CFD engineer says (with all due respect). If Red Bull was superior in aero and chassis then where were they in Monaco and how did Merc end up lapping all but two cars there?
When you have a stronger engine, you can afford also more drag in order to increment downforce. However, I know that I shouldn't believe everything he said, but he was persuasive :lol:
The drag penalty isn't as strong in Monaco though. Very little in fact, relative to other circuits.

Silent Storm
106
Joined: 02 Feb 2015, 18:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Toro Rosso STR10

Post

joetoml1n wrote:
bl4zar_ wrote:
Per wrote:Don't buy everything a CFD engineer says (with all due respect). If Red Bull was superior in aero and chassis then where were they in Monaco and how did Merc end up lapping all but two cars there?
When you have a stronger engine, you can afford also more drag in order to increment downforce. However, I know that I shouldn't believe everything he said, but he was persuasive :lol:
The drag penalty isn't as strong in Monaco though. Very little in fact, relative to other circuits.
Mercedes was not ahead of Redbull in Monaco because they had a powerful engine it was the package/integration. Mercedes had a powerful package and their PU was superior to Renault in terms of power, driveability, fuel efficiency and braking (MGU-K) which effects laptime and Mercedes engine cars have a quali mode I guess which gives them more power. Add all this up and it may give Mercedes a small advantage on Redbull.
The ones with the least to say always want to be heard the most…

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
551
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: Toro Rosso STR10

Post

joetoml1n wrote:
bl4zar_ wrote:
Per wrote:Don't buy everything a CFD engineer says (with all due respect). If Red Bull was superior in aero and chassis then where were they in Monaco and how did Merc end up lapping all but two cars there?
When you have a stronger engine, you can afford also more drag in order to increment downforce. However, I know that I shouldn't believe everything he said, but he was persuasive :lol:
The drag penalty isn't as strong in Monaco though. Very little in fact, relative to other circuits.
Engine especialy driveability is also very important in monaco.
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

User avatar
ringo
227
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Toro Rosso STR10

Post

Per wrote:Don't buy everything a CFD engineer says (with all due respect). If Red Bull was superior in aero and chassis then where were they in Monaco and how did Merc end up lapping all but two cars there?
And we should buy everything that you say? :wink:

I like his first hand account of things. I think it's one of the better sources of facts.

A stronger engine gives you scope to increase downforce without worrying too much about the drag penalty. So you may still have a weak chassis, but huge and agressive wings.
What you can do is imagine how much donwforce redbull could have piled on had they had the mercedes engine.
For Sure!!

Post Reply