Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
hardingfv32
28
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by hardingfv32 » Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:28 am

Adrian Newby wrote:Also, my point was about supplementing the cooling the RB7 already had.
This is a fair point. So only the smallest amount cooling would make your thesis valid.

So, I move on to how the duct is routed through the leg or foot section. This interior area is clearly specified 13.3. It looks exactly like the exterior shape of most chassis in this area. Are you proposing make the chassis any bigger than is necessary to meet the interior rules?

The interior rules are a rectangle, there are no 'free' triangles in the corners.

Brian

Adrian Newby
-1
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:05 pm

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by Adrian Newby » Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:03 am

hardingfv32 wrote:
Adrian Newby wrote:Also, my point was about supplementing the cooling the RB7 already had.
This is a fair point. So only the smallest amount cooling would make your thesis valid.

So, I move on to how the duct is routed through the leg or foot section. This interior area is clearly specified 13.3. It looks exactly like the exterior shape of most chassis in this area. Are you proposing make the chassis any bigger than is necessary to meet the interior rules?

The interior rules are a rectangle, there are no 'free' triangles in the corners.

Brian
I don't have a "thesis" and I don't care to play lawyer games with you.

If Newey is using the hump intake to supplement KERS cooling, then I would imagine that he has sized it accordingly, wouldn't you?

Send me the direct link to the exact page covering the section of 13.3 you are referring to if you want me to look at it.

The interior of the chassis is a rectangle in cross-section. The driver's butt, and therefore his seat, is rounded in cross-section (I know, I have used many of them and still have one of mine). If you place a rounded item into a rectangular one, you will have, at the very least, two triangles of space left in the bottom, on either side of the seat.

mikhak
11
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:25 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by mikhak » Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:33 pm

Adrian Newby wrote: The interior of the chassis is a rectangle in cross-section. The driver's butt, and therefore his seat, is rounded in cross-section (I know, I have used many of them and still have one of mine). If you place a rounded item into a rectangular one, you will have, at the very least, two triangles of space left in the bottom, on either side of the seat.
This is true. However if you look at Article 13.3 of the Technical Regulations concerning the internal cross section of the cockpit area you will see that the interior cross-section template is rectangular and the rule states:

"The only things which may encroach on this area are the steering wheel and any padding that is required by Article 14.6.7."

Adrian Newby
-1
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:05 pm

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by Adrian Newby » Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:43 pm

mikhak wrote:
Adrian Newby wrote: The interior of the chassis is a rectangle in cross-section. The driver's butt, and therefore his seat, is rounded in cross-section (I know, I have used many of them and still have one of mine). If you place a rounded item into a rectangular one, you will have, at the very least, two triangles of space left in the bottom, on either side of the seat.
This is true. However if you look at Article 13.3 of the Technical Regulations concerning the internal cross section of the cockpit area you will see that the interior cross-section template is rectangular and the rule states:

"The only things which may encroach on this area are the steering wheel and any padding that is required by Article 14.6.7."
Won't the drivers be surprised to find no brake bias control, ignition switch, fire extinguisher reservoir, fire extinguisher switch, brake lines, shift paddles, wiring harness, multi-function display, etc, in their cockpits this year!

Surely the point of that rule is to avoid limiting the driver's egress. And if he plans on getting out of the car through the bottom corners of his seat, he probably doesn't need to be in Formula One anyway.

I think the key term here is "encroach on this area", by which they almost certainly mean "get between then driver and the cockpit opening".

hardingfv32
28
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by hardingfv32 » Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:30 pm

That explains everything, we didn't have Newby's definition of 'encroach'. Were are all on the same page now.

Brian

Adrian Newby
-1
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:05 pm

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by Adrian Newby » Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:43 pm

hardingfv32 wrote:That explains everything, we didn't have Newby's definition of 'encroach'. Were are all on the same page now.

Brian
It's not my definition that matters.

But if we use your definition we'll have to get rid of all that other stuff that is already in every F1 car on the grid.

So I would be willing to wager you anything you want to put up that my definition is more correct than yours.

hardingfv32
28
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by hardingfv32 » Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:50 pm

Adrian Newby wrote:So I would be willing to wager you anything you want to put up that my definition is more correct than yours.
And what would be the point of that?

Brian

Adrian Newby
-1
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:05 pm

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by Adrian Newby » Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:32 pm

hardingfv32 wrote:
Adrian Newby wrote:So I would be willing to wager you anything you want to put up that my definition is more correct than yours.
And what would be the point of that?

Brian
To get you to stay on topic.

bhall
370
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by bhall » Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:14 pm

(Man, someone around here has got a real hard-on for negativity.)

What if the nose inlet isn't really there at all? I've been pondering that since I (think) I figured out the Sauber nose. (It's not a vent; the homologated chassis is simply prepared for a nose the team hasn't used yet.)

Are there any visual clues to suggest something like that could be the case here as well?

Adrian Newby
-1
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:05 pm

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by Adrian Newby » Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:27 pm

bhallg2k wrote:(Man, someone around here has got a real hard-on for negativity.)

What if the nose inlet isn't really there at all? I've been pondering that since I (think) I figured out the Sauber nose. (It's not a vent; the homologated chassis is simply prepared for a nose the team hasn't used yet.)

Are there any visual clues to suggest something like that could be the case here as well?
Yeah, that Sauber nose is interesting. That's a good thought on it. It sure looks plausible.

On the RB8, that sounds like the air dam(n) theory, if the slit is just blocked. I had the thought that the slit is open, but there is no opening into the chassis (which may be what you are saying). In which case, maybe there is no duct at all, and they are simply "pressurizing" the entire nose cone, which then "leaks" from a couple of select, opportune locations that they are not legally allowed to "blow".

PlatinumZealot
245
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by PlatinumZealot » Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:28 pm

How do you know there is no opening into the chassis though? There were no pictures released of the RB8 bulk head was there?

Anyway... I am believing more and more that the step and slot is an air damn for the front wing F-duct. You know why?

I think the damn is there to give a stable, less disturbed and hence predictable air pressure source for the F-duct.

Without an air dam it is more difficult to keep the air in one place for signal purposes. For example the Mercedez W02 nose. The hole being at the very tip of the nose, it is susceptible to cross winds and transients due to car motion. This makes it hard to get a consistent Pressure signal for the nose tip F-duct.

The drag incurred by the ugly step in the nose (which I beleive is miniscule) is alleviated at high speeds by the Front wing F-duct - So it is a very attractive sacrifice.
"Raindrops .. drop top!"

Adrian Newby
-1
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:05 pm

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by Adrian Newby » Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:41 pm

n smikle wrote:How do you know there is no opening into the chassis though? There were no pictures released of the RB8 bulk head was there?

Anyway... I am believing more and more that the step and slot is an air damn for the front wing F-duct. You know why?

I think the damn is there to give a stable, less disturbed and hence predictable air pressure source for the F-duct.

Without an air dam it is more difficult to keep the air in one place for signal purposes. For example the Mercedez W02 nose. The hole being at the very tip of the nose, it is susceptible to cross winds and transients due to car motion. This makes it hard to get a consistent Pressure signal for the nose tip F-duct.

The drag incurred by the ugly step in the nose (which I beleive is miniscule) is alleviated at high speeds by the Front wing F-duct - So it is a very attractive sacrifice.
I don't think anyone knows anything about what's going on behind the slot. We were just playing "what if". The front wing f-duct idea is what I was getting at with my previous post. I thought they made that illegal for this year. Maybe not? Anyway, that's why I suggested they might have arranged for air to "leak" in the right places.

I'm still not buying the air dam idea, but you all continue to make decent arguments for it!

bhall
370
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by bhall » Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:45 pm

Adrian Newby wrote:I had the thought that the slit is open, but there is no opening into the chassis (which may be what you are saying).
No, I just didn't write out what I meant clearly enough. I meant, what if it's not an inlet at all but is something else entirely?

I'm absolutely certain that the Sauber is just waiting for a new nose. So if something along those lines is happening here, what could it be if it's not inlet-related at all? Are there any possibilities other than a dam(n)?

Adrian Newby
-1
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:05 pm

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by Adrian Newby » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:16 pm

bhallg2k wrote:
Adrian Newby wrote:I had the thought that the slit is open, but there is no opening into the chassis (which may be what you are saying).
No, I just didn't write out what I meant clearly enough. I meant, what if it's not an inlet at all but is something else entirely?

I'm absolutely certain that the Sauber is just waiting for a new nose. So if something along those lines is happening here, what could it be if it's not inlet-related at all? Are there any possibilities other than a dam(n)?
So, what if the whole "intake" is just a ruse, in other words?

Well... the upper surface of the intake is part of the chassis, so that won't be changing... I can't really think of anything else they could do there that we haven't talked about. Still, a good avenue for further thought and discussion.

Adrian Newby
-1
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:05 pm

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by Adrian Newby » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:29 pm

Could they change the intake into a small airfoil that exits on top of the nose, like they have on the front tops of the RB8 sidepods? Is that even legal...? The exit could be just ahead/over the chassis so no hole would have to be cut into it.

Or, for something really far out... that I'm sure I'll get slammed for even thinking... make a duct, just like mentioned above, exiting on top, and put a KERS radiator in there!

Yes, hot fluid on the driver in a crash, high CoG, long coolant run, not enough area/flow, blah, blah... just thinking outside the box here, fellas!