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.
tok-tokkie
20
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:21 pm
Location: Cape Town

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by tok-tokkie » Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:34 am

You can have any opening you like as long as it is not more than 150mm in front of the front axles. The scoop under the nose could be used. I don't remember when Mercedes are said to have tried it last year but on Friday they could have used the nose tip as a trial air inlet to see how it worked.

Richard
Moderator
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:41 pm
Location: UK

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by Richard » Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:07 pm

Last year Mercedes had their nose cooling intake just in front of the cockpit, in a similar position to the McLaren F duct intake.

Tozza Mazza
1
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 11:00 am
Location: UK

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by Tozza Mazza » Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:32 pm

My view:

Cars do not need 'driver cooling'. They never used to have this system, and don't need it now. These cars are built right on the limit, so why sacrifice some performance (internal drag etc...) for an unnecessary benefit?

Adrian Newey has placed his nose vent just outside the area where any inlet must be for the purpose of driver cooling. I think they are using this for a system similar to W duct, to aid the front wing.

Just my 2 cents.

N12ck
12
User avatar
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:10 pm

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by N12ck » Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:01 pm

Tozza Mazza wrote:My view:

Cars do not need 'driver cooling'. They never used to have this system, and don't need it now. These cars are built right on the limit, so why sacrifice some performance (internal drag etc...) for an unnecessary benefit?

Adrian Newey has placed his nose vent just outside the area where any inlet must be for the purpose of driver cooling. I think they are using this for a system similar to W duct, to aid the front wing.

Just my 2 cents.
Agree completely, as most aerodynamicists say, drivers are ballast, nothing more in the eyes of aero, so why have driver cooling and create excess drag as Tozza Mazza said. :D
Budding F1 Engineer

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

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by hardingfv32 » Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:02 pm

You guys are being intellectually lazy. This is just amateur babble about where to put the intake duct.

Why not apply the smallest amount of effort to understanding what a front wing system would require to be a performance enhancer.

1) Can someone clearly state what effect we want from the front wing with this system, down-force, drag reduction, etc.?

2) How is this accomplished at or in the wing itself?

3) AND most importantly, rough how much addition air flow are we talking about? This last question must be answered before you can credibly talk about any air routing scheme.

So who is going to man up to the task. I personally can't get past the first question.

Brian

N12ck
12
User avatar
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:10 pm

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by N12ck » Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:08 pm

hardingfv32 wrote:You guys are being intellectually lazy. This is just amateur babble about where to put the intake duct.

Why not apply the smallest amount of effort to understanding what a front wing system would require to be a performance enhancer.

1) Can someone clearly state what effect we want from the front wing with this system, down-force, drag reduction, etc.?

2) How is this accomplished at or in the wing itself?

3) AND most importantly, rough how much addition air flow are we talking about? This last question must be answered before you can credibly talk about any air routing scheme.


So who is going to man up to the task. I personally can't get past the first question.

Brian
yes your right, Thing is with this years rules (lack of EBD), you wouldn't want more front downforce as it would unbalance the car, so the only logical option would be to reduce drag IMO,
Budding F1 Engineer

Tozza Mazza
1
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 11:00 am
Location: UK

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by Tozza Mazza » Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:39 pm

hardingfv32 wrote:You guys are being intellectually lazy. This is just amateur babble about where to put the intake duct.

Why not apply the smallest amount of effort to understanding what a front wing system would require to be a performance enhancer.

1) Can someone clearly state what effect we want from the front wing with this system, down-force, drag reduction, etc.?

2) How is this accomplished at or in the wing itself?

3) AND most importantly, rough how much addition air flow are we talking about? This last question must be answered before you can credibly talk about any air routing scheme.

So who is going to man up to the task. I personally can't get past the first question.

Brian
The video I've seen was complete crap. Unusable to the eyes of the analyst.

Here are just a few options for a blown front wing:

1/ Boost downforce, possibly using super circulation

2/ Cut lift caused by the front wing central section, using super-circulation

3/ Reduce drag, using induced stall, similar to the 2010 F Duct systems.


Any use of this system will almost certainly require high velocity and (high pressure?) air, and whether it will be possible to supply this, I do not know, but there are potential benefits.

The amount of air will surely be equal to the amount of air going into the intake, minus a tiny amount for losses. Dumb question much? :lol:


N12ck, grip is grip, and whilst the EBD is a loss in rear grip, it's no where near as big as the 20% total downforce I've heard in places in the forums, that's just absurd. Most of the cars downforce is generated at the rear of the car anyway, so adding a bit more at the front is fine, and can be accounted for by a teams vehicle dynamics team in the design phase of the car.

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

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by Adrian Newby » Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:31 pm

I think the best use of such a system would be to keep the chassis as level as possible so the aero bits, especially the ones in ground effect, would be most efficient. Second to that, shedding downforce/drag while on the straights is a good thing. Also, I do see a small amount of driver cooling being a very good thing at some of the hotter races. If you can improve driver efficiency over a two hour race by even a small amount, it would be worth it.

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

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by bhall » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:36 am


strad
219
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:57 am

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by strad » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:56 am

probably only 5mm or so high
I'm not gonna repost a picture but it appears to me to be considerably more than 5mm.
Motorsport without danger is like cooking without salt
Sir Stirling Moss

hollus
361
User avatar
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by hollus » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:10 pm

No, he thinks it is both a dam and an inlet, and with the external opening much larger than the actual internal slot, it makes sense for it to be a bit of both. But he is as clueless as us as to what the air going through the slot is supposed to do.
OK, OK, looks like Santa Claus is going to survive this summer after all.

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

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by bhall » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:45 pm

I didn't read his analysis that way at all. From his explanation, it seems clear to me that the primary purpose of the "letterbox" - I really want to call that something different - is aerodynamic in nature. Driver cooling is nominal; it does just enough to enable the wink and a nod required to protect its legality within the regulations.

All of that's to say that I don't have any qualms whatsoever with it being referred to as a damn dam.

Aha! "Letterbox, meet Jean-Claude Air Damme."

hollus
361
User avatar
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by hollus » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:16 pm

ScarbsF1 wrote:This is a simple and copyable solution. I believe this would work with or without the slot.
It would follow from that that the slot has a function of its own other than legality. But let's not get carried away, he probably knows as much as "we" do, and certainly more than I do. We'll find out in due time.
OK, OK, looks like Santa Claus is going to survive this summer after all.

Richard
Moderator
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:41 pm
Location: UK

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by Richard » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:31 pm

Yes, the slot has a function of providing a cooling airflow to equipment in the nose, and notionally to the cockpit.

The air dam bodywork above the slot provides the aerodynamic effect that Scarbs describes.

I see it as making the best of a bad lot, the regs mean they have to have that ramp there, so they might as well do something with it.

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

Re: Aerodynamic implications of nose inlets

Post by Adrian Newby » Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:52 pm

What Scarbs describes is an eddy generator, not an air dam.

That is feasible, but it wouldn't be the primary reason for the RB8's hump design. It would just be a tweak to mitigate a little drag without adding side spill after the decision had been made to put in the intake slot.

But really, if the slot has to be in the chassis (instead of the nose), then the slot has to be at the top of the ramp if it is going to be in the hump at all. So I don't see how it could have been designed any other way (without increasing side spill).