2014 Design

[turbof1]

As there are many very clever people here, I'd like to ask if you could have a guess at pre-empting this year's 'silver bullet'.

Also, while following this thread I've seen a number of 2014 car mockups that all look rather similar, and am therefore wondering (on the aero side) where the differences in performance will be? Or is it going to be a totally engine-based formula?

Don't shoot me if a team comes up with something genius, but aero wise I don't think we will see a silver bullet. We haven't seen one in recent years (things like DDRS weren't big advantages). Maybe, and I emphasis maybe, a team has a big breakthrough with DRD and is able to stall the rear wing reliably and very effectively, but I don't think they will.

Powertrain wise things look much more open. One manufacturer could come up with something brilliantly. Chances are one will, since these power units contain a lot of elements. There are regionally very tight regulations, but other parts are wide open to innovate and impress.

The biggest part of performance will still come from aerodynamics. That being said, it'll be less dominantly, and the biggest gains will certainly found with improvements on the enginz, especially between seasons.

[trinidefender]

Omnicorse.it is reporting the 2014 cars will be at least 6 seconds slower per lap than 2013 cars. According to Omnicorse, there will be a 30% reduction of downforce with next years cars due to the regulation changes. The 2013 car produces roughly 1,700 kg of downforce at 250 km/h. The 30% reduction would equate to over 500 kg of downforce lost, which puts the cars at 1,200 kg of DF. Omnicorse says 80kg of DF is worth almost a second per lap.


Here is the link where they discuss the new regulations. They also state the need for more cooling will hurt aerodynamic efficiency, and other things. Enrique Scalabroni seems to have consulted and is the basis for the information within the article.

Earlier this year when I said that a lot of downforce would be lost in 2014 not many believed me. Removing the beam wing harms both the diffuser and the rear wing. The beam wing may not induce a lot of downforce on itself but it helps extraction from the diffuser increasing its efficiency and the up draft of air it creates also helps the boundary layer stay attached to the underside of the rear wing.

There is a lot of downforce lost next year with the removal of the beam wing, shallower rear wing and no exhaust sealing of the diffuser. And the only way to balance this out is to remove downforce at the front as well. Even though the only regulation changes at the front wing is that it becomes a bit narrower. But teams will run less AoA on the front wings and divert more air outside and inside the tire to get more DF at the rear. So I do believe that the total DF level next year is much lower than today. Add the increased weight, larger cooling requirements, lower HP figures and the fixed gear ratios to this and I recon the cars will be at least 3-4 sec slower. 6 sec is perhaps a bit too much I guess.

@Holm I think you have a slight misconception as to how the beam wing works. While yes it does help the diffuser quite a lot it actually hurts the rear wing slightly. The same force from the beam-wing that keeps the airflow attached to the rear wing has the effect of reducing the apparent angle of attack on the rear wing. The is because the beam wing is changing the angle of airflow above and below it. Yes the further away the two wings are the less their is an effect, however with these wing sizes and distances there will still be interference. The end result of this is you get a wing with a decent bit less downforce, the same parasitic drag, the same profile drag and slightly less induced drag.

When you remove the beam wing you hurt diffuser performance however you increase rear wing performance slightly. Without the beam wing the rear wing will be running a higher apparent AoA. This is one of the reasons bi-planes fell out of favour of monoplanes in the 30's (the other two main reasons were two sets of tip vortices instead one set and having to use wires and supports that add drag to the plane)

In the max downforce and the expense of drag ,for the most part, world of F1, the additional perforce gained from helping the diffuser and and downforce from the beam-wing outweighs the drag increase and slight decrease in performance of the rear wing.

I actually think the the rule makers reduced the depth of the rear wing to counter any gain on the rear wing that would have resulted from the removal of the beam-wing. If anybody doesn't understand I can try to explain this better.

[Holm86]

Omnicorse.it is reporting the 2014 cars will be at least 6 seconds slower per lap than 2013 cars. According to Omnicorse, there will be a 30% reduction of downforce with next years cars due to the regulation changes. The 2013 car produces roughly 1,700 kg of downforce at 250 km/h. The 30% reduction would equate to over 500 kg of downforce lost, which puts the cars at 1,200 kg of DF. Omnicorse says 80kg of DF is worth almost a second per lap.


Here is the link where they discuss the new regulations. They also state the need for more cooling will hurt aerodynamic efficiency, and other things. Enrique Scalabroni seems to have consulted and is the basis for the information within the article.

Earlier this year when I said that a lot of downforce would be lost in 2014 not many believed me. Removing the beam wing harms both the diffuser and the rear wing. The beam wing may not induce a lot of downforce on itself but it helps extraction from the diffuser increasing its efficiency and the up draft of air it creates also helps the boundary layer stay attached to the underside of the rear wing.

There is a lot of downforce lost next year with the removal of the beam wing, shallower rear wing and no exhaust sealing of the diffuser. And the only way to balance this out is to remove downforce at the front as well. Even though the only regulation changes at the front wing is that it becomes a bit narrower. But teams will run less AoA on the front wings and divert more air outside and inside the tire to get more DF at the rear. So I do believe that the total DF level next year is much lower than today. Add the increased weight, larger cooling requirements, lower HP figures and the fixed gear ratios to this and I recon the cars will be at least 3-4 sec slower. 6 sec is perhaps a bit too much I guess.

@Holm I think you have a slight misconception as to how the beam wing works. While yes it does help the diffuser quite a lot it actually hurts the rear wing slightly. The same force from the beam-wing that keeps the airflow attached to the rear wing has the effect of reducing the apparent angle of attack on the rear wing. The is because the beam wing is changing the angle of airflow above and below it. Yes the further away the two wings are the less their is an effect, however with these wing sizes and distances there will still be interference. The end result of this is you get a wing with a decent bit less downforce, the same parasitic drag, the same profile drag and slightly less induced drag.

When you remove the beam wing you hurt diffuser performance however you increase rear wing performance slightly. Without the beam wing the rear wing will be running a higher apparent AoA. This is one of the reasons bi-planes fell out of favour of monoplanes in the 30's (the other two main reasons were two sets of tip vortices instead one set and having to use wires and supports that add drag to the plane)

In the max downforce and the expense of drag ,for the most part, world of F1, the additional perforce gained from helping the diffuser and and downforce from the beam-wing outweighs the drag increase and slight decrease in performance of the rear wing.

I actually think the the rule makers reduced the depth of the rear wing to counter any gain on the rear wing that would have resulted from the removal of the beam-wing. If anybody doesn't understand I can try to explain this better.

+1 thanks. That makes sense. I'm no aerodynamicists but have some understanding of how it works. And I hadn't thought about it like that. I just thought the upwash of the beam wing would help the flow stay attached to the underside of the rear wing. But when you mention it I can understand that the relative AoA changes when you have a beamwing underneath.

[trinidefender]

How about the floor ? if the 2014 car have long sidepods and very long gearboxes, their floor should be slightly bigger and their 'coke bottle shape' should be particulary thin... So maybe they can make up much DF in that area.

A long floor could potentially be an issue, particularly with the lower nose height. The height and cross section of the nose will limit the volume of oncoming airflow travelling beneath the nose and therefore into the splitter region. If this area of the car does not receive enough airflow to suit the floor length, the low pressure could potentially break down. I think that's correct. I read something that suggested this but it was a while ago...

Doing some mock drawings and some thinking this may not be true. With a longer floor you will have to run a higher nose ride height to stop the wearing of the plank. By doing this you effectively reduce the angle of the floor relative to the ground while the rear will be the same height. The should in theory have the effect of having the same final lower pressure at the rear and at the same time spreading out the pressure gradient more resulting in a more even distribution of downforce and more stable car. This doesn't include spillage coming in from the side of the floor or other factors. By having a more gradual pressure gradient from the reduced angle of the floor it is reducing the 'work' that the air is doing over a given distance reducing the chances of the airflow breaking down.

Where the problem may arise is when teams try to use a longer floor, resulting in a higher front ride height and then to keep the angle of the floor the same as before, use a higher rear ride height. This may have the effect of creating a pressure gradient with to strong a change and cause the floor to effectively stall with the lower airflow.

I'm not saying this IS how it works but it may be something to take into consideration

[astracrazy]

just a question regarding the front wings

whilst the endplates will go outboard will the cascades be used to push the air inboard from 2014 (unlike 2013 where they turn outwards). due to there position being much closer to the centre of the car compared to other years?

or would that not work?

[BorisTheBlade]

As of now it's totally unclear which way they will go with either endplates or cascades. I wouldn't be surprised to every possible permutation - with the exception of cascade out and endplate in.

[trinidefender]

just a question regarding the front wings

whilst the endplates will go outboard will the cascades be used to push the air inboard from 2014 (unlike 2013 where they turn outwards). due to there position being much closer to the centre of the car compared to other years?

or would that not work?

To answer your question it is possible, but highly unlikely. For most teams this year the cascades were arranged to push the air outwards of the tyre. If you only have the end plates trying to get the air outside the tyre then probably the majority of the high velocity air will be hitting the tyre. By using both the shape of the cascades and the end plates you can transfer a lot of that energy to moving the airflow out or up and over the tyre

[gray41]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25069959

BBC take on the rules.

[BorisTheBlade]

Can't access it. There's a regional wall. Could you please quote it?

[Holm86]

There will be new standard side impact structures next year. I'm not sure all I aware of this. They will be slightly bigger that those used today. This could impact sidepod designs.

Here is a video about them.

[gray41]

Can't access it. There's a regional wall. Could you please quote it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBzFsD4WSbw

It is a video, found it on youtube.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Scarbs drawing of what he thinks the 2014 cars will look like

[djos]

Ouch, that nose looks woeful!!

Hehehe, blown monkey seats are going to be fun!!!

[wuzak]

Ouch, that nose looks woeful!!

Hehehe, blown monkey seats are going to be fun!!!

How is it "blown"? The exhaust isn't directed at the monkey seat, and nor can it be.

[djos]

Ouch, that nose looks woeful!!

Hehehe, blown monkey seats are going to be fun!!!

How is it "blown"? The exhaust isn't directed at the monkey seat, and nor can it be.

Maybe just the angle of the drawing, makes it look like it could be blown to me.