Honda RA106

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter does not belong here.
ginsu
ginsu
0
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:23 am

Post

...and that side wing is, well, rather large... Wink Does have an interesting shape to it though, in that it seems to slope downwards, and has lost the aero profile from last year. Appears to require a strut on the vertical section though, maybe it flexs too much without (the vertical section it does appear to have a slight inward curve though)
I guess it's more of a flow conditioner now than a downforce generator. Aiming for higher aero efficiency to suit the '06 regs?
I think I finally figured out what this silly looking 'sidepod scoop' actually does. If you look closely at it, it looks just like a big funnel. It catches a large amount of air coming around the sidepod and funnels around the side. The interesting part of this is that it creates a 'venturi' for the air going around the sidepod. Thus, it takes a bunch a slow moving air, and accelerates it.

I was knocking my head, wondering, why a scoop on the sidepod? Well, recently I was given some Advantage-CFD promotional video of the BAR Honda. It actually has an animation of streamlines of the dynamic pressure (roughly, it gives you an idea of the energy in the flow) sweeping across the BAR car at speed. What do you know, I slowed it down, and saw the dynamic pressure go to ambient (basically zero), right at the edge of the sidepod. That explains everything.

For example. The dynamic pressure often goes to ambient on the upper surface of the rear wing. Well, we all know that the rear wing creates a huge amount of drag. Apparently, so does the flow around the sidepod. Also, becaue the rear ends are more tapered this year, it would create even more drag (because of flow separation). Hence, if my theory is correct, the scoop accelerates the flow right around the edge of the sidepod causing it to 'stick' to the sidepod, delaying flow separation, and significantly reducing drag.

This is currently a 'Honda-only' part. New for this year (cause lack of V8 power to overcome the same drag?) So, if this does what I says it does, then I don't see why other cars won't be adding them very soon.
I love to love Senna.

Guest
Guest
0

Post

I was wondering bout this, cos to tell you the truth it didnt really seem to be for additional DF or handling purposes etc.

Sounds pretty neat, hope your right and the RA106 is real fast this year.

zac510
zac510
39
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:58 am

Post

Sounds reasonable to me although if other teams don't see worth to fit this item then perhaps BAR have a deficiency in this area that requires the use of it.

DiESEL[P]
DiESEL[P]
0

Post

You mean Honda. Alot of teams have similar devices mounted to their sidepod corners, They did start off as wings but alot of them are morthing into these strange plate elements...

Guest
Guest
0

Post

Hi guys,

What are those short things for, on the nose of the Honda? And why is the right one missing?

Image

The picture is from today's Valencia test, looks better with this front wing. The rear one is also different.

Bender
Bender
0

Post

Thats the video camera

Guest
Guest
0

Post

The picture is from today's Valencia test, looks better with this front wing. The rear one is also different.
That looks like a medium downforce setup to me. Double element front wing. The sidepods look awfully big to me. And there's alot of negative camber, too...is it just me or does the right front wheel look like it has more negative camber than the left?

monkeyboy1976
monkeyboy1976
2
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Midlands, UK

Post

So far, this car has proved to be quick and very reliable. The aero is also said to be much more balanced than last years. The fact they have two 2006 chassis on the go with no real problems is a good sign for them. The car may be a little on the podgy side but that will not matter if it is quick.

Guest
Guest
0

Post

Jenson's engine blew in Valencia today. :(

User avatar
jezzwa
0
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 1:04 pm
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Post

Ahha, so maybe the honda engine is not as invincible as i though :D
Vote 1 for GPs back in Adelaide

DiESEL[P]
DiESEL[P]
0

Post

Honda got fed up with reliability and have already started pushing for more performance, that's why Jenson's engine blew, he was testing a new engine upgrade. Things are definately looking up for Honda, they appear to have one of the most powerful engines on the grid so far.

Guest
Guest
0

aero question

Post

I was wondering if the regulations specify the exact wing position relative to the axles. The front wing for example, being quite infront the front axle provides a good front downforce due to levarage (distance from the axle), but at the same time "tries" to lift the rear (due to the same levarage).

Is the levarage a variable which the teams optimise or is it regulated?

If it is optimized, then larger wheel base provides aditional downforce benefit, as the levarage can be increased with smaller lift effect on the opposite axle.

I've seen many highly competent posts in this forum, can someone please comment on the above thoughts.

User avatar
joseff
14
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2002 10:53 am

Post

I don't get your leverage idea. A 1kN vertical force downwards is a 1kN downforce, regardless of location wrt wheels. The only thing the "leverage" alters is the car's balance front/rear.

A larger wheelbase (given a car length) actually gives less "leverage", contrary to your postulate.

Guest
Guest
0

Post

I could be off, here...
But I think the concept of leverage presented seems valid.

The farther out from the wheels downforce is applied, the larger the effect by that force.

I'm thinking of carrying grocery bags. Take a 10lbs bag and carry it in your hand, with your arm bent at a 90 deg. angle.
Now take that same bag, and put your arm through it. Now you're carrying that bag all the way up close to your elbow.
You can imagine how your bicep muscle is working harder to carry the bag on your hand, versus the one closer to the elbow.

It's like opening your car door: The closer you are to the hinge, the more force you need to open it. Yet the door weight has not changed.

Anyway, I have the same question... Does this apply, and is it mandated?

-T

dumrick
dumrick
0
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:36 pm
Location: Portugal

Post

joseff wrote:I don't get your leverage idea. A 1kN vertical force downwards is a 1kN downforce, regardless of location wrt wheels. The only thing the "leverage" alters is the car's balance front/rear.

A larger wheelbase (given a car length) actually gives less "leverage", contrary to your postulate.
Both thoughts are right, only varying on perspective. If you analyse only the contribution of the FW, e.g., it will charge the front axle and lift the rear one. That translates in the shift forward of the resultant (force resulting in the sum of all) downforce (I don't recall it's abbreviation in english).
The position of the wings is regulated via technical rules at least in relation with the axles. The total wheelbase can be modified, but there are considerations in terms of vehicle dynamics that lead all teams to use similar values. Important is also wheelbase / track width relation and this last one is regulated (and teams use values close to the maximum allowed).