“Failed/Abandoned” F1 Concepts - Analysis and Discussion

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.
Giando
Giando
44
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:56 pm

Re: “Failed/Abandoned” F1 Concepts - Analysis and Discussion

Post

Also, I’m quite surprised no-one mentioned the (in)famous double floor and F15 fighter jet-style air ducts, introduced by Jean Claude Migeot with Ferrari in 1992 on the F92A (a true failure of its own)

Image

Image

and then later reprised in a slightly different version by John Barnard on the 1996 Ferrari F310!

Image

Image

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
625
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: “Failed/Abandoned” F1 Concepts - Analysis and Discussion

Post

Giando wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 1:25 pm

Image
It certainly failed on the looks front. That's an ugly car!
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

Giando
Giando
44
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:56 pm

Re: “Failed/Abandoned” F1 Concepts - Analysis and Discussion

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:51 pm
It certainly failed on the looks front. That's an ugly car!
The second one, with the raised pelican nose as opposed to the original version, was the 'evo' version introduced around the Canadian GP in 1996. They couldn't modify the front end of the chassis so they just raised the crash-box-nose. Yes pretty ugly i agree :D

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
625
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: “Failed/Abandoned” F1 Concepts - Analysis and Discussion

Post

Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

Giando
Giando
44
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:56 pm

Re: “Failed/Abandoned” F1 Concepts - Analysis and Discussion

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:42 pm
Article about the F92A. https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature/42 ... us-failure
Interesting, although there's a huge mistake... i don't know if Nichols memory serves him badly there or if it's up to the reporter/editor: in 1992 Ferrari didn't mount active ride suspensions!

They were just tested during the season and introduced the following year.

Migeot, in fact, often said that the F92A aero-concept would've worked far better if only the chassis would have benefited from an active suspension system, which would provide almost no pitch and roll and reduce car sensitivity to these two key factors, therefore allowing the airflow around the car and the diffusers (which were two!) to be managed the proper way and then guaranteeing a constant downforce level both during highspeed cornering and when breaking.

kalinka
kalinka
9
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: “Failed/Abandoned” F1 Concepts - Analysis and Discussion

Post

Williams's "no suspension" car 1980..didn't even pass testing, but it was interesting..or maybe desperate?

https://drivetribe.com/p/williams-once- ... 9QENaMtupw

User avatar
Lotus102
35
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:29 pm

Re: “Failed/Abandoned” F1 Concepts - Analysis and Discussion

Post

netoperek wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:20 pm
hollus wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:49 pm
Cooling bodywork instead of radiators:
http://www.grandprixhistory.org/brab46.htm

I wonder if this would be doable now that there is less cooling to do. Also, considering the amount of electrical energy available in the car... could one "Peltierize" the car's skin? Or just water circulating through a double layer skin. As a plus, the cars could be covered in shiny copper ;-)
Chances are that it would, once again, make the car slower.
I guess the chances are also stratospheric that it would be outlawed immediately.
You'd need to maximise surface area of the bodywork, either with some micro fins, which would got banned in the milisecond or with some really rough finish, which could end up in destroying whole aero (or not, I've no clue :P )
Maybe embedding heatpipes into construction/bodywork parts?
Surface radiators were a very viable solution for the Schneider Trophy racing seaplanes of the interwar era, and did not require a rough surface at all. They were basically a corrugated copper sheet with an upper and lower skin. The Gloster examples were made as a sleeve that literally slid onto the wings. The Supermarine S6 and S6B of 1929 and 1931 also had surface oil cooling, but this did require some external corrugation - the oil was fed back along the sides of the fuselage within small longitudinal 'ribs', into the tail fin which was itself a surface radiator, and back to the engine.

Considering we're talking about 1920s/early 30s technology with supercharged engines that produced up to 2,000hp and ran at full throttle for several hours, I don't see that they couldn't be made to work very effectively with nearly a century's advances. The obvious problems are weight, the consequences of a crash (any slight surface damage and you've got boiling coolant everywhere), difficulty in handling for mechanics and marshals, complexity (bye bye easily removeable bodywork)

It would be more practical, I would suggest, to use surface radiators in areas like the rear wing, say, as a means of allowing you to reduce the size of conventional radiators rather than replacing them altogether

User avatar
FW17
231
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

Re: “Failed/Abandoned” F1 Concepts - Analysis and Discussion

Post

Hachet shaped flow conditioners in place of barge boards used on FW22-26

Image

astracrazy
astracrazy
56
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:04 pm

Re: “Failed/Abandoned” F1 Concepts - Analysis and Discussion

Post

What about the Mercedes front wing F-duct? Has this been listed? Clever idea, but flow didn't reattached quick enough.
https://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2012/03/ ... -wing-drs/

Could you also list Toro Rosso's double floor, they were the only team doing it and abandoned it after 2 years I think it was?