- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
All else being equal, and in terms of flow structure, there's no difference between an exhaust-blown diffuser and a normal diffuser. (EBDs didn't "seal" anything. Exhaust gases were used to increase the kinematic viscosity of the high-pressure component to the edge vortices that will form within any diffuser.)Andres125sx wrote:That was not a problem with EBDs, any reason they would be with a fan?bhall II wrote:...effects in any case are difficult to conceptualize, especially if air flow is vented from a fan at a different velocity than surrounding air flow, as it would create very unusual vortices.
EBDs were not weird, but pretty effective.bhall II wrote:All else being equal, and in terms of flow structure, there's no difference between an exhaust-blown diffuser and a normal diffuser. (EBDs didn't "seal" anything. Exhaust gases were used to increase the kinematic viscosity of the high-pressure component to the edge vortices that will always form within any diffuser.)Andres125sx wrote:That was not a problem with EBDs, any reason they would be with a fan?bhall II wrote:...effects in any case are difficult to conceptualize, especially if air flow is vented from a fan at a different velocity than surrounding air flow, as it would create very unusual vortices.
My bio-CFD just isn't good enough to see the influence of a fan on wake turbulence beyond the fact that it would have an effect, and the effect would be kinda weird.
Agree, and that´s exactly the reason I look for different solutionsbhall II wrote:What's crystal clear, however, is the reality that the efficacy of any measures taken to reduce sensitivity to wake turbulence would be short-lived, because development will negate them. It also doesn't matter if prospective cars are more or less sensitive than the cars of today, because racing is relative, and the relative difference between those prospective cars would be the same.
In other words, even though today's cars are less sensitive to wake turbulence than cars from the 2000s, the impact of wake turbulence is no easier to overcome. In other other words, it doesn't matter if losing 25% of total downforce means losing 50N or 500N; the result is a car that's only 75% of what it is in other conditions. (That's the part the OWG missed by a mile.)
In my humble opinion, they might change it because you can adjust DF levels easily without any phisical modification in the car, so you can always limit max DF in normal conditions, and allow "higher" DF when in a slipstream. Not higher actually, only higher rpm/pitch to keep same DFbhall II wrote:I think looking at fan car concepts, which essentially provide turbocharged downforce, probably point us in the right direction. In fact, Gordon Murray's ideal F1 car is a fan car...
http://i.imgur.com/3FhFY4L.jpg
All the same, I just don't see how fan cars would change the situation competitively.
ESPN, Apr 28, 2016 wrote:"Well I think we need to wait and see, maybe finalise the rules because there have been some up and downs in terms of confirming the final thing. I think it is going in the right direction, we need to make the cars faster and the show better. We've been remembering for the last week the race in Imola in 2005 with Michael and me and then in 2006 with the opposite result, both very interesting races. There were three or four overtakes in the whole race and it's considered one of the best shows. I don't think that we need to put that much attention on the overtaking and following cars and things like that because before it was as difficult as it is now, or even more, and the races were great.
"We just need the fastest cars to produce a good show, we need to put some noise in the cars, some good battles and the big names fighting for the championships. That will improve the show. If in football you put Barcelona-[Real] Madrid for the championship everyone is watching the television. If you put, with all the respects, two small teams that no-one knows the people from those towns will watch the game but no-one else."
I agree with turbo on the close racing thing. I rather see swashbucking racers josslting side by side for position all day with only a handful of overtakes than a buzzfest of a hundred passes down the straights .turbof1 wrote:Ah another person who does not really care about the amount of overtaking, but gets down to the heart of it: close racing! Welcome to the club of fine tastes.My own personal feelings now are along the lines of reducing the downforce levels to less than they are whilst increasing mechanical grip (perhaps beam wing - or similar device - unlimited designing could be used to promote diffuser flow to be pulled upwards and over the following car?). Wheel to wheel racing is what we all crave - if it is easier to get behind someone due to the smaller wake influence, and you have confidence in your car that it will hold up mechanically in the straights, then what else could promote wheel to wheel action more? Even though our current F1 sees many more overtakes than before, a sizable proportion of them are DRS aided on the straights. Yes I know that you often will get some immediate wheel to wheel action based on the apex location and defensive move/evasion which the drivers execute, but we all know that its the overtakes around the outside of corners or constantly trading places through the slower sections of the track which we all start to jump up and down on our couches in joy as we watch (or perhaps that's just me.....?)
In theory making the cars more aero neutral and rely on mechanical grip is a good way to promote closer racing. 2 things though:
1. You cannot infinitely exchange aero grip for mechanical grip. There is some room at the moment, but ultimately you'll arrive at a point where downforce level cannot go lower, no matter what you do to increase grip levels for the slightest bit, without making the car slower over a lap. Downforce will always have a multiplier applied on the grip it provides, compared to mechanical grip. But again: there is still room at the moment to do this.
2. Reducing downforce has to be done right. We saw in previous aero reduction moments during the last 15 years, that the problem got worse. It's why the issue of turbulent airflow and even its correlation towards close racing has to be studied better.
Lastly, these cars are too easy to handle, which makes errors from the drivers less frequent. My proposal would be to remove power steering.
Sorry but I don´t understand what you mean, but I´ll repeat my question just in case...bhall II wrote:My point about EBDs is that the flow structures associated with exhaust-blown diffusers and those associated with non-exhaust-blown diffusers are identical, which means they have the same effect on wake turbulence. As such, we can't look at the wake patterns concomitant with EBDs as if doing so warrants special consideration.
How? I can´t see that happening. If the peripheal elements evolve, total DF will be higher, but the fan will still be able to increase the speed to keep the car balanced.bhall II wrote:It's the development of aero elements peripheral to the fan that would likely negate the desired competitive effects of the fan.
No, the only variable DF limit is imposed by dirty air, same as today, only that the fan will be able to compensate that a bit, unlike today.bhall II wrote:If the idea is to counter such development with variable downforce limits, then you might as well standardize the cars, because it would have more or less the same effect, and it would certainly be a helluva lot cheaper.
Except at the end of 2005 race, when spanish reporters asked him about how did he manage the pressure he replied: "Pressure? I had no pressure at all, I was sure he couldn´t pass me if I didn´t make a mistake, so I was quite calm".bhall II wrote:EDIT: Alonso speaks the truth...ESPN, Apr 28, 2016 wrote:"Well I think we need to wait and see, maybe finalise the rules because there have been some up and downs in terms of confirming the final thing. I think it is going in the right direction, we need to make the cars faster and the show better. We've been remembering for the last week the race in Imola in 2005 with Michael and me and then in 2006 with the opposite result, both very interesting races. There were three or four overtakes in the whole race and it's considered one of the best shows. I don't think that we need to put that much attention on the overtaking and following cars and things like that because before it was as difficult as it is now, or even more, and the races were great.
"We just need the fastest cars to produce a good show, we need to put some noise in the cars, some good battles and the big names fighting for the championships. That will improve the show. If in football you put Barcelona-[Real] Madrid for the championship everyone is watching the television. If you put, with all the respects, two small teams that no-one knows the people from those towns will watch the game but no-one else."
I'm not always easy to read. (I defy anyone to peer into my mind and build clear statements from the chaos.)Andres125sx wrote:Sorry but I don´t understand what you mean, but I´ll repeat my question just in case...bhall II wrote:My point about EBDs is that the flow structures associated with exhaust-blown diffusers and those associated with non-exhaust-blown diffusers are identical, which means they have the same effect on wake turbulence. As such, we can't look at the wake patterns concomitant with EBDs as if doing so warrants special consideration.
Did EBDs caused any noticeable difference in wake turbulence?
Condition-dependent variable fans would make virtually all front wing development a moot point, because it would rarely make sense to do much more than increase the strength of the fans. If that's the idea, it makes more sense to just standardize the wing with simple, giant elements that are inherently more resistant to wake turbulence.The idea is as simple as switching from current FW to fan FW with automatic variable speed to keep the car balanced on any situation
...designers would continue to aggressively develop solutions beyond the influence of the fans. Since modern downforce strategies typically involve aerodynamically coupling upstream elements to downstream elements, those solutions would be susceptible to disruption by wake turbulence.How could the development of perpheral elements negate this?
Yes, I remember the last time you brought that up...Except at the end of 2005 race, when spanish reporters asked him about how did he manage the pressure he replied: "Pressure? I had no pressure at all, I was sure he couldn´t pass me if I didn´t make a mistake, so I was quite calm".
Yeah, exciting race when there´s no chance to any real battle...
That's likely to stay with me for a while, because the implication appeared to completely contradict your point; I'd never before seen someone refer to a 25-year-old man as a "child"; and I (still) don't know how a shitty car on even shittier tires can be considered "untouchable." (I'm genuinely not trying to mock you here. I'm just easily amused sometimes.)Alonso was a child fighting the Kaiser in his untouchable Ferrari.
bhall II wrote:I'm not always easy to read. (I defy anyone to peer into my mind and build clear statements from the chaos.)Andres125sx wrote:Sorry but I don´t understand what you mean, but I´ll repeat my question just in case...bhall II wrote:My point about EBDs is that the flow structures associated with exhaust-blown diffusers and those associated with non-exhaust-blown diffusers are identical, which means they have the same effect on wake turbulence. As such, we can't look at the wake patterns concomitant with EBDs as if doing so warrants special consideration.
Did EBDs caused any noticeable difference in wake turbulence?
More resistant to wake turbulence than a fan? Are you sure about this Bhall?bhall II wrote:Condition-dependent variable fans would make virtually all front wing development a moot point, because it would rarely make sense to do much more than increase the strength of the fans. If that's the idea, it makes more sense to just standardize the wing with simple, giant elements that are inherently more resistant to wake turbulence.The idea is as simple as switching from current FW to fan FW with automatic variable speed to keep the car balanced on any situation
http://i.imgur.com/oCsVWVU.jpg
Ok my memory is not that goodbhall II wrote:Yes, I remember the last time you brought that up...Except at the end of 2005 race, when spanish reporters asked him about how did he manage the pressure he replied: "Pressure? I had no pressure at all, I was sure he couldn´t pass me if I didn´t make a mistake, so I was quite calm".
Yeah, exciting race when there´s no chance to any real battle...
That's likely to stay with me for a while, because the implication appeared to completely contradict your point; I'd never before seen someone refer to a 25-year-old man as a "child"; and I (still) don't know how a shitty car on even shittier tires can be considered "untouchable." (I'm genuinely not trying to mock you here. I'm just easily amused sometimes.)Alonso was a child fighting the Kaiser in his untouchable Ferrari.
, I guess I was too excited at that point watching my favourite driver fighting with the untouchable Kaiser, at least unteouchable the past 4 seasons.And I think that's the crux of our disagreement.Andres125sx wrote:To me this is one of the main problems of current F1, it´s not the fastest who win
Are you saying EBDs improved DF only because of heat and the increased airflow had no relation?bhall II wrote:1. Simply put, EBDs were about heat; wake structure was identical to other diffusers; and the effect can't be replicated by fans.
http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/diffuser_blown.htmlThe RB5 that preceded 2010 year's RB6 car, already had high placed rear wishbones, and this allowed the subsequent car to run exhausts mounted low down and exit well below the wishbone, avoiding any overheating issues of the carbon fiber suspension components. Teams have run exhausts in very close proximity to the wishbones now for many years, the differing strategies teams employ reduce the thermal load on the carbon fiber wishbones. Either gold foil film, extra carbon fiber heat shield or these are often coated with ceramic finishes to reflect heat. (Check on the heat shielding article here).
So I don´t see any reason the air exit of a fan cannot be used exactly the same as a EBD, except it wouldn´t have the problem of overheating carbon fiberHowever, the Newey designed solution on the RB6 is a little more complicated than it first appeared. In the RB6's case Newey made a vertical window in the diffuser to allow the diffuser to be blown both under and over by the exhaust. This helps the airflow going up the outside shoulder of the upper diffuser deck, which probably has little energy and struggles to keep attached, and the high speed exhaust gas will drive more flow through the diffuser to increase downforce.
And you would only get an extremely unbalanced car with so much front grip it would oversteer dramatically to the point it would be undriveable.bhall II wrote:2. A standard wing could be more resistant to wake turbulence than current wings. That said, I could (probably) design a better standard front wing than anything Adrian Newey might devise in accordance with the regulations of a fan formula, because I could operate outside the rules since there would be no reason to worry about the concept ever being developed into something that creates unreasonably high levels of downforce. That means I'd have no limits and could pen the absolute best possible solution (without a pressing need to accommodate the additional weight and complexity of fans).
I know what you mean and agree to some point, but only to some point, because if you take it to the extreme, then there should be no overtaking at all at any race or category. If you qualified in front you deserve to win, so that who was 2nd did something wrong and don´t deserve the victorybhall II wrote:And I think that's the crux of our disagreement.Andres125sx wrote:To me this is one of the main problems of current F1, it´s not the fastest who win
No series in the history of motor racing has ever rewarded anyone for being the fastest. Racing is about completing the required distance as quickly as possible, and factors like strategy, reliability, efficiency, etc., are every bit as important as raw pace.
Stuck behind a car you think you should be able to overtake? You and/or your team screwed up somewhere along the way. You qualified too far back, or you fumbled your strategy, or poor cooling/reliability deprives you of max power, or poor tire management doesn't allow sustained pace or strategic flexibility, and so on and so forth.
Everything that happens on a race track happens for a reason, and winning means you've exploited the sum total of those factors better than everyone else. (Having the fastest car sure as --- helps, though.)
In short yes. There are some factors where I disagree with Bhall on this:Andres wrote:Are you saying EBDs improved DF only because of heat and the increased airflow had no relation?
1. The heat was a mechanical problem, not an aero problem.Actually, heat was a problem, not an advantage....
The quoted piece from formula 1 dictionary can probably described as partly rubbish. Again especially because the lower diffuser of the RB6 never was driven by the exaust gasses (the top diffuser was).However, the Newey designed solution on the RB6 is a little more complicated than it first appeared. In the RB6's case Newey made a vertical window in the diffuser to allow the diffuser to be blown both under and over by the exhaust. This helps the airflow going up the outside shoulder of the upper diffuser deck, which probably has little energy and struggles to keep attached, and the high speed exhaust gas will drive more flow through the diffuser to increase downforce.
By virtue of added energy, mostly from heat, exhaust gases were used to increase the kinematic viscosity of the high-pressure component to the diffuser's edge vortices, which are beneficial and develop with or without exhaust gases. This allowed the vortices to rotate somewhat faster and with much greater resistance to shear stress (like that caused by porous asphalt whizzing by at 150 mph). In turn, it allowed for increased diffuser ride height (rake) without the profound loss of underbody efficiency that would ordinarily accompany such a change.Andres125sx wrote:Are you saying EBDs improved DF only because of heat and the increased airflow had no relation?
That's the logical outcome of a very poor design. Current front wings already have variable downforce characteristics. So, it's not reinventing the wheel.And you would only get an extremely unbalanced car with so much front grip it would oversteer dramatically to the point it would be undriveable.
My thoughts exactly! - Close racing > push to pass overtakes!turbof1 wrote:I remember that race as if it was yesterday! That duel between Alonso and Schumacher made me crawl completely on top of my chair out of tension. Even though there was no passing involved, the intense close racing was amazing. It further reinforces my belief the amount of overtaking is not a parameter for entertainment in F1. Close racing is.
Not on the fly, and that´s exactly the intention.bhall II wrote:That's the logical outcome of a very poor design. Current front wings already have variable downforce characteristics. So, it's not reinventing the wheel.And you would only get an extremely unbalanced car with so much front grip it would oversteer dramatically to the point it would be undriveable.