New regs-new idea

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
User avatar
Tom
0
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:24 pm
Location: Bicester

Re: New regs-new idea

Post

Is it definetly within the regs though? I have a feeling there's a rule that says you must be able to choke the air intake by holding an A4 clipboard over the opening, in your design this would not be possible. I like it alot though, reminds me of a design I saw on a late 70s car, a Lotus I think, but I can't find a pic. Good thinking outside the box though MC.
Murphy's 9th Law of Technology:
Tell a man there are 300 million stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure.

User avatar
Rob W
0
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:28 am

Re: New regs-new idea

Post

Ciro Pabón wrote:That's one of the best ideas I've seen, Manchild.
I'm not an expert on aero but wonder whether the traditional engine cover is still a better one. All of the air around the driver's 'section' of the car would be quite turbulent - far moreso than the air where the intake is normally placed. Since this air-flow is more 'clean' the current layout would allow for a smaller air box opening than if you places them either side of the driver - and therefore less drag. Is this correct?

Also: doesn't the 'sail' part of the engine cover serve to help smooth out the airflow (laterally) before it hits the rear wing.. or even create a venturi effect at the cover gets narrower and narrower - aiding the directing of the flow into the rear wing?

Lastly, wouldn't having the intakes either side of the driver also disrupt the entire airflow over the exhaust area - more than the benefits gained from not having the airbox above the driver?

Maybe a variation of this would be to have an 2nd, smaller intake above the main intakes on the side-pods. (excuse my photoshop skills)

Image


R
Last edited by Rob W on Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:29 am, edited 2 times in total.

manchild
manchild
22
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:54 am

Re: New regs-new idea

Post

Thanks Ciro.

Tom, I'm not sure, perhaps there is such rule but remember the cars with sliced airboxes in mid 90s? Than Ferrari F2007 which had twin tunnel so choking wasn't possible since the engine would suck the air trough gearbox oil cooler. Even if it is so, my version could be choked by two palms of one man with no necessity for A4 size panel to be carried around. Even by the driver himself while sitting in the car which is impossible with current airboxes without assistance of marshal :wink:

Rob W, when thinking what it would do compare it with what current upwash head protectors do. They certainly create more turbulence and disturb the flow more than what these inlets would, especially since they'd be sucking the air that flows in that zone. "Sale" part could be added if necessary but current ones are as big as they are because the size and shape of airbox dictates it. If they were necessary in F1 size they'd be on champcar or similar single seaters.

Anyway, I wasn't inspired to relocate airbox intake but to deal with new head protectors and turn them into some gain instead of pure loss.

JVogt
JVogt
0
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:05 am

Re: New regs-new idea

Post

Apart from ingesting dirty air into the airbox you also don't want to ingest a boundary layer which the solution you propose probably would do if flush against the top of the cockpit side. The 1997 McLaren airbox actually did this (the bottom of the airbox was flush with the top of the headrest) but that was changed the next year. If they could, they'd idealy like to avoid it with sidepod radiator inlets as well (currently flush up again the monocoque) - and infact Ferrari tried to on their 1996 car but I think this solution was probably too draggy and probably created a fair bit of lift as well (just looking at the bodywork around it).

Still, the main problem is trying to feed the airbox with as good quality air as possible I believe, hence it's as hight as they can put it.

Still, I like your thinking and your photoshoping. :)

manchild
manchild
22
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:54 am

Re: New regs-new idea

Post

Thank you. I think that people are underestimating the problem these raised headrests caused to teams. Just look how dramatic approach BMW took to solve those problems with horns on nose. Renault changed shape of cockpit just in front them, reshaped mirrors and moved them back for same reason.

Those fake images I made only illustrate the idea. It would be pointless that i start guessing the definitive shape and all possibilities of it. Therefore, me not presenting those inlets with frontal undercut you mentioned regarding airboxes doesn't mean that whole idea should be looked only to what is shown on my pic. That's just a basic illustration.

Regarding height of air boxes - they are not as high as possible but as low as regulations allow. I mean, not the airboxes themselves but inlets within the roll safety structure. They are located there as the result of compromise and I was just thinking, well, since new regs have taken place perhaps it is time to make new compromise and instead of merging roll structure and airbox to merge head protectors and airbox. That's all.

bizadfar
bizadfar
0
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:51 pm

Re: New regs-new idea

Post

manchild wrote:Anyway, I wasn't inspired to relocate airbox intake but to deal with new head protectors and turn them into some gain instead of pure loss.
I thought of something similar, nothing to do with airbox, just simple slits.

But then I thought the headrests are raised for safety and ideally they must pass some tests for strength. If you put the airbox like that, the rule of raising them is just about pointless.

manchild
manchild
22
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:54 am

Re: New regs-new idea

Post

1990, Life F190 (it had 3 intakes since it had W engine)

Image

FIRST F189 in Life disguise, now with Ernesto Vita's own W12 engine in the back. Never ran more than a couple of laps in prequalifying, and always completely off the pace. Remained embarrassment with original Judd engine in place of Life power.

It is under number 666 in f1technical database :lol: http://www.f1technical.net/f1db/cars/666
Last edited by manchild on Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

manchild
manchild
22
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:54 am

Re: New regs-new idea

Post

If this worked than...

Image

Belatti
Belatti
85
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Argentina

Re: New regs-new idea

Post

Everytime I watch that life pic it makes me horrorize! Driver seems to be so exposed! We were lucky that crap never reached more than 200 Km/h. These teams from early 90´s where the cause of FIA making it hard to enter a F1 team in the championship. In 1990 any F3000 was faster than the F190. What I like about this car are the very very low sidepods. Maybe someone remembers that my first avatar in F1T forum was a life pic with the signature "Life sucks" :D

Out of topic: can someone explain me why all turbo-era cars where like this:
Image
"You need great passion, because everything you do with great pleasure, you do well." -Juan Manuel Fangio

"I have no idols. I admire work, dedication and competence." -Ayrton Senna

manchild
manchild
22
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:54 am

Re: New regs-new idea

Post

Belatti wrote:Out of topic: can someone explain me why all turbo-era cars where like this:
Because they had turbo charger in each sidepod. :arrow: http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/11B-001.jpg

mx_tifoso
mx_tifoso
5
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:01 am
Location: North America

Re: New regs-new idea

Post

manchild wrote:
Belatti wrote:Out of topic: can someone explain me why all turbo-era cars where like this:
Because they had turbo charger in each sidepod. :arrow: http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/11B-001.jpg
I apologize for continuing OT discussion.

But I have to ask, how was all of the cooling set up within the sidepods if they(sidepods) also housed the turbos inside :?:
Or is the setup similar to todays simply because their was an external turbo duct above the sidepods, thus allowing the radiator to function normally (?).

Great pic BTW, I had never seen an internal pic from a car of that era before.
Forum guide: read before posting

"You do it, then it's done." - Kimi Räikkönen

Por las buenas soy amigo, por las malas soy campeón.

manchild
manchild
22
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:54 am

Re: New regs-new idea

Post

On that pic you can see radiator on the right. Between radiator and turbo was intercooler (hidden below bodywork). You can see intercooler here :arrow: http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/11B%20003.jpg

The airbox was split in two so that intercooler and radiator would be cooled individually.
:arrow: http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/11b%20019.jpg

Later, teams abandoned periscopic inlets and opted to dake air for turbo from sidepods

:arrow: http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/DSCF0120a.jpg

:arrow: http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/DSCF0213a.jpg

:arrow: http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/DSCF0119a.jpg

Here's the very car from Belatti's picture stripped off engine cover where you can see whole cooling layout

:arrow: http://www.schlegelmilch.com/archive/im ... C-M002.jpg

User avatar
mini696
0
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:34 am

Re: New regs-new idea

Post

Tom wrote:Is it definetly within the regs though? I have a feeling there's a rule that says you must be able to choke the air intake by holding an A4 clipboard over the opening...
Other way around. The rule actually calls for a seal to be impossible. That is why the cars have a cutout in the engine cover to prevent a total seal.

And it is not within the regs if the engincover looks as shown. There is a minimum area required for the sponsors "billboard". They might be able to place the intake as shown, but would still require the airbox shape to remain.
Supporting:
Mark "It happens" Webber
McLaren

manchild
manchild
22
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:54 am

Re: New regs-new idea

Post

mini696 wrote:And it is not within the regs if the engincover looks as shown. There is a minimum area required for the sponsors "billboard". They might be able to place the intake as shown, but would still require the airbox shape to remain.
They could put longitudinally a thin vertical "seal" of that minimum area defined by FIA. No need for "shape" of airbox and even better for sponsors as it wouldn't be curvy. Just curious, has anyone got the exact figure for that minimum area?

Image

Almost like in that US series with oval racing of those funny buggy cars with huge spoilers/billboards on top. What's the name of that series, anyone?

Belatti
Belatti
85
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Argentina

Re: New regs-new idea

Post

manchild wrote:
Belatti wrote:Out of topic: can someone explain me why all turbo-era cars where like this:
Because they had turbo charger in each sidepod. :arrow: http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/11B-001.jpg
I knew that man.
But also NA engines have admission trumpets that could be feeded from sidepods instead of airbox.
This is what happens with current airboxes and I though trumpets could be feeded more directly from sidepods.
Image
But maybe its just a geometry-simplicity solution.
"You need great passion, because everything you do with great pleasure, you do well." -Juan Manuel Fangio

"I have no idols. I admire work, dedication and competence." -Ayrton Senna