F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
mzso
mzso
64
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

Maybe the FIA should just give up and install cameras that see through mist.
https://www.sensorsinc.com/applications ... rough-haze



A display could be added to the car or even the helmet visor. We're not in the sixties anymore. Why not rely on modern technology?

mzso
mzso
64
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

F1 abandons rain wheel cover idea after latest test

Well, I guess that's the end for wheel covers of any sort. However Tombazis only touched on doing something with the diffuser, which he seemed doubtful about touching. And barring that I don't think it's possible to accomplish anything useful, by physical means. So ultimately I don't think they'll deliver any solution, because apparently they're afraid of modern technology.

Xyz22
Xyz22
104
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 7:05 pm

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

I wonder if now Pirelli can develop their "super intermediate tyres" that should replace the now absolutely useless wet tyres.

mzso
mzso
64
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

Out of curiosity, does anyone think that something can be done in the diffuser that actually helps with the mist problem?
I can't imagine much. The airflow needs to go up, so that downforce can happen. Maybe something drastic, like massively reducing the pressure drop under the car, or creating a comparatively huge gap to the between the floor and road.
That is of course assuming that suction is a problem in its own. If its mainly the vortices than it would be simple to improve things. Remove the strakes and other parts that create vortices under the floor.
Xyz22 wrote:
Thu May 23, 2024 10:56 am
I wonder if now Pirelli can develop their "super intermediate tyres" that should replace the now absolutely useless wet tyres.
Would even those be useful? If there's enough water to merit more than intermediates, then the issue might already be the same.

User avatar
Vanja #66
1471
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

mzso wrote:
Tue May 28, 2024 10:26 am
Out of curiosity, does anyone think that something can be done in the diffuser that actually helps with the mist problem?
I can't imagine much. The airflow needs to go up, so that downforce can happen. Maybe something drastic, like massively reducing the pressure drop under the car, or creating a comparatively huge gap to the between the floor and road.
That is of course assuming that suction is a problem in its own. If its mainly the vortices than it would be simple to improve things. Remove the strakes and other parts that create vortices under the floor.
Diffuser and rear wing kick up the water high up no matter what, same as all closed-wheel cars.

Perhaps what can be done is to introduce a pressure recovery zone in diffuser, 500mm long, ie mandatory flat roof and no vertical or lateral expansion and abolish beam wing. And then make the rear wing as wide as the whole car with a very short chord and AoA. Finally, reduce the front wing to balance all those loses out. In that case you basically end up with Indy 500 spec F1 cars and lose probably 10-15s of lap time from today.

Image

Then you will get those cars too fast on straights, so PU power must be reduced to limit them to around 340-350kmh. Then you lose another 2-3s of lap time or even more...
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

mzso
mzso
64
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
Tue May 28, 2024 11:04 am
Diffuser and rear wing kick up the water high up no matter what, same as all closed-wheel cars.
True. But it seems to me that F1 is far worse than others. So I think it also picks up a lot more water. And it seems to be "atomized" into a mist, for whatever reason,* seeing how bad it is even with the wheels covered.
Previously someone on this forum linked a good video from a sportscar driving on a very wet circuit and the water mist behind was barely an issue.
And I don't think there's a significant speed difference. F1 cars don't have that high top speeds compared to others with their huge drag.

*Maybe figuring this out is key. I don't see why the water sucked up by the floor should be inherently turned into a mist. Larger droplets would be of little concern. Would just fall back to the ground.
Vanja #66 wrote:
Tue May 28, 2024 11:04 am
Perhaps what can be done is to introduce a pressure recovery zone in diffuser, 500mm long, ie mandatory flat roof and no vertical or lateral expansion and abolish beam wing. And then make the rear wing as wide as the whole car with a very short chord and AoA. Finally, reduce the front wing to balance all those loses out. In that case you basically end up with Indy 500 spec F1 cars and lose probably 10-15s of lap time from today.
F1 is F1 because of branding, tradition, marketing and the entailing attention. Because all the money and some of the best drivers are concentrated here.


Then you will get those cars too fast on straights, so PU power must be reduced to limit them to around 340-350kmh. Then you lose another 2-3s of lap time or even more...
I'm probably in the minority, but I wouldn't mind if F1 cars were slower, as long as they were more raceable. Even F2 delivered some decent action on Monaco, by the looks of the highlights video. F1 had pretty much nothing. Except Stroll boy sucking as usual and driving into the barrier, and subsequently overtaking a couple times with a huge grip advantage.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
629
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

mzso wrote:
Tue May 28, 2024 12:08 pm
.... I don't see why the water sucked up by the floor should be inherently turned into a mist....
isn't this in substantial part simple physics (condensation) ?

whenever the track is wet humidity is very high
DF involves work transfer (heating and cooling a mixture of water vapour and dry air)

when in humid air at high lift coefficients an aeroplane will have attached sheets of mist

mzso
mzso
64
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Tue May 28, 2024 2:11 pm
mzso wrote:
Tue May 28, 2024 12:08 pm
.... I don't see why the water sucked up by the floor should be inherently turned into a mist....
simple physics (condensation)

and (unless the track is artificially wet via an 'Ecclestone machine') whenever the track is wet humidity is very high
That's most certainly not true. Condensation happens when gas phases into a liquid state. Water is already liquid. And never boils away.
As such humidity has no relevant effect either. It actually impairs more water turning into vapor.
Condensation as such is only relevant to something like the exhaust where water vapor forms during combustion.

Not sure about simple either. It's not obvious to me why a continuous layer of water turns into fine mist. Atomizers need to be carefully designed to to have a similar effect, and even those don't seem to produce such a fine mist to persist for long in the air. Closest I can think of is the mist produced by ultrasonic "vaporizers".

User avatar
hollus
Moderator
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

I’d think that the reason why F1 cars can push more water from the contact patch is extra downforce, why this gets more atomized is extra squeeze from the extra downforce, and the reason why the spray goes higher is the extra downforce.
The solution looks obvious…

Now wait a second, if the hardest expansion from the diffuser were sideways, rather than upwards… would that reduce the take-off angle of the spray? Perhaps lower the diffuser roof and allow it to expand behind the rear wheels instead?
Rivals, not enemies.

User avatar
hollus
Moderator
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

Crazy idea: could a large central groove or two in wet tires collect the displaced water? I am thinking of a shape like 1998 dry tires.
Now, half the water is displaced to the center of the car, that way only a fraction, half from the innermost groove, would be pushed that way. I’d imagine that water pushed to the grooves would “reform” larger droplets in the confined space and take off with a lesser angle that water pushed under the floor.

Hell, could the groove pattern just be made to push almost all outwards? There is no reason (other than maximizing water displacement) for that central groove to be in the center. I’d make a worse rain tire, same for everyone, from the point of view of removing water, but if it makes less spray in exchange…

Image
Rivals, not enemies.

mzso
mzso
64
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

hollus wrote:
Tue May 28, 2024 10:01 pm
The solution looks obvious…
No downforce? :)

Anyway. Is it that straightforward? More force, more droplets?
Couldn't the shapes be manipulated in such a way that the droplets would merge and maybe ejected as stream instead?

Farnborough
Farnborough
94
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:15 pm

Re: F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

Post

I thought, back in the thread, that it needed full cover of tires for EVALUATION purposes, just to define the most extreme outer limit consideration of tire contribution.

They now have that, and clearly doesn't really do much.

Negative pressure, venturi, is always going to expand volume by reduction of size increasing the distribution of water droplets to fill that volume by "stratifying" the available water volume.

Compression gives the opposite, of course.

Interesting view on tire design changes Hollus. I'd view concentration of water to tire centre to be high risk in aquaplaning characteristic though, even with big central channels.
An adaption of that axis though, perhaps six deep continuing grooves full circumference, with seven bands also continuous in contact with surface. No cross carcass architecture at all. Potential to excreet each contact into it's neighbour groove to increase compressive effect there, which could throw up disc type heavy water droplet in the fashion old tires have done in open wheel racing past.

Again, a test of effect required. Wet tire tread gauge hand cut as detailed above to track run as initial primary test.

If anyone saw Perez Imola off through gravel at Rivazza? Quite low tire dispersion, but still huge "plume" of dust from diffuser even at realitively low speed. Good example of the challenge faced.