Exhaust blown diffusers and FIA restrictions/ban

[bill shoe]

@ 747

1.

2. Here is a blurb about the KERS activation I mentioned-
http://www.yallaf1.com/2011/04/27/kickd ... -buzzword/
The article vaugely describes "extra pressing" as opposed to any specific reference to pedal "travel". This would be consistent with a pressure sensor on the pedal pad that activates KERS when the pedal hits a WOT travel stop and the driver then pushes harder.

3. Drivers will have the pleasure of trying to keep detent-less throttle pedals slightly cracked during braking in order to keep the blown diffuser going. Thanks FIA.

4. Whatever your opinions on blown diffusers, I think the rules situation for blowing will be a mess until the exhaust-tip position regulation is in effect for 2012.

[flynfrog]

......
A detent could be added at the beginning of the throttle pedal travel to activate the blown diffuser while adding, say, 2% torque.
.........

5.5 Engine throttles
5.5.2 Designs which allow specific points along the pedal travel range to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.

yes but a special shoe and a convent throttle linkage with a large dead band could get right around that. IF they ban the EBD as 0 throttle teams will just make them work at 5%

[woohoo]

How was the F-duct not a movable aerodynamic feature then ?

Personally I think this is again a case of shady rule making in F1.

[Giblet]

How was the F-duct not a movable aerodynamic feature then ?

Personally I think this is again a case of shady rule making in F1.

Because no part of the car moved to activate it except the driver. That is the loophole that was allowed, and has ben closed. Under the same rules the engine is an air pump, and when not use to expressly drive the wheels I think the argument is realistic. The car was exactly the same at race beginning and no part of it every moved to switch the system on, and that is why it was such genius.

[gibells]

With respect to the 'hot blowing', as they call it, where fuel is introduced and the ignition is retarded- why is that not seen as unsafe practice, because they are introducing hot fueled air into atmosphere, like a flame thrower?

Surely all it needs is a spark and it will give off a 20ft flame. All you'd need is a heat source like say a hot exhaust or an overheated, misplaced KERS battery and BINGO, we have lift-off.

[woohoo]

How was the F-duct not a movable aerodynamic feature then ?

Personally I think this is again a case of shady rule making in F1.

Because no part of the car moved to activate it except the driver. That is the loophole that was allowed, and has ben closed. Under the same rules the engine is an air pump, and when not use to expressly drive the wheels I think the argument is realistic. The car was exactly the same at race beginning and no part of it every moved to switch the system on, and that is why it was such genius.

By that logic, movable wings should be allowed, because the driver moved them...
The driver closed the duct. He did not change the aerodynamics by flapping his hand in thin air, he moved his hand to move a part of the car!

[HampusA]

he moved his hand to move a part of the car!

Nope, he just filled a hole in the car that´s all. All pieces of the car was still in the same place before and after he put his hand/knee there.

[andrew]

The driver closed the duct. He did not change the aerodynamics by flapping his hand in thin air, he moved his hand to move a part of the car!

Wrong. The driver covered a hole with their hand which diverted the air flow so that it stalled the rear wing.

The rules state that there can be no moveable parts which affect the airflow on the car. It was the driver that moved and not part of the car.

By your logic the cars could go nowhere as the driver wouldn't be able to move.

[FrukostScones]

Renault FEE, was it ever successful?

[autogyro]

The principal here, is to help the teams move from the rediculous levels of downforce aero and back onto 'relevent' development in energy recovery and
mechanical engineering. Let the aviation guys play with aeroplanes where it makes sense.
KERS is very difficult to balance with aero design as Adrian Newey has found.
Ultimate sero may win races at present but it prevents effective packaging and cooling of KERS systems.
EBDs make matters worse by adding yet another factor to balance when the car is under deceleration.
Eventualy the limitations of the amount of fuel allowed (and flow)will force a major reduction in downforce, which IMHO is the biggest thorn in the side of F1
that seriously risks its future.
Not understanding this (even team principles here)and continueing to prevent the
inevitable change, is totaly at odds with proper support of F1.

[jamsbong]

In regards to reinforcing this ban. I find it quite difficult. First of all, 10% level compared to current level. What exactly does that mean? 10% of off-throttle downforce? 10% of exhaust velocity? 10% of exhaust mass flow rate?

If It was me, I would try and pump as much exhaust flow at off-throttle through the exhaust when demonstrating to FIA. This will maximise my 10%. hehee...

As for re-enforcing this. I think it is quite hard because you can read engine map information but they are not direct information.

[hardingfv32]

Remember it will not be the FIA creating the actual rule. The teams will be involve and I am certain the great majority will want a rule that covers all the possibilities. It makes life easier for them if they know for sure this avenue of development is well closed. None of this is of any competitive value when everyone has it figured out and using it.

Brian

[Masato]

Why this solution for exausts has only been used in 2010 and 2011?

[bill shoe]

The principal here, is to help the teams move from the rediculous levels of downforce aero and back onto 'relevent' development in energy recovery and
mechanical engineering. Let the aviation guys play with aeroplanes where it makes sense.
KERS is very difficult to balance with aero design as Adrian Newey has found.
Ultimate sero may win races at present but it prevents effective packaging and cooling of KERS systems.
EBDs make matters worse by adding yet another factor to balance when the car is under deceleration.
Eventualy the limitations of the amount of fuel allowed (and flow)will force a major reduction in downforce, which IMHO is the biggest thorn in the side of F1
that seriously risks its future.
Not understanding this (even team principles here)and continueing to prevent the
inevitable change, is totaly at odds with proper support of F1.

Crap, you're alive!!! Welcome back autogyro.

[myurr]

In regards to reinforcing this ban. I find it quite difficult. First of all, 10% level compared to current level. What exactly does that mean? 10% of off-throttle downforce? 10% of exhaust velocity? 10% of exhaust mass flow rate?

If It was me, I would try and pump as much exhaust flow at off-throttle through the exhaust when demonstrating to FIA. This will maximise my 10%. hehee...

As for re-enforcing this. I think it is quite hard because you can read engine map information but they are not direct information.

The 10% refers to how open the throttle may be, with 0% being fully closed and 100% being fully open. The throttle is, I believe, controlled via the ECU and so may be policed there.