“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.
Nicholas Spillett
Nicholas Spillett
0
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:13 am

“Failed/Abandoned” F1 Concepts - Analysis and Discussion

Post

As a long term lurker I've decided to create a spot for discussing not-so-successful or abandoned concepts that were introduced and then left on the conceptual shelf collecting conceptual dust, and their applicability to modern F1.

Suggestions include:
- McLaren MP4-26 U-Shaped Side pods
- Renault R31 forward facing exhausts
- "Blade" Rollhoop (Mercedes MGP W01/Force India VJM04)

I've recently rewatched all races from 2005 and am up to 2012, seeing these cars based around extreme concepts come and go is extremely interesting, but finding any articles or information on the designs, why they weren't successful, and why they haven't resurfaced of extremely difficult as they don't exist.

The 2010 "Blade" Roll-hoop on the revised MGP W01 was lauded as a great innovation and step forward, then it just faded away and was abandoned, though used by Force India and one of the back-marker teams in 2011, and a far less extreme (height-wise) being used on recent Sauber/Alfa cars - what are the drawbacks of the design? What were the advantages that resulted in the design in the first place? Why did Sauber/Alfa decide the trade-offs were worth taking these recent years?

I love this sort of technical debate, and the depth of talent and expertise that exists in this forum tells me that this topic will result in great discussion and debate.

User avatar
jjn9128
364
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

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

Post

Nicholas Spillett wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:40 pm
As a long term lurker I've decided to create a spot for discussing not-so-successful or abandoned concepts that were introduced and then left on the conceptual shelf collecting conceptual dust, and their applicability to modern F1.

Suggestions include:
- McLaren MP4-26 U-Shaped Side pods
- Renault R31 forward facing exhausts
- "Blade" Rollhoop (Mercedes MGP W01/Force India VJM04)

I've recently rewatched all races from 2005 and am up to 2012, seeing these cars based around extreme concepts come and go is extremely interesting, but finding any articles or information on the designs, why they weren't successful, and why they haven't resurfaced of extremely difficult as they don't exist.

The 2010 "Blade" Roll-hoop on the revised MGP W01 was lauded as a great innovation and step forward, then it just faded away and was abandoned, though used by Force India and one of the back-marker teams in 2011, and a far less extreme (height-wise) being used on recent Sauber/Alfa cars - what are the drawbacks of the design? What were the advantages that resulted in the design in the first place? Why did Sauber/Alfa decide the trade-offs were worth taking these recent years?

I love this sort of technical debate, and the depth of talent and expertise that exists in this forum tells me that this topic will result in great discussion and debate.
The U or L sidepods were a means of reducing drag, frontal area, and improving diffuser/rear wing flow quality. The sidepod undercut just works better, not to say nobody will try it again, but I think it's unlikely. It fundamentally misunderstood the problem, like the Ferrari F310 moving the sidepod inlets outwards to prevent the monocoque boundary layer ingress into the cooling ducts, but instead just moving them into the line of the wheel wakes.

The forward facing exhausts just weren't as effective as the Red Bull design, which exited either side of the diffuser and everyone else quite quickly converged on. After that the rules specified the exhaust location and angle, and everyone converged on the Coanda sidepod design. Now with 1 exhaust which again must exit in a very specific location above the rear axle, it's just not worth it. The car also caught fire at the Nurburgring, which I think would dissuade anyone from copying it, even if the rules allowed.

The blade roll hoop was an interesting one for sure - the idea to minimize the blockage to the rear wing was relatively sound (that said the airbox wake isn't a significant detriment to the rear wing), but the FIA were rightly worried about it digging in if the car ended up rolling in gravel. The cross section was forced to be wider, and then the air intake rules were changed with the R75 volume limiting where openings can appear in the car which meant the inlets had to be closer to the cockpit, it all added up to reduce the advantage of the design. Teams are also putting more heat exchangers above the gearbox now, which improves the flow around ever tighter sidepods, to they elect to run huge airbox intakes with 3/4 ducts in them to various components.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

Nonserviam85
Nonserviam85
9
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 10:21 am

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

Post

McLaren Octopus Exhausts
Williams Walrus Nose
Renault V-111 Engine
Porsche 3512 Double V6 Engine

Some spectacular failures just at the top of my head...

User avatar
mclaren111
208
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:49 am
Location: Shithole - South Africa

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

Post

MCL33 - 2018

PhillipM
PhillipM
362
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 2:18 pm
Location: Over the road from Boothy...

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

Post

The u-pods weren't completely abandoned - Merc had U-pod Lite 'shoulders' for their car one season, which seemed to take a little of the idea.

wesley123
wesley123
230
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:55 pm

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

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:52 pm
The U or L sidepods were a means of reducing drag, frontal area, and improving diffuser/rear wing flow quality. The sidepod undercut just works better, not to say nobody will try it again, but I think it's unlikely. It fundamentally misunderstood the problem, like the Ferrari F310 moving the sidepod inlets outwards to prevent the monocoque boundary layer ingress into the cooling ducts, but instead just moving them into the line of the wheel wakes.
If coanda exhausts hadn't become a thing in 2012 I believe the possibility of them still being used would be a possibility. The sidepod had essentially no downward slope a coanda exhaust could use.
Nicholas Spillett wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:40 pm
- Renault R31 forward facing exhausts
The FFEs on the R31 was a massive overcomplication to a problem. I don't want to say that it was better or worse, but they were the sole one developing this, versus 11 other teams with the coanda exhaust
- "Blade" Rollhoop (Mercedes MGP W01/Force India VJM04)
like jjn9128 said there were concerns of the roll hoop digging itself in. The increase in thickness required made it much less interesting out of a sudden. There might as well be some issues for the air intake to the engine.

The trend of placing radiators higher up also started in that same era, which made the blade roll hoop impractical.
Nonserviam85 wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:04 pm
McLaren Octopus Exhausts
Didn't this just keep breaking all the time?
Renault V-111 Engine
Afaik this engine did exactly what it was designed for; lowering the CoG. But with aerodynamics being like they are, the larger V-angle became an obstruction for the ever shrinking sidepods.
Porsche 3512 Double V6 Engine
I really wonder who ever thought that engine was a good idea.

They essentially took two TAG-Porsche engines and stuck them together, but without the turbos. This was never going to work, it was ~10 year old tech by then.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

wesley123
wesley123
230
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:55 pm

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

Post

The double chassis Lotus. Didn't fail on track, but did in politics. Colin Chapman fought tooth to nail for it's legality.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

User avatar
Big Tea
113
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

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

Post

wesley123 wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:33 pm
The double chassis Lotus. Didn't fail on track, but did in politics. Colin Chapman fought tooth to nail for it's legality.
There is a whole tin of worms here, from F-ducts to 6 wheelers and fan cars.
I am very much in favour of filtered water. Preferably passed through a brewery

Nonserviam85
Nonserviam85
9
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 10:21 am

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

Post

Big Tea wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:58 pm
wesley123 wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:33 pm
The double chassis Lotus. Didn't fail on track, but did in politics. Colin Chapman fought tooth to nail for it's legality.
There is a whole tin of worms here, from F-ducts to 6 wheelers and fan cars.
Maybe better to stick to the legal Failed/Abandoned Concepts.

User avatar
Big Tea
113
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

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

Post

Nonserviam85 wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:16 pm
Big Tea wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:58 pm
wesley123 wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:33 pm
The double chassis Lotus. Didn't fail on track, but did in politics. Colin Chapman fought tooth to nail for it's legality.
There is a whole tin of worms here, from F-ducts to 6 wheelers and fan cars.
Maybe better to stick to the legal Failed/Abandoned Concepts.
Good plan :D
I am very much in favour of filtered water. Preferably passed through a brewery

Nonserviam85
Nonserviam85
9
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 10:21 am

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

Post

wesley123 wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:31 pm
Renault V-111 Engine
Afaik this engine did exactly what it was designed for; lowering the CoG. But with aerodynamics being like they are, the larger V-angle became an obstruction for the ever shrinking sidepods.
Renault took a gamble believing that Traction Control would be removed and they hoped they would benefit with Rear End Traction due to the lower CoG but this didn't happen and had to abandon the concept. The engine was significantly heavier due to extra stiffness requirements and vibration/resonance issues of the increased V angle. Funnily enough the engine had 107deg angle but for marketing purposes Renault was claiming the 111deg!!

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

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

Post

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.
¡Puxa Esportin!

netoperek
netoperek
44
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:06 pm

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

Post

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?

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

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

Post

What drove front mounted engines away? Was it just maneuverability, or something else? Would they be optimal if tracks were, like in the (very) old days, a succession of several km long straights connected by kinks?
¡Puxa Esportin!

User avatar
Mattchu
45
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:37 pm

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

Post

Mclarens Mushroom rear suspension or whatever it was called. It looked like a good concept and it was said other teams would copy it, but none did!

Image