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.Nicholas Spillett wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:40 pmAs 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.
- 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.
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.jjn9128 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:52 pmThe 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 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
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.- "Blade" Rollhoop (Mercedes MGP W01/Force India VJM04)
Didn't this just keep breaking all the time?
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 V-111 Engine
I really wonder who ever thought that engine was a good idea.Porsche 3512 Double V6 Engine
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 planNonserviam85 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:16 pmMaybe better to stick to the legal Failed/Abandoned Concepts.
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!!
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 )hollus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:49 pmCooling bodywork instead of radiators:
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.