“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.
Zynerji
Zynerji
84
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

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

Post

Wasn't last years' Alfa Romeo a blade roll hoop? This year as well I believe...

I wouldn't necessarily label it a failure...

Nonserviam85
Nonserviam85
11
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 10:21 am

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

Post

Mattchu wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:37 pm
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!

https://i.postimg.cc/qv4j4h1Y/sus.png
Forgot this one, it was called at the time the “Butterfly” Suspension

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

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

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:55 pm
Wasn't last years' Alfa Romeo a blade roll hoop? This year as well I believe...

I wouldn't necessarily label it a failure...
If you read my original post I did mention this, in the case of this innovation I guess it's more why it went away and why it came back again, I'm guessing there are trade offs like with most things, but Alfa decided it was worth the trade the last two years - so what's interesting is the why.

Jolle
Jolle
204
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

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

Post

Didn’t Renault use some differential at the front wheels in the early 2000’s to have some kind of negative torque transfer? Don’t think it got banned, just didn’t work

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
540
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

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

Post

Benetton FTT (Front Torque Transfer) 1999
BAR FCP (Front Clutch Package) 2004

and thread here 6.2.2008 titled BAR Honda's front differential

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
649
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

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

Post

hollus wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:39 pm
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?
Reduced drag and lower CoG from laying driver down.
Better polar moment of inertia (manoeuvrability).
Better traction from placing mass of engine closer to being over driven wheels.
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

bill shoe
bill shoe
253
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:18 am
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

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

Post

I nominate various cars over the years with twin floors or extreme sidepod undercut, either way it creates lots of wetted surface area. Includes a 90's Ferrari and a recent (and seemingly well-executed) Toro Rosso. They never work well and the teams revert to more conventional floors the next year.

For some reason, the wind tunnel and CFD was OK with the large surface area, but real-world reality was not. In more recent seasons the ultra-compact sidepod packaging has not been supporting double floors or more extreme undercut, rather it's simply supporting smaller sidepods with a bit of undercut. The emphasis seems to be on keeping a subtle undercut at the front of the sidepod and otherwise minimizing the surface area via small size and convex shaping. Last year's RB was perfect example but you can see similar sidepod geometry on this year's RB and all the other front runners.

The most recent exception to this new trend was last year's Williams which had not quite a double-floor but still clearly the most extreme sidepod undercut ever. This example speaks for itself.

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

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

Post

Reading up on the octopus exhaust on the McLaren - if it didn't set itself on fire all the time that McLaren would have been absolutely unstoppable, would have made Newey's design look like child's play - assuming the power losses from the unoptimised exhaust weren't too big.

The U-Shaped side pods make a lot more sense when combined with this. I kinda wish I had a time machine and could go back with the solutions to the reliability concerns, hand them over and observe what could have been.

I guess I'd probably use my time machine to stop Mark Webber riding bikes first though, or even better stop him from joining Williams so he kept his reputation as the next big thing / next Schumacher.

Maybe I need to make a thread about what small changes people think would have massive flow on effects...

Back on topic though, and kinda related, what was the purpose of the Walrus nose? And why did it fail?

User avatar
WaikeCU
71
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 11:03 pm

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

Post

Before the 2009 season even began, Mclaren thought they had a genius idea for the space of the floor in front of the rear wheels. It didn't work as planned so they had to revert for a more conventional floor at the start of the season. The car was disastrous from the beginning:

Image

UlleGulle
UlleGulle
0
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 11:31 pm

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

Post

Nicholas Spillett wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:49 am
Back on topic though, and kinda related, what was the purpose of the Walrus nose? And why did it fail?
The purpose was to make a more aero-efficient front with loads of air channeled towards the sidepods and the rear of the car, whilst having lesser drag. It worked, aerowise.

To pass the FIA crash-test, however, they had to strengthen the nose, with a huge weight penalty. To have a heavy thing, so far forwards, and so high up clearly offset the aero-gains. Bummer.

Nonserviam85
Nonserviam85
11
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 10:21 am

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

Post

UlleGulle wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 12:40 pm
Nicholas Spillett wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:49 am
Back on topic though, and kinda related, what was the purpose of the Walrus nose? And why did it fail?
The purpose was to make a more aero-efficient front with loads of air channeled towards the sidepods and the rear of the car, whilst having lesser drag. It worked, aerowise.

To pass the FIA crash-test, however, they had to strengthen the nose, with a huge weight penalty. To have a heavy thing, so far forwards, and so high up clearly offset the aero-gains. Bummer.
This is true the balance was awful due to the extra weight. The other drawback was, that while this nose design was very optimised on a straight line the extra surfaces were creating a barrier while the car was turning and messing the airflow downstream while turning. The simulation tools back then were much less sophisticated that today and the air-tunnel test couldn't pick it up because I do not remember Williams having the means to simulate it. Consequently they had a nasty surprise when the car started running on the track.

algebraist
algebraist
0
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:08 pm

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

Post

Nicholas Spillett wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:49 am
Reading up on the octopus exhaust on the McLaren - if it didn't set itself on fire all the time that McLaren would have been absolutely unstoppable, would have made Newey's design look like child's play - assuming the power losses from the unoptimised exhaust weren't too big.
I assume you mean this? https://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2012/05/ ... s-exhaust/

It would have worked well with the U shaped side pods, which were just meant to get as much clean air to the beam wing. After that, I've no idea of effectiveness.

roon
roon
449
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

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

Post

Nicholas Spillett wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:49 am
Reading up on the octopus exhaust on the McLaren - if it didn't set itself on fire all the time that McLaren would have been absolutely unstoppable...
No, the real problem is that it was kraken all the time.

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
649
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

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

Post

roon - that was a terrible pun! :lol: :lol:
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

Giando
Giando
44
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:56 pm

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

Post

WaikeCU wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 12:36 pm
Before the 2009 season even began, Mclaren thought they had a genius idea for the space of the floor in front of the rear wheels. It didn't work as planned so they had to revert for a more conventional floor at the start of the season. The car was disastrous from the beginning:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... MP4-24.jpg
Good one. Did you know that an almost identical concept was mounted for a few races on the Tyrrell 025 from 1997?

Below a picture where I hope you can spot it.

Image

And here you go with the drawing from Giorgio Piola

https://us.motorsport.com/f1/photos/tyr ... /22973977/