delsando wrote: Scotracer wrote:
Metar wrote:I have a purely hypothetical question: Would it be legal to move the air-intake of the engine to the location of Ferrari's Frankenradiator?
I don't believe so but it wouldn't be advantageous. The air flow in that region doesn't have good characteristics (Reynolds number and pressure) compared to the air intake above the driver. Also, the fluid dynamics of the air intake would have to divert the flow from that position on the right around to the top of the engine, inducing more losses.
Either way, the rollover structure has to remain where it is so the air intake wouldn't reduce this height, by removing it.
So, hypothetically yes I believe they could do it, but it wouldn't be a good idea.
To shed more light on this,
refer Manchilds intuitive idea of airbox
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5135&start=0&st=0&s ... irbox+idea
I think, the fact that the rollover structure and engine intake are allowed to be integrated (wasn't always the case) actually allows for pretty much a best case scenario. It allows the airflow aft and above the driver's head to be fair. I don't think height there is an issue, but i think that mostly depends on the relative speed of air going into the airbox I think.
I see manchild's idea to be very draggy. It isn't used anymore in lemans prototypes and the like anymore. Even if you do a nice job, that funny curvy loop, just has too much surface area. See the latest Audi and Acura LMPs for instance
It would be nice if there was another solution proposed in place of the peripheral-vision-robbing side head restraints.