F1technical.net

I was thinking what if you could shape the head rest into feeding the engine some if not all the air to the engine/radiators, and open the bodywork behind the drivers seat to feed in more air?

Theres no reason to put more air if the engine can't take it.

wrcsti wrote:Theres no reason to put more air if the engine can't take it.

yes there is.. you just add more fuel.

Callum wrote:

wrcsti wrote:Theres no reason to put more air if the engine can't take it.

yes there is.. you just add more fuel.

No there isn't.


The air the engine can handle is defined by capacity, inlet design and by the pressure of the air (aided by ram in this case).


Once you reach the plateau, the engine cannot take more air, so having a bigger intake makes no difference.

I should also imagine that they carefully trade-off the horsepower increase against the drag increase when determining inlet size (and, presumably any effect it has on downforce producing surfaces like the rear wing).

An inlet can be too big.......

I meant reduce the inlet of the air intake of the engine or maybe the radiator inlets

RH1300S wrote:I should also imagine that they carefully trade-off the horsepower increase against the drag increase when determining inlet size

As I said, there is a plateau - the rev limit makes it somewhat easier now, I'd imagine they are sized for 18,000 rpm.


But there are a number of other considerations when designing the inlet, chief of which is avoiding flow separation over the airbox/engine cover when the engine over-runs and air must be vented back out the airbox inlet - as this seperated flow would screw up your rear wing performance, right when you need it (as over-run is typically associated with braking).

Are velocity stacks used by any teams?

The purpose of the airbox on an F1 car is to take the high velocity (compressible) airflow coming in the small cross-section inlet duct, and diffuse it out as carefully as possible and with minimum turbulence, by increasing the cross section of the duct along its length. Basically trading velocity for pressure, with a minimum drag penalty.

However, by far the most difficult thing to get right with an F1 airbox design is to make sure the local dynamic pressures at each intake runner inlet is always equal. F1 fuel systems are not fully closed-loop designs (ie. they don't have mass airflow sensors). They are closer to an alpha-N control architecture, which means they rely on software map tables and algorithms within the ECU to control the fuel injector PW and flows. The maps and algorithms are developed during the engine dyno testing, and most engines are dyno'd with a blower pressurizing the airbox. Furthermore, the dynos are controlled during the mapping process to simulate each particular race track from data recorded via telemetry during testing. The engine maps loaded into the ECU's for a race are custom tailored for each track. The fuel injector PW for each individual cylinder can be mapped separately, but this require that the airbox flow conditions during a race match those used during the dyno testing.

The data acquisition systems and instrumentation on F1 cars are now so precise and powerful that every single inch, of every single lap, traveled by an F1 car during a race or test can be recorded and reproduced during testing on an engine dyno, wind tunnel, or suspension post rig. That would include data for an airbox design.

Regards,
Terry

Agerasia wrote:Are velocity stacks used by any teams?

all of them

twoshots wrote:See tech reg 3.16 for the toblerone rule scarbs mentioned in the other thread. This gives you your advertising space.

3.16.1 With the exception of the opening described in Article 3.16.3, when viewed from the side, the car must have bodywork in the area bounded by four lines. One vertical 1330mm forward of the rear wheel centre line, one horizontal 550mm above the reference plane, one horizontal 925mm above the reference plane and one diagonal which intersects the 925mm horizontal at a point 1000mm forward of the rear wheel centreline and the 550mm horizontal at a point lying 50mm forward of the rear wheel centreline.
Bodywork within this area must be arranged symmetrically about the car centre line and, when measured 200mm vertically below the diagonal boundary line, must have minimum widths of 150mm and 50mm respectively at points lying 1000mm and 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line. This bodywork must lie on or outside the boundary defined by a linear taper between these minimum widths.

Out of technical curiousity I went thru this old "Scoop thread" again, when I came upon the "toblerone-rule". If it's true that's it for advertising purpose only, I must say It's some of the dumbest thing the FIA/FOTA has come up with so far.
Why not having a banner hanging behind the car, far more spectacular and eye catching that?

"Why not having a banner hanging behind the car"

xpensive,

Have you ever seen the "virtual" advertisements projected onto the infield grass and runoff areas by the TV broadcasters? They appear to be quite realistic.

Maybe the FIA should do the same thing with the cars. Project a virtual advertising banner behind each car. Much cheaper and safer than using real banners, eh?

Regards,
riff_raff

My point was to describe what dimensional rules to the car for advertising purpose only could mean in its xtention.
Perhaps I did not xpress myself eloquently enough, sorry.

riff_raff wrote:"Why not having a banner hanging behind the car"

xpensive,

Have you ever seen the "virtual" advertisements projected onto the infield grass and runoff areas by the TV broadcasters? They appear to be quite realistic.

Maybe the FIA should do the same thing with the cars. Project a virtual advertising banner behind each car. Much cheaper and safer than using real banners, eh?

Regards,
riff_raff

We can always have F1 Teapots Championships.



Plenty of room for advertisement.

Almost forgot about that hideous contraption, must have been decided by Gitanes, surelly never saw a windtunnel anyway?