F1technical.net

Regarding sidepod design, the current sloping pods are designed that way to get a good flow to the beam wing, in 2014 what will they aim for?

Tall sidepods with a lot of undercut?
A sidepod that goes up instead of down? Do the rules allow this?

Sevach wrote:Regarding sidepod design, the current sloping pods are designed that way to get a good flow to the beam wing, in 2014 what will they aim for?

Tall sidepods with a lot of undercut?
A sidepod that goes up instead of down? Do the rules allow this?

A sidepod going up would generate a lot of lift. As would a flat 'pod. I would imagine that the teams will have quite basic sidepod design at the start of the season, leaving plenty of room to provide ample cooling for the radiators and intercoolers. Perhaps they will continue to "shrink-wrap" around the engine if the reliability is sufficient.

Cutting drag will be priority. Other than that they could tidy up airflow over the top of the diffuser. Perhaps creating a larger pressure difference to extract more from the floor of the car, by providing the diffuser gurney(s) with a higher volume of airflow?

Here's my interpretation of a 2014 car from the side. This includes quite an extreme version of the nose/wing. Thoughts?

theWPTformula wrote:Here's my interpretation of a 2014 car from the side. This includes quite an extreme version of the nose/wing. Thoughts?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BaG-aKBCEAAzjRB.jpg:large

Looks realistic. Could actually be quite close to some of the cars next year.

That's great WPTFormula! Like the attention to detail, gills, engine cover etc, all looks very plausible. Plus I rather surprisingly like the look of the shape of that nose from the angle you made that picture.

A video released by BBC sport giving a brief on the regulations of 2014:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkVGl9bD9T0[/youtube]

theWPTformula wrote:

Sevach wrote:Regarding sidepod design, the current sloping pods are designed that way to get a good flow to the beam wing, in 2014 what will they aim for?

Tall sidepods with a lot of undercut?
A sidepod that goes up instead of down? Do the rules allow this?

A sidepod going up would generate a lot of lift. As would a flat 'pod. I would imagine that the teams will have quite basic sidepod design at the start of the season, leaving plenty of room to provide ample cooling for the radiators and intercoolers. Perhaps they will continue to "shrink-wrap" around the engine if the reliability is sufficient.

Cutting drag will be priority. Other than that they could tidy up airflow over the top of the diffuser. Perhaps creating a larger pressure difference to extract more from the floor of the car, by providing the diffuser gurney(s) with a higher volume of airflow?

Either I am missing something here or you are. The way sidepods are shaped now actually creates some lift and is only done so as to get the air flow to push the exhaust stream down to the floor. If you have the sidepods set with a large undercut and sloping upwards instead of downwards ass all current cars do then it should actually create a bit of downforce. This is because the air going over the top will slow down increasing pressure while air under the sidepod in the undercut will have to speed up lowering the pressure.

Blackout wrote:I know. I mean it seems to me that he drew a 625mm high chassis + a 525mm high bulkhead + a small 'vanity panel' + an S-duct + something 'special' under the bulkhead in the 'transition' between the underside of the chassis and the undeside of the nose : P WPTFormula spoke about something simlar...
Or maybe I'm reading the pic completely wrong. So weight and sea : P

Kerching...!

As its Bild's image I can't reproduce it here.

This drawing was done in about 24 hours after Austin, so it’s a rough stab rather than a refined trends predictions, which I will put out on my blog over xmas.

I took the RB9 as the base point.

Narrowed the FW, moving the endplate inward and tried to the cascade IB tips in the same place. The endplate curvature isn’t optimised for its new position.

For the front end I swept the chassis down from 625mm in a curve to the new 525mm A-A line, the awkward transition is managed by the “S” duct with the scoop below and vent above, fitted within a vanity panel.

I bulked out the sidepods a bit, deleted the exhaust outlets. I didn’t account for the new side impact system, as I haven’t seen what they look like. I created a long ramp towards the diffuser to allow the shoulder fin on the tops of the sidepods to get a good run to the diffuser’s TE. I kept a small sidepod tunnel in order to keep the flows separate around the sidepod.

For the rear I deleted the beam wing. I had a really extreme Y75 winglet for the exhaust upwash, but left it out and ran a simplified winglet for the image. I’ve mounted the rear wing on extended endplates to the diffuser, to keep the top rear wing clear of pylons. For the top rear wing I didn’t really adjust the size or account for the larger new DRS slot gap.

scarbs wrote:As its Bild's image I can't reproduce it here.

This drawing was done in about 24 hours after Austin, so it’s a rough stab rather than a refined trends predictions, which I will put out on my blog over xmas.

I took the RB9 as the base point.

Narrowed the FW, moving the endplate inward and tried to the cascade IB tips in the same place. The endplate curvature isn’t optimised for its new position.

For the front end I swept the chassis down from 625mm in a curve to the new 525mm A-A line, the awkward transition is managed by the “S” duct with the scoop below and vent above, fitted within a vanity panel.

I bulked out the sidepods a bit, deleted the exhaust outlets. I didn’t account for the new side impact system, as I haven’t seen what they look like. I created a long ramp towards the diffuser to allow the shoulder fin on the tops of the sidepods to get a good run to the diffuser’s TE. I kept a small sidepod tunnel in order to keep the flows separate around the sidepod.

For the rear I deleted the beam wing. I had a really extreme Y75 winglet for the exhaust upwash, but left it out and ran a simplified winglet for the image. I’ve mounted the rear wing on extended endplates to the diffuser, to keep the top rear wing clear of pylons. For the top rear wing I didn’t really adjust the size or account for the larger new DRS slot gap.

Can you mention anything about the nose design??

Holm86 wrote:Can you mention anything about the nose design??

This picture comes close regarding the nose tip design.

Blanchimont wrote:

Holm86 wrote:Can you mention anything about the nose design??

This picture comes close regarding the nose tip design.

http://i.imgur.com/qb2Z35P.jpg

I know about this one. And its a great design. But someone mentioned that Scarbs RB10 sketch had something dubbed the "duck nose".

This one doesnt look like at duck.

scarbs wrote:As its Bild's image I can't reproduce it here.

This drawing was done in about 24 hours after Austin, so it’s a rough stab rather than a refined trends predictions, which I will put out on my blog over xmas.

I took the RB9 as the base point.

Narrowed the FW, moving the endplate inward and tried to the cascade IB tips in the same place. The endplate curvature isn’t optimised for its new position.

For the front end I swept the chassis down from 625mm in a curve to the new 525mm A-A line, the awkward transition is managed by the “S” duct with the scoop below and vent above, fitted within a vanity panel.

I bulked out the sidepods a bit, deleted the exhaust outlets. I didn’t account for the new side impact system, as I haven’t seen what they look like. I created a long ramp towards the diffuser to allow the shoulder fin on the tops of the sidepods to get a good run to the diffuser’s TE. I kept a small sidepod tunnel in order to keep the flows separate around the sidepod.

For the rear I deleted the beam wing. I had a really extreme Y75 winglet for the exhaust upwash, but left it out and ran a simplified winglet for the image. I’ve mounted the rear wing on extended endplates to the diffuser, to keep the top rear wing clear of pylons. For the top rear wing I didn’t really adjust the size or account for the larger new DRS slot gap.

Thanks for that Scarbs. Look forward to seeing it on the blog.

trinidefender wrote:...If you have the sidepods set with a large undercut and sloping upwards instead of downwards ass all current cars do then it should actually create a bit of downforce. This is because the air going over the top will slow down increasing pressure while air under the sidepod in the undercut will have to speed up lowering the pressure.

Over the sidepod I'd say you are right, but you are increasing the cross section of the car.
As for accelerating air under the sidepods creating downforce, in that case you are also accelerating the air over the floor, creating lift. Those two effects will largely cancel each other. So you don't get useable downforce from the undercut or from a double floor like last year's Toro Rosso.

For ideas to generate more downforce, I think you first need to understand what you are loosing: the beam wing itself didn't generate an awful lot of downforce, but the low pressure zone underneath it helped extracting air from the diffuser. It was already suggested to arrange the suspension parts to stack 2 aero neutral pieces on top of eachother to create the same effect. A well designed Y75 winglet could aid in that too.

I therefore think you need actually the opposite concerning sidepods: high pressure underneath so that the floor works better, and low pressure on top to feed low pressure flow to underneath the suspension.

Now you want to have your sidepod less sloped for that. The flatter it is, the less boundary layer buildup. You also might want to use u shaped sidepods.