F1technical.net

So earlier in the year Charlie Whiting said that while none of the current exhausts were illegal to the wording of the regulations, he knew what they were doing and that they were indeed counter to what was intended. He issued a technical directive which was along the lines of not allowing the re-ingestion of exhaust gases (whatever that meant) and said a regulation change might be in store.

However there seems to be not much change towards the 2013 regulations in this department. Aren't they already past the agreed-by date, and so any change now will require unanimity from the teams?

If the exhausts indeed turned to perfectly aero-neutral next year (except for basically the thrust they generate when pointed backwards anyways) who do we think this will benefit?

ye i've been waiting for the announcement on this - but its never come. Perhaps they'll just wait for 2014

Lotus perhaps? there car seems pretty good with there current set-up and i'd imagine this is the direction charlie/fia would want to go.

I just think now the teams have learnt what they have, its going to be quiet tricky to stop them using this method. The only way i can think of is to not allow any bodywork within Xmm of the exhaust exit which must be Xmm in length?

[quote="raymondu999"]

If the exhausts indeed turned to perfectly aero-neutral next year (except for basically the thrust they generate when pointed backwards anyways) /quote]
would you care to quantify this thrust ? ..... (which I assume will largely disappear in 2014)

I'm not talking of any magical thrust - but if you point the exhaust in a direction, then obviously as the gas blows, the gas will exert a force back against the direction it's exiting (Newton's 3rd)

raymondu999 wrote:I'm not talking of any magical thrust - but if you point the exhaust in a direction, then obviously as the gas blows, the gas will exert a force back against the direction it's exiting (Newton's 3rd)

I hope that was meant as a joke :p. The "advantage" of that is almost non-existant.

No change for 2013, the regs were posted today...

turbof1 wrote: I hope that was meant as a joke :p. The "advantage" of that is almost non-existant.

Maybe a joke related to F1, but in motorsport they use that. Look at the thrust generated by Top Fuel Dragster exhausts.. Somewhere near 360kg of downforce!

Top fuel dragsters have a little bit more hp me thinks.

scarbs wrote:No change for 2013, the regs were posted today...

Interesting they specifically said the current exhausts do the exact opposite of what the new regs were initially introduced to do, but they haven't made any alterations to them. I now expect Newey to spend even more time on the exhaust and have an upgraded version of their current solution in 2013. He'll find something..

It´s funny he says that because i could write a rule today that would stop any team from coming up with anything innovative in terms of the exhaust.

Same rule as today but that the last 100mm of the exhaust has to be clear from any form of bodywork whatsoever.
Like a tube sticking right up in the air with no bodyparts surrounding the first 100m from the tip down.

but do we want that? No probably not. I like this, it gives teams something to work on while not having to much of an effect.

Tommy Cookers wrote:

raymondu999 wrote:
If the exhausts indeed turned to perfectly aero-neutral next year (except for basically the thrust they generate when pointed backwards anyways) /quote]
would you care to quantify this thrust ? ..... (which I assume will largely disappear in 2014)

Ever seen a Top Fuel or Funny Car lose even one cylinder? The thrust from the fully firing bank will overwhelm the side that is short and push the car sideways...If they lose a whole bank it can literally push them into the wal.
Exhaust exerts quite a bit of thrust.
I remember when I was a teen,,many eons ago, it was popular to have down turned exhaust tips, but it went out of vogue when it was learned it increased back pressure.

(when raymondu mentioned exhaust thrust) I had come to the view that at Indianapolis or Monza speeds the thrust could be about 3% if the exhaust system was optimised for this
but this approach would be self-defeating as crankshaft power would be lost with such an exhaust system (at least in an N/A engine on unlimited fuel)
it might be worthwhile at Bonneville

recoverable energy is about 12% with usual race CRs, ie that which can be recovered by turbines as crankshaft power independent of vehicle speed or by suitable exhaust system design as a jet (highly speed-dependent)
(WW2 etc aircraft had low CRs (and late inlet valve closure and early exhaust valve opening), enabling recovery up to 18% to crankshaft or by jet thrust with or without turbocharger, this is more jet effect than large 'jet' airliners today, typically 16%)

any views on the mean exhaust pressure (or mean exhaust velocity) in current F1 ?

stez90 wrote:

turbof1 wrote: I hope that was meant as a joke :p. The "advantage" of that is almost non-existant.

Maybe a joke related to F1, but in motorsport they use that. Look at the thrust generated by Top Fuel Dragster exhausts.. Somewhere near 360kg of downforce!

Yeah but they use jet exhausts like the ones in airplanes. I think that is hardly a realistic comparisation towards F1 :p.

raymondu999 wrote:.......If the exhausts indeed turned to perfectly aero-neutral next year (except for basically the thrust they generate when pointed backwards anyways) who do we think this will benefit?

Just what does "aero-neutral" imply? The benefit derived from the exhaust flow is not specifically from "aerodynamics". Instead, it's more a case of using the kinetic energy present in the exhaust gas mass flow to assist with pumping air out from under the diffuser. More momentum transfer than simple aerodynamics.

As for minimizing any aero-effects produced by pointing the exhaust pipe exits aft, the pipes would have to extend several feet aft of the rear wing to be truly neutral. Thus, any thrust would simply be the result of the momentum of the exhaust gas mass being ejected out of the pipes.

That's... Basically what I meant. Lol.