F1technical.net

this

or this

which is better?
rounded or triangle?

The top pic is supposed to give better flow to the leading edge of the rear wing but I suspect it also starves some cylinders of their full air intake potential otherwise everyone would still use it. Don't IRL cars run with this airbox configuration?

Scuderia_Russ wrote:The top pic is supposed to give better flow to the leading edge of the rear wing but I suspect it also starves some cylinders of their full air intake potential otherwise everyone would still use it. Don't IRL cars run with this airbox configuration?

The intake on the top appears to be larger in size than the bottom. If that is the case, how would you consider that the top one will starve the motor more than the triagular inlet???

Sodder wrote:

Scuderia_Russ wrote:The top pic is supposed to give better flow to the leading edge of the rear wing but I suspect it also starves some cylinders of their full air intake potential otherwise everyone would still use it. Don't IRL cars run with this airbox configuration?

The intake on the top appears to be larger in size than the bottom. If that is the case, how would you consider that the top one will starve the motor more than the triagular inlet???

I said I suspect it would starve some cylinders (probably not majorly, just compared to the other design) and I'm making an educated guess in that respect. That part of my original answer I am not 100% on but I do know that this particular shape was used to aid airflow to the rear wing. I didn't make a refernce to the size of the intake in any way just its shape. What we can't seee from these pics isthe shape of the air intake leading to the air filter.

The entry of the airbox is heavily influenced by the driver's helmet. In fact, if you have a taller driver, at high speed his helmet may actually create a flow that misses a good part of the airbox, and starves it of enough positive pressure at high speed. And also, if too much airflow enters the aribox, and it cannot take it in, there may be air spilling out around the lip of the airbox and creating a dirty aero configuration, which has a bad influence downstream, where it impacts on the rear wing. Once the air has entered the intake of the airbox, and flowed down toward the air filter, the area increases and the velocity decreases. I'm sure by the time the air passes through the air filter and intake trumpets, each trumpet will receive an equal and appropriate amount of air mass. I seriously doubt if any cylinders suffer too much or too little, that woulld just be a total cock-up by the engineers responsible for the airflow into the engine.
In my opinion, the airbox with the oval configuration would benefit most from higher speed tracks, the air striking the driver's helmet would push more of the air up, and since the width of the oval is wider further up, capture more air at higher speeds. But the oval would add a little more mass higher up than the triangle, giving a slightly higher center of gravity.

Scuderia_Russ wrote: I said I suspect it would starve some cylinders (probably not majorly, just compared to the other design) and I'm making an educated guess in that respect. That part of my original answer I am not 100% on but I do know that this particular shape was used to aid airflow to the rear wing. I didn't make a refernce to the size of the intake in any way just its shape. What we can't seee from these pics isthe shape of the air intake leading to the air filter.

I think that you may have mistaken my post as a criticism, or a sarcastic remark. That was not my intent. I'm sorry...

Back to the post. I see what your saying about the wing and such. I was just thinking that the size (I brought up that point, I was not trying to imply anything about the lack of this is your post...again sorry if it came across as that) of the inlet not the shape would have more to do with starvation. The only way that I could see the shape coming into affect is, like you said, the shape of the air box leading into the filter. With, perhaps the curve of the intake creating a low pressure area inside it, and starving the engine much the way a Drag car's motor would act if the inner fenders failed. Turbulence inside the engine compartment causes the car to run poorly.

I don't know...all of this aero stuff is way above a lowely mech. engr's head.

And I'm a rookie, thats never helped anyone...

Hi Sodder, glad to meet you. Aero is pretty simple. It either blows, or it sucks ...

Yeah that much I can follow. I have not completed my "fluids" classes yet and thats where our aero sections are. Hopefully when the time comes I'll be able to contribute to this section of the board more intelligently. Instead of just rambling on like a bafoon....

Aero is based on chaos theory mathematics. I don't see how it can be simplified unless you model all flows as laminar. You know we still cannot properly model insect flight? They induce so many vortices with their wings that our simplified models do not properly account for how much lift they generate.

All I know is I don't know much about it....

Sodder wrote: I think that you may have mistaken my post as a criticism, or a sarcastic remark. That was not my intent. I'm sorry...

No, not at all mate. I'm no aero expert (!) and I just wanted to make clear that anything I said was an educated guess based on bits of information I've either read about or cobbled together from here because I wouldn't want anyone taking what I've said as gospel when it was basically only a best guess if you see what I mean.
Like Dave says though, it must be a tough area to optomise because not enough airbox area you will get overspill, too much and you will probably negate the ram effect.

At least your gueses are educated. Mine are just guesses.

Sodder wrote:Yeah that much I can follow. I have not completed my "fluids" classes yet and thats where our aero sections are. Hopefully when the time comes I'll be able to contribute to this section of the board more intelligently. Instead of just rambling on like a bafoon....

When I took fluid dynamics, I found it to be one of the easiest classes I've ever taken (relatively speaking). I'm proud to say that I was able to hold my own in that class. To this day, I still have nightmares about staying up until 4AM on Wednesday nights (make that Thursday mornings) writing up my 30+ page reports (btw, I'm not kidding about the number) on the lab I did about, say, a flow throgh a venturi meter...

But whatever I learned in that class is no match to the knowledge presented by some of the regulars on this forum. Sorry, I don't want you to think that I'm trying to depress you, just to let you know about some of the harsh realities I faced with after joining this forum.

The change in airbox shape was not an aero thing, but a Honda lead development to make the monocoque lighter, they developed a new shape and lay up for the roll structure. (no arguing Geoff Willis told me)
Having seen CFD demos of F1 airbox design, its clear the aerodynamic mechanisms in use are far form intuitive. I doubt you could predict which inlet would be better for the engine.

Scarbs

scarbs wrote:The change in airbox shape was not an aero thing, but a Honda lead development to make the monocoque lighter, they developed a new shape and lay up for the roll structure. (no arguing Geoff Willis told me)
Having seen CFD demos of F1 airbox design, its clear the aerodynamic mechanisms in use are far form intuitive. I doubt you could predict which inlet would be better for the engine.

Scarbs

And of course, that is weight from the highest point on the car...........