High nose

[greggy_thommo]

Let's say we're trying to design the ultimate f1 car (no regulations). In relation to the under body aerodynamics:

Would you have a ground effect system with a cavity underneath the car, as well as a fan to suck air out?

If so, would you still have a high nose - i.e. do you want more air under the car or do you not want any (hence the "vaccum cleaner" fan)?

Would you have a diffuser?

[Scuderia_Russ]

The high nose would also mean you could have more wing surface area.

[Guest]

higher nose equals more drag although giving room for aerodynamics on a limited car. if you dont have regulations i think a big enought fan would be just fine, on the straits no fan, then when your accelerating or going into a corner the fan would engage. a suitable algorithm linked to the active suspension would do the math. if that isnt enough you could have wings that are hydraulically engaged. and with four wheel drive of course all the driver would have to do is keep the pedal to the metaland steer, the variable aerodynamics would just transfer enought power to the fan thus creating downforce and simultaneously reducing the power tranfered to the road. i dont think it would be that interesting, a few thousand horsepower and nothing up to the driver. well maybe some cool crashes in case of somekind of failure

[Monstrobolaxa]

Higher nose also means slightly more lift....though the extra downforce produced by the extra area of wing, is higher then the lift...so high noses!

[dumrick]

Low nose=less drag.

So: low nose, moving skirts and a huge fan.

Concerning front wing, I recall ground-effect F1's running with no wing at the front and a very small in the rear. Since downforce generated by wings equals drag and ground effect not, I would hope to generate as much downforce as possible by other means.

And, of course, closed wheels!!!!!

[Monstrobolaxa]

And, of course, closed wheels!!!!!

Well this is the problem....I read somewhere that the FIA definition for Formula 1 open-cockpit...and open-wheel....so having closed wheels is outside the definition...so not a Formula!

[DaveKillens]

x

[scarbs]

I think we all agree the best starting point for power and down force is a turbo ground effect car.

Taking the aero first the tunnels should be as long as possible and as uninterrupted, a raised nose will be required to clear the under floor inlet, then the floor will coke bottle out between the front wheels and backing again between the rears. The on protuberances into the under floor will be the driver bum, the engines sump and the gearbox. As a result a very narrow engine angle will be required to get the exhaust outlets clear of the roof of the tunnels. Only a small rear wing will be required to trim the car at speed, this could be actively controlled as the CofP moves forward at speed, no front wing will be required. No Fan will be required as the motion of the car will generate more than enough down force.
The engine should be a V configuration with at least a pair of turbochargers feeding the inlets plenums through intercoolers. Plus large radiators to shed the engines heat. These would be fitted into small “sidepod” mouldings on top of the ground effect tunnels. Gearbox would need to have a lot of rations seven at least or even eight to cope with the turbos explosive power band, as would drivers’ aids for traction and yaw.
Chassis wise a stiff carbon moulding with a cockpit as enclosed as possible to reduce aero losses and increase stiffness, I’ve kept the 2005 regulation cockpit padding for the obvious safety reasons. Suspension via double carbon wishbones and pushrods all round, the rear wishbones will need to be raised to clear the tunnels, so the top wishbone needs to be raised above the gearbox (McLaren style). Active control would be beneficial to keep the skirts in contact with the ground and keep the ride height level at rising speeds.

[dumrick]

And, of course, closed wheels!!!!!

Well this is the problem....I read somewhere that the FIA definition for Formula 1 open-cockpit...and open-wheel....so having closed wheels is outside the definition...so not a Formula!

We are talking about a no-rules car. The definition of open-wheels is a rule. I can imagine a bunch of solutions to aerodynamically mask the wheels, the car remaining an open-wheeler.

Back to the nose, I'm sure that a laterally air-tight body would just benefit from less air going below the floor and, therefore, a low nose. If no moving skirts were used, allowing air circulating from outside to below the floor, then a high-nose would contribute for a more consistent behaviour, avoiding "pumping" phenomenae.

Anyway, with an active suspension, maybe no moving skirts would be even needed to make the laterals of the car air-tight...

[scarbs]

Regardless of how airtight the underfloor is, the presence of a nose\chassis sticking into area will mess up the airflow, in my drawing you can see the open throat of the underfloor is unobstructed by the nose, so nice high energy, lamina airflow is feeding the tunnels.

I doubt sliding skirts would be necessary, but still some degree of compliance would aid small but no less important variations in the ground\skirt seal…

[Guest]

What about CVT transmission coupled with a gas turbine?

and the aerodinamics acting directly on the wheels? in a way that the energy produced by the aerodinamics it is not partly absorbed by the suspension system (just like the banned lotus).

[greggy_thommo]

scarbs, i am a little confused as to what your second (bottom) drawing is depicting...?

do you have an explanation of ground effect on your website?

[scarbs]

The bottom picture is a plan view (from the top) but only half the car is shown.
I dont have an article on ground effect but I'll see if I can rustle something up..!

[bernard]

If we're talking about the ultimate F1 then I'm surprised no-one has mentioned aerodynamic brakes, hydraulically controlled. And while we're at it, hydraulically moving wings, rear, and if benefitial, front too, with the front wing going down and into a steeper angle during cornering and up and smaller angle during straights, to decrease drag. Though this would have the drawback of messing up the air flowing under the car during cornering and braking. A good solutiuon would be if the frontwing would pop-up into the air from under the hood during braking and cornering. Then on straights it goes back down under the hood. Kind of James Bondish, and ugly too, but probably the most effective solution for a frontwing.

[Guest]

or aero elastic