My design

[manchild]

Hello to everyone.

I see that there are some members on this forum known to me from couple of other F1 forums but
having seen that this forum has very large number of visitors I’ve decided to join in here too and
for the beginning present one of my designs (that I’ve already presented on other forums) hoping to
get more checkouts and opinions…

This idea is basically inspired by design of Trimarans.

What I’m suggesting here? Side pods separated from the chassis/cockpit and located at the
maximum width allowed by FIA. Very high, narrow shaped and longitudinally positioned radiators.
Shape of the inner vertical plane of the sidepod and it’s opposite – vertical plane of the
bodywork/cockpit in the area of tank cause decrease of pressure. Considering that the hot air outlet
from the sidepods is aimed inside, air flow and reduced pressure are literally sucking the hot air out
of the sidepods and directing it to the rear end of the car.
My belief is that this sucking out of hot air could also enable reducing the size of sidepod air inlet
compared to conventional solutions.

I also believe that this could significantly improve
aerodynamic efficiency and perhaps even enable much better cooling.
It would be interested to experiment with it in the air tunnel to see if the air circulating/flowing
around the front wheels could be directed and partly driven into the sidepods having in mind their
location (behind the wheels).

One of the options could be shaping the upper plane that connects sidepods and chassis as a wing in
order to generate more downforce and increase Bernoulli effect within the tunnel - between the
sidepods and the chassis.
The drawings are only showing idea and therefore shapes and positions on them shouldn’t be
considered as default or something calculated or tested. For the frontal drawing I used FIA’s
(funny) design envelope while the side view and the view from above are “mutated” photos of an
F1 car. Forget about the wings and other stuff; just focus on the sidepods
I hope I’ve explained the essence of this idea clearly enough. However, if that is not the case I’ll
add additional explanations if anyone ask for it.
Thanks in advance.






The drawings show only idea and they not represent defined shapes and positions. The basic idea is
not to confront radiators directly to air stream but to get air sucked into sidepods - supposable
trough smaller inlets than the ones on conventional cars.. I know that tere isn’t much air behind the
wheels but there’s also no vacum... I don’t know… perhaps we could be talking about sidepods
with closed & streamlined front and the air inlets similar to those turbo inlets from turbo era
positioned on top... Perhaps sidepods could be positioned closer to the chassis and “share” the air
with the tunnels…

Closed and fully streamlined sideopods with several versions of air intakes that would work. The
radiators are positioned the same only the position of inlet is changed.








This is what I discarded for a less radical version but actually it could be the best option…

Non-bended radiators should perhaps be placed like this….

Something closer to conventional approach but still based on “Bernoulli & Venturi”.


Naturally, there’s also this option…



I had quite a lot question about position of exhaust so I added these two drawings just to show
where the exhaust would be in relation to tunnels/sidepods.


Here is another option with more conventional positioning of radiators and overall design but also
with tunnel and reduced diameter of air inlet for the sidepod (radiator section).

[manchild]

If anyone knows why my previous post is so wide and how can I make it look normal please let me know.

[Monstrobolaxa]

HI Manchild....you already know my opinion from another forum....interesting stuff...keep it up!

[schumiGO]

WOW )) yep mate)) intresting...

but this way f1 doesn't use i means that is not good for it))))

the last questions WHY It's not good for F1....
Ok mate )) i've just stareted to thinking about))))))

[manchild]

Thanks Monstro, your opinion gives me cover when other non-pros like me start shooting

[manchild]

This is a disaster, I’m exhausted … worked since 9PM yesterday, didn't sleep, joined here this morning, posted this aero thing and than tried to catch up with all posts in one day even reply on some

Well, the Aerodynamics section is done and first two pages of Engine and General stuff.

If only the link to forum on f1technical was bigger so that I could notice it a year ago…

Now I leave it up to you guys to argue about this design of mine for I’m gonna drop in bed and sleep for days…

Thanks in advance!

[DVD]

Your idea is very interesting, but i see two problems at first glance, first, the wetted area is much bigger, wich inherently means bigger drag. Second, remember Williams and their past year's front wing, an aerodynamical advantage can create so many structural and dynamical problems that the overall performance of the car is degraded(that's why only McLaren uses double keel), placing the radiators so far from the centerline means a great inertia moment and a great mass of material where it shouldn't be.

Anyway your idea is really innovative and perhaps may work, engineering is always a trade between advantages and disadvantages ain't it?

[manchild]

I’m not sticking firmly to certain version simply because I’m not sure which would work better and I can’t calculate, simulate or test any of these (I’m not a pro).

That is why I made several versions using the same principle so that professionals could play with them and point out the best one.

The last two drawings show the most conventional approach using the same principle, while the ones from above are more radical.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Good imagination mate...thats exactly the sort of attitude great desigers (Like Colin Chapman) have, to think outside of normal convention.

Keep it up...you never know, in years to come you might design the nest revalation in F1 car design!

[Ciwai]

Kind of reminds me of something I was playing with earlier. I don't think it would be beneficial for the reasons stated previously, by DVD i.e wetted area and polar moment. I was thinking that there would be more air going towards the rear wing/diffusor, but no doubt overall drag would be greatly increased in my version at least.

[manchild]

Thanks Spencifer_Murphy, Colin Chapman is THE designer, I adore his work! Without him we'd still have aluminum pipes running on 4 wheels. Nobody has given to F1 as mush as Colin!

Hey Ciwai, first guy with that posts the idea gets the title of inventor!
Seriously, I had that nose which Antonia Terzi designed on the paper at least 3 years earlier but once Williams presented their car it was to late to publicly claim “I made that before”. Seeing is believing. It hurts I know.

Ask for example Scarbs about V shaped, split radiators idea and the date when he got it from me… You’ve never seen me posting my work about it after they were already presented.

My problem in general is in the fact that I don’t have the way to present fresh ideas directly to F1 guys (intellectual property policies) because they don’t even want to look at it afraid of compensation frauds. Since you can't get pattent for aerodynamic shape/solution/improvement only thing I found reasonable is to post ideas on F1 forums and promote them to the world instead of keeping them on paper. If anyone knows the better way please let me know.

BTW, I’d appreciate if pros could post here some hints about the last version shown on the bottom of my first post (last two drawings) and compare it with those more radical solutions from above. To be more specific, I’d like to know if they consider that this last version would also make more drag than conventional F1 because it seams strange having in mind that it has quite known position of radiator with only exception of that horizontal, neutral wing that with radiator forms suck-out tunnel instead of usual cover.

[Ciwai]

Here's another one. I call it the reverse coke because it gets away from the coke bottle shaped tub that has been prevalent for eons now, instead directs airflow through the central section. Engine is transversely mounted with twin halfshafts (a la bmw motorcycle) going to the rear wheels. Center section ahead of rear wing is opened up. Of course rules wouldn't allow for any of this nonsense as its all templated out. Not that it would work, but its sort of sad that the sort of chapman esque lateral thinking has no place in modern f1 thinking. I guess I lean more towards buddhism than capitalism so it doesn't really matter to me where the idea originated, or what becomes of it even.

[Guest]

I got to say that I like the way you think. This idea remings me on somthing that still bothers me (splitting front of the mono. into Y). What you've made is prety much what can be done at the moment. Looks like good design for a ground effet car.

Regarding your transmission, check this out! http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/alfabimotore.htm

If only they've strated using CF for mono. before the ground effect... There wouldn't be so many fatalities and F1 today would be much interesting...

Chapman rules!

[manchild]

What's the catch with logging on this forum...? Seams that cookie lasts several seconds or dissapears for some reason

That Guest guy was me, obviously

[bh]

The question I have is radiator area. All of your designs seem (from my naked eye) to decrease the frontal area of the radiators. The cars already have enough cooling issues, which is why they use the inclined radiators for more radiator for their limited frontal area. Also, isn't one purpose of chimneys to help suck more air into the radiators? It seems like they have trouble with cooling on the radiators of that size to me.