2024 car speculation

[AR3-GP]

Could a team potentially create an upside down tunnel that channels air towards the rear tyre squirt area? Like a waterslide but on the belly of the sidepod so it focuses flow down towards the diffuser to energize flow on the tyre squirt area

This is already done using undercuts along the sidepod such as on the RB, the AM, etc. as you can see in the top half of this image:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fp2KiWaWAAUS9TN.jpg

Is the Merc photo from before it went out on track?

[organic]

Could a team potentially create an upside down tunnel that channels air towards the rear tyre squirt area? Like a waterslide but on the belly of the sidepod so it focuses flow down towards the diffuser to energize flow on the tyre squirt area

This is already done using undercuts along the sidepod such as on the RB, the AM, etc. as you can see in the top half of this image:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fp2KiWaWAAUS9TN.jpg

Is the Merc photo from before it went out on track?

I took the screenshot. It's from a couple of corners before Russell retired the car in testing iirc. I believe he was on an outlap at the time.

[Just_a_fan]

Could a team potentially create an upside down tunnel that channels air towards the rear tyre squirt area? Like a waterslide but on the belly of the sidepod so it focuses flow down towards the diffuser to energize flow on the tyre squirt area

This is already done using undercuts along the sidepod such as on the RB, the AM, etc. as you can see in the top half of this image:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fp2KiWaWAAUS9TN.jpg

Is the Merc photo from before it went out on track?

The photo was included in order to show the RB, not the Merc, so the Merc's condition wasn't relevant.

[AR3-GP]

This is already done using undercuts along the sidepod such as on the RB, the AM, etc. as you can see in the top half of this image:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fp2KiWaWAAUS9TN.jpg

Is the Merc photo from before it went out on track?

The photo was included in order to show the RB, not the Merc, so the Merc's condition wasn't relevant.

My comment was in regards to the Mercedes in isolation. The flow viz looks very chaotic. I wonder if we are not missing something. Maybe their flow viz is the kind that you need to look at under UV light.

[Hoffman900]

Is the Merc photo from before it went out on track?

The photo was included in order to show the RB, not the Merc, so the Merc's condition wasn't relevant.

My comment was in regards to the Mercedes in isolation. The flow viz looks very chaotic. I wonder if we are not missing something. Maybe their flow viz is the kind that you need to look at under UV light.

Your missing that post above yours where it was pointed out that is from a test where GR never got up to speed.

[AR3-GP]

The photo was included in order to show the RB, not the Merc, so the Merc's condition wasn't relevant.

My comment was in regards to the Mercedes in isolation. The flow viz looks very chaotic. I wonder if we are not missing something. Maybe their flow viz is the kind that you need to look at under UV light.

Your missing that post above yours where it was pointed out that is from a test where GR never got up to speed.

Yep that will do it

[scuderiabrandon]

I expect most teams to go down the same route as RB with the sidepod inlet. The biggest factor with the high aspect ratio underbite inlets is the tunability. Increasing the size of the undercut without really sacrificing any cooling performance.

I think we've already seen the waterslide be taken to the extreme. If team still run it, I expect it to be very close to what we see now.

RV-CH-MID?? Not sure what the reg box area is called is exactly, but it is the area that is responsible fore the s-duct, mercedes floor vein, halo winglet, small VG's on the SF-23 engine cover. This regbox is pretty much unregulated since it is meant for the chassis. Teams will taken huge advantage of this. In order to fit stuff in here you would need to run a narrower chassis.

Increased anti-dive as been mentioned but due to the cars only having around 30mm of front travel the actual mechanical aspect of running high degrees of anti-dive in formula 1 is miniscule and is not neccessarily a must have for good platform control. I mean McLaren run almost 0 degrees of ant-dive and pretty much dominate high speed sections since Austria updates.


I believe (nothing to back this up with) the reason RB runs 1. pull-rod front suspension, 2. high degree of anti-dive is all aerodynamically motivated. It has been rumored that AN had been more involved with the design of suspension in this reg cycle.

Perhaps we'll see more pull-push layouts.

[mzso]

What I speculate is that all cars will "accidentally" look very much like this year's RB19, except the Red Bull. Which will move away into on direction or other and be superior.

[LM10]

What I speculate is that all cars will "accidentally" look very much like this year's RB19, except the Red Bull. Which will move away into on direction or other and be superior.

I very much doubt that the RB20 will look significantly different to the RB19. Why should it? They’ve further refined their sidepods this season and after all that’s the major optical differentiator between cars. Also, there is no reason to change the concept which would be the only argument for big optical changes.

[Farnborough]

AN doesn't like to waste research and concept refinement, in statements he's made. Unless good reason, expect a development on this car to be the route.

Like pebbles on a beach, all rounded, and river delta etc, physics will largely pull these things in the same direction.

Also, the restriction on CFD and tunnel that RB & the leading teams are now variously encountering, if they can get intelligent, half verified small development into the car, then the best wind tunnel without correlation issues is to run it on the track with each item verified against their current peers. Public in view, but oh so valuable nevertheless, and just adds to development pace.

I think likely to see more additions over the next half year in readiness as proof of their value going onto next years car. Toto has even said as much in regard to his own team approach.

[Stu]

This is the last main undeveloped concept for this formula, imo. Teams likely explored it in the early days (I'd be surprised if they hadn't, otherwise they need to DM me about employment.) I've been considering posting about it the past few months. The downsides include: radiators must be moved up (CoG), surface area of the sidepod approximately doubles in the area (weight, drag), form optimization limits owing to sidepod geometry rules (you end up with a spoon when you need a knife). Positives are you can hang the floor off it with stays, and tune it per track (variable mass flow over edge wing).

Could either of you sketch what you mean please? I don't really understand. No worries if too busy or don't have tools to hand

Let me know if this makes sense. Basically, maximize the sidepod volume and hollow out the internals. Vary the gap to the floor to tune airflow per location. Tradeoff is less TOTAL airflow over the front of the floor and more DRAG in exchange for precise location of airflows at the side and rear of the floor, and tune-ability by switching out sidepods. I was thinking of calling it a wingpod because it resembles a tucked bird wing. Ultimately I might file it more as a gimmick in the sense of just trying to be clever with the rules, which doesn't always correlate well with physics.

https://i.postimg.cc/y6Qk2cPp/IMG-0646-copy.jpg

Dumbing it down significantly, but an upside down version of what Williams started with last year, but with the outlet shrouded to the rear of the sidepod??

[vorticism]

Dumbing it down significantly, but an upside down version of what Williams started with last year, but with the outlet shrouded to the rear of the sidepod??

You could think of it that way, except the outlet is not a hole in the bodywork, rather formed by the sidepod and floor. Double floor concept on steroids.

[organic]

This is the last main undeveloped concept for this formula, imo. Teams likely explored it in the early days (I'd be surprised if they hadn't, otherwise they need to DM me about employment.) I've been considering posting about it the past few months. The downsides include: radiators must be moved up (CoG), surface area of the sidepod approximately doubles in the area (weight, drag), form optimization limits owing to sidepod geometry rules (you end up with a spoon when you need a knife). Positives are you can hang the floor off it with stays, and tune it per track (variable mass flow over edge wing).

Could either of you sketch what you mean please? I don't really understand. No worries if too busy or don't have tools to hand

Let me know if this makes sense. Basically, maximize the sidepod volume and hollow out the internals. Vary the gap to the floor to tune airflow per location. Tradeoff is less TOTAL airflow over the front of the floor and more DRAG in exchange for precise location of airflows at the side and rear of the floor, and tune-ability by switching out sidepods. I was thinking of calling it a wingpod because it resembles a tucked bird wing. Ultimately I might file it more as a gimmick in the sense of just trying to be clever with the rules, which doesn't always correlate well with physics.

https://i.postimg.cc/y6Qk2cPp/IMG-0646-copy.jpg

Unless I'm misunderstanding, I'm not sure that would be possible within the regs in terms of sidepod apertures.. the Williams idea was conceived because of the legality volume that allows louvres, hence they could justify their sidepod hole as a cooling outlet I believe. This same legality volume is how sf23 created their s duct outlet.

But this legality volume is not tall and doesn't extend down to the floor or close to the floor. The legality box is shown here as the light grey volume alongside the cockpit



So the inability to make apertures / outlets for the sidepod close to the floor might prevent the idea suggested, unless I've misinterpreted the idea

[vorticism]

Could either of you sketch what you mean please? I don't really understand. No worries if too busy or don't have tools to hand

Let me know if this makes sense. Basically, maximize the sidepod volume and hollow out the internals. Vary the gap to the floor to tune airflow per location. Tradeoff is less TOTAL airflow over the front of the floor and more DRAG in exchange for precise location of airflows at the side and rear of the floor, and tune-ability by switching out sidepods. I was thinking of calling it a wingpod because it resembles a tucked bird wing. Ultimately I might file it more as a gimmick in the sense of just trying to be clever with the rules, which doesn't always correlate well with physics.

https://i.postimg.cc/y6Qk2cPp/IMG-0646-copy.jpg

Unless I'm misunderstanding, I'm not sure that would be possible within the regs in terms of sidepod apertures.. the Williams idea was conceived because of the legality volume that allows louvres, hence they could justify their sidepod hole as a cooling outlet I believe. This same legality volume is how sf23 created their s duct outlet.

But this legality volume is not tall and doesn't extend down to the floor or close to the floor. The legality box is shown here as the light grey volume alongside the cockpit

https://i.imgur.com/WL5bqKF.jpeg

So the inability to make apertures / outlets for the sidepod close to the floor might prevent the idea suggested, unless I've misinterpreted the idea

The Williams hole was within the sidepod volume, not the engine cover volume. Same thing that makes the Merc mid wing legal. Louver allowances are worded in such a way that they must exist post radiator, otherwise we'd be seeing louvers as open ducts; correct me if I'm wrong. What might be possible is my next concept: legality radiators. Coarse low drag radiators that would be used inside of a flow through duct to make it legal. Depends on if there is a maximum radiator tubing size rule.

As for the falcon wing, super double floor thing, it could be done, as it would not require apertures. Although as stated it would not be mass nor surface area efficient and might force high radiators. All marks against the concept!

[scuderiabrandon]

This is the last main undeveloped concept for this formula, imo. Teams likely explored it in the early days (I'd be surprised if they hadn't, otherwise they need to DM me about employment.) I've been considering posting about it the past few months. The downsides include: radiators must be moved up (CoG), surface area of the sidepod approximately doubles in the area (weight, drag), form optimization limits owing to sidepod geometry rules (you end up with a spoon when you need a knife). Positives are you can hang the floor off it with stays, and tune it per track (variable mass flow over edge wing).

Could either of you sketch what you mean please? I don't really understand. No worries if too busy or don't have tools to hand

Let me know if this makes sense. Basically, maximize the sidepod volume and hollow out the internals. Vary the gap to the floor to tune airflow per location. Tradeoff is less TOTAL airflow over the front of the floor and more DRAG in exchange for precise location of airflows at the side and rear of the floor, and tune-ability by switching out sidepods. I was thinking of calling it a wingpod because it resembles a tucked bird wing. Ultimately I might file it more as a gimmick in the sense of just trying to be clever with the rules, which doesn't always correlate well with physics.

https://i.postimg.cc/y6Qk2cPp/IMG-0646-copy.jpg

The undercut is a crucial area to generate good outwash to manage the wake. More outwash in this area could increase the strength of the floor fence vortex by pulling air out of the fences. I'd imagine you lose some forward floor pressurization by having the air funnel straight to the back, creating a lot of understeer. This would subsequently require a more cranked front wing to increase forward load, increasing overall drag.

By having a channel on the under side of the SP I believe you'll lose some floor performance and make it much harder to manage the front tyre wake, especially in yaw the car can become extremely unpredictable. The undercut is also crucial to feed floor edge treatments.