New sidepod concept

[manchild]

Me again with another one sidepod/radiator concept…

I hope that drawings are understandable; anyway I’ll add some description.

I’m suggesting radiator with cylindrical shape – sort of 2/3 Venturi tube shape. This should enable reduction of space taken by radiator and therefore also dramatically reduced size of sidepod.

[manchild]

There is also this less radical possibility - similar shape of radiators without Venturi tube effect.

[maximus]

The radiators don't work as efficiently when the air doesn't pass through them, only sides along the radiator.
Another problem with this is the side impact structure.
The weight is much bigger when you need bigger radiators to get to the same levels as woth radiators that have air passing tgrough them.
What exactly do you see as the benefits of this system?

[Guest]

the fact that you got your cool air intake bigger than your exhaust air hole is not good. there is no jet to expell the air at greater speed. there will be a speed at which the radiators will lose a lot of efficiency

the hot air exit needs to be bigger, since hot air has less density

[manchild]

The radiators don't work as efficiently when the air doesn't pass through them, only sides along the radiator.
Another problem with this is the side impact structure.
The weight is much bigger when you need bigger radiators to get to the same levels as woth radiators that have air passing tgrough them.
What exactly do you see as the benefits of this system?

Air does pass trough them, imagine this concept operating as conical air filter - first version with hole i the middle (Venturi tube) and the second version just as conical air filter.

I didn't have in mind bigger radiators but only normal size radaitor roled in order to reduce space. Drawings are not a scale, don't take size of sidepods and radiators as something defined. Same goes for shape. All I wanted to present was principle of concept.

[manchild]

the fact that you got your cool air intake bigger than your exhaust air hole is not good. there is no jet to expell the air at greater speed. there will be a speed at which the radiators will lose a lot of efficiency

the hot air exit needs to be bigger, since hot air has less density

Ok, don't take scale and sizes from the drawing as something calcualted, as before those are just hints - sketches of idea. I agree that inlet and outlet need to be in specific ratio, no problem with that.

The reason I originaly made hot air outlet smaller was due to thinking that radiator grills as the primal otlet have much smaller size than cold air inlet. What I'm trying to say is that I thought that hot air outlet should have combined size of grill openings and cold air inlet on Venturi tube version and just grill openings on non-Venturi version.

Please let me know what do you think of whole propulsion with calcualted inlets and outlets, sizes etc...

[Guest]

Ok ok cool idea

Just was wondering, if you wanted more downforce would modifying the rear wing (twin plane kind of thing) would not be more efficient than that flip up thing - think of the turbulence on the underside with such a camber... (I know that your figures are not to scale)

Cant we also round the side pods behind the radiators?

Also why are you so crazy about undercutting the side pods? The only reason I can think of is to get flow over both surfaces of the under tray, in which case - why not shape it like a wing?

Something off the topic, but I feel that its not a bad place to say it:
I cant figure out why the old reasoning as to why a wing works has been used so extensively! You know - how the air flowing over the top has a longer path and therefore faster, therefore a low pressure on the top surface.

There is no physical reason why the two air streams should reach the trailing edge at the same time! You need to use Eulers-n equation to explain it properly. Sorry just had to get it off my chest

[manchild]

Ok ok cool idea

Just was wondering, if you wanted more downforce would modifying the rear wing (twin plane kind of thing) would not be more efficient than that flip up thing - think of the turbulence on the underside with such a camber... (I know that your figures are not to scale)

Thanks,

There is question of turbulence which I'm not sure about. I was thinking that such shape and position similar to jet engines could be a step up.

Cant we also round the side pods behind the radiators?

Perhaps my drawings aren't that understandable... the sidepods ARE already already cylindrical all the way, even the outlet which is sliced - shaped like AK-47 compensator or like exhaust outlet on some F1 cars. This is only for downforce generating.

Also why are you so crazy about undercutting the side pods? The only reason I can think of is to get flow over both surfaces of the under tray, in which case - why not shape it like a wing?

I’m not “crazy” about undercutting; I’m just trying to figure out all possibilities. Fully undercut sidpods are sort of plan B, moderate backup to my trimaran-Venturi concept.
They are being already cut bit by bit as the years go by and I thought “lets finish with that shy cutting and make one big final cut”.

Something off the topic, but I feel that its not a bad place to say it:
I cant figure out why the old reasoning as to why a wing works has been used so extensively! You know - how the air flowing over the top has a longer path and therefore faster, therefore a low pressure on the top surface.
There is no physical reason why the two air streams should reach the trailing edge at the same time! You need to use Eulers-n equation to explain it properly. Sorry just had to get it off my chest

I don’t get it either but I think that the reason is exactly in conservative approach of radiator construction, and when you have that than sidepods look as they do…

[riff_raff]

the fact that you got your cool air intake bigger than your exhaust air hole is not good. there is no jet to expell the air at greater speed. there will be a speed at which the radiators will lose a lot of efficiency

the hot air exit needs to be bigger, since hot air has less density

As the air flows across the heat exchanger, it absorbs heat and will exit the heat exchanger at higher velocity than it entered. Also, the duct inlet should be located in a region of high dynamic pressure and the outlet should located in a region of low dynamic pressure. Having a larger intake cross section than the outlet cross section is not a problem, as long as the airflow leaves the ducting at a higher velocity (ie. with more energy) than it entered. Ever see a jet turbine engine? The exit nozzle is much smaller than the compressor inlet.

[Guest]

unless you are expelling the air out with the ignition of fuel under compression, there should be no correlation of this radiator system to a jet engine. Furthermore, the contact of the exhaust air with the cool air is much too late for it to have any effect on the density of the exhaust air through the exit area.

Sorry to be so critical, what im just trying to say is make that exit of a larger capacity. If worked out right, the intake could function better as it would get more air, improve the thermodynamics and you would have more air to work with behind the radiator (use it to make more downforce)