Ideas on 2011 Formula One innovations

[marcush.]

the "taco bell" idea is maybe limited by rules demanding a minimum chassis cross section. see FIA regs for correct dimensions.

other then that - a "tasty" idea

but the FIA does not prohibit air flow through this crossection ,do they?

I would still love the idea to have a mass damper =frontbulkhead along the lines of it being a structure consisting of a frame with a mass in the middle made movable by designing a clever spiderweb /or hammerlike approach to having the mass in the middle...Got the idea?

[xpensive]

i think the infamous arrows -porsche was the first one...

Aha, so it wasn't the engine's fault after all, nothing would have worked with that hairy-arse nose!

[Tim.Wright]

Theres no way you will see a push rod implementation like that on the front

The whole reason the nose is so high (to the detriment of the suspension geometry) is that it needs to be kept clear for air flow.

If you fill it full of pull rod and damper you will completely destroy your areo in such a critical part of the car.

Apart from a slight change in CG, there is no difference between a pull rod and push rod in terms of its primary function (suspension). Packaging is the main consideration when deciding on push vs pull rods. And on the front of an F1 car it clear: springs up high, away from the air flow.

Tim

[marcush.]

Newey was going all the way in the back to introduce it for no advantage?before RB5 it was fact that pushrod was the way to go and he showed the world a solution...and it works surprisingly good even when deemed unsuitable for ddd difussers by everyone...

[wesley123]

Newey was going all the way in the back to introduce it for no advantage?before RB5 it was fact that pushrod was the way to go and he showed the world a solution...and it works surprisingly good even when deemed unsuitable for ddd difussers by everyone...

Yes and that is at the back where you can actually put it all the way down to the reference plane.

[gridwalker]

i think the infamous arrows -porsche was the first one...

The Arrows-Footwork FA12 didn't appear on circuit until the 3rd round of 1991, but didn't even qualify for the race until the 4th round of the season.

This means that it was beaten into competition by the Brabham BT60Y, which (although unloved and unsuccessful) can rightfully claim to have the first mono-support front wing in modern F1.



Either way, no car with a mono-support FW has ever been particularly successful : I doubt that we would see a return to that layout, even if the regulations allowed it.

[marcush.]

which is what my idea for the front would do as well...

I´m aware that it would increase potentially some blockage in the crucial area under the drivers legs where you would like to open out everything to create divergence not as to introduce lift ..but having it as well lift the t-tray under maximum loads it would really help the car to be run ultra low under maximum load...extreme thinking i know but only going a step forward from what they already do.


ah the Brabham ..I forgot that one..right

[hollus]

Another (more esoteric) option would be to mind about the use of mercury for such an application - just kidding

A solid tin block (a little lighter than lead, so diminishing returns here...) could be installed as usual. But you install it in an oven and pump that molten tin around. Or just use it as the primary heat extraction from the engine and run the engine a little hot 'course the drivers wouldn't be to happy about a lap full of molten tin in the event of a crash.

Or ferrofluid maybe, I imagine it has some weight to it, move it about with electromagnets.

Actually the idea of molten metals for ballast merits some attention. "Active" elements are forbidden, but a metal can start the race solid, melt in between and solidify again before inspection. Provide a pair of strategically placed screws and there you go, a solid piece that requires tools to get in and out. During the race it would be "flexible", no, reword that; it would be slightly less rigid than other parts, since the regulations themselved aknowledge that nothing is perfectly rigid. I am sure a proper melting point can be found for any given application, and the engine heat can be used for the melting.

I need help here, but a passive liquid would be a suitable movable ballast, wouldn't it? It moves forward under braking, backwards under acceleration and outwards in the corners, that is, towards the wheels that need more grip. Or would it be detrimental in the corners?

Another way of using it would be to modify the fixed weight distribution, which will measured before quali only (I think). Prepare a chamber such that half of it will get hot (engine heat) and half will stay cold (air cooling), and add your solid alloy plates of an alloy tuned to melt at the right temperature. The metal would melt, move around, and slowly resolidify in the cold area, where it becomes again solidly attached. I could imagine (over many laps) moving 20-30Kg in this way...

Now, for alloys melting at the right temperature, I found this in the wikipedia: "Wood's metal, named for American metallurgist B. Wood, is also known as Lipowitz's alloy or by the commercial names cerrobend, bendalloy, pewtalloy or MCP 158. This is a eutectic alloy, and a fusible alloy with a melting point of approximately 70 °C (158 °F). It is a eutectic alloy of 50% bismuth, 26.7% lead, 13.3% tin, and 10% cadmium by weight."
I am sure less toxic variants can be found.

[747heavy]

if you like to follow through with this idea, it´s maybe simpler (and less toxic) to consider ballast weigth, which is inbeded into a resin or thermoplast.

Something along the lines of Tungsten pellets/balls inside a carbon tube, which is filled with an meltable plastic or other substance.

It´s o.k. for the forward-backward idea (like the Mercedes DTM system), but in lateral direction, it would move in the "wrong" direction, as you probably would want to load your inside tire more, keeping both tires more evenly loaded.

[marcush.]

maybe the fluid could show special ,maybe non newton´s behaviour...to act not as violent ...
but of course it would contradict the rule homgenious material...as this is at best to be called a suspension (particles in a fluid)

[Jersey Tom]

Apart from a slight change in CG, there is no difference between a pull rod and push rod in terms of its primary function

This.

[scuderiafan]

The other day I was thinking of how to get more downforce on the rear wing, and I though about how MGP's solution is banned (is it really?). What if the airbox inlet was changed to form a shape like a wing that would direct more air to the rear wing, increasing downforce slightly.

[Formula None]

Or just have a through hole hoop instead of a single blade to make it legal for next year. Or, maybe two parallel blades side by side would give them enough width to be legal.

[marcush.]

quite amusing to say a pull rod has a slight advantage of CG height as one of the few advantages...
It also has the advantage of offering an aero gain with the rod being less in crosssection ... both at no apparent drawback ....
and for these two reasons alone every F1 designer worth his money would kill without looking back... or do i miss something ?
I´d say the top mount shocks are something of a convenience in design ...a pull rod gearbox is a bit more involved in packaging as well as not very service friendly .
For the front suspension it is obvious that ballast is an issue with KERS as you do not have as much available with the electric drive and electronics plus batteries ...so a slight advantage in Cof G positioning with parts of high density (Springs,dampers ,rockers)this is an area to consider .I agree in times with 40 kilo of ballast placed in the splitter area you would not draw much out of a lowering of those 8 kilos of mass in comparison.but things are changing especially at the front ,aero is still important and the main consideration.

[autogyro]

Very difficult call on how the cars will turn out for 2011.
Adrians pull rod rear end IMO was designed primarily for aero reasons.
It also included some clever ride height ideas and still managed to retain a reasonably soft set up that was obviously better to adjust than the others.

However. pull rod is not the only potential suspension geometry for a good mechanical set up by a long way.
Unfortunately the direction to be taken by the teams will be fairly easy for many of the talented posters on here to guess at, the regulations will outline it pretty well and aero will be the deciding factor.
What we need is a much higher level of innovation and less of it purely aero motivated.