Ideas on 2011 Formula One innovations

[imightbewrong]

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 2-2010.pdf
Page 42 gives us the reference measurements

So this is just to give an idea about the approximate dimensions involved.




I think it feasible to make a 50x200mm roll structure and just add aerodynamic shaping outside this block with light-weight material.

[oj1983]

I know not exactly aero related, but I had a guy in for lunch at my work who works at the Renault factory and I overheard him talking about some 'seriously trick exhaust bits' they were working on. Aparently some of the engineers had been discussing it at a karting event =D> and another teams' senoir guys heard what they were saying and called up the Renault F1 top brass to comment on how interesting it was! The guy I heard said the entire factory had been called together and given a good bollocking by Lopez and told it was a diciplinary matter if they ever found out who it was!

Any engine guys got any crazy ideas as to what they might be up to, or will it be on every car by March with this idea being leaked this far before the season, and no longer be 'trick' at all?

Or could this be the 'dead zone' all again?!

[marcush.]

I think there is a possibility to dramatically reduce crossection in the sidepod design.
Why not mount the radiator longitudinally in the wake of the front tyre and position the duct opening vertically ?
this would open a BIG window in crossection as all you would have between tub and wheels would be the crash structure and the two fluid pipes feeding the rads(these could possibly doubleup as the crash structure?).Due to the lack of direct airflow maybe the radiator core would need to be a bit larger but i dont think todays the air hits the core in a very good angle either...in terms of CoG height this would be at least as good the drawback in terms of having the weight of the water far out remains a the one disadvantage ..question is how much water is in the rads ..two litres maybe ..so not really much.
The radiator outled would then be towards the outside in front of the rear wheels.creating a good seal to prevent air entering the underfloor from the sides as well..(Hot air exit)

[Formula None]

Regarding the "trick exhaust bits" mentioned above, keep in mind:

Engine exhaust systems may incorporate no more than two exits.
5.7.2 Variable geometry exhaust systems are not permitted.

I've been wondering if there would be any benefit to high exhaust outlets exiting behind the air intake to fill its wake.

[Blackout]

I think there is a possibility to dramatically reduce crossection in the sidepod design.
Why not mount the radiator longitudinally in the wake of the front tyre and position the duct opening vertically ?
this would open a BIG window in crossection as all you would have between tub and wheels would be the crash structure and the two fluid pipes feeding the rads(these could possibly doubleup as the crash structure?).Due to the lack of direct airflow maybe the radiator core would need to be a bit larger but i dont think todays the air hits the core in a very good angle either...in terms of CoG height this would be at least as good the drawback in terms of having the weight of the water far out remains a the one disadvantage ..question is how much water is in the rads ..two litres maybe ..so not really much.
The radiator outled would then be towards the outside in front of the rear wheels.creating a good seal to prevent air entering the underfloor from the sides as well..(Hot air exit)

Could you make a drawing ?

[marcush.]

yes I could...but isn´t it so much nicer to try and visualize ?

the rad is upright and sits longitudianllly behind the front wheel ,the duct grabs the air coming from between the tyre and tub .The Crash structure tube doubles up as radiator stay and fluid tubing.
So you get a massive window between the crash structure (wich can be shaped like an airfoil btw ..)und the flat floor .The radiator exit is to the outside in front of the rear wheel..It looks a bit like a pontoon /catamaran/trimaran if you like.

[machin]

Sort of like this I guess?



As I've drawn it (in Excel -please excuse the quality!) it wouldn't comply with the current rules:- bodywork width between the wheels... you might be able to close the pods in a bit though.....

[marcush.]

yep that ´s the deal.

the rads are of course not that thick in core depth....and you could just squeeze them in the wake of the front tyre without getting too wide,I´d think.

[dren]

yep that ´s the deal.

the rads are of course not that thick in core depth....and you could just squeeze them in the wake of the front tyre without getting too wide,I´d think.

The CoG wouldn't be so great with the weight of the radiators/fluids pushed outward.

[dren]

I expect the gains to be in the exhaust blown diffuser areas and better aero efficiency with the front nose and rear section around the beam wing. I also expect more work on the beam wings. There will be a lot of development with KERS packaging and solutions.

[machin]

The cofg will still be in the centre... But I know what u mean, it'll have a small effect on polar moment of inertia... But as Marcush says; they don't weigh that much...

[marcush.]

the polar moment of inertia will not be affected so much as the parts are really close to the CoG longitudinally...the C0g height change will be non existant if not less ...no big deal there.
There would be significant gains for the beam wing and there would be some added downforce if you use the side impact structure as a wing profile.
Is it legal though? the bridge section built by the crash structure will effectively create a opening in the sidepod area wich is not an exhaust opening...
Damn it´s illegal..

[Richard]

marcrush - sorry if I'm being dim, but locating a mass further away from the centre must inevitably increase the polar inertia in one or more axes (pitch, roll or yaw).

Yes, the outboard pods would have little change on pitch if they they are in same location as normal when viewed from the side. However they will have an impact on yaw (view from above) and roll (view from front).

[dren]

The cofg will still be in the centre... But I know what u mean, it'll have a small effect on polar moment of inertia... But as Marcush says; they don't weigh that much...

Yeah, that's what I meant, my bad guys.

[marcush.]

richard..i don´t want to be too nitpicky.but do you really think playing around with 20 kg of mass(estimated)in plane circle of not even 300mm big will have a significant role for the polar moment of inertia? the car is 620 kg and more than 750 when filled up...this is not changing the world is my feeling.

My concern is :does it meet the current bodywork rules? Maybe it would be legal if the crash structure was integrated on floor level or separated from the sidepod
-fluid lines on floor level ?