Ideas on 2011 Formula One innovations

[imightbewrong]

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 ?

Disregading the legality of the idea, wouldn't this pose a serious problem for the fuel tank packaging?

[marcush.]

In what? you need a bulge in the tub ,which is tightly governed by the regulations anyways.This bottleneck is present within the current sidepods already.
Maybe it could be even possible to move the radiators forward enough to avoid the convergence in that area?

[Richard]

See Diagram 1a and 17a from the regs

"Appendix to the 2010 FIA Formula One Technical Regulations - Published on 11.02.2010"
Filename "2010 APPENDIX 01-02-2010.pdf"
http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html

[marcush.]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88770

ouch ..Newey admits it´s already time for improvements on an iterative basis only.
No hint of innovations.
So maybe someone else out there with the balls to do something else with the front suspension?

what about hinging the front suspension as a forward facing swingarm mounted to the splitter for example.that could potentially move a lot of heavy parts (and structure) away from the high nose...
Oh yes ..someone will ask for a sketch of it...

[Richard]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88770

ouch ..Newey admits it´s already time for improvements on an iterative basis only.
No hint of innovations.

I didn't see him saying that. He simple states the obvious, a fast car last year doesn't guarantee a fast car next year - just ask Brawn/Merc

[Giblet]

This is coming from a man who put stickers on the car to fool everyone into the exhaust placement, and it worked for many days of testing until it was figured out.

Newey will play his cards close to his chest I think, and tell us very little if anything.

[marcush.]

He stated there was a reasonable step from 2009 to 2010 but :

"I guess the concern is that as regulations stay stable, and you go deeper and deeper into a set of regulations, then it becomes more of an iterative process. "

so thats ,at least to me hinting at him being reluctant to change too much for 2011..i also see this as an indication of keeping his cards close to the chest.

I´d think a revolutionary step could not be copied anywaysdue to the homologised tub so why hold back?

[godlameroso]

I wonder what kind of tricks engineers will come up with to claw back the lost downforce. Not only is the ddf banned but the diffuser as a whole will be shallower by a whopping 50mm or about 2 inches. With the ddf, teams were essentially running 330mm tall diffusers even though the regulations allowed a 175mm diffuser height. The new regulations separate the airflow from the diffuser, beam wing, and main wing. So unless some new way to create low pressure zones under the car is found, Newey's comment about development being iterative will ring true, at least we'll see more new wings.

On another not completely unrelated note, I saw on the new regulations that teams will be allowed to use gurney flaps, I wonder how far they can be developed or implemented for that matter.

[marcush.]

maybe a bit far fetched but what do you guys think about that:

any aero surface will feature a boundary layer buildup so why not use this to have flow modification with speed?

My idea is as follows:

the topside of the diffusser sports a say 30mm gurney to enhance downforce ,but in my idea longitudinal fins are positioned across the difusser top surface separated just enough to build up enough of a boundary layer on the sides to not allow any flow to reach the gurney beyond a certain speed.
would the drag produced by the much increased surface negate all what could be gained by bridging the gurney?

[godlameroso]

Are you saying to increase drag to decrease downforce? I believe you can use a gurney flap to control the separation of the air flow, and if properly tuned could theoretically reattach some of the flow lost by the double diffuser.

On another note it seems my prediction was correct and some teams will use the "hollow nose" concept I mentioned before.

I wonder if you can use KERS battery to create an ion field that can influence the way air moves through it?

[netoperek]

You're thinking of polarizing particles of air flowing around the car doing 300 kph? Sounds a bit star-trekish ;]
...but i guess if anyone mastered this technique, he/she would not need to worry about the tires, as he/she wouldn't be using them anymore

As for my idea - what about making use of seebeck/peltier effect on brake discs and any other high temp parts to feed KERS continuously with seebeck effect and control temperature to its optimal value with peltier effect? This can be done quite effective, the question is - would it be legal?

[godlameroso]

It's not that outlandish the technology already exists to create precisely controlled ion fields. If they can be generated in certain places I'm sure they can influence either the way air flows to or away from parts of the chassis.

I'm sure at least someone is at least toying with the idea, of putting a box inside a wind tunnel applying an ion field and see if the air flow can be influenced.

[747heavy]

As godlameroso says,
it is not as outlandish /sci-fi as it may sounds.
There are people working on such concepts for "flap less" control surfaces for aircrafts, UAV´s and even windturbine blades.

some examples:

http://www.nd.edu/~tcorke/w.ExpFluidsAr ... asma_2.pdf
http://www.slidefinder.net/h/honeywell/25672846

[Just_a_fan]

The first of those papers has an interesting bit at the end where flow around a cylinder is markedly cleaned up using this technology. I can see some benefit in cleaning the airflow coming off the front suspension, especially if a low nose becomes common place coupled with a tunnel style undertray in 2013.

[raymondu999]

Scarbs has got an interesting new article on his blog: http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/01/2 ... solutions/

The interesting one is that he proposes a "split fin" design, kind of truncated in the area where no bodywork is allowed. You should hit the link for a clearer picture of what I mean