New 2013 F1 aerodynamic formula

[Formula None]

Ringo, you're insufferable. Let's repeat. We are not talking about exposing the driver's head any more than it is. We are talking about lowering the nose tip to improve forward visibility and provide a lower mounting for front axle KERS.

This can be done without changing any aspect of the current cockpit opening specifications. The only thing I could see changing is the height of the driver's feet. See the rough photoshopped image I made.

Most life threatening accidents are rare, it doesn't mean you should ignore protecting against it.

Any lower and this man is a dead man:

*Schumacher/Liuzzi crash video*

The W01 has a slight downward taper to the nose. This may not have happened with the ferrari or Mclaren, but it was high enough none the less to protect the driver.
If a nose is too low chances are it wont crumple like it's designed to. It will just digg down or wedge something else up.

So how did CART, Indy, F2 and practically every other open wheel series get around using a low nose tip? I guess I shouldn't argue, you can run CFD sims in your head, supposedly, I guess you have FEA as well...

Anyway, the video does not show Liuzzi's wheel ramp up Schumacher's nose. Note the impact against the Merc's front wing and the way it rotates. It shows an impact on it's port side. The FI's front wheel went in between the nose and front wheel of the Mercedes. So in this instance, the high nose actually may have helped lift the FI over the sidepod of the Merc. But more likely, it had to do with the exposed moving tire climbing up the other car, since that seems to trigger or worsen most open-wheel accidents.

IMO bodywork in front of and behind the tires would help prevent this type of stuff. It could absorb the rotation of the tires during impact and prevent tires climbing over other tires and bodywork. An 'open wheel' design could remain for the most part.

Something like this:

[ringo]

Why don't you show the images of these nose tips, also show the regulations for the crash test for the tub and the nose.
I'm sure there is a vast difference to the photoshop of the redbull and how the noses are.
This weak proposal of giving the driver a better view of nothing but the space between the wheels, is really not worth influencing the current shape of the car. These drivers aren't babies; they're getting payed enough to try a little caution when driving.

KERS cannot fit in low nose design.
It requires, a high upper surface and a really low lower surface, therefore a bulky front.

this is a high nose with KERS. It would be better if i had the underside of the nose on the floor level instead. But it was just to demonstrate how the KERS could be packaged.


As you can see, low nose is not possible. There isn't sufficient room for a differential and motor in there. You can't bring the driver's legs on the same level as the KERS, so a high nose is required.
The 4wd KERS thing isn't happening anyway.

[WhiteBlue]

Let's wait and see. All I know from one of the best informed sources in the sport is that the nose height will probably be limited to 120 mm. If that happens the nose would be considerably lower than it is today on most cars.

[Formula None]

Here's my first impressions of the effect AWKERS will have on the front half of the chassis. The MGU will be mounted at or below wheel centerline, ideally, thus lowering the nose tip and angling the entire nose downward (improving forward vision as a byproduct, as we've been discussing). Steering and suspension components would be better placed in front of and behind the KERS motors and gearboxes and not stacked above or below it, as this would present a smaller frontal cross section. (I'm not sure if a front diff and single MGU would be used, or one MGU and gearbox for each wheel, like what Porsche are experimenting with currently)

I think all of this could be expected to fit in between the bulkhead in front of the drivers feet, and the front end of the monocoque. A lengthening of the chassis at the front would be needed (that is, a greater distance between driver and front wheels). This may be partially compensated for by the coming reduction in fuel tank size.

Here's a simple model I made using the current regs' wheel, cockpit entry and minimum cockpit section dimensions. I didn't have time to model the suspension arms, bellcranks, etc., but I think the volumes presented below get the idea across.

Key:
Red: Torsion bars / bellcrank axis
Yellow: Dampers
Green: KERS MGUs + bevel drive gearbox (x2)
Purple: Steering rack



Overlay on Sauber (getting an idea of how much farther back the driver would sit):



Overlay on USF1 drawing (again, the driver is positioned more rearward):















The front KERS MGU(s) will not have to be very large IMO, considering how tiny they were in '09 (I think I've been pessimistic in the proportions shown above). I think we can expect the teams to come up with the most compact solution resulting in nose cross-sectional dimensions that are similar to what we have today.

[ringo]

brake reservoirs, master cylinders, power steering, differential cooler, electronics, KERS cooling, front suspension ?
All crammed into that little space?

In the event of an accident a differential or motor will be sent flying.
It's a very bad place to put the equipment there, especially with such little crash protection.

If you notice how huge the rear crash structure is behind an F1 gearbox, you may have to have a similarly sized structure at the front to deal with the heavy equipment you have up there in the nose.

I think my solution is better for C.O.G. as well as for the handling of the car. You want to keep the masses as close to the cog as possible.
Here is a top view, i didn't post it earlier:


Yours is feasible, but it's a big price to pay just to give a driver a view that still wont allow him to see the wing tips. The car is longer, the C.O.G. is higher, and the nose is unsafe.
I have taken a look at the noses of the other race series, and they still aren't true low nose cars. The "bonnet" is fairly horizontal, they don't have a downward slope from the cockpit's front edge. The downward slope only happens some distance away from the cockpit front edge.

Looking at the superimposed picture of the USF1 car. Your car is more than a foot longer too.

I'll go with Newey on the nose design.

[Formula None]

brake reservoirs, master cylinders, power steering, differential cooler, electronics, KERS cooling, front suspension ?
All crammed into that little space?

Yes, as was shown, albeit very simplified. Reservoirs could of course hang from the front of the monocoque (inside the nose cone, which I didn't model) as is the norm currently. KERS MGU would continue on with liquid cooling.

In the event of an accident a differential or motor will be sent flying.

Ringo-FEA, folks. Pulled off, and then through, a carbon monocoque? You don't even see engines, with only one face attached, pulled from the monocoque in most (if not all) F1 crashes.

It's a very bad place to put the equipment there, especially with such little crash protection. If you notice how huge the rear crash structure is behind an F1 gearbox, you may have to have a similarly sized structure at the front to deal with the heavy equipment you have up there in the nose.

Wow. Really? The rear crash structure's volume is considerably smaller than the front. Look at any side view of a car from the past 15 or so years. Regardless, they are both designed to absorb the full mass of the car upon impact and local weight distribution should not be much of a concern.

the C.O.G. is higher

F1 has before made concessions to COG in the interest of aerodynamics. High noses, angled engines and gearboxes, suspension members above rear wheel centerline, pushrods for diffusers, pullrods for beam wings.

I think my solution is better

That seems to be a re-occurring theme of yours in nearly every thread... Not without merit, though, it is hard to compete with RingoSim and MS Paint.

Note that using CV joints at the angles you've shown in your sketch is not ideal. Another option to get that angle you want may be a bevel gear transition at the wheel upright but this would add some un-sprung weight.

[Just_a_fan]

Um, what about using motor/generator units in the wheel - there are some road car projects that use this but I'm not sure how effective the braking would be.

Might be better to place the motor/generator in the hub and use in board brakes to provide the remaining retardation. At least they're an easy package although they will require a wider nose section.

[WhiteBlue]

Um, what about using motor/generator units in the wheel

Unsprung mass!

[ringo]

That seems to be a re-occurring theme of yours in nearly every thread... Not without merit, though, it is hard to compete with RingoSim and MS Paint.

That's an exaggeration. The other "RingoSims" were just illustrations to clarify an existing idea.

3D doesn't make one idea better than the other. MS paint is faster and less restrictive for rough ideas. I shouldn't have said mine was better. My idea's considerations dealt with safety and cog as a main priority. I wanted the system to be a low as possible and away from any impact areas.
The KERS cables are also shorter and lighter, so is the cooling circuit.
The suspension can be easily serviced as well as the KERS, no different than the gearbox and rear suspension.
The differential can be directly air cooled. The driver can have cooling air pass through the nose and entering the cockpit. This is not possible with the KERS in the nose.

You're placing 30kg or more at the wheel center line unnecessarily.
I am still doubtful everything will fit in that little area. The motors need to be mounted in a frame to take the motor torque. Other parts need mounting structures and conduits for electronics. The motor's heat may affect the dampers, the brake fluid and the power steering.

The shaft angles are an issue with mine of course. Just have to put the diff as low as the shaft angles allow.

This is the nose i would use. High nose with a deep base. The splitter would then be extended all the way to the wheel center line.

[Just_a_fan]

Um, what about using motor/generator units in the wheel

Unsprung mass!

I'm aware of unsprung mass but the brakes have mass too and I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man to develop a generator that weighs no more than the current caliper and disc combined.

After all, isn't F1 supposed to be about engineer excellence.

[rjsa]

Um, what about using motor/generator units in the wheel

Unsprung mass!

I'm aware of unsprung mass but the brakes have mass too and I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man to develop a generator that weighs no more than the current caliper and disc combined.

After all, isn't F1 supposed to be about engineer excellence.

Motors and generators comprise extensive copper wiring and metallic cores, not very prone to weight reduction.

[Pingguest]

Sometimes it's a vague area whether something is a driver aid or not. However, in my opinion its essential that a driver feels the car pitch and roll, to correct if necessary and to set-up the car to the right ride height. With active suspension all that driver skill will be taken away. In that sense active suspension is comparable with traction control.
The same goes for active aero. That system could assist drivers to brake and steer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7l70Q6P-vU
In case of a system failure I wonder a driver could actually keep the car straight

I think this debate has gone completely off topic now. It is about the chassis rules. I would be perfectly happy to make my point in the appropriate thread that you are wrong on both points.

I think this topic is the right one. I'm curious to your arguments and open to reconsider my opinion.

[WhiteBlue]

1. Active suspension

I do not agree that it is the driver's task to control the roll and pitch of the car. The driver will just take the maximum performance out of the car whatever attitude the car offers. The point can be made that it is the art of the development and race engineer to design and set up a car in such a way that it reaches a range of attitudes that helps with performance. For instance Red Bull argue that they run more rake than McLaren and that their front wing can get better ground effect due to that design feature. Personally I would allow them to get optimum ride height and attitude by active suspension. It is an issue of preference. Active ride will be more efficient and conventional suspension will give more opportunities for engineers to do a better job.

2. Active aero

Similar issue. One could leave the aero adjustment to the computer as it has never been traditionally a task of the driver. I would support this at least for the rear wing in order to minimize drag. Perhaps the front wing could be set by the driver to adjust the car to his personal style of under and over steer. Generally active aero must be fail safe and redundant like air craft controls.

[Sayshina]

WB, Red Bull may "argue" that their ultra low wing is simply down to increased rake, but they're entirely full of crap. They're cheating, and the fact that they continue to pass the FIA's tests only proves something we already knew, that the FIA can't find it's own backside with both hands.

Regarding active suspension, it doesn't control pitch or roll any more than a mechanical suspension does. In fact, it doesn't do ANYTHING you couldn't do by mechanical means if you really wanted to. The only thing it does is provide the suspension equivelant of variable ignition timing.

Which is really the argument here. Lots of people like to claim that this or that should remain "under the drivers control". The problem is, it goes directly against the history of the automobile, and is usually only put forth by people who don't really know that history. Would you like to see a return to the friction shock, mechanical brakes (purely mechanical that is), and the ride along mechanic?

Oh, and the lower noses are coming because the FIA just had a study done that found the single biggest factor in sending a car airborn during an accident was the height of the nose. Specifically, whether or not the nose impacted the tire above or below the tires axle line. You can claim that so and so would have been dead had he been driving a low nose car, I seem to remember lots of morons claiming they'd surely have been killed if they'd been wearing a helmet too. Fact is, flying cars are hands down the greatest risk F1 faces.

Not only could F1 survive another driver death, but those of us who are not idiots recognize it is GUARANTEED that we will have another driver death at some point in the future. A car flying into the crowd on the other hand, no, that could very easily be the end of F1.

[Pingguest]

1. Active suspension

I do not agree that it is the driver's task to control the roll and pitch of the car. The driver will just take the maximum performance out of the car whatever attitude the car offers. The point can be made that it is the art of the development and race engineer to design and set up a car in such a way that it reaches a range of attitudes that helps with performance.

With active suspension drivers don't have to worry about pitch sensitivity, keeping the car settled going into corners and the interaction between brakes and downforce. Recently I watched Michael Schumacher driving to pole position for the 2003 Austrian Grand Prix, despite making a mistake and losing the car at Remus. I doubt Schumacher could had made that mistake with an active suspension.

2. Active aero

Similar issue. One could leave the aero adjustment to the computer as it has never been traditionally a task of the driver. I would support this at least for the rear wing in order to minimize drag. Perhaps the front wing could be set by the driver to adjust the car to his personal style of under and over steer. Generally active aero must be fail safe and redundant like air craft controls.

I don't think active aero would actually compromise safety. However, the point I wanted to make is that with active aerodynamics a computer will take over much from the driver. With a failed active aero and without a fail safe it's very difficult, if not impossible to keep the car straight, because the computer is steering the car. In other words: with active aerodynamics a large part of the steering and controlling the car won't be done by the driver.