Ferrari 150° Italia

[myurr]

And the curved crash structure does create downforce. This is something that is glaringly fundamental. The first turbines were impulse turbines and the blades use a similar shape. I am not arguing, I am stating a fact that curving the crash structure makes down-force, regardless of the beam wing. So with the beam wing it is a double whammy as I said orgininally. nothing there to argue?

Taken in isolation you'd be 100% correct, but with the beam wing just above it having far greater influence over the aerodynamics in that region I doubt the crash structures shape has any material effect beyond enabling the other aero parts to do their jobs.

The reason the teams are moving the crash structure down and the beam wing up is to free up the space underneath the beam wing to make that part more effective by increasing the span.

[bar555]

F150o floor revisions

http://formula1techandart.wordpress.com ... on-starts/

[shelly]

And the curved crash structure does create downforce. This is something that is glaringly fundamental. The first turbines were impulse turbines and the blades use a similar shape. I am not arguing, I am stating a fact that curving the crash structure makes down-force, regardless of the beam wing. So with the beam wing it is a double whammy as I said orgininally. nothing there to argue?

I have to say that top crash and low beam wing create a low pressure channel whose lift and downforce contribution compensate; still it is useful to have such a channel so that the suction side of the beam wing sets itself on a lower pressure level (more downforce from the complete beam wing).

So if you isolate the contribution of the crash structure only, you will find that it is producing some small lifting force.

[ringo]

And the curved crash structure does create downforce. This is something that is glaringly fundamental. The first turbines were impulse turbines and the blades use a similar shape. I am not arguing, I am stating a fact that curving the crash structure makes down-force, regardless of the beam wing. So with the beam wing it is a double whammy as I said orgininally. nothing there to argue?

Taken in isolation you'd be 100% correct, but with the beam wing just above it having far greater influence over the aerodynamics in that region I doubt the crash structures shape has any material effect beyond enabling the other aero parts to do their jobs.

The reason the teams are moving the crash structure down and the beam wing up is to free up the space underneath the beam wing to make that part more effective by increasing the span.

The crash structure is actually doing a lot for the beam wing. Steeply cambered wings have the weakest flow in the center. The flow is easier to detach there.
A slot is usually used to add energy. The beam wing shape however can force the air to stay attached.
Similar steps have been taken with teams using winglets under the wing in the middle 150cm. I think renault is one such team. I can't find any shots now, but they always have a little winglet on the middle wing support.

[ringo]

splitter is very wide on this car.

[PlatinumZealot]

Notice how the gurney is missing in the middle of the diffuser?

Nevermind though, just go be stubborn and sit in your corner.

Mclaren has a gurney in the middle of the diffuser so what?




You notice I have not even stated my position to you? You know why don't you?
There are soo many combinations.





You are so quick to jump the gun.

Answer these questions..

is there an impulse on the the curved crash structure? Yes or No?

Which way is the force from the impulse acting up or down?

Does the beam wing above have the same impulse? Yes or No?

Is there a pressure gradient in the space between the beam wing and the curved crash structure? Yes or No?

Now compare with a curved crash structure and no beam wing, then with a low beam wing and curved crash structure, a raised beam wing a straight crash structure...

Not everything is black or white and just because you only hear a part of a true story it must be a lie.

[bhall]

Wouldn't the impact structure need endplates similar to those in the picture below to produce any appreciable effect on the airflow? Otherwise it seems like the airflow would just spill out over the sides.



There's a mandated height for the rear face of the impact structure. I think teams are curving them to keep the area as open as possible while still meeting the height requirement. This wasn't an issue last season when double diffusers were occupying that space.

[Dmitry]

Does anyone know about "movable nose"? Nikolai Fomenko from Marussia Virgin, said that the team is shocked by this decision. But he didn't describe technical aspects.

[halllo_fireball]

I guess its about the RB nose, or the FW more precisely which tilts forwards, so it gets closer to the ground, without violating the FW bending rules. Just have a look in the RB thread...

[segedunum]

I think it still produces a significant amount. Similar to a very large guide vane, directing air upwards therefore making downforce. More drag yes but it creates a good impulse.

Well spotted. It's not specifically shaped like that for nothing and it's clearly done for aerodynamic reasons. Interesting to see the beam wing shape above it match up quite neatly as well. Look at the Red Bull picture above as well. They have the beam wing connected and look at the curvature in the crash structure either side. There is no such thing as 'doesn't produce much downforce' in Formula 1, and that kind of thinking separates the winners from losers.

Compare and contrast the Ferrari and Red Bull details to that Williams picture posted previously, and even the McLaren. They're clearly not shaped in the same way with really not the same idea that it could contribute to anything.

[i70q7m7ghw]

Shame it's a picture of an old red bull eh

[Formula None]

I think it still produces a significant amount. Similar to a very large guide vane, directing air upwards therefore making downforce. More drag yes but it creates a good impulse.

Well spotted. It's not specifically shaped like that for nothing and it's clearly done for aerodynamic reasons. Interesting to see the beam wing shape above it match up quite neatly as well. Look at the Red Bull picture above as well. They have the beam wing connected and look at the curvature in the crash structure either side. There is no such thing as 'doesn't produce much downforce' in Formula 1, and that kind of thinking separates the winners from losers.

Compare and contrast the Ferrari and Red Bull details to that Williams picture posted previously, and even the McLaren. They're clearly not shaped in the same way with really not the same idea that it could contribute to anything.

Smik, seg: The point is that it is a design of consequence. They don't have many options for the shape of the crash structure, take a look at the regs, section 15.5.3:

Code: Select all

15.5.3 An impact absorbing structure must be fitted behind the gearbox symmetrically about the car centre line
with the centre of area of its rearmost face 300mm (+/-5mm) above the reference plane and no less than
575mm behind the rear wheel centre line.
The rearmost face of the impact structure must be a rectangular section no less than 100mm wide, this
minimum width must be maintained over a height of at least 130mm and each corner may incorporate a
radius no greater than 10mm.
Furthermore, when viewed from the side, the lowest and highest points of the impact absorbing structure
between its rear face and 50mm aft of the rear wheel centre line may not be separated vertically by more
than 275 mm.
Between the rear face and the rear wheel centre line no dimension of the area thus defined may diminish
nor may any part of the structure or gearbox which is visible from below, other than the permitted radii, be
higher than the lower edge of the rear face. Pockets of minimum size within the structure are permitted for
the sole purpose of attaching suspension members.
This structure must pass an impact test and must be constructed from materials which will not be
substantially affected by the temperatures it is likely to be subjected to during use. Details of the test
procedure may be found in Article 16.5.
Only those parts of the structure which genuinely contribute to its performance during the impact test, and
which are designed and fitted for that sole purpose, will be considered when assessing compliance with
any of the above.

Nothing has been "spotted." This is simply what the crash structure looks like when you decouple it from the beam wing (a banana/arc shape with a square cross section that links the gearbox rear end with the safety light area). And again, Ferrari & Williams have done this to make the beam wing more effective, not with the intention of turning the crash structure into an inefficient 3rd wing.

[segedunum]

Shame it's a picture of an old red bull eh

Makes no difference to the discussion at hand I'm afraid, and if anything, it makes it worse for everyone else.

Smik, seg: The point is that it is a design of consequence.

I don't understand on what basis you're making this statement. Ferrari and especially Red Bull clearly do not think that it is simply a 'design of consequence'. They're not putting various curvatures into an 'inconsequential' component, as we've seen, for the goodness of their health. I also don't know why you're quoting regulations. They don't stop teams shaping their crash structures, and we can visibly see that they don't.

Like I said, it's no coincidence that Ferrari and Red Bull are the teams to beat and they're the only teams who appear to be putting this kind of attention to detail in. Like I said, look at the difference with the Williams crash structure. Night and day. Like I said again, seeing that kind of thing is what separates winners from losers.

[shelly]

@segenundum: I think you missed the point.
Crash structure shape is not a detail winning teams look at and others do not, it is a very important area to which every teams looks at closely.
Teams shape it on the basis of aero, structural and manufacturing reasons; do not forget taht is subject to crash test.

A curved crash structure won't produce downforce itself, but it will allow for the beam wing for producing more downforce

[i70q7m7ghw]

Shame it's a picture of an old red bull eh

Makes no difference to the discussion at hand I'm afraid, and if anything, it makes it worse for everyone else.

Smik, seg: The point is that it is a design of consequence.

I don't understand on what basis you're making this statement. Ferrari and especially Red Bull clearly do not think that it is simply a 'design of consequence'. They're not putting various curvatures into an 'inconsequential' component, as we've seen, for the goodness of their health. I also don't know why you're quoting regulations. They don't stop teams shaping their crash structures, and we can visibly see that they don't.

Like I said, it's no coincidence that Ferrari and Red Bull are the teams to beat and they're the only teams who appear to be putting this kind of attention to detail in. Like I said, look at the difference with the Williams crash structure. Night and day. Like I said again, seeing that kind of thing is what separates winners from losers.

My god your right! Quick, somebody get my Martin Whitmarsh's phone number, he must be told, "curve the crash structure, win the championship!"

The point that is being made is teams with a curved crash structure most likely designed it that way to increase the effectiveness of the beam wing, not to get more downforce out of the crash structure. What your saying is they curved the crash structure to get more downforce from the crash structure, and increasing the effectiveness of the beam wing was 'design of consequence?' I know it's not that clear cut, and both gains were probably part of the design to some extent, but the primary objective was most likely to increase effectiveness of the beam wing, and in curving the crash structure to meet that objective, they gain some downforce from the crash structure itself.

So here's a question for you. How would you decouple the crash structure from the beam wing without curving it?