Low sidepods v Undercuts: Pros and Cons

[MIKEY_!]

Undercuts (to some extent) have been more or less standard in F1 for many years. I was under the impression that they allowed better flow to the diffuser and beam wing. Mclaren have gone down another route with their L-shaped sidepods while Torro Rosso have gone for extreme undercuts. Given the lack of undercut on the Mclaren, RBR, Ferrari and most other cars on the grid will we see the return of low sidepods like those seen in the mid 1990's. What are the pluses and negatives of each design.

[shelly]

This year McL, Ferrari and RBR all have undercut sidepods. When you say lack of undercut" are you referring to he rumours in the mp4-27 thread? Are there analogue rumours for Ferrari and RBR too?

[MIKEY_!]

Not sure about rumors.

I mean like Force India have, the way the sidepods are narrower at the base than at the top. That is called an undercut it it not. You are thinking of that sort of cross-section at the front of the sidepod I mean all the way along its length.

[MIKEY_!]

Got it in one. I was thinking that you could create a smaller inlet because of the air coming round the splitter with todays high noses. That would allow (providing the sidepods could be small enough) better flow to the beam wing and possibly diffuser (not sure about the last one). Would this cause a greater loss of DF from the floor. It might even reduce the vortex along the edge of the floor.

[dren]

I'm thinking crash structures play a role in there too.

[MIKEY_!]

Yes, we'd need to know how they are applied. I believe its just a big weight, moving at a set speed that must be decelerated with less than a certain amount of g-force but thats all i know.

[shelly]

Crash structure are 4 tube shaped cones 2 up, 2 low protruding from the monocoque (which they are glued or bolted to). As MIKEY says, they have a requirement for dissipating impact energy without exceeding a certain g peak.

They have some limits about where thy can be applied in side view. The two lower ones usually end up inside the floor leading edge, and the foremost upper one is at the upper leading edge of the sidepod.

Ferari F150 show part of the upper front crash structure, and features behind it a slot. In these sense, fairing of the upper leading crash structure acts as a leading edge device for the flow on top of the sidepod. This feature was introduced by Mclaren back in 2009 I think.

I think that what conni hints to is an evolution / extremization of this concept, with the actual sidepod beginning behind the shoulders of the driver, on whose sides faired crash structures will protrude, like in the 1999 Benetton or 2005 Jordan.

It has to be checked what re the bodywork rule requirements in that area; I think that there is some space to exploit outside the 75mm radius rule (as current bargeboards do)

[Pierce89]

Not sure about rumors.

I mean like Force India have, the way the sidepods are narrower at the base than at the top. That is called an undercut it it not. You are thinking of that sort of cross-section at the front of the sidepod I mean all the way along its length.

Toro Rosso is the only car that really has full length undercuts. Between the refueling ban and having KERS, the teams havn't been able to package it all tightly enough for a full lenth, deep undercut. The lack of undercut this season is all due to having to package larger volumes, they haven't purposefully gone away from from undercut sidepods. In fact even the Mclaren has an undercut to it's sidepod it's just tiny, but they got all the undercut they could still manage with the L-pods.

[MIKEY_!]

TR is a lot more extreme than i am talking but anyway back to the point.
Providing some packaging magic why not go for low sidepods with out any undercut. Why not have the air inlets low down (starting at the floor)taking air from under the nose and allowing more air to go above them to the beam wing (and maybe diffuser).

[dren]

There has to be more benefit to how the flow goes around the sidepods and throught he sidepods with the way the teams have them now. It seems like you would want everything lower, but the front wing, front splitter and barge boards all move the air around the lower part of the car. This may be the most efficient way to move air around the car.

[MIKEY_!]

Its just a thought to consider. I wanted a second opinion. PS how come '90's sidepods were so small when they had to cool big V12 engines?

[shelly]

This has been already answerd in a thread some months ago here on F1T. Can anybody remember which?

[William]

Its just a thought to consider. I wanted a second opinion. PS how come '90's sidepods were so small when they had to cool big V12 engines?

I'm also very interested in this , if anyone knows I'd be much obliged

[MIKEY_!]

Why are todays cars look so bulky in the mid section. Engineers have been working every year to obtain a tighter packaging but still when you look at early 90's they look bulky in comparison.

Here below is a lambo 291, a v12, trans gearbox and a full race fuel tank yet look at the size of that thing in comparison to todays cars (comparison based on pictures only, actual data not available) but comparing the height of wheels and side pod that car is sleek

Discussions in the other threads on the max airflow to the beam wing, but this car puts all of them (specially Mclaren) to shame

From the comparison of 2011 cars thread. Best i could do. BTW wheres the best place to release hot air from the rads. Seems the RBR method is most popular on this site but I was wondering about sending it under the floor.

[ESPImperium]

Both essencially do the same job and that is to engage the beam wing and create downforce from that. The more clean air you can get to the beam wing the more downforce you create.

Newey essencially wants it (air) to go under and arround the sidepods and thru the coke bottle. McLaren want the air to over and thru the coke bottle. No rights or wrongs in both ways. However both have simmilarities in they way the work the beam wing, both need a long thin transmission and a pull rod suspension to get the air thrugh the beam beam wing the quickest they can to create downforce.

Thats they way i look at it.