Red Bull RB8 Renault (pre-launch speculation)

[raymondu999]

Don't forget a lot of people are saying they'll blow under the rear wing though.

[MIKEY_!]

True but (although there's no CFD to prove it) it seems not to be the optimal solution.

[ringo]

If they were to introduce bodywork that never existed. They can put winglets in the middle 200mm? of the car. This is where teams usually put gills for cooling and slits, which is outside of the continuous surface and 75mm min radius rule.

Winglets can be put all over the engine cover, and the exhaust can be placed as far up the car as possible, then angled inward.




limitations:
the pipes can only be 1200mm ahead of wheel centre.

and this:

5.8.4 Once the exhaust tailpipes, the bodywork required by Article 3.8.4 and any apertures
permitted by Article 3.8.5 have been fully defined there must be no bodywork lying within a
right circular truncated cone which :
a) Shares a common axis with that of the last 100mm of the tailpipe.
b) Has a forward diameter equal to that of each exhaust exit.
c) Starts at the exit of the tailpipe and extends rearwards as far as the rear wheel centre
line.
d) Has a half‐cone angle of 3° such that the cone has its larger diameter at the rear wheel
centre line.
Furthermore, there must be a view from above, the side, or any intermediate angle
perpendicular to the car centre line, from which the truncated cone is not obscured by any
bodywork lying more than 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line.

[imightbewrong]

I don't think that will be legal, no bodywork can be blown before the rear axle line (with a 3 degree cone from the exhaust exit) according to scarbs:

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/10/2 ... n-effects/

IIRC they could blow suspension members and "brake ducts" though (if there could be any advantage found there) because they are not considered bodywork in the rules?

[scarbs]

True but (although there's no CFD to prove it) it seems not to be the optimal solution.

There is CFD prove it, a spanish Uni did a paper on just that. Google for tech papers 'jet in cross flow' or there might be alink in my blog on 2012 exhausts.

BTW the exhaust is unlikely to blow the beam wing (too low) but the mini wing above the gearbox might be able to be blown.

[shelly]

I think we will se more than one rear main plane with abrupt changes for sections near the tips to generate vortices to be strechted by the exhaust.

The idea that at thgh speed the exhaust jet would jet defelcted and no more interact with the mainplane is IMO the most interesting point (avoiding draggy behaviour at high speed).

I do not know if we will see these rear wing features since the beginning of the tests or only later

[beelsebob]

True but (although there's no CFD to prove it) it seems not to be the optimal solution.

There is CFD prove it, a spanish Uni did a paper on just that. Google for tech papers 'jet in cross flow' or there might be alink in my blog on 2012 exhausts.

BTW the exhaust is unlikely to blow the beam wing (too low) but the mini wing above the gearbox might be able to be blown.

I would expect this has a lot to do with McLaren's rumored "revolutionary rear wing".

[Coefficient]

I can't see that blowing the engine cover bodywork would achieve much. I don't know if any of you have ever touched an F1 engine cover but they aren't the stiffest things in the world. They aren't structural and they aren't load bearing either so they're engineered to be light and as such quite flexible. Any downforce generated on this kind of surface would lose its potency as the material flexed and deformed.

You could strengthen the engine cover to compensate but you would start to affect COG. Its not something you could easily tinker with in testing without causing a few head scratching moments.

I think blowing the brake duct winglets would also be problematic as the varying ride height of the sprung and unsprung areas of the car would make the blown downforce levels inconsistent. As you know, this has a compound effect because the inconsistent downforce has a real terms impact on the cars capability and then the driver loses another second because he can't trust the car to behave predictably. Then you start losing tyre temp and the thing slides about and before you know it you're back to the drawing board.

Also, with the ban on off throttle blowing the only real gain of blowing anything is in the high speed, hi G corners where the lateral loading causes enough lean in the chassis to also disrupt the angle of attack that the exhaust has on the brake mounted winglets. The outside exhaust dips down and the inside sits up due to roll and conversely the outside wheel effectively raises up as the inside droops which would significantly affect the destination of the exhaust gases. In certain circumstances you could even find you're blowing the wrong side of the winglet.

As such, I think the blowing will take place on a sprung part of the car such as the rear wing as the attitude of this element would remain more consistent in relation to the exhaust pipes.

[Coefficient]

Right on cue, this appears on JAF1.



http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/01/s ... ri-f1-car/

[shelly]

I think that blowing yaw generated endplate vortice with exhaust and make the act agaist the lower portion of tha main plane could be an option. Expect stange shapes on the rear endplates

[gridwalker]

I can't see that blowing the engine cover bodywork would achieve much. I don't know if any of you have ever touched an F1 engine cover but they aren't the stiffest things in the world. They aren't structural and they aren't load bearing either so they're engineered to be light and as such quite flexible. Any downforce generated on this kind of surface would lose its potency as the material flexed and deformed.

As I remember, one of the big problems with the engine-cover mounted wing on the MP4/10 was that they had to drop a heavy metal pole down through the engine cover in order to support the aerodynamic load. Naturally, this affected the COG and internal packaging, as well as making it more difficult to change the bodywork.

[volarchico]

I see shelly's idea as the most promising. With the ban on off-throttle blowing, using the exhaust to reduce drag seems to be more beneficial than to try and increase downforce. What is the average percentage of a track that is at full throttle? Suggestions of blowing the "brake duct" wings seems troublesome because the balance at the rear would be extremely dependent on throttle position!

[shelly]

I did not explain myself propery maybe.
Isee exahust as a tool for increasing dwnforce in yaw only, by activatin their effect with vortices that develop in yaw

[volarchico]

The idea that at thgh speed the exhaust jet would jet defelcted and no more interact with the mainplane is IMO the most interesting point (avoiding draggy behaviour at high speed).

I was referring to this from a few posts before.

[ringo]

Suppose we see indentations which produce raw downforce but with high drag?

The exhausts being on the side pods would allow teams to get away with making draggy pods with flow that will be cleaned up by the entrainment of the exhaust pipes. The exhuast stream will negate the drag.

Last year merceds tried indented pods. This was a desperate attempt at downforce. It works but it's inefficient.


So this kind of innovation can be expected. The exhausts changes most everything with side pod design.