Red Bull RB8 Renault

[Mr.S]

McLaren boss Martin Whitmarsh is aware of the innovation and the head-start now enjoyed by Mercedes.

"If you make a start now, it's already too late," he said, predicting that other teams will nonetheless also experiment with the idea.

Also McLaren’s Martin Whitmarsh estimated that the top speed benefit of the system, which first appeared on the Mercedes in prototype form late last season, to be around 5 to 8km/h.

Multiple Sources. Cant be FOUND ANYWHERE on the Internet. Google it.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

F-duct has been used. Martin Whitemarsh confirmed it last season & said it has benefits. There has been various reports. It could be seen that in hole in the nose or DUCT there was a splitter down the middle in W02. It was pretty clear.

The whole F-duct stuff gets posted in the Official Formula 1 Website in the technical section.

I think it is clear Mercedes have been using a Front Wing F-duct. No use being in denial mode just because you favorite team might not know how to use that technology yet.

1) Can you reference the Whitemarsh quote?

2) All the reports you are putting faith in have a MAJOR flaw: The hole in the nose can be for driver cooling only per the rules. So much for the credibility of those reports. Check the facts for yourself.

3) Sorry to burst the bubble, but 'the Official Formula 1 Website' is not the ultimate source of accurate information. It is written for fanboys.

4) Do some homework and read the Front Wing F Duct threads and see if you can determine ANY consensus about what the benefits of an Front Wing F Duct might be?

Brian

Let me preface my post by saying I don't think the RB8 nose duct is for a F-duct FW, but the entire F-duct FW is absolutely doable & has been tested.



Whitmarsh quote
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 51930.html

[hardingfv32]

I did, and couldn't find this reference - can you be more specific? Are you referring to 3.7.8 of the technical regs?

Yes

Brian

[hardingfv32]

but the entire F-duct FW is absolutely doable & has been tested.

How does it pass 3.7.8?

Brian

[hardingfv32]

I am ready to burst your bubble as well. Any Internet Discussion in here means --- to what is going to happen. We are not the FIA & we dont decide what is legal or not. Charlie does. Consensus in something as ridiculous as a Front Wing F-duct in an Internt Forum does not matter.

The other bit since you wanted a Whitemarsh refenrece,I want you to post the rules & tell me how this is ILLEGAL.

The duct is used for Driver Cooling. Hell yea,but why cant they modulate it. Who is going to prove & how that it is not used for cooling???

3.7.8 Only a single section, which must be open, may be contained within any longitudinal vertical
cross section taken parallel to the car centre line forward of a point 150mm ahead of the front
wheel centre line, less than 250mm from the car centre line and more than 125mm above the
reference plane.
Any cameras or camera housings approved by the FIA in addition to a single inlet aperture for
the purpose of driver cooling (such aperture having a maximum projected surface area of
1500mm2 and being situated forward of the section referred to in Article 15.4.3) will be exempt
from the above.

1) What might happen in the future is politics and not relevant to this discussion. Are you proposing that the teams are going to use a system with questionable value using a questionable rule interpretation?

2) It is illegal because you of the inlet opening.

3) It says driver cooling. Any flow going to the front wing is by definition not driver cooling. The stewards will not a contorted interpretation.

Brian

[Crucial_Xtreme]

I am ready to burst your bubble as well. Any Internet Discussion in here means --- to what is going to happen. We are not the FIA & we dont decide what is legal or not. Charlie does. Consensus in something as ridiculous as a Front Wing F-duct in an Internt Forum does not matter.

The other bit since you wanted a Whitemarsh refenrece,I want you to post the rules & tell me how this is ILLEGAL.

The duct is used for Driver Cooling. Hell yea,but why cant they modulate it. Who is going to prove & how that it is not used for cooling???

3.7.8 Only a single section, which must be open, may be contained within any longitudinal vertical
cross section taken parallel to the car centre line forward of a point 150mm ahead of the front
wheel centre line, less than 250mm from the car centre line and more than 125mm above the
reference plane.
Any cameras or camera housings approved by the FIA in addition to a single inlet aperture for
the purpose of driver cooling (such aperture having a maximum projected surface area of
1500mm2 and being situated forward of the section referred to in Article 15.4.3) will be exempt
from the above.

1) What might happen in the future is politics and not relevant to this discussion. Are you proposing that the teams are going to use a system with questionable value using a questionable rule interpretation?

2) It is illegal because you of the inlet opening.

3) It says driver cooling. Any flow going to the front wing is by definition not driver cooling. The stewards will not a contorted interpretation.

Brian

They also said the original McLaren F-Duct was illegal. Guess we'll see when the season starts.

[hardingfv32]

They also said the original McLaren F-Duct was illegal. Guess we'll see when the season starts.

So, you have so way to clear 3.7.8, is that correct?

Brian

[RB7ate9]

They also said the original McLaren F-Duct was illegal. Guess we'll see when the season starts.

So, you have so way to clear 3.7.8, is that correct?

Brian

based off of Scarbs' analysis:

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/10/2 ... ront-wing/

if there happen to be at least a small opening so that there is SOME semblance of air passing through to the driver, one can route the majority of the air (even splitting the air into three channels so that there's less pressure loss in the F-duct portion) to the front wing while maintaining legality.

[hardingfv32]

This is from the last part of that Scrabs article.

"LEGALITY......The biggest issue is with the nose hole itself. This is covered in the rules and is allowed for the purposes of driver cooling. This being worded into the nose cone regulations for 2009 to prevent Ferrari style slotted noses. We know the nose hole is used to blow the front wing for several reasons. Firstly Mercedes do have the nose hole, but rarely use it, instead the duct moulded into the access panels atop the chassis are normally used for driver cooling. Most of the time the nose hole is sealed up with clear tape.
But one crucial picture in the AMuS gallery accompanying their article, was of the car with the nose removed, showing a black carbon fibre cover going over the front bulkhead. This would seal the nosecone, such that air entering the nose hole would not pass into the cockpit and instead pass down the wings support pylons. With this panel in place the nose hole cannot function as driver cooling and goes against the rules. Perhaps this set up using the nose hole was just at Suzuka for testing, as Teams are unable to do much full scale testing away from the circuit. It could be legally run in a Friday practice session, as teams are given some leeway to test parts which might otherwise be unacceptable to the scrutineers. As long as the parts aren’t run for qualifying, then apparently illegal parts can get limited Friday running.
So for 2012 the wing might gain its inlet from another position. At Suzuka, the use of the nose hole might have been a good way to disguise the system when it was tested."

1) The rule does not say that the majority of the air entering the nose hole can do something else and only a small portion be required to cool the driver. If that was the case then Ferrari could still be using a nose hole from 2009.

2) Also read the rest of the Scarbs article, it is just not clear that this system has any value.

Brian

[RB7ate9]

1) The rule does not say that the majority of the air entering the nose hole can do something else and only a small portion be required to cool the driver. If that was the case then Ferrari could still be using a nose hole from 2009.

I see.

2) Also read the rest of the Scarbs article, it is just not clear that this system has any value.

Brian

I, myself, feel dubious about a front-wing f-duct as well. I just wanted to add another source to the conversation.

[Robbobnob]

thinking about the slot

Firstly can we stop calling it a F-Duct, that was a nickname for Mclarens solution.

I propose a new name: Boundary Layer Manipulation Device (nice and geeky!!)

Has anybody considered a Duct blown splitter?

to me if the slot is being used as a BLMD ( ) that seems to me the only feasible place for the routing of the air stream with out high pressure losses due to long and twisted ducts.

a BMLD on the splitter should help maintain the velocity of the air as it moves around and under the sidepod undercut and back into the cokebottle



i drew a nice pretty picture, you can see the main energised flow from the top gets routed down between the legs to the slot half way along the splitter.
the slot underneath is the 'trigger', when the pressure in that flow reaches critical the duct is activated.

i used red to highlight that the drag has reduced, and the flow hasnt increased but rather the rate of decrease has lessened, if that makes any sense

[ringo]

there is tremendous amount of energy in the splitter area. It does not need any assistance from a constricted duct with a lot of bends in it to assist it.
Flow through that duct will be slower than the freestream under the splitter.
Ducting air to places of higher energy isn't really helpful.

You have to think of low energy areas, which are usual leeward surfaces or regions, before you assign ducted air to an area. The fact of the matter is air moving through a duct loses a lot of energy due to friction and direction changes. The longer the duct the more energy and pressure loss.

Ouside of cooling purposes i dont think a duct in the nose going to anywhere at the front of the car will be of any use. The duct is too small, cramped and long.

[Just_a_fan]

Unless it's a switching stream as in the f-duct, then I agree with you.

I think it's more likely to be ducted to the cockpit region and used to help "fill in" some flow around the driver. Even then, I bet it's a marginal benefit.

[Robbobnob]

i didnt mean a duct that increases the flow, no non-powered/energised duct will be able to increase flow i understand that.

Im talking about drag reduction of the splitter / front of the sidepods to maintain flow velocity, reducing drag losses

[hardingfv32]

Unless it's a switching stream as in the f-duct, then I agree with you.

I think it's more likely to be ducted to the cockpit region and used to help "fill in" some flow around the driver. Even then, I bet it's a marginal benefit.

Switching stream? And exactly what or who is doing the switching? Why does it need to take place in these ducts? Why not some where closer to the wing?

Brian