Sauber C31 Ferrari

[strad]

And Red Bull is probably doing the same with the 2 slots, but then feeding the air to the (low pressure) cockpit?

Or as I said...Managing the inner air flow/inner pressure...even exhausting it where it might do some aero good. Who know's I might even be right.

[Raptor22]

Why should the flow there go around a 90° corner?
It has some inertia and high air speed. It will create lots of turbulence for very little flow going trough the hole. I can't see how this should be benefical at all.

thats how static pressure gauges work...
flow from a stream creates a low pressure in the gauge which acts on a diaphragm. the diaphragm acts on a mechanical or piezo electric device thats calibrated to indicate pressure.
In the case of the sauber, the low pressure created by the flow over the bump will be fed buy the high pressure under the nose. This creates a pressure gradient.
I would guess that they want to reattach the boundary layer as it flows over the hump at high speed to reduce drag. Probably a small effect and not a game changer but it potentially works with the cockpit to keep flow attached around the cockpit and over the sidepods to increase effectiveness of the exhaust by maintaining a high pressure above the exhaust pipe exits.
Perhaps this maintains the Coanda effect across a wider speed range.

[Paul]

I would also reduce lift then by at least partially equalizing the pressure difference, wouldn't it?

[tok-tokkie]

When I first saw the picture of the slot behind the bump on the Sauber I wondered if they were not using it to suck the turbulent boundary layer on their front wing. Remove the turbulent layer so restore laminar flow & you get much better 'lift' to drag ratio = same downforce for reduced drag or more downforce for the original drag; or a bit of each.

Googling found this suspect souce which claims that 85% of the wing's drag can be eliminated by having a sucked porous surface which eliminates all turbulence. http://mb-soft.com/public/lowdrag.html
Here is a NASA paper on the history of the idea http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/ ... aminar.pdf
Here is another good history of the idea. http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive ... 01162.html

A variation on the Mercedes idea but it is effective all the time (whole race not just qualifying) - not just when the DRS is in use.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

When I first saw the picture of the slot behind the bump on the Sauber I wondered if they were not using it to suck the turbulent boundary layer on their front wing. Remove the turbulent layer so restore laminar flow & you get much better 'lift' to drag ratio = same downforce for reduced drag or more downforce for the original drag; or a bit of each.

Googling found this suspect souce which claims that 85% of the wing's drag can be eliminated by having a sucked porous surface which eliminates all turbulence. http://mb-soft.com/public/lowdrag.html
Here is a NASA paper on the history of the idea http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/ ... aminar.pdf
Here is another good history of the idea. http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive ... 01162.html

A variation on the Mercedes idea but it is effective all the time (whole race not just qualifying) - not just when the DRS is in use.

The best explanation of the slot is that it removes a portion of the boundary layer from the underside of the nose, using the low pressure created on the top surface when the air accelerates over the step. The thinner a boundary layer is, the less liable it is to detach, hence a thinner boundary layer beneath the nose could potentially enhance the quality of the airflow fed to the underbody of the car.

What Sauber have done, then, is to carve the aerodynamic equivalent of a flowing artesian well, using the pressure gradient between the lower and upper surface of the nose. It is yet another ingenious example of the karstification of Formula 1's aerodynamic landscape.

McCabism

[bar555]

I noticed looking through pictures that Checo's car did not use a monkey seat in Malaysia, and Kobayashi did. Interesting no?

..........

Different front wings for Sauber drivers and beam mini plane only for Kobayashi in Australia

and also in Malaysia

[Giblet]

Seriously F1technical, two of my posts were removed a couple of days ago because they were slightly offtopic. Now I come here and see a discussion about a Ferrari picture and about a photoshopped Sauber. The actual interesting post gets snowed under.
I don't mind being strict but follow it through or don't at all. This is just arbitrary

We can't see everything, and if your message happens to get moved in error, tell us.

I didn't see a report at all about this thread in the queue. In fact the only reason I am here is because I picked up a weak telepathically induced signal that someone in the Sauber thread was unhappy with the posts.

[hardingfv32]

And Red Bull is probably doing the same with the 2 slots, but then feeding the air to the (low pressure) cockpit?

Or as I said...Managing the inner air flow/inner pressure...even exhausting it where it might do some aero good. Who know's I might even be right.

Then why has it not been done before? Say any time in the last 4 decades?

The cockpit on average is not low pressure. View some of the many open cockpit CFD sims.

Brian

[Giblet]

And Red Bull is probably doing the same with the 2 slots, but then feeding the air to the (low pressure) cockpit?

Or as I said...Managing the inner air flow/inner pressure...even exhausting it where it might do some aero good. Who know's I might even be right.

Then why has it not been done before? Say any time in the last 4 decades?

The cockpit on average is not low pressure. View some of the many open cockpit CFD sims.

Brian

Because aerodynamics have only truly dominated the sport over the last decade, decade and a half.

I highly doubt that there are no gains from that area. The designers have shown us time and time again that they often do things nobody else has tried, and these things are often out of our context and scope.

Please don't be so dismissive to others.

[hardingfv32]

Please don't be so dismissive to others.

I am dismissing this theory because there is absolutely nothing out there to support it. There are some readers who might want a correct understanding of this topic. And if I am wrong I would be happy to learn why.

We have had open cockpit race for many decades. Taking ANY successful open wheel car in the last 2-3 decade and NONE are going to be routing air flow into the cockpit for aero benefit.

This is such an easy experiment to do even at the lowest levels of formula racing. No ever had the idea to route flow into the cockpit before? How about an experiment created by some form of body damage? No FF ever had a small portion of their nose damage allowing air flow into the cockpit and the noticed that they had gained 100-200 rpm on the straight?

Just seem odd that no one has discovered cockpit flow up until now.

Brian

[wesley123]

I will say it for the 5th time, people do not know everything from the start. People find new idea's every time, and learn more every day.

[PhantomPoster]

Someone please explain to me why they would be feeding the air into the cockpit?

I thought Scarb's diagram and the various photos shot the flow going from underneath the chassis to the top? Where has this cockpit argument stemmed from?

[strad]

Then why has it not been done before? Say any time in the last 4 decades?

They have been doing it for 80 or so years. However they are now as with many things getting better at it. You have to manage the flow thru the car as well as the flow around it. It is not IMO solely to pressurise the cockpit, that isn't what I meant. You have to , for lack of a better term, pressurise the inside of the car..and IMO, if you're smart you channel that flow thru the car and exit to a point that does you some good aerodynamically in the rear.
They learned about managing inner flow to help with stabilization way back in the 30s and have used it on LSR runs ever since.
It is not new just this modern use is.
Edit: It is NOT JUST for the cockpit.

[strad]

Where has this cockpit argument stemmed from?

Probably from a poor explanation from me as much as anything. I did not say it was for the sole purpose of "pressurising" the cockpit..but that is one advantage.

[hardingfv32]

I will say it for the 5th time, people do not know everything from the start. People find new idea's every time, and learn more every day.

BUT, routing airflow into the cockpit is not a idea NEW. Of the many thousands of people who have raced open cockpit cars over the last 40-60 years, you do not think someone did not have the same idea?

AND it is a very simple idea to test requiring only a hole in the nose and a tachometer.

Brian