I didn't address a theory; I addressed the concept. But I'll keep any theories in mind for the next time I run out of toilet paper. I'll print that bad boy out and give it its proper due. (Get it?)WhiteBlue wrote:So what? It doesn't impact on my theory which could still be right.
hardingfv32 wrote:I question the quantity of flow into the DRS hole and the quality of this flow when it exits the front wing slot with the Mercedes design. We have photos of four parts, DRS hole, engine area duct, front bulkhead duct, and front wing slot. That is the only information we have about the system design. More than we usually get, but still seems a little weak for me.
There we would be agreed.A properly functioning DDRS system is wonderful idea.
Again, I would prefer if you could substantiate your feeling by some figures. Isn't it strange that Merc have gone all the way to design and build it if it were not efficient? And why could they not do an amplification design with the scoop, that I proposed?I would agree that the first to a design can make the most of it, but in this case I think they are restricted by physical constraints. I just do not feel they can get the flow required to generate a meaningful performance gain.
I'm not so confident that we really knew the relevant detail of the system. In Oct 2011 there was much talk about a passive system that works without any activation. That was what Merc experimented a lot with on the rear wing before. There was also speculation that they had come up with a fluid switch which would detect the steering angle and select a medium, left and right channel for the air flow to the front wing. Even when the unmasking devices were first seen people thought they were related to stalling the rear wing rather than the front wing. I cannot remember that I had heard about the idea to do the drag reduction to both wings. The double diffusor was also something that came out of the left field unless you had had contact to those who had researched the idea.Just seems odd that a system that WE have know about since Oct 2011 is not found on any other cars. That would be plenty of time to get a chassis modified and tested before the start of the season.
It sounds like something rude and not like a contribution to the debate. If I'm wrong please enlighten me.bhallg2k wrote:I didn't address a theory; I addressed the concept. But I'll keep any theories in mind for the next time I run out of toilet paper. I'll print that bad boy out and give it its proper due. (Get it?)
I thought we had different interpretations of the function of the scoop. You dismissed my interpretation. If you are not interested to discuss your idea of the significance of the scoop that is also ok with me. I'm very confident that all aspects will get much discussed by the time we see more design solutions on track.bhallg2k wrote:There's no debate.
I started a study on the DDRS but lost interest when the subject cooled on the form. Most of the posters seemed uninterested in applying figures to the subject. There are a lot of assumptions to be made that most on the forum would find difficult to accept.WhiteBlue wrote:Again, I would prefer if you could substantiate your feeling by some figures.
Fair enough. I don't think the rear wing and the tubes are the problem for estimating numbers either. So in the absence of computational models we should simply keep an open mind for any possible design configuration and not dismiss any out of hand.hardingfv32 wrote: I have no way to estimate what the effect of a stalling type air flow would have on the downforce numbers. Using studies on wing stalling, I do know that a stalled wing does not mean zero downforce. All of this assumes wings working in isolation which is an example of a assumption that must be made.
So it is a problem with many unknowns for us that I have little motivation in solving at this time.
Brian
The main point here is that Horner thinks it is effective for Mercedes. Perhaps that is a first point we can all agree on.I think there's been a lot said and a lot of fuss about it. They've optimised and capitalised on it so inevitably now we'll all pursue our own solutions. I think first of all, like any component, it has to earn a place on the car as a package. It's not a given that on everybody's car it's bolt-on lap time.
So I take it as a given that all competitors down to Lotus will have a similar system. By the end of the year all point scoring teams could have it.We are at the point of making estimates of how big the gain might be and assessing the difficulty in actually realising that gain. It’s anyone’s guess how powerful any existing system is, but that’s not the issue; it’s how powerful we think we can make any system which we can develop now we know how the rules can be interpreted. There are systems like Mercedes has, but the interpretation allows other permutations too. So it could be an interesting time for developments in this area.
No, it is not a given. Allison clearly indicates that they have come to the conclusion there is a net benefit from the DDRS. They are not going to do a system that has no benefit.WhiteBlue wrote:Lotus technical director James Allison on Formula1.com
So I take it as a given that all competitors down to Lotus will have a similar system. By the end of the year all point scoring teams could have it.We are at the point of making estimates of how big the gain might be and assessing the difficulty in actually realizing that gain. It’s anyone’s guess how powerful any existing system is, but that’s not the issue; it’s how powerful we think we can make any system which we can develop now we know how the rules can be interpreted. There are systems like Mercedes has, but the interpretation allows other permutations too. So it could be an interesting time for developments in this area.
I think this will be an issue for all season.
DDRS has implementation issues as we know. If you do it the way Mercedes have done it you have to re homologate the tub which would appear to be a problem. At minimum it will absorb substantial resources. In the worst case it could be prohibited by the RRA. There was one more positive report the last week end by Marc Surer that re homologation is prohibited. In that case you can only cross the tub externally which would make the solution aerodynamically compromising.hardingfv32 wrote:What I fine odd about his statement:
Why would they still be evaluating the benefits of such a system? Seems like very poor team management to wait until you loose a protest/ruling to start developing this system. While we have no information to make such a judgement, the teams have their cars accurately modeled in CFD and can do such evaluation with easy. Their solution should have been waiting for the fabrication go ahead at this point in time. I question whether they will actually pursue the DDRS theme.
I read an interview from one of the team principals last night regarding the matter (I can't remember if it was Horner or someone else). He basically said, the system had to earn its place in the car as a package, only then could they start thinking about doing wind tunnel or CFD tests on it. Their CFD and wind tunnel tests are pretty limited, and they are very careful where to spend that time on.hardingfv32 wrote:Why would they still be evaluating the benefits of such a system? Seems like very poor team management to wait until you loose a protest/ruling to start developing this system. While we have no information to make such a judgement, the teams have their cars accurately modeled in CFD and can do such evaluation with easy. Their solution should have been waiting for the fabrication go ahead at this point in time. I question wether they will actually pursue the DDRS theme.
Brian
So then we need a system that is located forward in the chassis. I am not going to restrict the design to an interaction with the DRS system. We can know do better.WhiteBlue wrote: If you do it the way Mercedes have done it you have to re homologate the tub which would appear to be a problem.
I think you cannot necessarily compare F-duct and DDRS in terms of cost for the wiring loom. The F-duct must have used additional I/Os to cause that effect on the wiring loom. The Mercedes style DDRS should not really need additional I/Os. Perhaps I'm overlooking something. Please comment!ESPImperium wrote:Whitch is the main area of the DDRS that is key, it is a cheap system in F1 terms, it only costs about €600k to develop and the same to get 4 ducting systems made, but developemt of the wiring loom is gonna cost as you will loose data channels to start with and as many team have just got about 30% more than the last day testing open, thet wont loose that now since things are so close this year.
hardingfv32 wrote:So then we need a system that is located forward in the chassis. I am not going to restrict the design to an interaction with the DRS system. We can know do better.WhiteBlue wrote: If you do it the way Mercedes have done it you have to re homologate the tub which would appear to be a problem.
How about using the steering shaft/column as a barrel valve. Say a 2-3" OD steering column that has slots in it to provide the 'turn or straight' air control that we desire. The FIA protest ruling seems to open the book to some very interesting 'secondary use' applications.
This just addresses the flow control at this point. Opinions?
