2014 Design

[scarbs]

Just watched Scarbs on The Racers Edge, and he said the FW will just be 1.5cm shorter on each side, i thought it would be 7 or 7.5 on each side ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... LXY&t=1738

About 5 seconds in he says it.

Yes I said it wrong, brain fade on my part. it is 7.5cm each each, not 1.5!

[astracrazy]

Just watched Scarbs on The Racers Edge, and he said the FW will just be 1.5cm shorter on each side, i thought it would be 7 or 7.5 on each side ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... LXY&t=1738

About 5 seconds in he says it.

Yes I said it wrong, brain fade on my part. it is 7.5cm each each, not 1.5!

-1 for you scarbs lol

[matt21]

Secondly, with how most teams sidepods are currently shaped, they almost act like a a wing with a low pressure area on top of the sidepods. This was offset by the benefits of helping the exhaust flow get down to the ground.

But this would be not productive, as you want the pressure as high as possible on the upper sufarce of the sidepods to generate downforce.

[Just_a_fan]

Secondly, with how most teams sidepods are currently shaped, they almost act like a a wing with a low pressure area on top of the sidepods. This was offset by the benefits of helping the exhaust flow get down to the ground.

But this would be not productive, as you want the pressure as high as possible on the upper sufarce of the sidepods to generate downforce.

The important thing is quality of airflow to the rear of the car. The sidepods are shaped to give high quality air to rear, not to negate lift on their own upper surfaces. Indeed, the undercut accelerates air around the the sidepod so you will get some downforce from that - probably enough to counter the lift created by the upper surface's curve.

[Blackout]

Sidepods a la Force India 2012 (the no coanda one) must be interesting, in that case, with their minimal slope angle.



http://bertholdbouman.files.wordpress.c ... esized.jpg

[horse]

The important thing is quality of airflow to the rear of the car.

I think I would agree with this assessment. I believe the teams will be desperate to get the diffusers working as well as possible, which I think will mean high rake angles and easy paths for flow to the diffuser gurneys or whatever else they can get back there.

The aerodynamic impact of a low-pro tyre is interesting. Less deformation is my first thought, so potentially easier to design for.

What is the deal with brake duct wings, next year? I'm thinking that a bigger wheel might mean a bigger hub, and therefore bigger wings?

[turbof1]

The important thing is quality of airflow to the rear of the car.

I think I would agree with this assessment. I believe the teams will be desperate to get the diffusers working as well as possible, which I think will mean high rake angles and easy paths for flow to the diffuser gurneys or whatever else they can get back there.

The aerodynamic impact of a low-pro tyre is interesting. Less deformation is my first thought, so potentially easier to design for.

What is the deal with brake duct wings, next year? I'm thinking that a bigger wheel might mean a bigger hub, and therefore bigger wings?

The issue with rake is that you need to be able to seal the diffuser, else it will produce less downforce instead of more. Teams will loose their primary means, the exhaust, to do that next year. The only option left is by creating vortices along the edge of the floor, which is difficult by itself because of tight regulation.

[astracrazy]

with the sidepods next year, surely the mp4-25 style would be best to bring the flow above the sidepods down to the diffuser? or am i guessing wrong? because there will be less flow now going around the sidepods due to the low nose.

i may be going down the complete wrong path here

[wesley123]

I think a sidepod without any downslope is best, and that coupled with a Ferrari style coke bottle. This to get as much airlow to the rear and kill the lift on the top surface of the sidepod.

[horse]

The issue with rake is that you need to be able to seal the diffuser, else it will produce less downforce instead of more. Teams will loose their primary means, the exhaust, to do that next year. The only option left is by creating vortices along the edge of the floor, which is difficult by itself because of tight regulation.

I don't think you have to "seal" the diffuser. It is a benefit obviously, but a diffuser is, roughly speaking, a raked bit of floor, so raking the whole floor is beneficial, exhaust or not.

[EDIT] To emphasise my point the double diffuser had no exhaust seal when first introduced, but effectively increased the length of the diffuser ramp and, thus, the downforce. [/EDIT]

The challenge, I believe, is making a nice suspension to go with such a configuration and dealing with the higher centre of gravity.

[turbof1]

I don't think you have to "seal" the diffuser. It is a benefit obviously, but a diffuser is, roughly speaking, a raked bit of floor, so raking the whole floor is beneficial, exhaust or not.

There is a point from where rake decreases downforce instead of increasing it. That turnover point has a rather low angle. The reason why downforce decreases is because at the sides it spills alot of air. When you seal those sides, the spilling stops and you can have the full benefit of the extra expanding air beneath the diffuser ramp.

The diffuser is NOT the same as rake. It has side walls preventing air from spilling. Rake is the angle of the car with the purpose of making the diffuser larger then it is. Because the diffuser is fixed in dimension, teams aren't allowed to further extent the sidewalls down. In order to make it work properly at bigger rake angles, you need some sort of sealing effect underneath or close to those sidewalls.

Next year for instance the rake will be lower because if they run the current ones they will be worse off then with lower ones, except if they find a way to seal it with different yet legal means.

Dunno why you would include the double diffuser into this. The extra diffuser was on top of the other one, enveloped in bodywork. It didn't need the exhaust for sealing simply because bodywork already did that. That hasn't a thing to do with rake.

If you want, you can read all about it here. I explained it a bit too simple and it might be at some point incorrectly explained, so read that article for the correct explanation

[SectorOne]

I´m guessing we will see sidepods similar to the RB8 (before the tunnel arrived)
No real undercut just decrease width the higher up you go on the sidepod.

(and just to be clear, i know the exhaust won´t exit there in 2014, just talking about the shape of the sidepod)

[wesley123]

I am quite sure we would not see a RB8 style sidepod.

The coke bottle lower to the floor would be more important to improve floor performance. The higher part of the sidepod is less important as there is nothing to send the air to.

[horse]

If you want, you can read all about it here. I explained it a bit too simple and it might be at some point incorrectly explained, so read that article for the correct explanation

Thanx for that.

Frankly, looking at the academic literature on car ground effect over the years, I haven't seen any studies that have changed the angle of the entire bluff body with diffuser.

The problem with the above article is that it associates the ride height with the rake angle. I would disagree with this as the leading edge will remain at the same ride height (relative to the ground). What will increase is the height of the diffuser leading edge (by which I mean transition from floor to diffuser). This might have a detrimental effect.

A better association might be increase in diffuser angle, as increasing the rake has somewhat the same effect. I can't remember whether there is a limit for diffuser angle, off the top of my head.

[SiLo]

I thought the idea of moving the air down was to better feed the beam wing? Aren't they banned next year?