2014 Design

[bonjon1979]

Has everyone forgotten the lessons we learned from the EBD era, the only rules preventing bodywork around the exhaust in its exit path (+30mm dia), you can have bodywork above, below and to the side of the plume. So you can blow the monkey seat, using the coanda effect to create an upwash and thus aid the top rear wing.

And the exhaust doesnt have to sit in the centerline of the car. It can be of by 100 mm from the centerline. Other than that it can have an angle of 5° to either side and/or an angle of 0-5° upwards.

Though of course if you want to somehow "blow" the monkey seat it would have to be in the centerline of the car.

But this opens up some possibility of assymetric exhaust exits.

Do we know for sure that blowing the rear wing will help matters?

To expand on that question, wouldn't the 'ramp' go directly up from the monkey seat to the rear wing? Wouldn't this add a shed load of drag?

[Bredd]

You are allowed a central pillar for support now are you not for the rear wing. Could we see something clever with this support?

[turbof1]

The pillars fall into a 15cm reg free zone. Outside that zone nothing is allowed, not even pillars.

I don't believe you can do much with them. Teams spend several years to get rid of them (probably due drag). Scarbs believes red bull is more willing to extent the endplates to the floor, a rather massive undertaking since it needs to be rigid enough, then using pillars.

[Bredd]

Could you not use the pillars to redirect exhaust flow or to duct air into the diffuser from a DRD device?

[bonjon1979]

Could you not use the pillars to redirect exhaust flow or to duct air into the diffuser from a DRD device?

I don't think you can duct air because I'm sure there was a rule clarification that made it illegal to 'ingest' exhaust gases in a duct that wasn't open from at least one angle or something like that.

[Blackout]

To create DF instead of lift, why not design sidepods which are the lowest possible at the front but rise progressively the more you go the back? the beam wing is gone anyway and you can even place some rads or a part of your air-water intercooler, if you use one, at the back or at the middle...
Like some cars of the 80s and a bit like a Fittipaldy FD-01 : P

[turbof1]

There's an regulatory cone in front of the exhaust exit in which no bodywork is allowed. So the pillars have to be spaced wide enough so that they comply.

[Blackout]

PS: I said ''a bit like the FD-01'' I mean with that 'a similar principle, not the same design'

It would look more like the R30 rear bodywork which contained the DDD, but a bit higher atleast

[theWPTformula]

To create DF instead of lift, why not design sidepods which are the lowest possible at the front but rise progressively the more you go the back? the beam wing is gone anyway and you can even place some rads or a part of your air-water intercooler, if you use one, at the back or at the middle...
Like some cars of the 80s and a bit like a Fittipaldy FD-01 : P

http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.ph ... u=14795526

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... n_2007.jpg

All well and good if you're an aerodynamicist but I don't think there will be a way of doing this next year. The stacking of the intercoolers/radiators, plus the standard Side Impact Protection structures, will leave very limited space to do anything dramatic with the sidepods.

[SectorOne]

Could an inboard front wing negate the loss of air from the new nose regulations?

[henra]

To create DF instead of lift, why not design sidepods which are the lowest possible at the front but rise progressively the more you go the back?

Besides issues with the mandatory side Impact crash structure it would cause big difficulties getting fast and clean air flow to the diffuser which will be paramount next year.
You would probably loose more in diffuser DF and especially efficiency (which will be very important with the fuel Limitation) than you would gain.

[astracrazy]

i wonder if the fw's pushing the air outside the tyre is as cut and dry as we thought. Newey and Fry have both mentioned it as a problem (fw's being narrower) - so i wonder if we will see different solutions

[Holm86]

i wonder if the fw's pushing the air outside the tyre is as cut and dry as we thought. Newey and Fry have both mentioned it as a problem (fw's being narrower) - so i wonder if we will see different solutions

I belive more air will be diverted to the inside of the tires. Not all of it but i think some one will split the air so it goes both inside and outside of the tires.

[turbof1]

i wonder if the fw's pushing the air outside the tyre is as cut and dry as we thought. Newey and Fry have both mentioned it as a problem (fw's being narrower) - so i wonder if we will see different solutions

I belive more air will be diverted to the inside of the tires. Not all of it but i think some one will split the air so it goes both inside and outside of the tires.

Something like the 2009 renault FW endplates?

[scarbs]

I think FW wake will still be sent outboard of the front tyres, teams will want the beneficial effect on the tyres wake, even if this means a less effective FW for creating DF. Opinion that I’ve canvassed is that the FW is still more than powerful enough to balance the car, so this isn’t such a huge compromise. Of course twisting the endplate enough to get the vortices over to the upper and lower edges of the front tyre will be tricky.