Where did the airboxes go?

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
wiley
wiley
0
Joined: 28 Nov 2005, 03:01
Location: Iowa-USA

Where did the airboxes go?

Post

Why did airboxes start dissappearing from f1 in the mid seventies, not to come back until the 3.5L era?

dumrick
dumrick
0
Joined: 19 Jan 2004, 13:36
Location: Portugal

Post

That's a good question indeed, and I only know half the answer. :D
Firstly, the overhead airboxes with large volume suit only N/A engines with big displacement. When turbos came in action, they feeded engines with only 1500cm3 of displacement, reducing the need for high-volume intakes (that have also a bad effect in aero drag). Furthermore, at least in the V engines with twin-turbos, it was common sense to place the intakes near the side located turbos, therefore typically the feed being made on top the sidepods.

The typical turbo scoops located in the top of the sidepods:
Image

McLaren used them on the sides of driver's helmet also:
Image

Williams also used simple holes on the side of the sidepods (behind and below the "Canon" logo:
Image

Toleman/Benetton used scoops on the top of the sidepods, but close to the middle section of the car:
Image

Turbos aside, back in the 70's and in the V8 and V12's with 3500cm3, there was a time when dimensions of the airbox were free. This culminated in the 1975 season and in things like this:
Image

These airboxes were deemed dangerous (and were ugly as hell 8) ) and in 1976, there were restrictions imposed (by volume? by dimensions? probably by placement but help is wanted!). These restrictions gave room for some creative thought that originated in solution that went from these:
Image

to the Ferrari solution of air fed by the sides of the monocoque (they had a boxer engine, that explained that, also):
Image

What I cannot explain is why, from 1978/79 onwards the trend went to have no ducts feeding the engine and leaving the admission trumpets exposed, what should be, on the aero side, a bad move:
Image

or even letting some of the engine exposed:
Image

But it must be noticed that this trend appear more or less by when windtunnels began being used currently by F1 teams. Even when N/A engines reappeared, in 1988, many cars adopted this configuration:
Image

My bet would be that the internal dynamics of the airbox really only started being explored by 1989 or so, and that should be when became apparent that a few hp's could be won by a carefully designed airbox (one that would have an adequate shape and would be sealed around the admission trumpets, to increase the dynamic pressure around the intake). The previous designs were, perhaps, not more than fairings around the engine and trumpets and, after 1975, when large admission volumes (increasing pressure "the dumb way") became impossible to be used, the power increase wouldn't compensate anymore the drag penalty.

User avatar
joseff
11
Joined: 24 Sep 2002, 11:53

Post

Many thanks, dumrick, for reminding us how clever F1 was before it became the WWE of motorsports. :)

dumrick
dumrick
0
Joined: 19 Jan 2004, 13:36
Location: Portugal

Post

joseff wrote:Many thanks, dumrick, for reminding us how clever F1 was before it became the WWE of motorsports. :)
Oh, how I miss those F1 days when the purpose of the designs was efficiency, instead of the current "spec" designs, with rules determining how body parts should look like... :(

User avatar
Tom
0
Joined: 13 Jan 2006, 00:24
Location: Bicester

Post

The current air boxes must also be designed so a single sheet of A4 paper (or a clipboard?) can be placed across them and not sllow any ait into the intakes, thus instantly stopping the engine. I assume the theory is just in case a car crashes and maybe the throttle sticks open, the marshals don't want to get near the flailing rear wheels and perhaps can't reach the energency button so they stuff a glove in there, or perhaps an engine fire in the pits, the mechanic just stuffs his fist in and the engine stops.
Murphy's 9th Law of Technology:
Tell a man there are 300 million stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure.

manchild
manchild
12
Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 10:54

Post

Tom wrote:The current air boxes must also be designed so a single sheet of A4 paper (or a clipboard?) can be placed across them and not sllow any ait into the intakes, thus instantly stopping the engine. I assume the theory is just in case a car crashes and maybe the throttle sticks open, the marshals don't want to get near the flailing rear wheels and perhaps can't reach the energency button so they stuff a glove in there, or perhaps an engine fire in the pits, the mechanic just stuffs his fist in and the engine stops.
Is that written somehow in regulations or just a hint you heard?

If it is the truth than Ferrari airbox with inner splitter is illegal by default because even with closed airbox engine would suck air from backwards from the outlet of whatever it is cooled down there. Check he pics and you'll see that their splitter isn't in line with rest of the engine air inlet and even with all of the front of airbox closed there's "communication" between engine airbox and channel that guides air towards rear end.

dumrick
dumrick
0
Joined: 19 Jan 2004, 13:36
Location: Portugal

Post

But you can also consider that Ferrari's airbox only starts under that splitter, not in the outer edge of the intake, no?

manchild
manchild
12
Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 10:54

Post

dumrick wrote:But you can also consider that Ferrari's airbox only starts under that splitter, not in the outer edge of the intake, no?
Sure but than marshal or driver can't seal it with their palm. If the palm is big enough it could seal whole outer edge but the engine would still suck air since there'd be open space between airbox and channel above splitter.

bhall
bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Post

There's nothing in the Technical Regulations about airboxes, their location, dimensions or otherwise. Sorry to bust up that budding Ferrari conspiracy, manchild. :wink:

The airboxes of F1 cars are placed where they are because teams have logically decided to integrate the air intake with the required main roll structure. They could still, theoretically within the rules, put them wherever they want.

manchild
manchild
12
Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 10:54

Post

Dimensions are limited, I'm 99% sure.

bhall
bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Post

I thought so, too. But, I can't find anything at all about intake dimensions in the regulations.

User avatar
Ted68
6
Joined: 20 Mar 2006, 05:19
Location: Osceola, PA, USA

Post

Yes, they are regulated. Remember a few years ago teams had to place holes on the sides of the air-boxes to reduce airflow? Why didn't the just make them smaller? Advertising space!

BreezyRacer
BreezyRacer
2
Joined: 04 Nov 2006, 00:31

Post

Ted68 wrote:Yes, they are regulated. Remember a few years ago teams had to place holes on the sides of the air-boxes to reduce airflow? Why didn't the just make them smaller? Advertising space!
I believe you are referring to the 1994 after Senna's accident. Relieving the pressure in the airboxes was one of the many changes that were quickly instituted.

ss_collins
ss_collins
0
Joined: 31 Oct 2006, 15:59

Post

Following the rule changes in 1994 airboxes were banned completely however they were back by the time the 1995 season started however one car did appear sans airbox the Lola T95/30 - it never raced (but appears in my new book along with the story behind it - Unraced)

Image


Image

ginsu
ginsu
0
Joined: 17 Jan 2006, 02:23

Post

sam, is the book about unraced cars? that would be great, i've always wanted to know more about the twin chassis Lotus...i know chapman was pretty disappointed when that got banned.
I love to love Senna.