Why is the airbox still the same as pre-turbo cars?

[jonathan.clare]

Hi all

I am wondering why the airboxes on the 2014/15 cars are above the driver's head. In the turbo cars of the late 70's and 80's the airbox above the drivers head was removed and the air intake was through the sidepods. Surely only having the roll bar above the drivers head and making sure it was an aerodynamically designed part would allow the car to keep the airflow lower.

Is it because the supplementary power systems need more cooling? Or is it because the turbo is not placed as low as they used to be? Or something else altogether?

If the airbox was lower and incorporated another vent above and behind the engine you would get better cooling and potentially better flow over the rear wing as it would be closer to the height of the wing.

Of course there are two things I haven't considered.

1. The regulations don't permit that. Though unlikely as I would have thought it is all about the rollover integrity.

2. I'm stupid.

Love to hear your thoughts, but not too many that support option 2.

Jonathan

[FW17]

The rule makers wanted the car to look like 2013 cars

+

Teams did not mind the added ad space on the car

[Just_a_fan]

If you moved the intake elsewhere you'd still need a roll over hoop to protect the driver. This would cause drag and disrupt airflow to the rear wing in the same way as the current system. You'd then need to have an intake somewhere else - they used to use periscope inlets above the sidepods, for example. The cars are designed these days to give clean air flow to the rear over and around the sidepods in order to maximise downforce. So moving the inlet would be a lose-lose situation because you'd still have roll hoop disruption plus you'd gain disruption from an inlet elsewhere.

The "ram effect" in the inlet is probably still beneficial too, of course. Plus the clever packaging of the intercooler just below the inlet means the system is more throttle responsive - long pipes from turbo to intercooler to engine will give some turbo lag.

Overall, it's the "best worst case" choice of inlet location.

[FW17]

If you moved the intake elsewhere you'd still need a roll over hoop to protect the driver. This would cause drag and disrupt airflow to the rear wing in the same way as the current system. You'd then need to have an intake somewhere else - they used to use periscope inlets above the sidepods, for example. The cars are designed these days to give clean air flow to the rear over and around the sidepods in order to maximise downforce. So moving the inlet would be a lose-lose situation because you'd still have roll hoop disruption plus you'd gain disruption from an inlet elsewhere.

The "ram effect" in the inlet is probably still beneficial too, of course. Plus the clever packaging of the intercooler just below the inlet means the system is more throttle responsive - long pipes from turbo to intercooler to engine will give some turbo lag.

Overall, it's the "best worst case" choice of inlet location.

FIA specified this arrangement

Teams could have done what they wanted and we would have seen a lot more variation across the field

Maybe roll hoop drag may not the an issue as seen in an SF-14

[Facts Only]

With regards to the roll structure/inlet aero question I suspect that the air intake is probably the same size as the minimum roll structure size on most of the cars so removing the air inlet would make little difference.

Also I don't know if it applies to F1 or not (I really should to be honest) but the MSA Book and other national sporting regs' explicitly forbid the use of the roll structure/hoop as any sort of aero dynamic device/aid in any way. If this rule is the same for F1 then perhaps the Air inlet can actually be used to better condition the flow of air to the rear wing than just a roll structure could.

[Just_a_fan]

FIA specified this arrangement

Teams could have done what they wanted and we would have seen a lot more variation across the field

Maybe roll hoop drag may not the an issue as seen in an SF-14

The technical regs are usually written by the Technical Working Group in large part (at least as a consultative process with the FIA) and then issued by the FIA. It's likely the teams decided to "stick with what they know" and also knowing that what they had works well for the rear end aero - the end which is most difficult to get downforce from.

[marlosb]

Why not get air from bottom of the car to generate some downforce due to vacuum effect?

Just kidding. Regulations really limit engineer creativity, but it is part of the business.

[strad]

did they not split it for both intake and the cooler?