Can Helmets be a source of extra speed? - a theory..

[Rob W]

I was just looking at some pics of driver's helmets. I wondered if they couldn't be a source of illicit gains in engine performance? As random as this sounds... read on

The engines, intake etc are checked by the FIA and have specific rules on dimensions, capacity etc etc. But are helmets? Would it be possible to rig a helmet up so the vents on the rear of it (see pic) could, at times, vent a gas/fluid into the air-intake of the car - one which improved horsepower? I'm sure they've tested scenarios and know exactly how much of the air deflected around the helmet makes its way into the intake.

It could be fully contained in a tiny bottle held on the driver (or inside his drink-bottle) - I doubt they check the driver's or their helmets like they do the car itself.

Does the idea have merit?


R

[Giblet]

Newey designed the new Redbull cars for Aria helmets I beleive.

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2007/01/ ... a-try-out/

[Giblet]

Oh and the helemets are also certified by the FIA. They get a big FIA sticker on them when they are, and drivers can not drive with an uncertified helmet.

[modbaraban]

I'm not aware of any rule prohibiting that.

Oh and the helemets are also certified by the FIA. They get a big FIA sticker on them when they are, and drivers can not drive with an uncertified helmet.

True, but I believe, helmets are tested to meet the sefety standards not performance ones.

[vyselegend]

I don't think any gain of performance obtained by sculpting the helmet better would be illicit. Actually I'm sure I've read/heard in one of the many Renault chat/podcasts that the helmet was part of the elements tested in the windtunnel, and now I remember they said Piquet did try different helmets (from different brands) to test their impact on aero performance, rather than searching more comfort. And this was during a track test. I was surprised because it involved that the difference was supposed to be perceptible enough to be recorded among general data from an on-track run. I guess they just measure amount of air entering the airbox at similar speed, with similar wind conditions...

Now for the fluid/gaz adding part, it's far fetched IMO. A fluid would be detecable, and before even taking it seriously, does that exist? I mean, is there a fluid or a gaz, that could improve engine efficiency while mixed in the air in very little quantity (as obviously you wouldn't fit more than 50cl bottle in the helmet) without compromising reliability.Especially with a rev limit like now, it's unlikely.

Furthermore, it would be a very delicate operation to integrate the device in the helmet, because it's not manufactured by the team. And in case of accident, it could be revealed to everyone when it leaves the helmet (makes me remember Massa lost the aero bit on top of his helmet during a GP last year). No team would take such risks for such marginal potential gains.

Last note. Why in the hell did you choose a pic of Lewis Hamilton to illustrate a potential source of illicit gains? Now we'll have the usual trolls shouting everywhere that LH cheated with his helmet (with the complicity of the machiavelic Ron Dennis)...

[Rob W]

Now for the fluid/gaz adding part, it's far fetched IMO. A fluid would be detecable

How? Do they search drivers and the contents of the drink bottles? Moreso, I don't think a fine mist or gas would be visible at all, even on camera at high-speeds.

I mean, is there a fluid or a gaz, that could improve engine efficiency while mixed in the air in very little quantity (as obviously you wouldn't fit more than 50cl bottle in the helmet)

Aren't there some additives which could theoretically increase the octane rating of the fuel though? (and therefore horsepower)... and I think you could get quite a bit more than 50cl easily. The bottle could be in the overalls or drink bottle with a tube.

Furthermore, it would be a very delicate operation to integrate the device in the helmet, because it's not manufactured by the team.

The teams can modify the inside of the helmet if they like no? Surely a tube, pump and control system could be produced... Altho, as you said, maybe the gains to be made are so marginal. I'd like to hear from an expert in fuel additives on that part for sure. Is it feasible? Could it be miniaturised? In what scenarios would there be worthwhile gains to be made?

...Last note. Why in the hell did you choose a pic of Lewis Hamilton to illustrate..

Ha ha, for sure. Sorry, my bad. It was the only close up & side on pic I could find where the vents were clearly visible.

R

[RH1300S]

Does the idea have merit?
R

As an idea it's as loony as Manchild's hole in the nose............. =D> Better get a pic of Kimi's helmet

Nice out of the box thinking..........otherwise I have no idea about the merits or not.

[vyselegend]

By detectable, I meant a fluid travelling from the helmet to the airbox would be viewable on shots like the one you put! Especially on an high res pic.

Now, I think maybe a cooling gaz could have a positive effect if injected that way (although on the downside, the more nitrogen you fill in, the less oxygen there is), at least on reliability, if not on performance. The current rules are seriously pushing the idea down, because whatever you inject, you won't be allowed to rev higher than 19 000 rpm...

[Belatti]

Now, I think maybe a cooling gaz could have a positive effect if injected that way (although on the downside, the more nitrogen you fill in, the less oxygen there is), at least on reliability, if not on performance. The current rules are seriously pushing the idea down, because whatever you inject, you won't be allowed to rev higher than 19 000 rpm...

If you cant increase speed you must increase force, then you could inyect nitrous oxide.

Just a thought: are you trying to find gaps in the rules to cheat? I hope you are not the ones who criticize McLaren or Ferrari or other teams while busted cheating...

[Rob W]

...then you could inyect nitrous oxide.

I was thinking along those sorts of lines. As I said, I don't know enough about fuel technology.

Just a thought: are you trying to find gaps in the rules to cheat? I hope you are not the ones who criticize McLaren or Ferrari or other teams while busted cheating...

Oh no... just thinking outside of the box in the same way the ppl who developed the mass damper did. The team who got it sorted first (Renault) didn't tell anyone they had it so I assume they were found out through an amount of guesswork on the part of the other teams... This idea is sort of similar - guessing the kind of things teams may attempt or investigate at some stage. They all do it, not just the teams who are at the front of the grid.

R

[vyselegend]

Just a thought: are you trying to find gaps in the rules to cheat? I hope you are not the ones who criticize McLaren or Ferrari or other teams while busted cheating...

I fail to see your point, sorry. Where's the relevance between F1 fans analysing how teams could potentially cheat, and actual F1 team cheating?

I'm interested by Rob's idea that there could be legal and/or illegal use of the helmet as an aero device (and more), and so I discuss it here. But I still reserve the right to condamn actual cheating by F1 teams.

[bettonracing]

I'll subscribe to this idea as being a real possibility. I don't see N20 being the gas due to the bottle pressures involved (on a 'good bottle', drag cars use 800 to 1200psi) as well as the adiabatic cooling of the lines needing ceramic insulation to avoid (locally) freezing the driver (can you say distraction?).

I do see some special oxygen-rich gasoline concoctions being a possibility, as well as the possibility of injecting O2 gas itself (as opposed to a liquid vapor).

Presumably, with F1 engines running at borderline detonation, some kind of engine tune adjustment will be required in addition to the fuel/oxygen injection. This would be a a major red flag in the ecu programming code, and is the main reason I would assume that no teams are using this type of 'technology' in F1 (i.e. using helmets). That doesn't mean this kind of thing isn't (or won't...) happen in lower open wheel classes.

While we're speculating, the helmet isn't the only possible source for gas/vapor injection. Purpose built cavities sandwiched into the chassis (or even the bodywork) to gradually inject vapor/ gas into the airbox is also another possibility... Semi permeable injection surfaces (or even the airbox itself to suck in ambient air at low airbox pressures), predetermined orifices and heat activated surfaces all come to mind as possibilities. Then again, who's to say they're not injecting gases (or other minature medium) for aero purposes (we've heard of a couple of these on the horizon, but none supposedly in use yet)? Either on the straights for downforce shedding or approaching/during the corners for downforce generation... My wheels are turning... I'll never get anything done now...

Regards,

Kurt

[CMSMJ1]

Considering the enormous amount of air consumed by the motor per secoind you would need to inject/spray your magical booster in large quantities to make a difference.

The engines also have an air filter installed that will, by definition, filter out some of what you are spraying in the airbox.

The figures are huge for the litres of air per second that an engine breathes - 600+ litres of air per second.

How much additive can you stash on a helmet?

[bettonracing]

Considering the enormous amount of air consumed by the motor per secoind you would need to inject/spray your magical booster in large quantities to make a difference.

The engines also have an air filter installed that will, by definition, filter out some of what you are spraying in the airbox.

The figures are huge for the litres of air per second that an engine breathes - 600+ litres of air per second.

How much additive can you stash on a helmet?

Two things:
1) Considering the 21% oxygen content in the atmosphere, 21% of the 600 L/sec = 126 L/sec, and that's for 700hp. A 10hp increase is roughly 2 L/sec of O2. This (much more reasonable) number is useful if the gas injected is an 'O2 additive'. A vapor additive requires even less due to air:fuel ratios. Dare I say only 2 seconds of '+10hp additive' are necessary to change qualifying order and 8seconds of +10hp needed to screw with somebody else's pit strategy. (Please note that the 2 & 8 sec reference is not a direct lap time reduction. It just means +10hp for 2 or 8 seconds).

2) The 'additive' does not have to be stored in the helmet, it just needs to exit from it.

I still don't think anybody is using such a system though.

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

[The FOZ]

A few problems.

Visibility - Nearly anything moving through the air can be detected. Even gasoline vapors, which are otherwise invisible, refract light and give a "ripple" effect. Today it's very cheap to buy very, very good photography equipment - cameras in the 20+ megapixel range and with the sheer number of spectators at events, someone would catch a shot of it happening, sooner or later.

Size - Anything capable of making that much of a difference would likely take up a fair amount of space, if not for the substance itself, then for the delivery system, most likely pressurization of some sort.

Volatility - Again, anything capable of making that much of a difference is likely going to be very cold, very harmful to people, or otherwise unwanted anywhere near one's head.

Safety - Even if the substance and it's delivery methods were safe, compromising a helmet is something nobody wants to do. Every square centimeter of material removed from the helmet for a delivery system would be one less square centimeter of energy absorbing materials protecting one's head in a crash situation.

The concept is creative, I'll give it that, but realistic...not as far as I can see.