roon wrote: ↑07 Jan 2018, 22:26
It could be totally flat and it would still be higher than the nosecone tip. I discussed radiator rejection in a previous post. What would cause the exhaust plume to deflect downward at standstill or in motion, in order to intersect the nosecone tip? I'm not actually advocating for the idea, nor think that it's a particularly good idea. But the reasons posited in this thread against it aren't very strong.
Nosecone tip height is near the lower edge of the wheel rims i.e. below the top edge of the diffuser, even back when diffusers were shorter. It seems that some forum members say the exhaust and radiator plumes will deflect downward below diffuser height at certain speeds and conditions. If so, why?
I think there has been a few things meshed together and lost in translation somewhere. Yes, if we look at the nose cones, the exhaust exit is higher and so the natural tendency for the air to expand and rise due to its relative density, plus surrounding aero influences, would most likely keep a nose cone intake clear of that issue. However, it may not do so for the sidepod intake ideas which have also been stipulated within this thread.
That being said, there are parts on the F1 car which are almost completely worn away by gravel and dust from the racing, which need to be replaced race to race (i.e. front lower diffuser plate under the splitter below the nose). There is a lot of debris which does fly around, and whilst I'm sure that someone would be able to "manage" this, it wont be without some performance loss; whether permanent throughout the race or temporarily between pitstops or autonomous ejection or something.
Without me sitting down and running some sort of thermal CFD of a tandem "roll-hoop-intake" car setup and comparing it to a particulate suspension simulation with some amount of quantifying porosity over time for the "nose-cone-intake" setup, I can't say for sure which one would be "better".
My initial concerns with the original idea were exhaust gas management, debris and additional weight of all the piping with its associated dynamic pressure losses as air is bent and tunnelled to the engine. If exhaust gases are no longer an issue for the nose cone proposition, then by all means: my concern was misplaced in that case.
One thing I have heard from the drivers is that when they are following closely to cars, they will often complain that they can feel the exhaust heat blasting them before they pull out to pass - not exactly at nose cone height, but still quite low, relative to the typical CFD glyph plot you would look at showing a very sharp upward trajectory. (Whether they are at the bottom of the exhaust or the hot air hits the nosecone somewhere and follows the surface, I don't know)
There is of course piping weight and loss of energy through the tubing due to wall effects etc as well to consider. Ram pressure id say would be minimal given the tubing's length through the chassis vs. its opening size - the cars are turbo powered anyways, so gain, any increase in pressure you would get from the ram effect would be overshadowed by the turbo compression. Besides, you could kinda argue we already get ram pressure effects with the roll hoop mounted solution; would mounting it lower actually do anything more? Id tend to think you would be stealing air from feeding the diffuser more than anything.
