When will we see ionic winds beeing used in F1?

[amr]

I was reading the other day an article about the MIT engineers that flew a plane using only ionic winds. Reading that and knowing the limits around the MGU-K and ES in F1, I can't help but ask myself when will they use ionic winds to create downforce or manage turbulent air?

What do you think?
Have they reached the MGU-K and ES energy flow limits? Is there any energy left they could they use energy for aero?
Do you think they could use the ionic winds to accelerate air around diffuser? Or better manage tyre wake or front wing airflow? Or to even help with heat extraction and make smaller intakes.

What is your opinion?

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

Amazing idea!

How about a follow-on from the F-duct principle with a flow generating strip behind the wing?

[jjn9128]

It's been pointed out to me in the past that part of the 2011 rule concepts (which were superseded by the 2009 OWG studies) included active aero - both plasma actuation of wings and variable cooling ducts. I'm a believer that F1 should be trail blazing and current aero isn't really different from 40 years ago, more refined yes but conceptually the same.

As far as I'm concerned bring on variable surface geometry, variable cooling ducts, and active boundary layer control.

[dsdevries]

I think the rules only allow a single propulsion system through the rear axle and wheels. Otherwise we could as well introduce jet or nozzle propulsion systems. You are allowed to redirect air-flow by the use of fins, ducts or wings, but you're not allowed to add, store or release energy in this way (with the only exception being DRS).

I think the single propulsion through the rear axle and wheels the essence of the 'Formula'. Changing this would introduce a Formula on its own. So no, we'll never see ionic winds being used in F1.

[Just_a_fan]

As far as I'm concerned bring on variable surface geometry, variable cooling ducts, and active boundary layer control.

I'd certainly be interested to see variable geometry and active boundary layer control.

The latter is certainly old technology, however, having been used in aircraft since the 1950s. The F104 Starfighter, F4 Phantom II and the Buccaneer all used BLC. The F104 had a blown flap, the F4 had a blown flap and blown leading edge, the Buccaneer had blown flap, blown leading edge and a blown tail plane (horizontal stabiliser). These all came in to service at the end of the 1950s/1960.

One could argue that variable geometry is as old as powered flight - the Wright Flyer used wing warping after all.

Of course birds, and the pterosaurs before them, have used variable geometry wings for millions of years.

[amr]

I'm not proposing to use the technology as a means of propulsion, that wouldn't make sens when I guess the mgu-k gives a better eficient way to use electricity to propell the car.
I'm saying that ionic winds could be use as a mean of controlling the airflow in certain regions of the car. I not sure it will be seen as an variable geometric or movable aerodinamic device as neither of the electrodes will move

[dsdevries]

I'm not proposing to use the technology as a means of propulsion, that wouldn't make sens when I guess the mgu-k gives a better eficient way to use electricity to propell the car.
I'm saying that ionic winds could be use as a mean of controlling the airflow in certain regions of the car. I not sure it will be seen as an variable geometric or movable aerodinamic device as neither of the electrodes will move

Ever heard of Newton's third law? For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It doesn't matter if you direct ionic winds backwards in order to propel yourself forward, or if you direct them in any other way in order to improve airflow. You are storing energy in a battery and release it to the system in a way that is disallowed. This falls in the same category as actuated suspensions, variable cooling ducts and active boundary layer control. Allowing such things make the sport in essence a different Formula. This is why i don't understand why they have ever allowed DRS in that sense.

[godlameroso]

I'm not proposing to use the technology as a means of propulsion, that wouldn't make sens when I guess the mgu-k gives a better eficient way to use electricity to propell the car.
I'm saying that ionic winds could be use as a mean of controlling the airflow in certain regions of the car. I not sure it will be seen as an variable geometric or movable aerodinamic device as neither of the electrodes will move

Ever heard of Newton's third law? For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It doesn't matter if you direct ionic winds backwards in order to propel yourself forward, or if you direct them in any other way in order to improve airflow. You are storing energy in a battery and release it to the system in a way that is disallowed. This falls in the same category as actuated suspensions, variable cooling ducts and active boundary layer control. Allowing such things make the sport in essence a different Formula. This is why i don't understand why they have ever allowed DRS in that sense.

How, specifically? Nowhere in the regulations is this disallowed, please quote where it's not allowed.

[Dr. Acula]

I'm not proposing to use the technology as a means of propulsion, that wouldn't make sens when I guess the mgu-k gives a better eficient way to use electricity to propell the car.
I'm saying that ionic winds could be use as a mean of controlling the airflow in certain regions of the car. I not sure it will be seen as an variable geometric or movable aerodinamic device as neither of the electrodes will move

Ever heard of Newton's third law? For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It doesn't matter if you direct ionic winds backwards in order to propel yourself forward, or if you direct them in any other way in order to improve airflow. You are storing energy in a battery and release it to the system in a way that is disallowed. This falls in the same category as actuated suspensions, variable cooling ducts and active boundary layer control. Allowing such things make the sport in essence a different Formula. This is why i don't understand why they have ever allowed DRS in that sense.

How, specifically? Nowhere in the regulations is this disallowed, please quote where it's not allowed.

5.2.1 The use of any device, other than the engine described in 5.1 above, and one MGU-K, to propel the car, is not permitted.

If you can accelerate air in a controled way with a device build in to the car it would violate this rule. Doesn't matter if it's actually the intended function of this device or not. As dsdevries wrote, you could potentially propel the car with it and that's clearly against the rules.

[godlameroso]

Then aero surfaces are banned by that logic, as they propel the car downward by accelerating air in a controlled manner.

While we're at it we should ban drivers with legs

[hollus]

https://mccabism.blogspot.com/2019/01/f ... s.html?m=1



That system produced a grand total of 3 N of force, so it would not move any significant amount of air at any significant speed.

That said, and from the article above, though:

Plasma-actuators for boundary layer control have been under aeronautical development for some years, and unfortunately their use in Formula One seems to have already been proscribed. The Technical Working Group notes for December 2006 contain a request for clarification on the issue from James Allison, and in response Charlie Whiting declares that he had "already given a negative opinion, based on moving parts influencing the car's aerodynamics."

This is a slightly puzzling response, because the whole point about plasma actuators and ionic winds is that they involve no moving mechanical parts. The objects in motion are electrical currents, and the ambient airflow itself, both of which are considered to be consistent with the regulations, and indeed necessary for the function of a Formula One car.

[jjn9128]

This is a slightly puzzling response, because the whole point about plasma actuators and ionic winds is that they involve no moving mechanical parts. The objects in motion are electrical currents, and the ambient airflow itself, both of which are considered to be consistent with the regulations, and indeed necessary for the function of a Formula One car.

The fact it is "active" rather than "passive" is what Whiting and the FIA object to. I guess a synonym for active could be moving so I sometimes wonder if there's a translation issue with the FIA... is Whiting making declarations in English which are translated into French within the FIA then back to English for directing to teams??!

[hollus]

I think Whiting is making statements in English, but in the english if 50 years ago, before computers, electronics, composite materials, control algorythms and even CAD exploded.
We are still in Bernie’s F1, although things might improve as we move into Brawn’s F1.

Of course they mean “active”, but the rules say “movable”. That’s why the F-duct was allowed for a while and then banned, IIRC, on purely geometrical wording.

[PhillipM]

Well, you'd be using a propulsion source other than that allowed in the regulations, even if you were only using them for flow shaping.
I mean, otherwise technically you'd be fine using a rocket nozzle...

[godlameroso]

Well, you'd be using a propulsion source other than that allowed in the regulations, even if you were only using them for flow shaping.
I mean, otherwise technically you'd be fine using a rocket nozzle...

No different from passive microjets, similar to those used on the Mercedes rims. There's a lot of heat in the back of the car, and a lot of airflow travelling through the car. Wouldn't surprise me if someone were using incidental leakage through body panels to use that airflow to help clean up airflow to the diffuser upper surface.