Ferrari 150° Italia

[beelsebob]

Red Bull started blowing the diffuser and suddenly it is beleived that you can blow anything...

Red Bull starts using a property of physics to generate downforce, and suddenly it's believed that the same property of physics will hold at all places in the world. Sure – blowing other aero surfaces is not going to be as efficient... doesn't mean it can't be done.

[Holm86]

No Red Bull didnt start blowing the diffuser. Others have tried it before.

And i saw a small documentary on le mans cars a few years back and someone told about how the periscope exhaust exiting just under the rear wing could aid downforce.

[wesley123]

Red Bull started blowing the diffuser and suddenly it is beleived that you can blow anything...

Red Bull starts using a property of physics to generate downforce, and suddenly it's believed that the same property of physics will hold at all places in the world. Sure – blowing other aero surfaces is not going to be as efficient... doesn't mean it can't be done.

Sure it can done, but since Red Bull started doing it last year people keep talking about it, while before nobody even knew about the idea. No one talked about a EBRW or EBBW, while the exhaust would be in essentially the same position in 2012(as far as i know) as it did pre EBD

[godlameroso]

You can still use the exhausts to add downforce next year, it's just that you have to use them differently because of their position.

Any idea how exactly?

Like I said in another post, in the aerodynamics section; In nature, vortecies like tornadoes and hurricanes are formed from pressure gradients caused by the colder low pressure air in the upper atmosphere, and the relatively hotter high pressure air closer to the ground. Well in an F1 car, you have exhausts, and cooling exits mixing with high pressure air relative to contrast the lower pressure and relatively cooler air from the floor and underside of the wings. This makes the rear end of the car prone to vortex formation; more so if you can increase the temperature gradient.

This year the teams were able to exaggerate this temperature gradient buy placing the exhausts near the diffusers, and some clever teams even incorporated the cooling exits to help with this.

Next year the same thing applies, it's just that the exhaust pulses have to travel a longer distance, consequently diffusing a lot of their temperature, and hence reducing the potential to create a temperature gradient at the rear.

It might even be possible to "blow" the rear wing if you could somehow duct the hot air from the cooling systems to the end plates near the underside of the wing. It's effect wouldn't be as extreme as placing the exhaust from the car, as those pulses have a lot more energy and temperature than the cooling system could ever hope to impart to the air that passes through it.

[timbo]

Sure it can done, but since Red Bull started doing it last year people keep talking about it, while before nobody even knew about the idea. No one talked about a EBRW or EBBW, while the exhaust would be in essentially the same position in 2012(as far as i know) as it did pre EBD

I think it is fairer to say "returned" to exhaust blowing. It was a widespread practice before 1998.

[wesley123]

Sure it can done, but since Red Bull started doing it last year people keep talking about it, while before nobody even knew about the idea. No one talked about a EBRW or EBBW, while the exhaust would be in essentially the same position in 2012(as far as i know) as it did pre EBD

I think it is fairer to say "returned" to exhaust blowing. It was a widespread practice before 1998.

They barely blowed anything back then, I have read an article not really long ago stating that the only reason that they even used these periscope exhausts was because of torque and horspeower with the newer engines being much more sensitive to that, thus the exhaust had to become shorter. This blowing over the top wsnt actually good for aerodynamics, at least it was worse compared to exiting the exhaust above the diffuser.

My point is that since Red bull started the EBD people seem to think they can blow anything, before this nobody said a thinga bout exhaust placing, now everything has to be blown.

Sam as with the F-duct, when that came suddenly people started talking about whatever they can think to let stall or blow in a similair way.

I am not saying that it cannot be done, I am just saying people suddenly seem to think blowing the exhaust wherever they can think of always works.

[JMN]

Scarbs wrote a lengthy article concerning the evolution from classic blown diffusers to periscope exhausts and the intermediate mode. A mode which I might add sounds an awfull lot like the Mercedes system from the early part of this season.

Unable to create the long secondary pipes the traditional rear exits were unviable, however their first solution was not immediately the periscope, “We found the best solution, quite an aero gain at the time, was to exit the exhausts out of the sides of the bodywork beside and ahead of the rear tyres with an extra panel to protect the tyres from hot exhausts.

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/06/1 ... -exhausts/

I imagine the periscope evolution will be more affected by the finalized regulations for Energy Recovery Systems and turbo considerations than the prospect of any "blowing effect".

[beelsebob]

Red Bull started blowing the diffuser and suddenly it is beleived that you can blow anything...

Red Bull starts using a property of physics to generate downforce, and suddenly it's believed that the same property of physics will hold at all places in the world. Sure – blowing other aero surfaces is not going to be as efficient... doesn't mean it can't be done.

Sure it can done, but since Red Bull started doing it last year people keep talking about it, while before nobody even knew about the idea. No one talked about a EBRW or EBBW, while the exhaust would be in essentially the same position in 2012(as far as i know) as it did pre EBD

Rubbish – one of the things that was talked about on one of Schumacher's Ferrari's was the interesting new exhaust positioning... whereas before they exited under the car, Ferrari were pulling them up and over, and gaining aero advantage by driving the rear wing with them.

It took quite a while for the other teams to catch up with that... and hey, we're talking mid nineties here.

Edit: 1999 Ferrari IIRC

[wesley123]

Rubbish – one of the things that was talked about on one of Schumacher's Ferrari's was the interesting new exhaust positioning... whereas before they exited under the car, Ferrari were pulling them up and over, and gaining aero advantage by driving the rear wing with them.

It took quite a while for the other teams to catch up with that... and hey, we're talking mid nineties here.

Edit: 1999 Ferrari IIRC

From Scarbs blog, the one I had read actually hahaha

Again the workaround was not the periscopes “We went to a simple blown diffuser but the performance loss was “noticeable”. We then tried a short pipe leading into but not connected to a secondary pipe but had some fires due to exhaust flame outs off throttle that then caused problems”. With other solutions finally exhausted Toet shifted to an up and out exhaust solution, which we tend to call periscopes, but he terms snorkels. Toet concludes “And so the exhaust snorkels were born. Then with lots of optimisations we got them to work quite well (not as good a solution aerodynamically speaking as the side exits but not bad in the end). The solution then allowed for tighter rear bodywork which began to bring further benefits”. Looking at the rear of the 1998 Ferrari F300, the first design of periscope stood the test of time and in concept hasn’t changed much in the ten subsequent years. Ferrari of course had initial problems with the periscope design.

A gain might be that it blows the beam wing a bit, it is an far from optimal position. What we are having now is really clean and sleek top bodywork, an exhaust exiting there, though with high energy air and its vortices, speed etc., isnt something you want on the top surface of a wing. That it is usefull over the floor and udner the floor doenst mean that it is anywhere.

The idea behind the periscopes was just power, not aerodynamics. If you want it or not, breaking up your clean bodywork with an exhaust is not one of the things you want to do. Thereby, if this beam wing blowing is so useful, then you have to explain me why the exhaust were placed in positions so they would be blowing into empty space?

The short exhausts itself are ruining aerodynamics over the sidepod top, if you want it or not, but they have an packaging advantge, allowing tighter sidepods then with ultra long exhausts.

[HampusA]

.....

[beelsebob]

From Scarbs blog, the one I had read actually hahaha

Again the workaround was not the periscopes “We went to a simple blown diffuser but the performance loss was “noticeable”. We then tried a short pipe leading into but not connected to a secondary pipe but had some fires due to exhaust flame outs off throttle that then caused problems”. With other solutions finally exhausted Toet shifted to an up and out exhaust solution, which we tend to call periscopes, but he terms snorkels. Toet concludes “And so the exhaust snorkels were born. Then with lots of optimisations we got them to work quite well (not as good a solution aerodynamically speaking as the side exits but not bad in the end). The solution then allowed for tighter rear bodywork which began to bring further benefits”. Looking at the rear of the 1998 Ferrari F300, the first design of periscope stood the test of time and in concept hasn’t changed much in the ten subsequent years. Ferrari of course had initial problems with the periscope design.

A gain might be that it blows the beam wing a bit, it is an far from optimal position. What we are having now is really clean and sleek top bodywork, an exhaust exiting there, though with high energy air and its vortices, speed etc., isnt something you want on the top surface of a wing. That it is usefull over the floor and udner the floor doenst mean that it is anywhere.

The idea behind the periscopes was just power, not aerodynamics. If you want it or not, breaking up your clean bodywork with an exhaust is not one of the things you want to do. Thereby, if this beam wing blowing is so useful, then you have to explain me why the exhaust were placed in positions so they would be blowing into empty space?

The short exhausts itself are ruining aerodynamics over the sidepod top, if you want it or not, but they have an packaging advantge, allowing tighter sidepods then with ultra long exhausts.

Sure – I'm not saying "All teams will magically suddenly gain as much from periscopes as they will from a blown diffuser"... But they certainly will still be using the exhaust gas for aero advantage.

[Javert]

If periscope exhausts had the same performance than (actual) EBD, why no one (even minnows) this year tried them ?

Next year we could see a HUGE performance loss, it would be nice to see teams trying them in FP1 later this season.

[timbo]

My point is that since Red bull started the EBD people seem to think they can blow anything, before this nobody said a thinga bout exhaust placing, now everything has to be blown.

Exhaust blowing was on my menu of aero development during the first year of the flat bottom era (1983) as one possibility to recover some downforce. I was in Renault at the time in charge of aero and, after some checks on the engine bench as we were terrified to face another lag time (!) between throttle movement and downforce creation, I was given the green light to experiment in the tunnel. Exhaust blowing to create a fluid skirt on the side of the car (also tested early 1983) did not worked but blowing the rear diffuser was quite powerful (I remember something like 50 kg on the rear axle at full throttle whatever the speed).

It was introduced at MonteCarlo in 1983 on the RE 40 and stay on it most of the season. It was kept on RE50 the year after (ask Derek Warwick!) and I introduced it also on the F1/86 (Canada 1986) when I worked for Ferrari later.

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/11/1 ... -the-past/

[wesley123]

please, I know that and you damn right know what I mean.

I will repeat it once again;
Red Bull put the EBD on their car and suddenly people think you can blow anything. I have nowhere even said Red Bull invented exhaust blowing, since they returned it people seem to think anything can be blown. My text had nothing to do with the Exhaust blowing itself, only the way people are 'using' it was the point. Have you ever seen someone talk about how the exhaust blows the beam wing, or rear wing before Red Bull returned EBD? I have not and that was the whole point.

[beelsebob]

please, I know that and you damn right know what I mean.

I will repeat it once again;
Red Bull put the EBD on their car and suddenly people think you can blow anything. I have nowhere even said Red Bull invented exhaust blowing, since they returned it people seem to think anything can be blown. My text had nothing to do with the Exhaust blowing itself, only the way people are 'using' it was the point. Have you ever seen someone talk about how the exhaust blows the beam wing, or rear wing before Red Bull returned EBD? I have not and that was the whole point.

Yes we have – the Ferrari F300 and F399 for example blew their lower wings with their snorkel exhausts. The point that has been made abundantly clear over the course of the thread since you said that is that many teams have blown many parts of their cars for varying advantages for many years. Periscope exhausts being mandated will not change that. It'll just mean that the currently popular diffuser area will be off limits.