Low sidepods v Undercuts: Pros and Cons

[Pierce89]

Both essencially do the same job and that is to engage the beam wing and create downforce from that. The more clean air you can get to the beam wing the more downforce you create.

Newey essencially wants it (air) to go under and arround the sidepods and thru the coke bottle. McLaren want the air to over and thru the coke bottle. No rights or wrongs in both ways. However both have simmilarities in they way the work the beam wing, both need a long thin transmission and a pull rod suspension to get the air thrugh the beam beam wing the quickest they can to create downforce.

Thats they way i look at it.

I don't believe the pull-rod suspension frees up the airflow as much as our collective minds want to believe. As important as the beam wing has become for DF generation, then if using pull-rods cleaned up the flow that much, then I don't believe Ferrari would be quicker than teams like Merc, or Renault. If the pull-rod truly cleaned up flow to diffusor and beam wing as much as claimed, Ferrari would be behind some of the other pull-rod teams instead of just Red Bull.

[marcush.]

I think the key is the level of sophistication/refinement you put into the details,and how things work as a unit ,otherwise different concepts could never be as closely matched as they are.
If Mclaren,Ferrari and RedBull end up with basically matched performances the conclusion is :high /low nose ,u shaped sidepods undercut sidepods ,pull or push suspension is not a critical decision in achieving the goals .
Or :The RB7 is not as close to the ultimate potential as we like to believe -when others can follow a different road and match or beat them -

[mep]

Its just a thought to consider. I wanted a second opinion. PS how come '90's sidepods were so small when they had to cool big V12 engines?

This very good question remains open!
How was this Lambo able to run sidepods like this?

Very cool car. I really wonder how they did it and why nobody else does it.

McLaren goes in this direction but still have those high horns on their sidepods. They could at least cut the horns off to come closer to the Lambo which is still unmatched.

[Lurk]

I think you have a minimal height at the end of the sidepods. So you should add vertical fins. Maybe there is also a minimal radius too?

[godlameroso]

It's better to have hot air exit where the dynamic pressure is highest, at least...if your aim is to generate vortecies. The pressure underneath the car is lower than over it. In the RB7's case, the area on top of the beam wing has obviously higher pressure than the underside, provided that appendage actually functions as a downforce generating device. It's why the exhaust gasses aren't directly blown at the diffuser, but rather at it's edges. What you want to do is introduce the higher temperatures directly where the pressure differential is greatest, at least that's partly how tornadoes and hurricanes form in nature. Remember good ol PV=nRT, there is a clear relationship between temperature and pressure of a gas.

There is also electricity and magnetism involved in vortex generation but that's beyond the understanding of mere humans and I doubt anyone could do that with an F1 car currently. It would require the manipulation of a magnetic field, and theoretically you could use the KERS to generate this magnetic field, but how would you control it? Before you disagree with this remember clouds generate lightning by the static electricity caused by the dust in the cloud moving around. Evaporated sea water has some salt in it(ionic compound), clouds need dust not just water vapor to form, and the rain that get's tossed around in rain clouds also has dust which rubs together. Lightning rarely occurs from whispy white clouds because they're stable, there is little pressure differential agitating the contents of said cloud. But you get a cumulus cloud caught in a updraft(caused by a pressure differential(mostly)), and all hell breaks loose.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QznSAA ... es&f=false

Back on topic I think the sidepods are the way they are because of the crash structures, if not I would assume they would run them as low as possible. Especially as battery technology evolves, meaning lighter and smaller battery packs, and better packaging opportunities.

[MIKEY_!]

thanks godlameroso, an old Benetton car ran the side impact structure as a fin. This is possible today as long as its right at the front of the sidepod. Don't worry your vortex/magnetism explanation make sense to me. I think you can make a vortex when ever there is a pressure/charge/whatever imbalance in a 'fluid'.

To expel cooling air would some kind of outwash slot in the rear floor be of any use, sending air outside the tire (not what your getting at i know). How effective would sending it through where the exhaust goes now be.

[MIKEY_!]

Found it, from the MP4-27 thread.

[MIKEY_!]

Or what about tall slit inlets like this?

[FW17]

F1 cars of the 90's which had a flat side pod design had a low nose and did not feature a splitter.

As the high nose and splitter evolved, the inlet to the radiator moved further up and air was channeled around the sidepods to feed the top of the diffuser.

This requirement combined with the cars becoming 200 mm narrower meant that the low side pod design did not suit the modern aero requirement.

[shelly]

The Lambo v12 was a big 3,5lt v12, But it had a power output of barely 700hp and it revved around 13000-14000rpm max.
So its cooling requirements were (much) smaller than a 2.4lt v8 with more than 750hp revving at 18000rpm max.

[godlameroso]

thanks godlameroso, an old Benetton car ran the side impact structure as a fin. This is possible today as long as its right at the front of the sidepod. Don't worry your vortex/magnetism explanation make sense to me. I think you can make a vortex when ever there is a pressure/charge/whatever imbalance in a 'fluid'.

To expel cooling air would some kind of outwash slot in the rear floor be of any use, sending air outside the tire (not what your getting at i know). How effective would sending it through where the exhaust goes now be.

It would have some effect, nowhere near as much as with exhaust gases. Maybe if the cooling exits where ducted in such a way as to increase the speed of the air coming out of the cooling exits such as Renault did at the beginning of the year. If you remember LRGP had thin cooling exits that ran across the rear of the car.

http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.ph ... u=14795526

[MIKEY_!]

Williams: Could that increased flow not allow the inlets to be even smaller? Then you get a little less flow around the sides and much more over top + less surface area/cross section?

shelly: thanks for that, I had wondered about RPM but i could find no info.

godlameroso: if they leave that area open for next year it will be important. they will need all the rear DF they can get.

[Tozza Mazza]

Just thought people might be interested in another old sidepod concept trialled in 1983 after ground effect was banned, and teams were desperately trying to claw back lost downforce.

One of the smaller teams, Osella, used a Delta Sidepod concept on the FA1E car.

Here's an image, looks cool, no idea about performance advantages, but the team scored no points that season, but were a non Turbo team on a small budget too.

Here's a pic for those interested.

[Sonic59]

Just thought people might be interested in another old sidepod concept trialled in 1983 after ground effect was banned, and teams were desperately trying to claw back lost downforce.

One of the smaller teams, Osella, used a Delta Sidepod concept on the FA1E car.

Here's an image, looks cool, no idea about performance advantages, but the team scored no points that season, but were a non Turbo team on a small budget too.

Here's a pic for those interested.

Interesting design. It may be caused by several factors:
Sharp angle before air intake MAY create a vortex:

Secondly, a surface before air intake is in high pressure zone, which creates downforce:

But there also may be mechanical aspects. Sidepods like this move back center of gravity of the car:

About disadvantages:
Maybe very high drag caused by huge zone of flow separation behind wheels and sidepods.

[MIKEY_!]

Why don't we see these anymore. I know the 2009 regs killed them but surely they could still have smaller ones along with current Ferrari or Renault sidepod leading edges that are further back. What purpose did these shields have (i think it was to clean up front tire wake)?