Artificial ground-effect idea

[manchild]

... But the idea of this device, if I've understood it correctly, is to fool the air by mimicing the large radius required at the entry of the a traditional ground effect system. So you need to encourage air to flow down under the leading edge of the sidepod...

That is exactly what I meant, only in different words. I'm glad that it wasn't misunderstood.

What rule controls the area that you are proposing to use?

Can the secondary floor actually be expanded forward and have holes in it?

Brian

It is not the secondary floor, just the extension of default floor. The elements on top of it are not another floor, they are part of the bodywork, and below each of them there is a flat floor as FIA regs. impose (there is no bodywork on top of any hole).



I made simple triangular shaped elements having in mind the simplicity. I agree that perhaps lift can be generated with such shape, so if that is the case, this comes as logical:



I guess L shaped elements as shown on second pic would cause turbulence, but I can't tell if it would be good or bad one.



Thank you all for the replies and observations, I had to write this reply in a rush, and I apologize for shortness.

[hardingfv32]

It is not the secondary floor, just the extension of default floor. The elements on top of it are not another floor, they are part of the bodywork

Is bodywork allowed in this area? The cars don't seem to have barge boards in this area anymore.

Brian

[manchild]

Is bodywork allowed in this area? The cars don't seem to have barge boards in this area anymore.

Brian

The cars have small barge boards right there.

http://www.f1technical.net/images/devel ... mp4-27.jpg

Perhaps this would be better than two optional sketches from my previous post:

[Kittredge305]

I'd like to make 3D presentation of another idea of mine

[manchild]

Did some more thinking. This edited sketch shows basic ratios. The angle of the duct (gray dotted line) defines the spacing between two elements, in a way that air is directed not to hit vertical face of following element. Angle would be therefore disproportional to span between elements.



Prime element that resembles = sign, would most probably be obsolete.

So, the sketch shows only two air guiding/ducting elements, to explain the basic principle of idea, while there could be more of them or just a single one, depending on overall design and flow that I can't define by hinting.

I even have in mind possible "stairway" all the way up to sidepod inlets. That way, sidepods would have rectangular, top positioned inlets, and no undercut at front at all, since all the air that doesn't get picked up by these stepped elements, would end up in the sidepods.

[kilcoo316]

You aren't at all considering the air that will flow vertically upward on each vertical face!

[manchild]

You aren't at all considering the air that will flow vertically upward on each vertical face!

Why would it act like that, when diffuser is already increasing speed of the air under the car, thus reducing the pressure? When I thought about it, I was guided by fact that speed on top of the floor is lower than below, while pressure is higher. So, apart from being guided by these elements, air would also be partially sucked below the floor due to previously mentioned differences in speed and pressure, right?

BTW, I guess someone is already doing CFD in secrecy

[N12ck]

You aren't at all considering the air that will flow vertically upward on each vertical face!

Why would it act like that, when diffuser is already increasing speed of the air under the car, thus reducing the pressure? When I thought about it, I was guided by fact that speed on top of the floor is lower than below, while pressure is higher. So, apart from being guided by these elements, air would also be partially sucked below the floor due to previously mentioned differences in speed and pressure, right?

BTW, I guess someone is already doing CFD in secrecy

ask n smikle if he can run something

[manchild]

Are the squared frontal areas a necessity?

I really can't tell what would work better.



Without those vertical areas it would definitively have better aero efficiency, would be lighter + adjustable during pitstops (angle), but with reduced purpose efficiency.

[hardingfv32]

Without those vertical areas it would definitively...

Do you have any information supporting your basic premise that the floor will benefit from more flow? I do not think that is correct.

Brian

[manchild]

Do you have any information supporting your basic premise that the floor will benefit from more flow? I do not think that is correct.Brian

Flat floor below bodywork isn't part of the car invented by designers as something beneficial for competitiveness, but a mandatory rule imposed by FIA after deadly 1982 season. My idea is guided by intention to as someone already called it "mimic" frontal airflow found on ground-effect cars. Think of it as front diffuser.



http://www.motorsportretro.com/wp-conte ... /78-79.gif

[hardingfv32]

My idea is guided by intention to as someone already called it "mimic" frontal airflow found on ground-effect cars. Think of it as front diffuser.

I still do not think your parts are allowed in this area. Why not add a correctly shaped tunnel opening in front of the flat floor restricted area. I suspect there is a rule that prevents such an option, although I can not quote it to you.

Brian

[bhall]

You may very well have a point on that one. I've been looking through the testing pictures, and I can't find any that show a car with significant bodywork in this area. Teams in the past often had extended floors in various guises ahead of the sidepods, but I don't know if such features have seemingly vanished because of a change in the rules or if it's because teams are shortening the floors to move the corresponding center of pressure farther aft.

[manchild]

But they do have bodywork - bargeborads and turning-wanes exactly in that area, and there is flat floor beneath those two.

[bhall]

Oops. I guess I assumed your idea needed more space.