Artificial ground-effect idea

[manchild]

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

I guess it would take only some 300-400mm of floor extension up forward. That's approximately where bargeborads begin.

As you can see on this image, there are still some floor extensions, while the bargeboars due to their vertical position and connecting points on tub and sidepod do not need separate piece of flat floor, because their bottom is flat by itself.



So, we talk about space beginning in line with cockpit opening and reaching max width of the car. That is by any mean more than enough for installation of device I'm proposing.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, it could span even much more forward - all the way to position where mandatory flat floor below bodywork begins (approximately where you can see suspension arms meeting the chassis).

[marekk]

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

In principle it's just a classic de Laval nozzle, when you take mirroring effect of ground under the car into account.
IMO the idea behind this particula shape is to gradually accelerate incoming air - not just squize more of it under the car.
It's not about massflow, it's all about maximal speed of air particles, and i'm afraid your solution doesn't help with this.

[jordangp]

This blue area (approx) cannot have any bodywork in - excluding mirrors.

3.11.1 With the exception of the air ducts described in Article 11.4 and the mirrors described in
Article 3.8.1, in plan view, there must be no bodywork in the area formed by the intersection
of the following lines :
‐ A longitudinal line parallel to and 900mm from the car centre line.
‐ A transverse line 450mm forward of the front wheel centre line.
‐ A diagonal line from 450mm forward of the front wheel centre line and 400mm from the
car centre line to 750mm forward of the front wheel centre line and 250mm from the
car centre line.
‐ A transverse line 750mm forward of the front wheel centre line.
‐ A longitudinal line parallel to and 165mm from the car centre line.
‐ A diagonal line running forwards and inwards, from a point 875mm forward of the rear
face of the cockpit entry template and 240mm from the car centre line, at an angle of
4.5° to the car centre line.
‐ A diagonal line from 875mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template and
240mm from the car centre line to 625mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry
template and 415mm from the car centre line.
‐ A transverse line 625mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template.
For reference this area is shown in drawing 17A in the Appendix to these regulations.

[manchild]

Thank you for clarification about allowed area. So, it is not that big as I've presumed, but if device could be engineered to work, there would still be enough space to fit it to aid downforce.

[hardingfv32]

Are you sure that the remaining space is not controlled by the flat secondary floor requirement and the fact that there can not be any openings in it?

If this space was free they would have a more advantageous side-pod entrance shape.

Coming up with an interesting idea is only part of the puzzle. You have to fit that idea into the context of the rules. Unfortunately this means some time learning what the rules are saying.

Brian

[manchild]

Are you sure that the remaining space is not controlled by the flat secondary floor requirement and the fact that there can not be any openings in it?If this space was free they would have a more advantageous side-pod entrance shape.

Look, the flat floor rule goes only for space under every part of the bodywork in defined zone. It can be extended a bit forward as we've seen over the years, but it can't be simply bent upwards in front of the sidepods.

Since it has to be flat, I've tried to come up with idea to partly condition the air flow the way airfoil on groundeffect cars does. There is no rule preventing holes and apertures in the floor, the rule simply says that below each part of bodywork in defined zones, there must be a flat floor - not a continuous plane.

[hardingfv32]

3.12.5 All parts lying on the reference and step planes, in addition to the transition between the two
planes, must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation
to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

This seals your fate.

Brian

[manchild]

3.12.5 All parts lying on the reference and step planes, in addition to the transition between the two planes, must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

This seals your fate.

Brian

What are bargebords than? You seam to exclude existing elements based on their name. FIA regulations are based on universal rules-the principles, and they don't deal with the name of the bodywork part or it's function, but only define universal rules for certain aeras.

*click to enlarge to 2,400px × 1,600px (scaled to 750px × 500px)


Take a look at that pic of top view of F2012 again, and explain me how bargeborads are legal, since they are not continuous part of the floor as what you're hinting my device isn't either because of apertures. Bottom edge of the bargeboard is actually considered as flat floor beneath it, and there is a huge noncontinuous space between main part of the floor and bargeboard. There is no rule that says "bargeborads are legal, but any other aero device with flat floor isn't"

http://www.ausmotive.com/F1/2012/Ferrar ... 427-04.jpg

[hardingfv32]

From what I can observe the barge boards all seem to be on top of the secondary floor which has no holes or voids in it. You might be able to do anything you want on top of the secondary floor, but that does not help you.

Brian

[bhall]

You could possibly route more air directly into the sidepods, which might allow for smaller inlets. Or would that be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul vis-à-vis the air flow under the car?

[manchild]

From what I can observe the barge boards all seem to be on top of the secondary floor which has no holes or voids in it.

No offense, but I'm beginning to think that you're just trying to irritate me. I apologize in advance if you have problems with your eye sight.

First of all there is no secondary floor, and if you've looked at any on top view pics, even the smaller ones, or enlarged previous HQ, you'd see that bargeboards are dropping shadow on the grey studio floor, just as mirrors and rest of the car does.

*Bargeboards = white colored bent elements in front of the sidepods and partly below the mirrors*



There is no primary or secondary floor below them, they have flat bottom which is considered as flat floor, and that is why they are legal, just as any other element with flat bottom would be.

[horse]

Would you keep the bargeboards?

[manchild]

Would you keep the bargeboards?

Nope. Bargeboards would would "skim" the air and direct it sideways, ruining the desired flow. What I'd add would be tall endplate on my device to prevent sideways spilling or airstream. Perhaps even several additional midplates and even inner endplate in order to keep direction of air as desired.

[hardingfv32]

Here it looks attached to the floor. With other cars it seems attached to the floor.

Brian

[jordangp]

All bargeboards need to be attached to something, the actual bargeboard itself, does not have a floor.