1995 Jordan sidepod intake shape...

[Conceptual]

This would seem to me to be the best way to do the inlets. Does anyone care to explain why it wasn't good (other than the low nose)?

Was this tried by any other teams? I actually thought some 2009 cars might have done this, but apparently not.

Pro's? Con's?

As always, intelligent comments are very welcome!

[PNSD]

Thanks for bringing this up, I also expecting teams to at least try out this idea for this year.
Though the cars have massivley different philosophys now. I beleive the main reason this isnt used would possibly be the side crash structure, though that is pure speculation, if anyone can explain in further detail that would be nice !

[mx_tifoso]

The F1.09 has an opening similar to that, reportedly it's for KERS.

[Scotracer]

The side impact structures are largely irrelevant as they can be in the same place but have sidepod inlets further forward. I'm guessing that the regulations limiting bodywork in the area ahead of the current sidepod inlets are what restricts this being used.

It would aid aerodynamics as the smoother configuration would cause less of a pressure change over the length of the car. Apart from regulations, they weren't used in the past as the bargeboards did the job of this intake section.

[Conceptual]

I seem to think that even lowering the inlet to take the air right off the splitter would be better than what they currently do, and this solution would be tailor made for a high-nose + splitter setup...

Does the 96 Jordan follow this design trend and add a high nose? I'll have to look into it!

[kilcoo316]

Here is your answer.

Since 1983, when the new flat bottom regulations prevented designers tuning the distribution of underbody downforce by profiling the underneath of the car, the length of the sidepods has been one of the few options remaining for determining centre of pressure and the manner in which it varies as the car pitches and heaves. Long sidepods generate more downforce forward of the CG than the short ones currently in use. As the car's front axle ground clearance reduces under braking, they move the centre of pressure forward and tend to destabilise the car. Front wings have been developed to such a fine pitch that the underside does not need to generate so much forward-biased downforce, and sidepods have been steadily shortened. For a short time in the early 1990's, active suspension allowed the attitude of the car and it's all-important ride heights to be controlled, solving the problems of the longer sidepods. Banned for 1994, the move rearwards of the leading edge of the sidepods has been universal.

[timbo]

I think that disadvantage of such inlet shape (I'm not talking about long sidepods) is that the quality of air is compromised by boundary layer effect.

[kilcoo316]

I think that disadvantage of such inlet shape (I'm not talking about long sidepods) is that the quality of air is compromised by boundary layer effect.

I think the local flow would be so turbulent that any boundary layer effects would be quite negligible.

But of course, without having wind tunnel/CFD data to hand, it is just an opinion.

[xpensive]

It looks slippery anyway, didn't the Jordan-Peugeots have an impressive top-speed, when credit was given to the engine?

[timbo]

I think the local flow would be so turbulent that any boundary layer effects would be quite negligible.

It was reported that Ferrari F92A that had radiator inlets placed a bit outboard to bleed boundary layer used to have the smallest inlets on the grid. Too bad other features of its design never worked as well. And look at airbox shapes on all modern cars!

Of course it is my opinion only, too)))

[Callum]

Having the radiators forward would also help with their want of a forward weight distrabution (like the new Audi R15).

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Im not so sure about why its not used now, probably because of the raised nose, and the complex aero that's being used there but in terms of it's advantages from what I interpret is as they could be:

1. The sidepods (when viewed from above) look normal, so effectively you have tiny opening = less drag
2. Having the inlet where it is works kind of like early bargeboards, air flowing inside of the barge board goes into sidepod, air flowing outside of it is directed around the sidepod.

To me this is effectively a sidepod working like a sidepod/bargeboard combination. To me the vertical wall of the sidepod from the inlet stretching back to it's widest point appears to mirror a bargeboard.

But that's only my interpretation.

[Belatti]

Its interesting how the 1996 Jordan mutated from the 1995 one.
A new inlet was opened in a very similar design:

[flynfrog]

man those where good looking cars. Compared the the cartoons we are racing this year.

[xpensive]

Yeah imagine that, sleek front slicks on a wider track-width, those were the days.
I'm pretty certain that the golden B&H car topped the speed-trap at Hockenheim in 1996.