Movable Aero - Time for a change in construction techniques?

[safeaschuck]

So it's here, it seems to be staying, and growing. The main reason for my post is my lack of knowledge on the future possibilities/sensible developments.

I don't know if anyone saw the article on the Chris Bangle concept car that set the tone for all his flame surfacing work?? It was basically a spaceframe with fancy low drag stretchable cloth pulled tight over it. The idea was the doors could kind of stretch/fold open because parts of the spaceframe tubing were articulated and parts of the body work could even change shape at high speed. I believe they built a model, i.e. it wasn't just a C.A.D. assembly, and this was around long before we saw the first of the flame surfaced cars, but it was kept secret until the last new model faithful to that ethos was released. Bangle left BMW and now it's out there, although I currently have no pics.
I'm guessing the materials weren't ready to productionise, even on M Models or a demonstrator etc. but that must have been 10 years ago.

Are we technologically in a position to see something like this on an F1 car now?
Would it work better than changing the angle of a fixed shape?
Would it be legal?
Can anyone think of other clever solutions that may improve on the performance of simply angling a bit of carbon fible in different directions?

Bear in mind I'm not really into Aero, knowledge-wise, I appreciate it but it scares me when it gets too specific.

Thanks!

[safeaschuck]

Here it is.

And a couple of articles.

http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/move- ... e-shifts-0

http://www.autofiends.com/index.php/200 ... y-concept/

What I meant was not that I'm scared, but I prefer the side of it that develops principles that can be used in a wide range of applications, rather than very specific details, which can improve a specific manufacturers first iteration of a 2009 F1 car and nothing else for example.

If anyone doesn't get what I'm driving at, I mean you could create a true 3D wing form with varying lenghts and thickness's with this idea, rather than an angled plate. Surely this would give + Downforce with less added drag???

[Giblet]

Understanding the tent pole/canvas thing with BMW explains how all their cars are designed now.

it's that look of steel stretched over a shape.

Unfortunately this was just a design exercise.

The amount of gear needed on the car to make it able to do this would for sure outweigh any gains, and the simple fact that the fabric is kind of stretchy mens it will buffet and bounce in the wind like crazy.

This would be even more unusable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVhVClFM ... r_embedded

I am going crazy trying to embed this video.

[modbaraban]

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5603

[Jersey Tom]

Racecars need rigidity.. in structural members and airfoils.

Stretchy fabric does not have rigidity.

Would do about as much as CFRP without the P.

Aesthetically it's a cool concept though!

[WhiteBlue]

Many ways to make a race car faster have been found in 100 years of motor racing. So pretty soon a formula for common restrictions had to be found to make things safe and sensible. The definition of those restrictions has become a big issue in F1. All parties seem to agree that safety, entertainment, sporting fairness and affordability should all be goals when restrictions are decided.

Lately road car relevance was added to the list of goals to make it worthwhile for the automotive sponsors and team owners. With the world beyond peak oil it is little surprise that fuel efficiency has been given a much higher priority by the driving public and the manufacturers. F1 should be the spear head of fuel efficiency in my view. So my answer to the question is certainly positive. F1 should look at all their design and technical rules and practises with fuel efficiency in mind. That is the best way to make sure that the series receives broad support by manufacturers and the motoring public alike.

To achieve a sensible performance level F1 cars need aerodynamic downforce. That will not change. In my view F1 needs to focus on finding the downforce with the least amount of drag. Instead of ever changing geometric restrictions a maximum downforce level should be defined (just like minimum weight) and then designers can do the best job to produce the downforce with the least amount of drag. This would lead to unprecedented rule stability. After all this is what FOTA has been asking for many years. So I do not understand why they do not support this idea.

[xpensive]

If you ask me, Chis Bangle should have been shot long time ago for that 7-series BMW.

[safeaschuck]

Jersey Tom, I didn't even think about the rigidity issue, Doh!

I know what you mean X, but for me none of the Beemers of the last 20 years have really looked pretty when they were new, possibly excepting the Z4 coupe, but they seem to have a knack for making cars that all still look fairly handsome when they a are 10 years old. Perhaps It's all part of their plan. Residuals are something that distinguish the better (mainly German) prestige marques from the Fords & Opels and until lately the Jaguars of the world.
They might never make an E-type, but they will never make an XJS either, if you get what I mean.

[xpensive]

To me the 850 and former 3-series are still delights, however a little dull. But that 7-series will never look anything but outright ugly, no matter what "challenge the buyer" attitude they can dream up! But that's the traditionalist rambling.

[meves]

I've been wodnering about this on two fronts;

1) Movable aero - I was suprised to find that none of the new cars used any flexible alloys. The Aero industry is already on the case with the huge fuel savings that minor aero tweaks mean over long haul flights. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... craft.html

2) Permeable aero - using permeable surfaces to increase cooling without affecting the vehicles aero as much as cutting large appetures in the surfaces, which is where I thought more fabric based surfaces like the BMW might work. Also rather claustrophobically could it be used to close up the area around the driver maybe?

Just a thought (or 2)

[Conceptual]

I've been wodnering about this on two fronts;

1) Movable aero - I was suprised to find that none of the new cars used any flexible alloys. The Aero industry is already on the case with the huge fuel savings that minor aero tweaks mean over long haul flights. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... craft.html

2) Permeable aero - using permeable surfaces to increase cooling without affecting the vehicles aero as much as cutting large appetures in the surfaces, which is where I thought more fabric based surfaces like the BMW might work. Also rather claustrophobically could it be used to close up the area around the driver maybe?

Just a thought (or 2)

You mean like a 360 degree HANS enhancing Helmet Positioning System? That just happens to seamlessly integrate into the open areas of the cockpit? And may be made of a highly flame retardent material in case of a gas fire?

I think you may be on to something! Especially thinking that simply doing the undercuts of the sidepods, and the diffusor floor would in fact be simply amazing ways to get rid of sidepod inlets all together!

I love it, but I'm sure that just the Conceptualist in me...

[Metar]

That'd never pass. F1, by definition, since it's inception, is about open-wheel, open-cockpit racing (lets ignore the Mercedes Monza specials). Any suggestion of closing it would never pass.

Plus, any cloth strong enough to resist aerodynamic forces at 300km/h would necessarily be too strong for a steward - or, god forbid, an injured driver - to open by hand, which is an immediate safety concern.

[donskar]

If you ask me, Chis Bangle should have been shot long time ago for that 7-series BMW.

I was selling BMWs in those days. Not for nothing did we call them "Bangles Bungles"

[Conceptual]

That'd never pass. F1, by definition, since it's inception, is about open-wheel, open-cockpit racing (lets ignore the Mercedes Monza specials). Any suggestion of closing it would never pass.

Plus, any cloth strong enough to resist aerodynamic forces at 300km/h would necessarily be too strong for a steward - or, god forbid, an injured driver - to open by hand, which is an immediate safety concern.

Sure, lets skip over the inconvenient precedence that has already been set. Wait, and then you immediately follow up with stating your opinion as fact, AGAIN!

Hold on! Even MORE bigotry about the "too strong to open" fabric!

Man, every thread you post on immediately turns to ---.

[Metar]

I could say the opposite. And yes, we can ignore a precedent from the friggin' '50s, due to two reasons: First off, the Merc cars only had the wheels covered - and were still open cockpit cars, just like now, so there's no precedent I'm aware of that shows closed-cockpit cars in post-war GP racing. Second, it was essentially an F1-compliant sportscar was raced in the '50s, and faired wheels weren't seen ever since, despite the fact that fairing the wheels is an aerodynamic advantage these days. It's not legal for quite a while, either - if I'm not mistaken, ever since the Merc cars last showed up. Note how even the '70s cars with their experimental aero always kept a bit of the wheel uncovered.


As for the strength of the fabric... look at it this way: A fabric covering the cockpit would have to resist the sort of forces air subjects it at 300km/h. Which, at those speeds, is quite a bit - so the fabric would need to be proportionally strong. Too strong for a human to open in case of an emergency? Or an injured human, from his crashed cell with restricted arm-movement anyway due to the small cockpit?