Interesting Red Bull F1 aero theory

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24659085

EDIT: Quick summary for someone not wanting to read the link: commentator's theory is with regard to using heat from low ride height on skid plates to cause structural expansion to life the floor, compensating for reduced ride height at higher speeds/more downforce.

I'm so torn about this sort of thing, and the Mercedes (it was Mercedes, wasn't it?) ducting to stall the wings and so forth...

It's epically clever in conception and execution. But it all feels like competing with a rule book more than the other teams or the track.

I suppose it's useless to wish that the nominal pinnacle of motorsport was going to adhere to philosophies of car design that appeal more to me.

I just wish it were easier to get good coverage of series which are closer to what appeals to me, but we tend to wind up in a morass of poor and/or scant coverage, poor commentary, drivers who are qualified more by their wallets than their skills... Not that there can't be great racing even with those limitations.

I'm going to go see if I can find some lower-tier road racing to watch...

Very cool. This is F1. Exploiting the rules is what they do. I don't really have a problem with that.

find me a race series that does not exploit the rules?

I still think it would be awesome for a unlimited development series to exist. Even though getting the money together for it would probably never happen.

Active suspension geometry, active aero, CVT (at least the option), sucker cars.. All of it...

I never said I had a problem with them exploiting the rules. Working at least to the limit of the rules is the nature of racing.

My problem is more with the rules. The cars are aero-above-all-else, and all other considerations are much less important. This in turn makes racing and passing much more difficult, to the extent they add DRS to allow for creating passing, which although effective, is deeply contrived. There's more to it, but these are some of the biggest points.

Anyhow, as I alluded to in my first post, while I'm bummed that the coverage of "lower" levels of racing is harder to come by, I'm better served by finding that than worrying about what F1 has turned into.

Yeah, I mean, it's competitive engineering at its finest. I think it actually helps the crappy teams... be a genius, invent something new, keep it quiet... that was Brawn in '09 right?

ransom wrote: My problem is more with the rules. The cars are aero-above-all-else, and all other considerations are much less important.

Only if by "the rules" you mean "the laws of physics".

I don't think there's any way you can get rid of the dominance of aero on car performance without going to "template" bodies like NASCAR has.

the top NASCAR teams also find gaps in the rulebook to exploit- it's what winners do.

i say let them do whatever they want, but put them on hard skinny tires..

One of the reasons that F1 concentrates so hard on the aero is that the engines are so tightly locked down. For the next round of engine designs, teams are only allowed so many "points" of modification from the homologated engine per year. Different types of modifications carry a different point penalty (sounds like NASA TT) and the number of available points drops each year. So they're simply not allowed to work on engines!

In an open formula, I don't think you'd see a semi-open wheel setup like Apexcarver's pic. They'd go with full bodies like a Le Mans car - more surface means more downforce, and exposed wheels are ugly from an aero point of view.

EDIT: was in reply to codrus, though that's more to make the grammar make sense than direct my mumblings to anyone...

Well, true, aero will always remain very important, and perhaps dominant, but limiting ways of creating downforce may create an increased emphasis on mechanical grip.

What if ride heights were forced up to the point that entire sections of chassis design aren't about creating an artificial 2mm of ground clearance when moving, because it would be a drop in the bucket?

Just pondering, as this stuff tends to make me do...

I absolutely love the inginuity of this sport. The 6 wheel Tyrrells, Williams active suspension, Brawn GPs double diffuser, wing stalling, coanda exhaust, blown diffusers. It does get tiresome watching Vettel dominate but man the engineering is just as interesting as the racing is. To me anyway.

Right there with you. I love the thermal cameras, they know their audience.

ransom wrote: What if ride heights were forced up to the point that entire sections of chassis design aren't about creating an artificial 2mm of ground clearance when moving, because it would be a drop in the bucket?

Just put a big speed bump on the entrance to the pits Don't legislate the cars, make them evolve to suit the courses.

In reply to Keith Tanner:

I like it!

ransom wrote: In reply to Keith Tanner: I like it!

Agreed! That is a very simple, yet elegant solution to the issue at hand.

ransom wrote: What if ride heights were forced up to the point that entire sections of chassis design aren't about creating an artificial 2mm of ground clearance when moving, because it would be a drop in the bucket?

Sure, but there are plenty of other ways that aero impacts performance. The diffuser is the most efficient device in terms of adding maximum downforce with minimum drag, so it tends to get a lot of attention (double diffuser, exhaust blown diffuser, exhaust sealed diffuser, all the ride height stuff), but it's hardly the only one. Look at the double-DRS, the F-duct, the never-gone saga of flexi-wings, barge boards, and the profusion of little aero bits here and there designed to "clean up" airflow before it gets to the wings, or to divert it away from the wheels, etc, etc.

F1 development is going to remain focused on aero because that's where the most gains are to be had. The article suggests that heat-bending floor was worth half a second in lap time. I don't have a source handy, but IIRC gaining half a second in F1 from the engine requires something like 50 hp!

the car must remain the same downforce at motion as it is at rest....

solved

oldeskewltoy wrote: the car must remain the same downforce at motion as it is at rest.... solved

How do you enforce that? Build a $500M full-size wind tunnel complete with rolling road at every F1 race track?

Even if you do that, the R&D will come down to how can we make downforce when it's actually on the track and not have it show up on the spec wind tunnel. Perhaps it's possible to design the car so that it's got zero downforce when sitting straight, but when the suspension loads up in the corner it changes the angle of various things to the track… :)

Keith Tanner wrote:

ransom wrote: What if ride heights were forced up to the point that entire sections of chassis design aren't about creating an artificial 2mm of ground clearance when moving, because it would be a drop in the bucket?

Just put a big speed bump on the entrance to the pits Don't legislate the cars, make them evolve to suit the courses.

didn't Indycar have what amounted to a jump at one street course that they had to put a chicane in front of to slow the cars down?

do that, but without the chicane...

This blog is required reading if you are an F1 fan.

http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2013/10/10/analysis-red-bulls-hot-t-tray-in-korea/

novaderrik wrote: the top NASCAR teams also find gaps in the rulebook to exploit- it's what winners do.

and everyone else whines and tries to get cleverness banned because they didn't think of it first.

"One or two [race car designs] inspired that most unnattractive of human reactions - 'It's going to win - let's get it banned" with instant resort to the relevant small print rather than to the drawing board to compete" - Alan Staniforth, Race and Rally Car Sourcebook

codrus wrote:

oldeskewltoy wrote: the car must remain the same downforce at motion as it is at rest.... solved

How do you enforce that? Build a $500M full-size wind tunnel complete with rolling road at every F1 race track? Even if you do that, the R&D will come down to how can we make downforce when it's actually on the track and not have it show up on the spec wind tunnel. Perhaps it's possible to design the car so that it's got zero downforce when sitting straight, but when the suspension loads up in the corner it changes the angle of various things to the track… :)

The only downforce a car creates at rest is the weight of the car

nicksta43 wrote:

codrus wrote:

oldeskewltoy wrote: the car must remain the same downforce at motion as it is at rest.... solved

How do you enforce that? Build a $500M full-size wind tunnel complete with rolling road at every F1 race track? Even if you do that, the R&D will come down to how can we make downforce when it's actually on the track and not have it show up on the spec wind tunnel. Perhaps it's possible to design the car so that it's got zero downforce when sitting straight, but when the suspension loads up in the corner it changes the angle of various things to the track… :)

The only downforce a car creates at rest is the weight of the car

but what if there is a slight gust of wind from the front of the car when it's parked?

flip the wings over so they create lift instead of downforce..

codrus wrote:

ransom wrote: What if ride heights were forced up to the point that entire sections of chassis design aren't about creating an artificial 2mm of ground clearance when moving, because it would be a drop in the bucket?

Sure, but there are plenty of other ways that aero impacts performance. The diffuser is the most efficient device in terms of adding maximum downforce with minimum drag, so it tends to get a lot of attention (double diffuser, exhaust blown diffuser, exhaust sealed diffuser, all the ride height stuff), but it's hardly the only one. Look at the double-DRS, the F-duct, the never-gone saga of flexi-wings, barge boards, and the profusion of little aero bits here and there designed to "clean up" airflow before it gets to the wings, or to divert it away from the wheels, etc, etc. F1 development is going to remain focused on aero because that's where the most gains are to be had. The article suggests that heat-bending floor was worth half a second in lap time. I don't have a source handy, but IIRC gaining half a second in F1 from the engine requires something like 50 hp!

I should never have phrased it so it sounded like I wanted the teams to forget about aero. Clearly, that's not happening.

I'm just curious about what could be done to make the cars less sensitive to things like ride height so that it doesn't make sense to spend hundreds of thousands of Euro on a thermally-retracting tea tray. You can't avoid some of this sort of thing, but it seems like things which make the cars less aero-sensitive could also improve close-proximity function...

Which are more influenced by turbulence from following another car; undertray aero, or wings?

ransom wrote: Which are more influenced by turbulence from following another car; undertray aero, or wings?

I'm a software engineer, not an aerodynamicist, but I would guess that the wings are the parts most affected by turbulent air. They started allowing underbody tunnels in GP2 cars, and IIRC one of the reasons stated for that was that it allowed the cars to run more closely to each other. Diffusers aren't tunnels, but...