The Official 2012 F1 Thread. Spoilers possible!

Discussion in 'Racing' started by shrineclown, Nov 27, 2011.

  1. anotherguy

    anotherguy unsympathetic

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Oddometer:
    9,090
    Location:
    the hills
    It appears the RB8 has some ducting in the nose step. Man Newey has never even seen "inside the box". The ToroRosso has an interesting step treatment as well. Have they done any testing yet?
  2. g®eg

    g®eg Canadian living in exile

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Oddometer:
    7,489
    Location:
    48.8436788,-122.599317
  3. wxwax

    wxwax Excited Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Oddometer:
    91,051
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Toro Rosso say they plan to change their nose to a "more aggressive" design. More or less saying they got it wrong for the launch.

    This leaves McLaren as the outlier. Very interesting. Either they're geniuses or they blundered. Hard to see a middle ground.
  4. wxwax

    wxwax Excited Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Oddometer:
    91,051
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Read this after writing that.

    The argument for "genius":

  5. g®eg

    g®eg Canadian living in exile

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Oddometer:
    7,489
    Location:
    48.8436788,-122.599317
    McLaren nose compared to "maximums"

    [​IMG]
  6. wxwax

    wxwax Excited Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Oddometer:
    91,051
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    I feel sorry for plucky Sauber. Their technical director quits just a few weeks before the season starts.
  7. srad600

    srad600 Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Oddometer:
    704
    Location:
    Chino Hills, CA
    Honestly i don't even see the need for the step nose thing, is that just me? If the nose needs to be lowered the only thing in the way of that seems to be the front suspension where it meets the chassis, and if that can be designed in a way to lower the whole assembly, then the step is no longer necessary? Maybe this is the Maclaren approach? Maybe (most likely) I'm just not seeing something...:D
  8. g®eg

    g®eg Canadian living in exile

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Oddometer:
    7,489
    Location:
    48.8436788,-122.599317
    from Tiwtter:

    :eek1
  9. doyle

    doyle RallyRaidReview-ing

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Oddometer:
    24,790
    Location:
    Off Piste
    The limit becomes one of geometry. The upper and lower wishbones have to be a certain distance apart on order for the wheel/upright to maintain the proper angles through it's movement. That said, most of this nose issue is prompted on the new rule that the nose height may not exceed 550mm due to the fact that some noses were getting too close to the cockpit minimum height of 625mm. The difference between the bulkhead/chassis placement and the nose height restriction is why the hump noses are now appearing. Simply moving the suspension down may help with CoG, but it then interferes with the aerodynamics through the massively important frontal zone which serves to channel the airflow to the most critical of areas, under the car and around the sidepods. The more 'free' area under the nose, the better they are able to control and sculpt the airflow. The last thing they want is to have to incorporate clunky suspension bits there.
  10. anotherguy

    anotherguy unsympathetic

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Oddometer:
    9,090
    Location:
    the hills
    Thanks for stating that so I could understand why.
  11. g®eg

    g®eg Canadian living in exile

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Oddometer:
    7,489
    Location:
    48.8436788,-122.599317
    modification time for the prancing horse....

    [​IMG]
  12. doyle

    doyle RallyRaidReview-ing

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Oddometer:
    24,790
    Location:
    Off Piste
    :lol3 I was just about to make the same post. :thumb
  13. g®eg

    g®eg Canadian living in exile

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Oddometer:
    7,489
    Location:
    48.8436788,-122.599317
    one more....

    [​IMG]
  14. srad600

    srad600 Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Oddometer:
    704
    Location:
    Chino Hills, CA
    That makes sense, but the problem I see is that in stepping the nose you're creating a lot of drag and turbulent air. Why not give it a series of curves to achieve the same goals but without the step (a la McLaren)? For some reason I can't see an aerodynamicist liking that shape, in that area, on an otherwise slippery chassis.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
  15. doyle

    doyle RallyRaidReview-ing

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Oddometer:
    24,790
    Location:
    Off Piste
    The reality is that they are not that slippery. F1 cars will run a coefficient of drag between .75 and 1.1 or so depending on wing configuration, compared to a slippery road car of a .35 or so. The key is not so much slipperiness as it is shaping and controlling the airflow for maximum downforce when needed or maximum flow when needed. I don't think that the humps are as aerodynamically challenging as the look, but I presume the interesting shape of the Newey designed on creates a clean vortex around the cockpit sides back to the rear wing whereas the Ferrari hump looks like a barge.

    Interestingly, it could be utilized as a single surfaced wing to direct airflow up, thereby exerting a little downward pressure directly at the front axle. Probably won't do much but look ugly, but it could add a little downforce.
  16. doyle

    doyle RallyRaidReview-ing

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Oddometer:
    24,790
    Location:
    Off Piste
    In comparing here, it looks like the Force India has the most aggressive of the humps with the Ferrari being the most slabbed, The cup shape of the FI car suggests they are trying to capture as much downforce potential as possible whereas the Ferrari's simply looks like they looked at it simply as a step from height A requirement to height B requirement. It looks unimaginative and uninspiring.

    I know everyone was waiting on the Newey car, but he looks to have taken a different route by a hideous hump, but utilizing the space for a duct. He says only for driver cooling but that is way too big for that. I presume clever ducting, F-ducting type of stuff.

    The HRT car looks skinny in the nose but also includes one of the smoothest of the hump designs. As far as the Sauber, they'd be happy just keep the damn nose and wing on the thing.:lol3
  17. wxwax

    wxwax Excited Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Oddometer:
    91,051
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Yes, once again Newey may have stolen the march on everyone else. (Except, perhaps, McLaren, who reportedly have their own f-duct stuff.)

    I'm no engineer, nor do I play one on the internet. My understanding of all this is minimal. But it's interesting that only Newey has the hump duct.
  18. doyle

    doyle RallyRaidReview-ing

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Oddometer:
    24,790
    Location:
    Off Piste
    A la debut F-duct McLaren, expect more than a few hump ducts to show up at the first race as the rest of the engineers try to figure out a use for them. :lol3
  19. g®eg

    g®eg Canadian living in exile

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Oddometer:
    7,489
    Location:
    48.8436788,-122.599317
    highlights

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hkSSgC3Qbzo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  20. doyle

    doyle RallyRaidReview-ing

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Oddometer:
    24,790
    Location:
    Off Piste
    I'm not an official engineer but I've had some studies along that line in my day. The attraction that F1 holds for me is mostly along two fronts, the engineering/technical side and the strategic/team side. The actual racing itself is mostly a benefit as I see it, just one part of the overall display.

    The way these teams approach the rules and problems and some of the sheer genius that comes out as solutions is mind boggling. I think far beyond any other form of motorsport. That is all part of the reasons why I never much cared for the overtaking debate or had a problem with pitlane passes or fuel stops. I don't like the FIA's meddling as far as madating stops or mandating that certain tire be used.

    I recall a race some years back, I don't have the memory to pick out which one, but it was probably 2003 or 4 or so. Schumacher was several seconds down in second place, something like 30 seconds back or so. This was during the Ferrari years. Whomever was leading was set to pit and I recall the radio transmission of Ross Brawn telling Michael that he needed 32 seconds or so. He took off and for the next few laps simply blistered the pace. He pitted and came out just ahead into the lead. To me, the strategy of it made for one of the greatest passes. Most will scoff and mention René Arnoux vs. Gilles Villeneuve or Hakkinen at Spa. Those are great to watch for the sheer action, and car to car, there have been many greats, but to see the strategy unfold lap by lap, almost being able to see the thinking between Schumacher and Brawn, it was magical, not in a fan of MS or a Tifosi sort of way, but as a fan of strategic thinking.

    All that said, I find this McLaren photo fascinating for the simply structure attached to the side. I was sure what it was but an explanation shows that it is a movable bar filled with inlets for air pressure/temp/direction sensors. I looks to be controlled by a windshield wiper motor and a couple of parallel bars to raise and lower the height. The level of technical detail is stunning.

    [​IMG]