Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans
.looked liked a good end to the first barcelona test for mclaren, 107 laps covered yesterday and no reliability issues,
I noticed a few images of the F150’s rear and, as usual there’s endless speculation about exhausts and what might or might not be there. So, I thought I’d add my 2 bobs worth.
My interest is in the rear rain light unit area. If you look at image-1 below you can see they have temp stickers on it. On Image-2 there are a series of temp stickers along the arm holding the light. I’d assume if they are measuring temp it has to be something hot, probably exhaust gases. So the immediate thought is why would you blow exhaust gases out that far beyond the diffuser. Can’t have much effect there.
You will also notice that on Image-1, there is what looks like a rectangular rubber stopper/plug covering an outlet that you can see (without the plug) in image-2. Also, there is gap all around between the light and the housing.
Well, I came up with two possible benefits. The first and less likely is that you could use the fast flowing air to create a lower pressure area somewhere underneath. But you can get that still by blowing it over/through one of the available inlets still open to the diffuser. So why deliberately blow gases out beyond the diffuser and rear aero area?
Which leads me to my second thought. Because the additional openings to the diffuser are so small (two small slots at either end and one for the starter) there is probably a point at which the additional you blow through there gives little return. So, if you already have a good result and you have additional exhaust gases – especially down the straight where you probably don’t want the down force so much why not find something else to do with any excess gases?
Last year, a very under-rated benefit (IMO) of the double diffuser was the amount of turbulence it put out. Made life very difficult for the car behind to stay close and to overtake. I’m just wondering whether Ferrari are blowing exhaust to create some extra turbulence behind the F150? There are two distinct areas the gap around the light itself and the rectangle below. Using different flows would certainly create different turbulence, not as much as the DDD’s did last year, but, it might also make things a little tougher for someone to pass you.
One last far-fetched thought. There was some talk, when Ferrari got their chassis homolgated that they had incorporated some very new materials into the body of the car. There has been some advances in materials that can move, yet have memory (can return to specific positions under certain conditions). The material in any static test would pass load/bend tests yet, under different conditions might seem to bend (anyone remember the RB front wing from last year?). OK, this is definitely way out there, but it would be interesting if you could at lower speeds in corners direct the exhaust gases over/through diffusers and aeros, but, at high speeds get them to divert out the back. You'd expect the Ferrari to have pretty good straight line speed if that was the case.
Image-1
Image-2
That's a lot of stuff to put out there Spanky... I don't know if you could agree or disagree with any of your points given the nature of F1. That being said, though it seems like a bit of occam's razor here and the likeliest explanation is that we're looking at an unfinished car, with the most interesting bit being those sensors placed along the crash structure. To move air, you need a bit hole, a lot of little openings are just not efficient, and have the added penalty of introducing weakness and making a structure more prone to stress because of the material removed to make the openings.
We'll have to wait and see.
That's a lot of stuff to put out there Spanky... I don't know if you could agree or disagree with any of your points given the nature of F1. That being said, though it seems like a bit of occam's razor here and the likeliest explanation is that we're looking at an unfinished car, with the most interesting bit being those sensors placed along the crash structure. To move air, you need a bit hole, a lot of little openings are just not efficient, and have the added penalty of introducing weakness and making a structure more prone to stress because of the material removed to make the openings.
We'll have to wait and see.
Granted it was a little long winded, but I thought I'd explain myself, in case anyone was silly enough to read it. I'm not sure your right on the shape and size of the holes, in relation to "moving air". If I'm right the objective is turbulence. If you look at grid turbulence you really can get a lot of umph out of relatively little. Also, the moving air isn't limited to what's coming from the hole. There's all the air from the diffuser and wing - that's pretty substantial actually, and all you have to do is to set off the turbulence.
It is a little far fetched, as I said, but that's how some ideas germinate.
As you say, we will wait and see.
I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough in aerodynamics to even guess... but turbulence means scrubbed speed, and I'd have to think that the trade off versus giving up some of your speed in order to make it more difficult for others to pass. So they'd have made a purposeful design to give up some of their speed to make life harder for the guy behind. There are two artificial passing aids with the KERS & MRW, so I just don't know if bothering to create the equivalent of a mario cart banana peel behind you is or should be the focus of a team. Unless... Ferrari has speed to burn, and all the non Tifosi are in deep doo doo.
It's interesting hearing from the people actually there as their statements are not 'washed down' by some racing team's PR department. All the spectators who have some sort of idea of what racing cars are all about have stated the Reb Bull carries big speed into corners, the Mclaren has poor braking control and turns in poorly, Williams is looking good, MB has fantastic top speed and good brake balance but lacks turn in due to aero, Ferrari has a great mix of everything.
I found this comment from a member on another forum who was recieving Tweet updates.It's interesting hearing from the people actually there as their statements are not 'washed down' by some racing team's PR department. All the spectators who have some sort of idea of what racing cars are all about have stated the Reb Bull carries big speed into corners, the Mclaren has poor braking control and turns in poorly, Williams is looking good, MB has fantastic top speed and good brake balance but lacks turn in due to aero, Ferrari has a great mix of everything.
I found this comment from a member on another forum who was recieving Tweet updates.It's interesting hearing from the people actually there as their statements are not 'washed down' by some racing team's PR department. All the spectators who have some sort of idea of what racing cars are all about have stated the Reb Bull carries big speed into corners, the Mclaren has poor braking control and turns in poorly, Williams is looking good, MB has fantastic top speed and good brake balance but lacks turn in due to aero, Ferrari has a great mix of everything.
See our F1 related articles too!
