Mercedes: Are they blowing the Front or Rear wing?

Update on how it links to the front wing

Original article/

I’ve heard a lot of reporting about the Mercedes F-Duct stalling the rear wing and the likelihood of other teams already having a similar system.

I can see the logic in why people think that the DRS controlled duct blows the rear wing elements in a bid to reduce drag. I haven’t seen any evidence of this being the case; equally I can see several issues with this theory. The problem with the theories on the DRS duct stalling the rear wing are twofold; firstly the DRS is already cutting immensely, secondly the rules greatly restrict the ability to stall the rear wing. Back in to 2010 teams were using blown slots across the full width of the rear wing, these being used with perpendicular blowing to stall the wing or tangential blowing to act as an additional slot gap for more downforce. The rules introduced in 2011 aimed to prevent both of these types of slot.
To stall either the top rear wing or the beam (lower) rear wing, you need to blow a slot. In the post 2010 rules, slots are banned in any section of the rear wing (via a 100mm minimum radius rule); this ban applies to all three wing elements aside from the middle 15cm. So to use the DRS duct to blow a rear wing slot, all you’ll stall is the very centre section of wing. This area creates very little induced drag (most of that’s created at the wing tips), so stalling it will not improve top speed by much. Thus it will provide very little benefit.

It’s possible the DRS Duct could stall the flow around the sidepod, exhaust or diffuser. I’ve got no information on this, or a valid reason how this would benefit the aero. In my opinion the blowing to stall the front wing is still the most valid theory.  Pictures have merged today of Schumachers car lifted on a crane that shows the slot sunder the front wing. other pictures also show close ups of the rear of the car, do not show any slots in the top or beam wings.

Search on sutton images for pictures d12aus3468.jpg, d12aus3467.jpg, d12aus3465.jpg

I suspect the two ducts leading from the beam wing into the engine cover are part of the system.  Either taking the DRS-duct flow to the front wing directly, or by using the DRS-duct to switch the F-Duct.  I can;t find where the F-duct switch is sited, perhaps inside the rear wing, in which case the two beam wing ducts might be of different uses, one feeding high pressure airflow to the F-Duct and the other feeding the flow to the front wing.  As this is an evolving theory, I’ll post more on this system as we start to understand it better.

I’ve looked at the McLaren, Red Bull and Ferrari rear wings, as yet I can see no shaping to suggest a DRS-Duct is packaged inside the endplates.  There’s little doubt these teams must be working on similar solutions.  Although Red Bull and Lotus may probably not be developing this solution, as they are now querying the FIA on its legality LINK

We have now acceptance by the FIA that the DRS duct is legal, that Mercedes  are running this system and pictures show the duct emerging from the beam wing reaching forwards inside the engine cover. Presumably, to reach towards the front-end of the car. No doubt more information will soon emerge on these systems.

other links:

DRS open showing the duct open beneath the flap (via AMus)

LINK

Rear wing no sign of any slots in the middle 15cm

LINK

Mercedes: F-Duct Front Wing operated by the Rear Wing DRS

Update on how it links to the Front wing

Update

Something often said of banned developments in F1, is that once understood no solution can be unlearnt. So while the FIA fights to ban technologies that they feel aren’t suited to F1, the teams will always try to apply that solution in a different way.
McLaren understood how to stall a wing by blowing a slot perpendicular the wings surface. This knowledge lead to the F-duct in 2010, as you will recall the FIA moved to ban slots in the rear wing and direct driver interaction with the cars aero. But the knowledge of blown slots to stall wings has remained and it’s been Mercedes who have been busy trying to apply it in other ways. This culminated with the tests of an F-Duct front wing late last year. Rumours continue to fly about the teams use of the F-Duct front wing (FDFW) in 2012. I understand the 2012 Mercedes AMG W03 does have an F-Duct front wing and this is operated by the rear wings DRS. Based on information I have from the sources around the team, and from looking at the cars performance and construction mean I can speculate how and why Mercedes might be using the FDFW.

As detailed in two articles last year, Mercedes are believed to have run blown slots under the front wing to stall the wing at higher speeds. Three reasons came up as to why this would be used; reducing drag, managing wing ride height and managing the cars aero balance. With nothing official being said by Mercedes, we were left unsure as to exactly why a passive FDFW would benefit the car.
https://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/mercedes-f-duct-front-wing/

https://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/update-mercedes-f-duct-front-wing/

Some observations from the Mercedes team last year might aid us in putting a picture together of how the 2012 solution might benefit. Mercedes were the first team to really exploit more of the open DRS effect and use a short chord flap. The open DRS boosted Mercedes top speed and could be used through the lap in qualifying. Despite this benefit the teams did struggle in qualifying, their race performances latterly became better than qualifying suggested. It was clear for Michael Schumacher at Least, that the cars handling wasn’t ideal and the team sought to resolve the cars nervousness.
Bearing these points in mind, the potential benefits of a FDFW become more apparent. Mercedes need more qualifying pace; they can exploit their DRS more frequently during qualifying, but in higher speed turns the cars lacks the balance for the drivers to fully commit through the turn.
If they can cure these issues, then they will further up in qualifying and able to take the fight to the leading teams. I now believe the FDFW works to manage the cars balance in high speed turns when the DRS is activated. As DRS reduces both rear drag and downforce, the car becomes unbalanced in downforce front-to-rear. In other words pointy or oversteering. Which in high speed turns in qualifying is hard to handle. At higher speeds even with DRS reducing rear wing downforce, the car has enough downforce to make it around corner, the problem is how to make the car more balanced front-to-rear when DRS is activated.
The FDFW we saw last year appeared to be passive, this uses nothing other than airspeed to trigger the slot to blow enough to stall the front wing. If matched to the speed DRS would be used at (in qualifying), the passive FDFW would help balance the car, by reducing front downforce to match that of the rear. However the front wing would always stall at these speeds, whether DRS was in use or not, so outside of qualifying the wing would stall and the car would understeer. With Parc Fermé rules in force, the team cannot change the FDFW between qualifying and the race.
Another issue with the passive FDFW, is that under braking as air speed reduced, the wing would need time to start working again. But this early phase of braking is just when the driver needs the most downforce. What the FDFW ideally needs is a method to link its activation to that of DRS, in other words an active F-duct.
As we’ve already mentioned, driver activation is not allowed, as are any other moving parts to directly alter the airflow. This brings up the Designers favourite interpretation in the rule book, primary and secondary purpose. Any part on the car can be for a primary purpose; sometimes any secondary purpose is banned or restricted. However in most cases the rules are vague and Designers are free to find secondary uses for a solution on the car. Examples of this are the cooling fans on the Brabham Fan car, the engine blowing off throttle for blown diffusers or brake torque altering ride height on the Lotus Reactive Ride Height system. In each case the first element was legal as its primary purpose was as stated, but a secondary purpose was able to be exploited.

The DRS rules are quite clear that the flap must not be shaped to allow other aerodynamic benefits. In fact this wording affects only a portion of the flap and additionally the endplate is excluded from this wording. If the team could find a way to blow into the front wing a duct when DRS is activated, then the FDFW could work synchronously with the DRS.

The hingeplate the flap mounts to, closes a hole when DRS is closed. When DRS is open the duct is revealed and the F-duct stalls the front wing

I believe Mercedes have found a way, by creating a duct through the endplate. When DRS is closed, the flap and the plate it attaches to is in a nearly vertical position. When DRS opens, the area the flap initially covered is exposed. If this area featured an opening that lead into a duct inside the endplate, when DRS opened the high pressure above the wing would force flow through the duct. With this duct then routed through the car to the front wing, when DRS is open the FDFW would be blown and stall in unison with the rear wing. Clearly when DRS closes the duct would be closed off and the duct would stop blowing the FDFW, restoring front and rear downforce.

When DRS is open, the duct passes into the beam wing and through the car. Eventually reaching the front wing slot to stall the wing.

Some evidence around the rear wing of the W03 shows this could be possible. We have to be careful to pinpoint every feature on the rear wing as being FDFW related as the DRS mechanism is hidden inside the endplate as well. Some access panels on the wing could be for DRS, FDFW or other purposes, some might be for both. In my research I’ve yet to see a clear high resolution shot of the Mercedes with DRS open, this is unusual as most other teams have been seen with the DRS in effect. Equally clear pictures of the inside of the endplate, where the flap meets the endplate, are in short supply. With this lack of material I can propose a solution, although the actual parts may diffuser is location and appearance. Its expected at this weekend Australian GP the rear wing duct will be exposed as the car uses DRS on the straights. We will need photographers with a big lens and steady hand to catch sharp pictures of the inside face of the endplate, when DRS is activated.

Evidence of the duct can be seen on the car, when the car is not moving. Clearly the W03 rear wing endplate is quite thick, an access panel that houses the DRS actuator is outboard of the flap\endplate intersection, plus there is another panel in line with the beams wings intersection with the endplate. I’d suggest the duct is opened by the flap and hinge plate, the duct then routes through the double skinned endplate down into the beam wing. This then exits through the duct that mounts the beam wing to the gearbox. There’s a tortuous route for the duct through the car to reach the front wing, but this isn’t that dissimilar to the 2010 F-Duct routing. As with McLaren in 2010, the trick is to design the duct into the car at an early stage to minimise losses through the ductwork. This usefully makes it harder, but not impossible to copy. To copy this set up the monocoque needs to be altered and the nose cone needs the apertures into the front wing mounting pylons to feed the airflow into the front wing itself. This requires time to redesign and potentially re-crash test any changes.
But, can this set up be legal? The act of stalling a front wing through a blown slot is legal, although F-ducts are banned, it’s only via the slot in the rear wing that this was achieved. Direct driver intervention is banned, but the driver is allowed to operate the DRS, so any secondary aerodynamic effect of that is not prohibited in the rules.
Although the rules allow this, it’s possible the FIA could issue a Technical Directive on the matter, that any overt secondary effect of using DRS is not allowed and the whole solution could be banned in a stroke.

With a tight and competitive season in prospect qualifying performance will be critical. Notwithstanding the potential structural work to allow the duct to pass through the car, the DRS activated F-duct Front wing is an attractive option for the other leading teams.

F1 2012: Rules, Designs and Trends

For 2012 we will have a raft of rules changes that will alter the look and performance of the car. For most of the new cars, we will immediately see the impact of the lower nose regulations. Then the big story of 2010-2011 of exhaust blown diffusers (EBDs) comes to an end with stringent exhaust placement rules and a further restriction on blown engine mappings.
Even without rule changes the pace of development marches on, as teams converge of a similar set of ideas to get the most from the car. This year, Rake, Front wings and clever suspensions will be the emerging trends. Sidepods will also be a big differentiator, as teams move the sidepod around to gain the best airflow to the rear of the car. There will also be the adoption of new structural solutions aimed to save weight and improve aero.
Last of all there might be the unexpected technical development, the ‘silver bullet’, the one idea we didn’t see coming. We’ve had the double diffuser and F-Duct in recent years, while exhaust blown diffusers have thrown up some new development directions. What idea it will be this year, is hard, if not impossible to predict. If not something completely new, then most likely an aggressive variation of the exhaust, sidepod or suspension ideas discussed below.

2012 noses

The most obvious rule change for 2012 is the lowering of the front of the nose cone. In recent years teams have tried to raise the entire front of the car in order to drive more airflow over the vanes and bargeboards below the nose. The cross section of the front bulkhead is defined by the FIA (275mm high & 300mm wide), but teams have exploited the radiuses that are allowed to be applied to the chassis edges, in order to make the entire cross section smaller. Both of these aims are obviously to drive better aero performance, despite the higher centre of Gravity (CofG) being a small a handicap, the better aero overcomes this to improve lap times.

A safety issue around these higher noses is that they were becoming higher than the mandatory head protection around the cockpit, in some areas this is as low as 55cm. It was possible that a high nose tip could easily pass over this area and strike the driver.

The front section of chassis will be as high as possible (at 62.5cm) and radiussed into a "V" shape

So now the area ahead of the front bulkhead must be lower than 55cm. However the monocoque behind this area can remain as high as 62.5cm. Thus in order to strive to retain the aero gains teams will keep a high chassis and then have the nose cone flattened up against this 55cm maximum height. Thus we will see these platypus noses, wide and flat in order to keep the area beneath deformable structure clear for better airflow. The radiussed chassis sides are still allowed so we will also see this 7.5cm step merged into the humps a top of the chassis.
Areas below and behind the nose are not allowed to have bodywork (shown yellow in the diagram), so small but aggressive vanes will have to be used, or a McLaren style snowplough. Both these devices drive airflow towards the leading edge of the underfloor for better diffuser performance.

New exhausts

Exhausts must be high up on the sidepod, so cannot blow the diffuser

Having used the engine via the exhausts to drive aerodynamic performance for the past two years, exhaust blown diffusers will be effectively banned in 2012. The exhausts must now sit in small allowable area, too high and far forward to direct the exhausts towards the diffuser. The exhausts must feature just two exits and no other openings in or out are allowed. The final 10cm of the exhaust must point rearwards and slightly up (between 10-30 degrees). Allied to the exhaust position, the system of using the engine to continue driving exhaust when the driver is off the throttle pedal has also been outlawed. Last year teams kept the engine throttles opened even when the driver lifted off the throttle for a corner. Then either allowing air to pass through the engine (cold blowing) or igniting some fuel along the way (hot blowing). The exhaust flow would remain a large proportion of the flow used when on the throttle, thus the engine was driving the aero, even when the driver wasn’t needing engine power. Now the throttle pedal position must map more closely the actual engine throttle position, thus if the driver is off the throttle pedal, then the engine throttles must be correspondingly closed.

Blown rear wing (BRW): The exhausts will blow upward to drive flow under the rear wing for more downforce

Teams will be faced with the obvious choice of blowing the exhausts upwards towards the rear wing, to gain a small aerodynamic advantage, when the driver is on the throttle. These Blown Rear Wings (BRWs) will be the conservative solution and certainly will be the first solution used in testing.
However, it’s possible to be aggressive with these exhaust designs too. One idea is blowing the rear wing with a much higher exhaust outlet; this would blow tangentially athte wing profile, which is more effective at increasing the flow under the wing for more downforce. Packaging these high exhausts may cause more problems than gains. But last year’s exhausts passing low and wide across the floor suffered a similar issue, but proved to be the optimum solution.

A more aggressive BRW raises the exhaust and blows tangentially under the wing profile, which is more efficient

Even more aggressive solution would be directing the exhausts onto the vanes allowed around the rear brake ducts. If avoiding the brake cooling inlet snorkel, the fast moving exhaust gas would produce downforce directly at the wheel, which is more efficient than wings mounted to the sprung part of the chassis. However the issue here would be the solution is likely to be so effective, that it will be sensitive to throttle position and rear ride height. If these issues can be engineered out, then this is an attractive solution.

An extreme but legal solution is to blow the exhaust on the rear brake duct fins creating downforce directly at the wheel.

Wing ride height and Rake
With rules setting a high front wing ride height and small diffusers, aero performance is limited. So teams have worked out how to work around these rules by angling the entire car into a nose down attitude. This is known as ‘Rake’, teams will run several degrees of rake to get the front wing lower and increase the effective height of the diffuser exit. Thus the front wing will sit closer to the track, than the 75mm when the car is parallel to the ground. While at the rear, the 12.5cm tall diffuser sits an additional 10cm clear of the track, making its expansion ratio greater. Teams were using the EBD, to seal this larger gap between the diffuser and the floor. Without the EBD teams will have to find alternative way to drive airflow into the gap to create a virtual skirt between the diffuser and track.
Furthermore teams have also allowed the front wing to flex downwards at speed to allow it to get closer to the ground, further improving its performance. Although meeting the FIA deflection tests, teams are allowing the wing bend and twist to position the endplate into a better orientation, either for sealing the wing to the ground or directing airflow towards the front tyres wake. Both creating downforce benefits at the front or rear of the car, respectively.
One issue with allowing the wing to ride closer to the ground through rake or flexing, is that at high speed or under braking (when the nose of the car dives), the front wing can be touching the ground. This is bad for both aero and for creating sparks, which will alert the authorities that the wing is not its normal position relative to the chassis. So teams are creating ways to manage front ride height. Traditionally front bump rubbers or heave springs will prevent excessively low ride heights. Also the front suspension geometry runs a degree of geometric anti-dive, to prevent the nose diving under braking.

Antidive geometry in the front suspension is one way to reduce pitch under braking

Last year we saw two additional solutions, interlinked suspension, where hydraulic suspension elements prevent nose dive under braking by displacing fluid in a hydraulic circuit one end of the car to the other end, creating a stiffer front suspension set up. This prevents dive under braking, while keeping a normally soft suspension for better grip.
We have also seen Lotus (nee LRGP) use torque reaction from the front brake callipers to extend the pushrod under braking, creating an anti-dive effect and prevent the nose dipping under braking.

An interpretation of the Lotus Antidive solution, using the brake caliper mounting to operate a hydraulic circuit and extend the pushrod (legally) under braking

These and probably other solutions will be seen in 2012 to maintain the ideal ride height under all conditions.

Front end

A three element endplate-less front wing

Towards the end of last year, front end aero design was converging into a set of similar ideas. Aside from the flexible wing option, already discussed above. The main direction was the use of a delta shaped three\four element wing, sporting no obvious endplate. The delta shape means that most of the wings downforce is created at the wing tip; this means less energy is taken from the airflow towards the inner span of the wing, which improves airflow at the rear of the car. Also the higher loading near the wing tip creates a stronger vortex, which drives airflow around the front tyre to reduce drag. Three wing elements are used, each being similar in chord length, rather than one large main plane and much smaller flaps. This spaces the slots between the elements out more equally, helping reduce airflow separation under the wing. More slots mean a more aggressive wing angle can be used without stalling. At the steepest outer section of wing, teams will mould a fourth slot in the flap to further manage airflow separation.
First introduced by Brawn in 2009, the endplate-less design is used as it’s more important to drive airflow out wide around the front tyre, than to purely maintain pressure difference above and below the wing. Rules demand a minimum amount of bodywork in this area, so vanes are used to both divert the airflow and meet the surface area regulations. This philosophy has now morphed into the concept, where the wing elements curl down to form the lower part of the endplate. Making the wing a homogenous 3D design, rather than flat wing elements and a separate vertical endplate.

Arched sections (yellow) of wing, help drive vortices to divert airflow along the car

A feature starting to emerge last year was arched sections of wing. Particularly near the mandatory neutral centre 50cm section of wing. These arched sections created elongated vortices, which are stronger and more focussed than tip vortices often used to control airflow. In 2012 many teams will create these unusual curved sections at the wings interface with the centre section.

Extending the front wing mounting pylons helps to make use of the middle 50cm of wing

Above this area, the pylon that mounts to the wing to the nosecone has been exploited to stretch he FIA maximum cross section to form the longest possible pylon. This forms the mounting pylon into endplates either side of the centre section of wing and along with the arched inner wing sections, help create the ideal airflow 25cm from the cars centreline (known as the Y250 axis).

Pointing a section of front wing profile at a suitable vane on the front brake ducts is one way gain aero performance.

In 2011 Mercedes GP used a section of the frotn wing to link up with the fins on the brake ducts, this created an extra long section of wing.  Vanes on the front brake ducts are increasingly influential on front wing performance and front tyre wake.
Mercedes GP also tried an innovative F-Duct front wing last year. This was not driver controlled, but rather speed (pressure) sensitive. Stalling the wing above 250kph, this allowed the flexing wing to unload and flex back upwards at speed, to prevent the wing grounding at speed. But the effect altered the cars balance at high speed, and the drivers reportedly didn’t like the effect on the handling. I’ve heard suggestions that the solution isn’t planned for 2012.

Sidepods
With so much of the car fixed within the regulation, it’s becoming the sidepods that are the main area of freedom for the designers. Last year we saw four main sidepod concepts; Conventional, Red Bull low\tapered, McLaren “U” shape and Toro Rosso’s undercut.
Each design has its own merits, depending on what the designer wants to do with the sidepods volume to get the air where they want it to flow.

An undercut in the sidepod is one way to drive good flow around the sidepod to the diffuser

This year I believe teams will want to direct as much airflow to the diffuser as possible, Red Bulls tiny sidepod works well in this regard, as does the more compromised Toro Rosso set up. Mclarens “U” pod concept might be compromised with the new exhaust rules and the desire to use a tail funnel cooling exit. However the concept could be retained with either; less of top channel or perhaps a far more aggressive interpretation creating more of an undercut.

Using a slight McLaren "U" shape to the sidepod may still work in 2012

Part and parcel of sidepod design is where the designer wants the cooling air to enter and exit the sidepod. To create a narrower tail to the sidepod and to have a continuous line of bodywork from sidepod to the gearbox, the cooling exit is placed above the sidepod, in a funnel formed in the upper part of the engine cover. Most teams have augmented this cooling outlet with small outlets aside the cockpit opening or at the very front of the sidepod.

The tail funnel (light yellow) is a good cooling outlet method, as it reduces the size of the coke bottle section of sidepod

To let more air into the sidepod, without having to create overly large inlets, teams will commonly use inlets in the roll hoop to feed gearbox or KERS coolers.

Other aero
Even without the exhaust blowing over the diffuser, its design will be critical in 2012.
As already mentioned the loss of the exhaust blowing will hurt the team’s ability to run high rear ride heights and thus a lot of rake. Unobstructed the EBDs exhaust plume, airflow will want to pass from the high pressure above the floor to the lower pressure beneath it. Equally the airflow blown sideways by the rear tyres (known as tyre squirt) will also interfere with the diffuser flow.

The Coved section of floor between the tyre and diffuser will be a key design in 2012, as will cold blown starter holes and trailing edge flaps

Before EBDs teams used a coved section of floor to pickup and accelerate some airflow from above the floor into the critical area between the diffuser and rear tyre. I predict we will see these shapes and similar devices to be used to keep the diffuser sealed at the sides.
Last year we saw teams aid the diffusers use of pulling air from beneath the car, by adding large flap around its trailing edge. So a high rear impact structure raised clear of the diffusers trailing edge will help teams fit these flaps around its entire periphery. Red Bull came up with a novel ideal by creating a duct feeding airflow to the starter motor hole; this improves airflow in the difficult centre section of the diffuser. Many teams will have this starter motor hole exposed by the raised crash structure, allowing airflow to naturally pass into the hole. However I expect some vanes or ducts to aid the flow in reaching this hole tucked down at the back of the car.

Tapered flaps and top mounted DRS pods will be a direction for 2012

DRS was a new technology last year. We soon saw teams start to converge on a short chord flap and a high mounted hydraulic actuator pod. DRS allows the rear wing flap to open a gap of upto 50mm from the main plane below it. A smaller flap flattens out more completely with this 50mm gap, reducing drag more effectively than a larger flap.
As drag is created largely at the wing tips, I would not be surprised to see tapered flaps that flatten out at the wing tip and retain some downforce in the centre section. Teams may use the Pod for housing the actuators, although Mercedes succeeded with actuators hidden in the endplates. Having the pod above the wing clears the harder working lower surface, thus we will probably not see many support struts obstructing the wing.

Structures

Variations on William low line gearbox and differential will be followed for this year

Super slim gearboxes have been in vogue for many years, Last year Williams upped the stakes with a super low gearbox. The normally empty structure above the gear cluster was removed and the rear suspension mounted to the rear wing pillar. Williams have this design again for 2012, albeit made somewhat lighter. With the mandatory rear biased weight distribution the weight penalty for this design is not a compromise, while the improved air flow the wing is especially useful in 2012. So it’s likely the new cars will follow the low gearbox and low differential mounting in some form.

Rear pull rod suspension will be all but universal this year

A lot is said about Pull rod rear suspension being critical for success. In 2011 only a few teams retained push rod rear suspension (Ferrari and Marussia). I would say the benefits between the two systems are small; pushrod trades a higher CofG for more space and access to the increasingly complex spring and damper hardware. Whereas pull rod benefits from a more aerodynamically compact set up and a lower CofG. I still believe either system works well, if packaged correctly.
At the front it’s unlikely pull rod will be adopted. Largely because the high chassis would place a pull rod at too shallow an angle to work efficiently. Regardless the minimum cross section of the footwell area, discounts any potential aero benefits. Leaving just a small CofG benefit as a driver to adopt this format.

Undercut roll hoops with internal metal reinforcement will be a common feature to drive airflow to the rear wing

Most teams now use a metal structure to provide strength inside the roll hoop; this allows teams to undercut the roll hoop for better airflow to the rear wing. Even though last year two teams followed Mercedes 2009 blade type roll hoop, for Caterham at least, this isn’t expected to return this year. Leaving the question if Force India will retain this design?

Electronics and control systems
The 2012 technical regulations included a large number of quite complex and specific rules regarding systems controlling the engine, clutch and gearbox. It transpires that these are simply previous technical directives being rolled up into the main package of regulations. Only the aforementioned throttle pedal maps being a new regulation to combat hot and cold blowing.

While I still try to crack that deal to make this my full time job, I do this blog and my twitter feed as an aside to my day job. In the next few weeks I plan to attend the launches and pre-season tests. If you appreciate my work, can I kindly ask you to consider a ‘donation’ to support my travel costs.

UPDATE: Mercedes F-Duct Front Wing

Another possibility with the Mercedes stalling front wing is that it allows an opportunity to play with the linearity of the cars ride height. In particular the proximity of the splitter to the ground at different speeds. Looking at this in comparison to other possible uses, I would suggest this is a more realistic and beneficial solution than those initial proposed (https://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/mercedes-f-duct-front-wing/).

As has been much discussed, the front wing needs to run as low as possible to create downforce. To achieve this teams run as lower front ride height as possible. The limitation of a low front wing ride height is the front splitter grounding, this becomes an increasing problem as speed increases and the aero load builds up and compresses the front suspension. So at the ‘End of the Straight’ (EOS) at very high speed the car is at its lowest and splitter is grounding. This forces the car to have a higher ride height, to keep the plank from wearing away in the EOS condition. Thus at lower speeds the front ride height is correspondingly higher, compromising the potential of the wing.

If Mercedes stall the front wing as the car reaches top speed, hence above the speed of any corner on the track. Then when the wing stalls, the load on the front axle will suddenly decrease and the front ride height will increase. Effectively the ride height\speed map is no longer linear. Ride height will decrease linearly at lower speeds, then above the speed of the circuit’s fastest corner, the wing stalls and ride height increases.
What this allows the race engineers to do is shift the ‘ride height curve’ down the map for a lower initial (static) ride height. Knowing that the splitter will not ground in the end of straight condition. Therefore with the unstalled wing having a lower ride height, more downforce can be generated. When the wing is stalled the lack of downforce is less consequential as the car is on the straight. Plus there may still be the small boost in top speed from the lack of induced drag from the stalled wing.

One other potential of such a solution is the front wing grounding. We have seen the midseason version of the Mercedes front wing ground quite easily in some turns this year. So as with splitter ride height, endplate ride height at top speed may become the limiting factor in benefiting from the wing flexing at lower speeds. Stalling the wing on the straight will see the load on the wing decrease and the wing will naturally flex upwards. Giving the opportunity to flex more at slow speeds and have the stall prevent grounding on the straight.

In comparison to the manipulation of the CofP to resolve handling problems I initially proposed, this would be a more likely purpose of the stalling wing. Perhaps more importantly this would be a universal solution, one that other teams could legally adopt in preference to flexible splitters or excessive rear ride height to achieve lower front ride heights.

Mercedes F-Duct Front wing

Note: Updated 24th Oct

Mercedes GP are rumoured to be running a novel front wing. This has been reported in the three major F1 magazines (AMuS, Auto sprint and Autosport). It seems the front wing uses the nose hole to blow a slot under the wing. Although this is a completely passive system (i.e. no moving parts or driver intervention), the fact that it alters aero performance at speed, has seen it dubbed as an F-duct Front Wing.

This solution was first heard of by Michael Schmidt of German magazine ‘Auto Motor und Sport’ (AMuS). Schmidt passed the tip off to Giorgio Piola who spent hours in the pitlane observing the Mercedes car and how mechanics handled the different wings. A task made additionally difficult, as he could not arouse suspicion by Mercedes and give away the fact he was researching the tip off.
He found only two noses had the nose-hole with the splitter and that these wings were only carried parallel to the ground when moved around the pitlane. The final piece of the jigsaw was when he saw a mechanic inspect the wing with his hand leading to understand the slot placement and this information allowed him to work out the system and draw it for the aforementioned magazines. Its remarkable such a tiny detail can be observed and goes to show the hard work that went into Piola exposing this innovation.

Description
AMuS article

Autosprint article

As described in the illustrations and texts, the wing assembly (including the nose) is as follows. The nose hole is used to pass air down through the front wing pylons into a slot on the underside of the wing. It appears that the slot has a wide span and is very narrow.

The nose hole feeds air through a duct into a slot under the front wing

This design is somewhat similar to Mercedes early 2010 F-duct rear wing, which was passive. The driver didn’t have a control duct, as with the McLaren system. Instead the ductwork would only blow with enough force to stall the rear wing at a certain airspeed. Tricky to design and tune, this system worked well for Mercedes last year. Its not improbably that just such a system could be made to work on the front wing.

Aiding downforce or stalling the wing?
Typically slots in the wing are for two purposes; aiding or stalling the flow over the wings surface. How the slot creates these two very different effects depends on the slots angle to the wings surface.

To aid the airflow, you need a slot blowing nearly inline with the surface and airflow. Known as Tangential flow, this flat entry angle creates a relatively wide slot when viewed externally.

To stall the airflow, you need a slot blowing at near right angles to the surface. This creates a narrow slot when viewed externally.

Looking at what you need to aid or stall the airflow also requires different placement of the slot.

To aid the airflow, you would inject the flow from the slot in an area downstream on the wings surface where the boundary has slowed and thickened. On a front wing this would arguably be somewhere on the flap towards its trailing edge.

To stall a wing, you want to upset the airflow where it’s moving quite fast, for a front wing it would be placed towards the leading edge of the wing. Last year with F-ducts we saw the stalling slots initially placed on the flap, until Renault placed theirs on the main plane for a better stalling effect.

This analysis suggests the narrow slot towards the leading of the front wing is for stalling not aiding the airflow.

Why stall the wing?
However, while we have got this far in reverse engineering the Mercedes front wing. We now need to work out what the benefit of stalling the front wing is. When stalling aerodynamics there are two possible benefits. Reducing drag for more top speed or reducing downforce.

Drag Reduction
For a front wing the drag loss wouldn’t be that beneficial on top speed. Sitting within the frontal area of the cars silhouette the front wing has very little form drag. However, induced drag from vortices produce particularly at the outboard ends is a factor, but far less than with rear wings. With teams increasingly bending their wings down at speed to gain greater downforce, they are creating most of the load towards the wing tips. By making the wing more aggressive at its outer ends, means that more vortices will be produced and sent around the front tyre. This flow structure creates drag and stalling the wing, especially near the tips would reduce this drag and boost top speed. Martin Whitmarsh was quoted in the AMuS article as suggesting a 5/8kph gain from stalling the front wing.

Drag is induced by the vortices created at the wing tips

With the front wing stalled, some of the energy it robs the airflow can pass towards the underfloor, increasing the pressure at its leading edge, forcing more flow under the floor for more downforce. With more downforce from the underbody, a smaller rear wing can be raced, which also creates less drag for more top speed.

Aero Balance
But that may not be the greater goal of stalling the front wing. Instead the aim may be managing the balance of the car through out its speed range. This would be done by the loss of downforce altering the cars Centre of Pressure.

Firstly, let’s review what the front wing does for the cars dynamics at different speeds. An f1 cars downforce is produced largely by the front wing, rear wing and the floor. With the front and rear wings being the main tuning elements. By tuning the front and rear downforce you alter the cars Centre of Pressure.
Centre of Pressure (CofP) is the balance of downforce at the front and rear axles. As such it’s analogous to being the aerodynamic equivalent of Longitudinal CofG (balance of mass between the axles). CofP is also known as termed as aero balance.
Typically the CofP position closely matches that the CofG. Starting from around 1-2% behind the CofG, then as the car gains speed the car gets lower making the front wing and diffuser work better. Fairly soon the stepped bottom\plank choke flow into part of the diffuser, this robs the diffuser of some downforce. While as the front wing gets closer to the track, it works in ground effect to create even more downforce. The combined effect of the loss of some rear downforce and gain in front downforce is that the CofP moves further forwards.

Such is the potential of the front wing and the near equal tyre sizes front to rear; an F1 car is largely limited on corner entry by the rear grip available. In low to mid speed turns the car needs a slight rear bias to the CofP, this prevents the car suffering corner entry oversteer. Where the car wants to spin as it approaches the apex. Too much front wing in these corners will make the car too pointy and hinder laptimes.
In faster turns the front wing can lead the car. The drivers turn in gentler to fast turns, which creates less lateral acceleration at the rear axle. So it’s rare for the rear to step out on turn-in to fast corners. Thus, at higher speeds you can have a CofP biased towards neutral or the front. Last year with the adjustable front flap, (rather than used for the overtaking balance adjustment for which it was designed) teams would use alter the front flap angle into a fast turn.

So typically you wouldn’t want to shed front downforce for fast turns, by stalling the front wing. Stalling the front wing will reduce front downforce and drive the CofP rearwards, robbing the driver of front axle load just when he needs it.

But, the move towards a rear biased high speed set up could be a response to other problems with the chassis. We knew the 2010 Mercedes W01 suffered understeer and Michael Schumacher didn’t like that facet of its handling, even though Nico Rosberg could cope with it. Perhaps Schumacher’s style of being aggressive on initial turn in, helps the car to rotate into turns more to gain speed through slow\medium speed corners. This tendency corner entry oversteer wasn’t present in the 2010 chassis.
The 2011 W02 is shorter and designed to rotate better, it certainly isn’t a natural understeer. We can suggest this forwards bias, as a possible reason for the car being hard on its rear tyres.
So if the W02 has a forward biased aero balance, this would move the car closer towards corner entry oversteer. We’ve also seen the mid season wing upgrade displays some flexibility, as with many teams front wings. This would have the effect of moving the front wing in yet closer proximity to the track and create even more front downforce at higher speeds.
So with the W02, as speed increases and the CofP moves forwards. Now the corner entry oversteer create a danger of high speed spins, the team need to calm the chassis down a little. So when the wing stalls, the CofP moves rearwards and gives the drivers more confidence with a little understeer. In Michaels case his naturally aggressive turn in is tolerated and as we’ve seen Rosberg can cope with understeer. So both drivers benefit. This might also save the tyres from slip in high speed turns, which could be detrimental to the tyres grip.

Front Ride Height

Another possibility with the stalling front wing is that it’s allowing an opportunity to play with the linearity of the cars ride height. In particular the proximity of the splitter to the ground at different speeds.

As has been much discussed, the front wing needs to run as low as possible to create downforce. To achieve this teams run as lower front ride height as possible. The limitation of a low front wing ride height is the front splitter grounding, this becomes an increasing problem as speed increases and the aero load builds up and compresses the front suspension. So at the ‘End of the Straight’ (EOS) at very high speed the car is at its lowest and splitter is grounding. This forces the car to have a higher ride height, to keep the plank from wearing away in the EOS condition. Thus at lower speeds the front ride height is correspondingly higher, compromising the potential of the wing.

If Mercedes stall the front wing as the car reaches top speed, hence above the speed of any corner on the track. Then when the wing stalls, the load on the front axle will suddenly decrease and the front ride height will increase. Effectively the ride height\speed map is no longer linear. Ride height will decrease linearly at lower speeds, then above the speed of the circuit’s fastest corner, the wing stalls and ride height increases.
What this allows the race engineers to do is shift the ‘ride height curve’ down the map for a lower initial (static) ride height. Knowing that the splitter will not ground in the end of straight condition. Therefore with the unstalled wing having a lower ride height, more downforce can be generated. When the wing is stalled the lack of downforce is less consequential as the car is on the straight. Plus there may still be the small boost in top speed from the lack of induced drag from the stalled wing.

One other potential of such a solution is the front wing grounding. We have seen the midseason version of the Mercedes front wing ground quite easily in some turns this year. So as with splitter ride height, endplate ride height at top speed may become the limiting factor in benefiting from the wing flexing at lower speeds. Stalling the wing on the straight will see the load on the wing decrease and the wing will naturally flex upwards. Giving the opportunity to flex more at slow speeds and have the stall prevent grounding on the straight.

Summary
Looking at the options listed above, I would definitely say the cars wing is stalling.  with little to be gained from drag reduction the stalline is most likley to create another effect on the chassis.
In comparison to the manipulation of the CofP to resolve handling problems, the speed sensitive ride height control would be a more likely purpose of the stalling wing. Perhaps more importantly this would be a universal solution, one that other teams could legally adopt in preference to flexible splitters or excessive rear ride height to achieve lower front ride heights.

Legality
So if we now accept that this theory is how the might wing work, we need to look at the legality and construction of the set up. Firstly a passive system that involves no moving parts or driver intervention is legal. Secondly the rules on the closed sections forming the front wing are much freer than those applied to the rear wing. So slots can be legally made across the side spans of the front wing. Clearly it would be legal in both of these respects, that the stalling slot can be made to blow at certain speeds.
The biggest issue is with the nose hole itself. This is covered in the rules and is allowed for the purposes of driver cooling. This being worded into the nose cone regulations for 2009 to prevent Ferrari style slotted noses. We know the nose hole is used to blow the front wing for several reasons. Firstly Mercedes do have the nose hole, but rarely use it, instead the duct moulded into the access panels atop the chassis are normally used for driver cooling. Most of the time the nose hole is sealed up with clear tape.
But one crucial picture in the AMuS gallery accompanying their article, was of the car with the nose removed, showing a black carbon fibre cover going over the front bulkhead. This would seal the nosecone, such that air entering the nose hole would not pass into the cockpit and instead pass down the wings support pylons. With this panel in place the nose hole cannot function as driver cooling and goes against the rules. Perhaps this set up using the nose hole was just at Suzuka for testing, as Teams are unable to do much full scale testing away from the circuit. It could be legally run in a Friday practice session, as teams are given some leeway to test parts which might otherwise be unacceptable to the scrutineers. As long as the parts aren’t run for qualifying, then apparently illegal parts can get limited Friday running.
So for 2012 the wing might gain its inlet from another position. At Suzuka, the use of the nose hole might have been a good way to disguise the system when it was tested.

I have to thank the many people who aided me in my countless questions on this design. Thanks for your patience.

Book Review: Haynes Red Bull Racing F1 Car

When Red Bull Racing launched their new car for 2011, the event was marked by a very special press pack. The pack was formatted in the style of the well-known Haynes maintenance manuals (PDF). This in itself this was a great book, but almost unnoticed within its pages was the intended publishing of a complete Haynes style workshop manual on the RB6 car.
Now some six months later the Haynes Red Bull Racing F1 Car Owners Workshop Manual (RB6 2010) has been published. As its rare a Technical F1 book is published, not least one with insight into such a current car, I’ve decided to review the book in detail.

Summary
At 180 pages long the book has enough space to cover quite a wide range of topics and it does so. Starting with a background to the team, moving on to the cars technology, to overviews of its design and operation. With its familiar graphical style and hardback format it certainly gives the feel of a proper workshop manual. However this is somewhat skin deep and the pages within, soon revert to a more typical book on F1, although some flashes of the Haynes style do remain.

Steve Rendle is credited as the writer of the book and Red Bull Racing themselves have allowed close up photography of the car and its parts, as well as providing a lot of CAD images.
But clearly a lot of editing has been carried out by Red Bull Racing and the book falls short of its presentation as a manual for the RB6. Despite its confusing title, the book is probably better described as a summary of contemporary F1 technology from the past 3 years.
As the last in depth technical F1 book was the heavy weight title from Peter Wright showcasing Ferraris F1 technology from 2000, this remains a useful source of recent F1 technology.
This places the books target audience, somewhere between the complete novice and those already of a more technical mindset.

Anatomy

With forewords by Christian Horner and Adrian Newey, the opening 21 pages are a background to the team and detail of the 2010 season that brought RBR the championships. Then starts the core 100 page chapter on the cars anatomy, which opens with a pseudo cutaway of the car showing a CAD rendering of its internals.

Firstly the monocoques design and manufacture is covered, with images of the tubs moulds being laid up and CAD images of the RB4 (2008) chassis and its fuel tank location. Although little is made of the fuel tank design.
Moving on to aerodynamics, the text takes a simplistic approach to explaining aero, but there is an interesting illustration of the cars downforce distribution front to rear. This does highlight the downforce created by the wings and diffuser, but also the kick in downforce at the leading edge of the floor, but this is not adequately explained in the text. Mention is made of the front wing and the flexing that RBR deny, this is explained with a simple illustration showing the deflection test. The driver adjustable front flap, which was legal during 2009-2010 seasons, is explained, in particular that the wing was hydraulically actuated. When I understood that in 2009, only Toyota used a hydraulic mechanism over the electric motor system used by all other teams. In trying to explain the nose cone, the text and an illustration show a high nose and low nose configuration, but does not remark why one is beneficial over the other.

This section also covers very brief summaries of bargeboards, sidepods and the floor. Some nice close up photos of these parts included, but again with little explanation. An illustration at this point highlights the other FIA deflection test altered in 2010, which was aimed at Red Bulls alleged flexing T-Tray splitter. In this section the text cites Ferraris sprung floor of 2007, but not the allegation that RBR’s was flexing in 2010. A further simple graphic illustrates the venturi effect of the floor and diffuser, and then the text goes into simple explanations of both the double diffuser and the exhaust blown diffuser.
Having been one of the technical innovations of 2010 and since banned, the book is able to cover the F-Duct is some detail. A complete CAD render of the ducting is provided on page 53; this shows an additional inlet to the drivers control duct that was never visible on the car. This extra duct served the same function as the nose mounted scoop on the McLaren that introduced the F-Duct to F1.
Thus with aerodynamics covered in some 23 pages, the text moves onto suspension and the expectation of detail on the RB5-6’s trademark pullrod rear suspension. After a summary of the purpose of an F1 cars suspension, Pages 58-59 have some fantastic CAD renderings of front suspension, uprights and hub layouts. However the rear suspension rendering stops short at the pull rod and no rocker, spring, damper layouts are detailed. Hardly a secret item, so lacking this detail is let down for a book announced as an RB6 workshop manual. A lesser point, but also highlighting the censorship of some fairly key technical designs, was the lack of any reference to Inerters (Inertia or J-Dampers), The suspension rendering simply pointing to the inerter and calls it the ‘heave spring’, while naming the actual heave spring damper as simply another ‘damper’. Inerters have been in F1 since 2006, predating Renault’s mass damper. Their design and purpose is well documented and shouldn’t be considered something that needs censoring. It’s also this section that fails to showcase the RB5-6 gearbox case. Instead using a pushrod suspended RB4 (2008) gearbox, albeit one made in carbon fibre.
The steering column, rack and track rods are similarly illustrated with CAD images. This usefully shows the articulation in the column, but little of the hydraulic power assistance mechanism. Page 67 starts the section on brakes, again fantastic CAD images supply the visual reference for the upright, brake caliper and brake duct design. As well as a schematic of the brake pedal, master cylinder and brake line layout of the entire car. A nod to more typical Haynes manuals shows the removal of the brake caliper and measure of the Carbon disc\pad. A further CAD image shows the brake bias arrangement with both the pivot at the pedal and the ratchet control in the cockpit for the driver to alter bias.
Although not a RBR component the Renault engine is covered in the next Chapter. An overview of the complex engine rules regarding the design and the specification freeze kicks off this section and cites the tolerances and compression ratio for a typical F1 engine. Pneumatic valves, for along time an F1-only technology are explained, but even I failed to understand the schematic illustrating these on page 77. Also covered in the engine section is some more detail on the fuel, oil and cooling systems. With useful specifics, like capacity of the oil system at 4 litres and water coolant at 8 litres. Again some nice CAD images illustrate the radiators within the sidepod. Many sections have a yellow highlighted feature column; this sections feature is on the engine start up procedure, one of the mundane, but rarely talked about processes around an F1 car (other features are on the shark fin and brake wear). As KERS wasn’t used up until 2011, this topic is skipped through with a just a short explanation of the system.

Moving rearward to the transmission system, the old RB4 gearbox makes a reappearance. Again this disappoints, as some quite common F1 technology does not get covered. Page88 shows some close up photos of a gear cluster, but this is not a seamless shift gearbox. In fact seamless shift isn’t mentioned, even though it made its RBR debut in 2008, the year of the gearbox showcased in the book. I know many will highlight that this might be a secret technology. But most teams sport a dual gear selector barrel, each selector looking after alternate gears to provide the rapid shift required to be competitive in F1. So I think this is another technology that could be explained but hasn’t been.
Tyres, Wheel and Wheel nuts get a short section, before the text moves onto electronics. A large part of the electronic system on a current F1 car is now standardised by the Single ECU (SECU) and the peripherals that are designed to support it. So this section is unusually detailed in pointing out the hardware and where it’s fitted to the car. From the tiny battery to the critical SECU itself. Other electronic systems are briefly described from the Radio, drivers drink system to the rain light.
Of critical importance to the modern F1 car are hydraulics, which are detailed on p105. As with the other sections, CAD images and some photos of the items themselves explain the hydraulic system, although there isn’t a complete overview of how it all fits together.
Rounding off the anatomy chapter is the section of safety items and the cockpit. The steering wheel and pedals are well illustrated with CAD drawings and keys to the buttons on the wheel itself and on the switch panel inside the cockpit.

While I have pointed that the hardware shown in the anatomy chapter isn’t necessarily of the RB6, what is on show is obviously genuine and recent RBR. So for those not so familiar with the cars constituent parts, there isn’t a better source of this available in print today. Even web resources will fail to have such a comprehensive breakdown of an F1 car.

The Designers view

Moving away from the Haynes format of a workshop manual, the book then moves into a chapter on the cars design, with comments from Adrian Newey. It details the Design Team structure and some of the key individuals are listed. The text then covers the key design parameters; centre of the gravity and the centre of pressure (downforce). Plus the design solutions used to understand them; CFD, Wind Tunnels and other simulation techniques. Each being briefly covered, before similar short sections on testing and development close this chapter.
Although the text makes reference to creating ‘the package’, something Newey excels at. This section doesn’t provide the insight into the overall design philosophy, which one might have hoped for.

The Race Engineers view
Where as the Designers view chapter was limited, the race Engineers section was a little more insightful into the rarely talked about discipline of getting the car to perform on track. The process of setting up the car is covered; from the understanding of the data, to the set up variables that the race engineer can tune; suspension, aero, ballast, gearing brakes and even engine. Usefully the grand prix weekend is broken down onto the key events from scrutineering, to running the car and the post race debrief. Feature columns in this chapter include; Vettels pre race preparation and the countdown to the race start.

The Drivers view
Ending the book is an interview style chapter on the driver’s time in the car, mainly the driver’s perspective from within the cockpit when driving the car on the limit and the mindset for a qualifying lap. A simplistic telemetry trace of a lap around Silverstone is illustrated, although there is little written to explain the traces (brakes, speed and gear), this is accompanied by Mark Webbers breakdown of a lap around the new Silverstone circuit.

In conclusion
When I first got this book, I was constantly asked if it was worth the purchase or if I’d recommend it. If my review is critical at points, it’s mainly because some technology that could have been covered wasn’t. Or, that the content falls short of the books title suggesting it was a manual for the RB6.
Those points aside, I have learnt things from this book. Like details of the F-duct system, the Front Flap Adjuster and a wealth of smaller facts. There isn’t a better book on the contemporary F1 car. In particular the CAD drawings and close-up photos, just simply aren’t in the public domain. From the pictures we got over the race weekends, we never get to see half the hardware and design work that’s pictured in this book. So I’ll keep this book on hand for reference for several seasons to come.

Overall I’d recommend this book to anyone with a technical interest in F1.

Many thanks to Haynes Publishing who have allowed me to use their Images and PDFs to illustrate this article

This book is available from Haynes

Happy New Year – RedBull RB6 Illustration (Wallpaper)

I’ve been drawing this big detail – big scale illustration of the RB6 as a prelude to a prediction of the 2011 car designs.  So I’d thought I’d post the 2010 RB6 version up as a wallpaper in mono at 1280 resolution.  I’ll do larger sizes on request with or without logos (mail me).

Have a great New Year and thanks for supporting me in my first year Blogging and Tweeting.  Next year will be my tenth covering the technicalities of the sport, so I’ve got some new ideas up my sleeve.

Scarbs…

and without Logos…..

F1 2011 Technical Regulations – Detailed and Explained

Finally the FIA have published the detail of the 2011 technical regulations. There were no major surprises amongst the rules. There being rules to effectively ban: double diffusers, F-ducts & slotted rear wings. Newly introduced were the mandated weight distribution and adjustable rear wing. 

There’s a lot to cover, so I wont cover every rule change and neither can I cover them in detail. but here’s the main points (with the rule in italics).

The full FIA regulations are detailed here:  FIA F1 2011 Technical Regulations

 

Ban on connected shark fins

Another route to banning F-ducts, as well as a move to limit the ever expanding rear fin, the rule prevents any bodywork reaching the rear wing.

“3.9.1 No bodywork situated between 50mm and 330mm forward of the rear wheel centre line may be more than 730mm above the reference plane.”

Ban on slots in the beam wing

With the exception of the central 15cm, the beam wing cannot have a slot that widens internals to create a blown slot. Only Williams raced this last year, but the practice has prevented. This reinforces the fundamental rule that the lower wing should only be formed of one element

“3.10.1 Any bodywork more than 150mm behind the rear wheel centre line which is between 150mm and 730mm above the reference plane, and between 75mm and 355mm from the car centre line, must lie in an area when viewed from the side of the car that is situated between 150mm and 350mm behind the rear wheel centre line and between 300mm and 400mm above the reference plane. When viewed from the side of the car no longitudinal cross section may have more than one section in this area.
Furthermore, no part of this section in contact with the external air stream may have a local concave radius of curvature smaller than 100mm.
Once this section is defined, ‘gurney’ type trim tabs may be fitted to the trailing edge. When measured in any longitudinal cross section no dimension of any such trim tab may exceed 20mm.”

Ban on slots in the rear wing

As with the beam wing, the upper rear wing is prevented from having slots extending beyond the central 15cm. This prevent F-ducts or other blown slots, the latter which have been exploited for several years.

“3.10.2 Other than the bodywork defined in Article 3.10.9, any bodywork behind a point lying 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line which is more than 730mm above the reference plane, and less than 355mm from the car centre line, must lie in an area when viewed from the side of the car that is situated between the rear wheel centre line and a point 350mm behind it.
With the exception of minimal parts solely associated with adjustment of the section in accordance with
Article 3.18 :
– when viewed from the side of the car, no longitudinal cross section may have more than two sections in this area, each of which must be closed.
– no part of these longitudinal cross sections in contact with the external air stream may have a local concave radius of curvature smaller than 100mm.
Once the rearmost and uppermost section is defined, ‘gurney’ type trim tabs may be fitted to the trailing edge. When measured in any longitudinal cross section no dimension of any such trim tab may exceed 20mm.
The chord of the rearmost and uppermost closed section must always be smaller than the chord of the lowermost section at the same lateral station.”

Limit on Rear wing support pylons

The number, thickness and cross-section of the rear wing support pylons are now more tightly controlled.

“3.10.9 Any horizontal section between 600mm and 730mm above the reference plane, taken through bodywork located rearward of a point lying 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and less than 75mm from the car centre line,
may contain no more than two closed symmetrical sections with a maximum total area of 5000mm2. The thickness of each section may not exceed 25mm when measured perpendicular to the car centre line.
Once fully defined, the section at 725mm above the reference plane may be extruded upwards to join the sections defined in Article 3.10.2. A fillet radius no greater than 10mm may be used where these sections join.”

 

Clarification of the starter motor hole

After some teams were exploiting oversized starter motor holes in the diffuser to create a slotted effect, the FIA clamped down with a clarification. This has now been written into the rule book.

“3.12.7 No bodywork which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear wheel centre line and a point 350mm rearward of it may be more than 125mm above the reference plane. With the exception of the aperture described below, any intersection of the surfaces in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car.
An aperture for the purpose of allowing access for the device referred to in Article 5.16 is permitted in this surface. However, no such aperture may have an area greater than 3500mm2 when projected onto the surface itself and no point on the aperture may be more than 100mm from any other point on the aperture.”

 

Ban on Double Diffusers (DDD) and Open Exhaust Blown Diffusers (EBD)

Due to a previous weakness in the rules defining the underfloor, teams were able to exploit this to create the double diffuser. Double diffusers were only possible as an opening could be created in the gap been the reference plane, step plane and the diffuser. Now the rules close this avenue off.
Additionally this opening allowed teams to open up the front of the diffuser to blow the exhaust through for an even greater blown diffuser effect. This rule also prevents this opening in all but the outer 50mm of the split between the diffuser and the floor.
One additional clarification is that the suspension must not form any of the measured point for the under floor. Previously the minimum height was exploited by some teams placing wishbones or Toe-Control arms across the top an opening in the diffuser.

“3.12.9 In an area lying 450mm or less from the car centre line, and from 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template to 350mm rearward of the rear wheel centre line, any intersection of any bodywork visible from beneath the car with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car. When assessing the compliance of bodywork surfaces in this area the aperture referred to in Article 3.12.7 need not be considered.

3.12.10 In an area lying 650mm or less from the car centre line, and from 450mm forward of the rear face of the
cockpit entry template to 350mm forward of the rear wheel centre line, any intersection of any bodywork
visible from beneath the car with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line
which is visible from beneath the car.
3.12.11 Compliance with Article 3.12 must be demonstrated with the panels referred to in Articles 15.4.7 and
15.4.8 and all unsprung parts of the car removed.”

 

Driver operated F-duct

Even though the loop holes in the rear wing regulations have been closed, this additional new regulation prevents the driver influencing aerodynamics. So that other driver controlled F-duct type devices cannot be exploited other areas, such as: front wings, sidepods or diffuser.

“3.15 With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18, any car system, device or procedure which uses, or is suspected of using, driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.”

 

Ban on movable splitters

As with some other rules, this is a 2010 clarification now added to the regulations. Its thought that teams were allowing their splitter to flex upwards, to allow the car to run a more raked attitude and lower front wing ride height. There are now more stringent tests and restrictions on the splitter support mechanisms.

“3.17.5 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 2000N load is applied vertically to it at three different points which lie on the car centre line and 100mm either side of it. Each of these loads will be applied in an upward direction at a point 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line using a 50mm diameter ram in the two outer locations and a 70mm diameter ram on the car centre line. Stays or
structures between the front of the bodywork lying on the reference plane and the survival cell may be present for this test, provided they are completely rigid and have no system or mechanism which allows non-linear deflection during any part of the test.
Furthermore, the bodywork being tested in this area may not include any component which is capable of allowing more than the permitted amount of deflection under the test load (including any linear deflection above the test load), such components could include, but are not limited to :
a) Joints, bearings pivots or any other form of articulation.
b) Dampers, hydraulics or any form of time dependent component or structure.
c) Buckling members or any component or design which may have, or is suspected of having, any non-linear characteristics.
d) Any parts which may systematically or routinely exhibit permanent deformation.”

 

Driver adjustable rear wing

The driver adjustable front wing is now deleted from the rules and instead the rear wing is now driver adjustable. This is because the expected benefit of greater front wing angle never provided the driver with more grip when following another car. The front flap adjustment was much more a solution to tune the cars handling in between pitstops. The TWG found that the loss of drag from the rear wing was a more effective solution to allow the following to overtake. Now the rear wing flap can pivot near its rear most point and open the slot gap from 10-15mm to up to 50mm. Opening this gap unloads the flap and reduced both downforce and drag.
This being controlled by the timing gap to the car ahead and managed by the FIA. So there’s two ways the driver can use the system. Firstly in free practice and qualifying the rear wing is solely at the control of the driver. They can adjust the wing at any point on the track and any number of times per lap. So for the ideal lap time, as soon as the car is no longer downforce dependant (straights and fast curves) the driver can operate the wing, just as they did with the F-duct. Although a small complication to the driving process, at least their hands remain on the wheel and not on a duct to the side of the cockpit.
Then in the race the wing cannot be adjusted for two laps, then race control will send signals to the driver via the steering wheel, such that when they’re 1s or less behind another car at a designated point on the circuit, the rear wing can be trimmed out. The wing returns to the original setting as soon as the brakes are touched.

“Furthermore, the distance between adjacent sections at any longitudinal plane must lie between 10mm and 15mm at their closest position, except, in accordance with Article 3.18, when this distance must lie between 10mm and 50mm.”

3.18.1 The incidence of the rearmost and uppermost closed section described in Article 3.10.2 may be varied whilst the car is in motion provided :
– It comprises only one component that must be symmetrically arranged about the car centre line with a minimum width of 708mm.
– With the exception of minimal parts solely associated with adjustment of the section, no parts of the section in contact with the external airstream may be located any more than 355mm from of the car centre line.
– With the exception of any minimal parts solely associated with adjustment of the rearmost and uppermost section, two closed sections are used in the area described in Article 3.10.2.
– Any such variation of incidence maintains compliance with all of the bodywork regulations.
– When viewed from the side of the car at any longitudinal vertical cross section, the physical point of rotation of the rearmost and uppermost closed section must be fixed and located no more than 20mm below the upper extremity and no more than 20mm forward of the rear extremity of the area described in Article 3.10.2 at all times.
– The design is such that failure of the system will result in the uppermost closed section returning to the normal high incidence position.
– Any alteration of the incidence of the uppermost closed section may only be commanded by direct driver input and controlled using the control electronics specified in Article 8.2.
3.18.2 The adjustable bodywork may be activated by the driver at any time prior to the start of the race and, for the sole purpose of improving overtaking opportunities during the race, after the driver has completed a minimum of two laps after the race start or following a safety car period.
The driver may only activate the adjustable bodywork in the race when he has been notified via the control electronics (see Article 8.2) that it is enabled. It will only be enabled if the driver is less than one second behind another at any of the pre-determined positions around each circuit. The system will be disabled by the control electronics the first time the driver uses the brakes after he has activated the system.
The FIA may, after consulting all competitors, adjust the above time proximity in order to ensure the stated purpose of the adjustable bodywork is met.”

 

Mandated weight distribution

Along with the supply of Pirelli control tyres they will be matched to a mandatory weight distribution. Now the cars minimum weight is 640Kg, the specified minimum axle weights, equate to a weight distribution ranging between 45.5-46.7% on the front axle. This is a few percent behind the typical 2010 loadings.

“4.2 Weight distribution :
For 2011 only, the weight applied on the front and rear wheels must not be less than 291kg and 342kg respectively at all times during the qualifying practice session.
If, when required for checking, a car is not already fitted with dry-weather tyres, it will be weighed on a set of dry-weather tyres selected by the FIA technical delegate.”

 

Double wheel tethers

For safety a doubling of the wheel tethers has been regulated. Each tether needs to pass through a different suspension member and have its own mounting points on the upright and the chassis. There’s not expected to be any performance impact with this. But the tethers are somewhat heavier, so they and the side intrusion panel are part of the reason for the greater minimum weight limit.

“10.3.6 In order to help prevent a wheel becoming separated in the event of all suspension members connecting it to the car failing provision must be made to accommodate flexible tethers, each with a cross sectional area greater than 110mm². The sole purpose of the tethers is to prevent a wheel becoming separated from the car, they should perform no other function.
The tethers and their attachments must also be designed in order to help prevent a wheel making contact with the driver’s head during an accident.
Each wheel must be fitted with two tethers each of which exceed the requirements of 3.1.1 of Test Procedure 03/07.
Each tether must have its own separate attachments at both ends which :
– are able to withstand a tensile force of 70kN in any direction within a cone of 45° (included angle) measured from the load line of the relevant suspension member ;
– on the survival cell or gearbox are separated by at least 100mm measured between the centres of the two attachment points ;
– on each wheel/upright assembly are located on opposite sides of the vertical and horizontal wheel centre lines and are separated by at least 100mm measured between the centres of the two attachment points ;
– are able to accommodate tether end fittings with a minimum inside diameter of 15mm.
Furthermore, no suspension member may contain more than one tether.
Each tether must exceed 450mm in length and must utilise end fittings which result in a tether bend radius greater than 7.5mm.”

 

No more shaped wheel spokes

After the static front wheel fairings that abounded in 2009, were banned and the wheel design homologated, there must have been some surprise that Ferrari managed to create an aerodynamic wheel shape in 2010. This is partly limited now by the restriction on surface area for spokes and shaping. The limited only allows 13% of the wheel centre to be spoked, meaning that a ten spoke wheel has to have spokes just 16mm wide.

“12.4.6 When viewed perpendicular to the plane formed by the outer face of the wheel and between the diameters of 120mm and 270mm the wheel may have an area of no greater than 24,000mm2.”

 

Clarification of mirror positions

Again when the FIA clarify a rule or make a change for safety reasons, we don’t get to see the detail of this change until its put into the regulations. The removal of outboard mirrors was brought in early last year and now the mirrors can effectively be no more than 27.5cm from the cockpit opening

“14.3.3 All parts of the rear view mirrors, including their housings and mountings, must be situated between 250mm and 500mm from the car centre line and between 550mm and 750mm from the rear edge of the cockpit entry template.”

 

Ban on blade roll structures

Mercedes surprised many with their blade-like roll structure, reducing the obstruction to the rear wing and allowing for a much shorter inlet tract for the engine, the solution was likely to be copied. A minimum cross section forced teams to have a wider section above the drivers head, negating the fundamental benefit of the solution

“15.2.4 The principal roll structure must have a minimum enclosed structural cross section of 10000mm², in vertical projection, across a horizontal plane 50mm below its highest point. The area thus established must not exceed 200mm in length or width and may not be less than 10000mm2 below this point.”

 

Dash roll structure point maximum height

With the cockpit opening fixed at 550mm, teams have often raised the front of the chassis around the dash bulkhead to create a raised nose. In the first of several limits for both 2011 and 2013, with even more stringent plans for 2013, the height of the front of the chassis is now being controlled. The limit for this point is now 670mm, still some 120mm above the cockpit opening.

“15.2.3 The highest point of the second structure may not be more than 670mm above the reference plane and must pass a static load test details of which may be found in Article 17.3.”

 

Limit on front chassis height

As already explained teams raise the position of the front (AA) and dash (BB) bulkheads to create space under the nose for airflow to pass in between the front wheels and reach the rear of the car. The trend for “V” sections noses, introduced on the Red Bull RB5 in 2009, makes the front of the chassis even higher, often being visible above the height of the front tyres (~660mm). Now both these bulkheads need to be at 625mm, some 75mm above the cockpit opening.

“15.4.4 The maximum height of the survival cell between the lines A-A and B-B is 625mm above the reference plane.”

 

Limit on shaped Rear Impact Structures

Since the 2009 aero rules, teams have been shaping the rear impact structures into ever more curved shapes to lift it clear of the diffuser and pass it underneath the beam wing. The tail of this structure must be centred at 300mm high, to prevent extreme banana shaped structures, this rule forces the structure to vary by no more 275mm.

“Furthermore, when viewed from the side, the lowest and highest points of the impact absorbing structure between its rear face and 50mm aft of the rear wheel centre line may not be separated vertically by more than 275 mm.”

McLaren – Analysis: New F-duct for Suzuka

 

In preparation for the final races, McLaren have developed another iteration of their F-duct rear wing. The new version places the stalling slot onto the rear face of the main plane of the rear wing, where the previous versions had all placed the slot on the rear face of the flap. This is a subtle change and effects the way the wing stalls to create improve aero efficiency (i.e. more straight-line speed, or more downforce for a given top speed).

F-ducts work as they reduce the drag created by the rear at speed, this drag limit’s the top speed the car can achieve for a downforce level. The more downforce the wing makes, the more drag is created and hence the lower the top speed. Although a larger wing creates more frontal area and hence presents more of an obstruction to the airflow, it is in fact the drag induced the unseen air spilling off the wing that’s creates most of the rear wings drag. In fact an F1 wing despite looking so streamlined creates more drag than a solid block of the same dimensions. This is because an F1 wing is so highly loaded as it strives to create huge amounts of downforce from such a small surface area, that the air coming off the wing creates an invisible extension to the wings frontal area. Created by both the airflow rising all but vertically off the centre part of the rear wing and then the even more draggy vortices spiralling off the wing tips. These vortices are often seen in wet conditions and used to be seen as a sign of an efficient wing, but are in fact hugely detrimental to the downforce\drag coefficient of a rear wing. This is why we see such efforts to reduce wing angles near the endplates and team make the slits in the endplates, as these are all aimed at reducing these vortices.

Drag is created by the wings upwash and the vortices spilling from the wing tips

An ideal situation would be a wing with steep angles of attack for downforce in the corners, where drag is of little consequence. Then a nice flat wing for the straights, where less drag improves top speed and downforce is not required to give the car grip. Without being legally able to move the wing itself(albeit this will allowed in 2011) there has no mechanism to create this effect in F1.

When the wing is stalled the airflow breaks up, preventing the drag inducing upwash and vortices

Teams have known for a long time that stalling the rear wing drastically reduces downforce and as a result reduces drag. This is because the large flow structures coming off the wing break up and shed the drag inducing effect they have. Many teams have tried to exploit the rules by flexing their rear wings to create just such an effect, but the FIA has outlawed this via a number of deflection tests and latterly the slot gap separator.

McLaren have now found that they can stall the rear wing, if they blow airflow out of a slot at right angles to the underside of the rear wing. But this in itself cannot be exploited unless there is a means to switch the airflow on and off. With the driver controlled F-duct, controlling the flow either to the stalling slot or to a neutral outlet, McLaren can achieve the ideal situation of a downforce wing setting for corners and low drag for the straights.

The driver controlled Fluid switch directs flow to the wing or the neutral outlet

By the driver controlling a duct that affects the flow through a ‘fluid switch‘, which is a “V shaped duct behind the roll hoop, flow can either pass to the slot or a secondary duct exiting in the low pressure region well away from the upper rear wing.

When disengaged the F-Duct sends flow through the lower branch, the upwash and vortices continue to create dragWhen the duct is disengaged airflow passes out of the duct which exits just above the beam wing. In this mode the rear wing has the flow attached and creates downforce and with it drag.Blowing the flap stalls the wing to reduce drag

When the F-Duct is disengaged air passes from the roll hoop inlet into the Fluid switch.  From there the air flows both into the low level nuetral outlet and partly into the cockpit. When the driver covers this cockpit control duct, the change in back pressure makes fluid switch alter the direction of the roll hoop flow, to pass into the duct towards the rear wing.

When the cockpit duct is covered air instead passes to the rear wing slot

When the driver engages the F-duct the airflow alters inside the fluid switch to send the air out of the stalling slot. This breaks up the vortices shed from the rear wing and reduces downforce and drag. McLaren initially had this full width slot towards the trailing edge of the flap, the airflow stalls quite late as it passes under the wing and the most likely effect of this is that airflow can reattach quickly when the duct is disengaged. Its also possible that a downside to this, as the wing stalls quite near the trailing edge there may still be some drag induced by the general upwash from under the wing.

Blowing the main plane stalls the wing earlier and may even further reduce drag

When Sauber copied the F-duct at the 2010 Australian GP, they had their F-duct stall the wing via a stalling slot in the main plane of the rear wing. While Ferrari and Red Bull followed McLaren with a flap stalling F-duct, Force India, Renault and latterly Toro Rosso have gone the way of a main plane stalling solution. By stalling the wing much further upstream, its possible that the disruption to the airflow further reduces the upwash, in turn reducing drag even further. On the downside the wing may take longer to see the flow fully reattach when the duct is disengaged.

McLaren appear to have seen a benefit in the main plane blown effect.  Although the solution has required new ducting and a new rear wing, it will only see at most three races before F-ducts are banned for 2011.  Such is the cost of fighting for the championship this year.

All the workings of an F-duct can be seen here

Septembers Technical updates

I’ll compress this months work into one post for simplicity. For updates on F1 technology have a look at the following outlets: Automoto365.com, Motorsport Magazine and Race Engine Technology magazine.

Automoto365.com – Singapore Tech Desk
All the technical devleopments from singapores night race.
– McLarens front wing and nose cone (thanks to bosyber comments on this blog)
– Red Bulls updates
– Mercedes Bargeboards
– Williams Frotn wing
– plus more from Renault and Toro Rosso

http://f1.automoto365.com/news/controller.php?lang=en&theme=default&month=10&seasonid=21&nextMode=ExclusiveNewsForm&news_id=42469

Motorsport Magazine – F1’s Aero Tricks

I’ve illustrated this article on this years must have developments: F-ducts, Exhaust Blown Diffusers and deflecting splitters.

http://www.motorsportmagazine.co.uk/2010/09/30/latest-issue-%E2%80%93-november-2010/

Race Engine Technology

What lies inside a contemporary Formula One engine? Toyota have given Race Engine Technology full access to their current RXV-08 F1 engine. This issue contains the most detailed technical article ever published on a current F1 engine. A 16 page article covering all aspects of the Toyota Formula One engine in a level of detail you will have never experienced before. RET have been given unprecedented access to the engine with the full co-operation of the entire technical team.

http://www.highpowermedia.com/mall/productpage.cfm/RET/2050/352560