The Shift in Downforce

"Tim (Fractal Footwork)" (fractalfootwork) 10/22/2013 at 12:35 • Filed to: Formula 1, F1, Craig Scarborough, ScarbsF1, 2014, Brawn, OppositeLock

9

18

The change in the 2014 Formula 1 rule book will bring about a shift in how teams manage the airflow around their chassis. The main cause for this shift in aerodynamics is the mandated repositioning of the exhaust exit to the center of the car, just between the diffuser and rear wing, which should not allow any more use of the exhaust gasses for aerodynamic benefit. The extradition of the exhaust from the floor of the car could lead to a change in aerodynamic effect to advert tire squirt, and may end up helping this new generation of Formula 1 cars look different than some initially anticipated.

An !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! works by running the exhaust exit either below or above the diffuser/floor to increase the airflow underneath the diffuser. The faster the air flows at the rear of the floor, the more that the air is stretched thin, creating a lower pressure area and pulling the car down. An added benefit of these blown diffusers were the sealed off airflow around the diffuser that would otherwise be disrupted by the turbulent air running off the rotation of the tires.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

The FIA's first attempt at 'banning' blown diffusers was only met with ingenuity by Formula 1 engineers through the utilization of the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! back down toward the diffuser and seal off the turbulence from the rotating tires. Infinity Red Bull Racing have been !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , and their chief aerodynamicist, Adrian Newey, has been able to extract performance from the blown exhaust that no team in the paddock can seem to match.

In the 2014 Formula 1 rulebook, the exhaust has been repositioned by the FIA to a place where no engineer or aerodynamicist should be able to extract any extra performance; this means that sealing the rear diffuser from tire squirt has to be met with some other sort of innovation. Just a few years ago, the exhaust, up and down the grid, was in no place to aid the diffuser, and the cars were adorned with all sorts of winglets and vortex generators that helped to seal the diffuser and rear wing off from the tires, as well as create downforce on their own. In 2014 with the exhaust repositioned, the designers will have to find some other way to clean up the tire squirt and improve the efficiency of the diffuser, and may revert to some of those winglets and floor cuts near the rear of the floor.

The similarity of the 2014 F1 cars with the 2008 chassis may remain distant due to the 2009 bargeboard ban, even though the engineers would love to be able to control the air surrounding the rear of the car with a ridiculous amount of winglets and fins. However, the similarities of the 2014 chassis may be much closer to the 2009 cars, as Criag Scarborough explain's in a comment to his article, !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! :

scarbsf1on July 9, 2013 at 9:29 am said:
With no exhaust blowing the diffusers edge, the footplate area will need to be shaped as it was pre 2010 to offset tyre squirt, so lots of slots and coved tyre decks.

This will be an area of extreme interest to the 2014 designers who will try and skirt around the complicated old rules banning "extemporaneous bargeboards" from the rear body work in an attempt to control the turbulent air from the tires ruining the efficiency of the diffuser. Pair this with the changing engines/power systems, and we are looking at a season that could possibly be won with a bit of luck from a team that picks a cleaver innovation and runs with it while everyone else is trying to catch up on the new engines.

[ !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ]

Gimmi-Sagan-Om-Draken > Tim (Fractal Footwork) 10/22/2013 at 12:40

0

Well Adrian says its hideous haha, we'll see. I've been thinking about these regs quite a bit. Some interesting solutions might pop up. Also,

"The Russians are Rushin' to get Russians into Formula one" haha!

Mikeado > Tim (Fractal Footwork) 10/22/2013 at 12:42

3

Interesting, and a poignant choice of closing picture given the closing sentence.

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > Tim (Fractal Footwork) 10/22/2013 at 13:03

1

Could be a great season, or a Vettel season.

dropthatclutch > Mikeado 10/22/2013 at 13:16

0

I'd say. Though I don't think Brawn got lucky. I think he knew he had a hit and that's why he was willing to invest, literally, himself.

ColinCren > Mikeado 10/22/2013 at 13:57

0

I'm sure it was intentional.

Mikeado > dropthatclutch 10/22/2013 at 14:26

0

There's probably something to that, yes. At the end of the day Honda spent 6 months developing that car after realising the 2008 car was a lemon, but getting the powerful Mercedes engines for their cars was the other key part to their speed. I don't know about how that deal came together, but it was either great luck or some great effort/deal making by someone, probably Ross.

magman007 > Tim (Fractal Footwork) 10/22/2013 at 15:06

0

Correct me if I am wrong, but the brawn car was the one to start the blown diffuser craze was it not?

Tim (Fractal Footwork) > magman007 10/22/2013 at 15:20

4

No, they caught the rest of the field off with their induction of the Double Diffuser.

This was basically a slot in the floor that transferred air from underneath the chassis so that the regular diffuser had less air pressure running through it and thus increased downforce.

magman007 > Tim (Fractal Footwork) 10/22/2013 at 15:23

1

Thanks, I forgot they were the double diffuser, i knew they had some association with diffuser technology that gave them the edge for at least half the season

With-a-G is back to not having anything written after his username > Tim (Fractal Footwork) 10/31/2013 at 19:59

0

What exactly motivates the squashing of innovation? Is applying ingenious tweaks to obtain greater downforce actually bad from any tangible perspective? The only thing I can think of is safety issues arising from the the sharp discontinuity in downforce when you abruptly lose your ground effects, and subsequent airplaning of the car. Is there another reason?

Joseph Shaul > Tim (Fractal Footwork) 10/31/2013 at 20:16

2

Did someone say cleaver innovation?

Mini_Fanatic > Tim (Fractal Footwork) 10/31/2013 at 20:25

0

I always make a point of choosing a cleaver and running with it. :)

beardsbynelly - Rikerbeard > Tim (Fractal Footwork) 10/31/2013 at 20:36

3

I think the only way to bring back a parity with the teams aero design is for the FIA to introduce regulations banning all Adrians from the sport.

I'm sorry Sutil.

MJAB > Tim (Fractal Footwork) 10/31/2013 at 22:13

0

Red Bull takes also advantage of the Renault engine that, for reliability of the engine, it is the only since 2 years, allowed to use a control engine map that allows an increaed blown diffuser effect to the car (by forcing in turns the engine to go in "emergency" mode). All allowed by FIA since Red Bull it is a big sponsor for motor sports.

Pecunia not olet!

DasWauto > With-a-G is back to not having anything written after his username 10/31/2013 at 22:49

0

As much as you or I may dislike it, costs are what drive the FIA to restrict Formula 1.

Teams like Sauber, Williams and Force India run with budgets that are but a fraction of those afforded by McLaren, Ferrari, Mercedes, RBR and Lotus [and the backmarks even significantly less].

If teams were allowed free reign, top teams would run away from even mid-pack teams as they would be unable to match the rate of development. Top teams would be able to explore multitudes of areas to innovate in while lesser teams would be unable to keep up with their limited engineering and financial resources. They would become uncompetitive to a point where sponsors abandon them and teams fold. The FIA obviously wants to keep as many teams in the sport as it can.

With the restrictions the way they are all the teams have a more defined starting point and limits for their car. This keeps the development window relatively small and thereby keeps costs down.

With-a-G is back to not having anything written after his username > DasWauto 10/31/2013 at 23:50

1

That is helpful; thank you. I thought it might be some kind of misguided or misapplied effort aiming to keep things fair and competitive, but now I see a way that it might be a legitimate effort to keep things fair and competitive.

d3v > Tim (Fractal Footwork) 11/01/2013 at 00:13

0

Of course, everyone knows that next year will be all about using the KERS as a trick traction control system just like Red Bull seem to be doing.

Mash_Tun > Tim (Fractal Footwork) 11/01/2013 at 09:21

0

How cool would it be to have an "F1 Unlimited" series, only for those who have the TEXA $ and the desire to push the tech to its logical ends. I know that it is completely unrealistic to suddenly reintroduce every banned technology, but in theory it could actually self-regulate because of the physical limitations of the biological component: namely the drivers. They'd either pass out, or not react quickly enough if a car had EVERY banned technology. In other words not every car would have every tech, but rather teams would have to engineer cars with unique combinations of technologies.

So, let's say...active suspension, ground effects, fans, turbos, active aerodynamics, V6, 8, 10, 12, etc....they're all back on the table. You set some crash performance standards, ration some fuel, provide the tracks, and perhaps go so far as specifying tires. Ok. Go.