FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

a longer car will cause issues with weight distribution amongst other things.

The Grand Hotel in Monaco would be fun.

[scotty]

The way IN is some other hole we can't see in the pic. It's fictional so maybe that issue isn't resolved in that example. Or maybe on the front of the sidepods just like an F1 car. The overhead view hides that.

Correct. http://insidelane.co.uk/wp-content/uplo ... GP_F_3.jpg

[atommo]

Your proposal is unfeasible. How do you propose to get the needed air in? If you hide the intake and cooling openings underneath you would not have control of aero in the underbody the way you do now, you would be inviolation of the technical regs, and introduce a number of logistical and engineering nightmares and headaches.

I see your reason, but how come in the late 80s the cars didn't have the vents above the drivers heads? It shows there are other ways of getting round the problem.

Also back then some of the cars were turbocharged so they would've produced a lot more heat [I'm guessing]

Also I made the mistake of thinking that heat from the engines could simply be blown off without needing intakes, so I'll give you that. However if the gills were made of a heat conducting material , then the heat could be dissipated like a heatsink does in a computer. Also the low pressure produced from the air moving over it would pull the air out, but that would still need an intake of some sort... That sort of solution might produce less air resistance than the current aerodynamic shape though! But still, You have good points, and thanks for reminding me you need an intake as well as vents to have an to have an airflow!

[madbrad]

The car in that picture is turbocharged. The Turbos did not have ram air intakes because the turbocharger provided the force feeding of air. It got that air from another area perhaps below somewhere or perhaps in that same hole in the front of the sidepod as the radiator air duct. In that pic you can also see the radiator exit air duct in the rear portion of the sidepod. They don't do that anymore. In any case, aerodynamics dictated the absence of an upper ram scoop since it wasn't needed.
Cars prior to and after the turbo era have the upper ram scoops. Look at some of the 70s cars' scoops. Some were about 5 feet tall!

[atommo]

Hmm thats interesting! Maybe in 2014 when cars have to revert back to turbos the scoops will be absent once again...

[madbrad]

Perhaps, but now they have roll hoop regs as well as they need a place to hook a sling to.

[Craft]

Hey guys,

I'm a newcomer to F1 so i've some basic, more like non-pure-technical questions:

(i) I've heard someone pre-viewing the Monaco 2013 strategy, and it was said that it would be quite unlikely that someone would follow a single stop strategy. The only one who could eventually try would be Lotus. Now, i get the single stop unlikeness, but my question is why Lotus? Please note that the hint or pre-viewing may be completely stupid and non-sense.

(ii) I've also heard some inconsistencies in what distinguishes the 2013 F1 cars it terms of power ( lets focus on engine power, or engines only). As engine manufacturers we have Renault, Mercedes, Ferrari and Cosworth. My question is, and remember to try to discard aero and driver influences, what distinguishes these engines? Is Mercedes and Ferrari (in the same aero, drive, gearbox, etc, circumstances) more powerful in a straight line than Renault as i've heard? or they perform better e low rev circumstances (cornering) as i've also heard? Or this is a non-sense question?

Thanks guys

[What's Burning?]

(i) I've heard someone pre-viewing the Monaco 2013 strategy, and it was said that it would be quite unlikely that someone would follow a single stop strategy. The only one who could eventually try would be Lotus. Now, i get the single stop unlikeness, but my question is why Lotus? Please note that the hint or pre-viewing may be completely stupid and non-sense.

Hey welcome to the forum. I'll take a stab at your questions even though I know there's a couple of much more technically qualified guys that visit us from time to time.

Back in Monaco Pirelli was using a tire build that was much different than what's being used today. Yes that meant that in part due to the Silverstone fiasco, they changed the tires on the grounds of safety. Early on in the year some cars, Force India, Lotus and Ferrari seemed to be much kinder to their tires, specifically the rears. So your question is difficult to answer concisely because there are so many variable that contribute to tire wear but the simplest way to answer is this; These tires are designed to work in a very tight temperature window. Too high and they wear out quickly. Too low and they grain and cause massive understeer problems. The teams previously mentioned were able to get the tires to work optimally in that window without resorting to extreme alignment, tire pressure and even flip flopping the left to right rear tires in order to get more life out of them.

(ii) I've also heard some inconsistencies in what distinguishes the 2013 F1 cars it terms of power ( lets focus on engine power, or engines only). As engine manufacturers we have Renault, Mercedes, Ferrari and Cosworth. My question is, and remember to try to discard aero and driver influences, what distinguishes these engines? Is Mercedes and Ferrari (in the same aero, drive, gearbox, etc, circumstances) more powerful in a straight line than Renault as i've heard? or they perform better e low rev circumstances (cornering) as i've also heard? Or this is a non-sense question?

The existing V8 2.4 liter engines have been in use since 2006 so they've been optimized as much as possible from a performance standpoint. Since we don't get actual horsepower numbers published, I'm pretty certain that manufacturers are not going to leave big numbers on the table. I'd be surprised if there's a +- 2% difference in power output between the makes. What differentiates an engine more is how that power is delivered in the rev band, the torque produced and the fuel efficiency of the engine along with the longevity. The overwhelming differences you'll see in speed is going to come from the aerodynamics of the car, not engine power.

[Zekenwolf]

The car in that picture is turbocharged. The Turbos did not have ram air intakes because the turbocharger provided the force feeding of air.

So does that mean that the 2014 cars will not have those great big holes behind the driver's head?