Open top menu
26 Apr 2014
Bite Size Tech: Force India VJM07 - New Rear Wing - China

Force India took the opportunity at the post Bahrain GP in-season test to assess a new rear wing that the team adopted for the Chinese GP. It's an all new design that features 4 core changes:

  1. The rear wing mounting pylons have been reshaped, utilising a pear shape around the exhaust exit, similar to Ferrari and Sauber.
  1. New rear wing endplates that feature longitudinal triangular strikes on the trailing edge, shaped upward that help to collate the pressure gradient and vorticise it, extrapolating some additional performance not only from the endplates but also the surrounding components via upwash.
  1. The endplates also feature a new set of louvres (now horizontal) which change the way in which the airflow moves between each side of the Endplate and therefore how it affects the drag induced by the wing elements.
  1. The rear wing also features a new mainplane and top flap, with only one slot gap separator running along the centreline rather than the two equidistant ones either side of the centreline on the old configuration.
Read more
Bite Size Tech: Lotus E22 shark fin engine cover - China

The Lotus team have spent most of this season on the back foot and probably look back at last season and wonder where the performance has gone. Missing the first test didn't really do the team many favours in terms of data, but essentially they have lacked mileage throughout as they try to extract performance from both their Powerunit and chassis.

The E22 is a complex car and undoubtedly has potential but the problem with complex designs is that sometimes unlocking the performance can require 5 steps backwards before you can take 1 forward. Lotus trialled a shark fin variant of their engine cover back in Australia but have since continued to run the less aero efficient but more substantial cooling variant up until China, where they raced the shark fin.


This alludes to the fact that the team are starting to get on top of some of the issues surrounding the cooling of the powerunit and perhaps more importantly the turbo. The size/dimensions of the engine cover are mandated to stop the teams taking an extremely aggressive approach to the bodywork and so the Shark Fins purpose is to meet these regulations efficiently.
Read more
Bite Size Tech: Williams shark fin engine cover - China

Williams have been using an engine cover similar to the rest of the field thus far this season with a centralised cooling outlet/funnel. 


However in China the team returned to a design they used throughout 2013, which is much shorter, features a much larger cooling outlet at the base of the engine cover and utlises a Shark Fin in order to meet with the dimensional restrictions in the regulations. 

 
The team also briefly tested a similar cover which featured gills along the fins length (picture from Felipe Massa's Instagram account above). This cover is a little different in the way the Shark Fin interacts with the rest of the engine cover (less of a bodywork void) so I'd suspect the gills help aerodynamically, to coax the airflow across the surface.
Read more
Bite Size Tech: Toro Rosso Vortex Generators - China

Toro Rosso had opted to start the season with a clean edge to the upper front section of the Sidepod but arrived in China with a new set of Vortex Generators. 


The team have been making some alterations to the Sidepod bodywork this season, with alterations to the surface geometry of course having an aerodynamic impact. Furthermore the teams continued use of the centreline inverted Y rear wing support pylon (Y-Lon) will help to draw airflow through and over the sidepods, affecting the aero too.

If you're unfamiliar to the use of Vortex Generators their purpose is to disturb the airflow passing over the leading edge of the Sidepod, yielding a performance advantage at certain speed thresholds. The Vortex Generators added do lean over and so will invoke a slightly different aero characteristic than if they were just vertical. The height of the Vortex Generators are usually an indicator of the sort of boundary layer build up (inference: drag) that would be generated at the rear of the surface if the Vortex Generators were not used.
Read more
25 Apr 2014
Bite Size Tech: McLaren MP4-29 Front Wing - China

McLaren's season hasn't got off to the best of starts albeit with the result in Melbourne buoying the team. It's yet to be seen if this is a failure on any new infrastructure that is being put in place given the departure of Martin Whitmarsh or it's just the other teams doing a better job. The team have clearly been compromised in performance, with Mercedes HPP only handing the teams the log style manifold in testing when they'd previously envisaged and packaged based the car on a much larger equal length manifold. I suspect we will see the team arrive in Barcelona with renewed vigor and a new design for their Sidepods, in order to take advantage of the additional space free'd up by the smaller exhausts. 


The team made a change to the front wing for the Chinese GP, likely in response to the circuit being front limited (ie the car having the tendency to understeer). As we can see the vane has been split into two with additional angle of attack applied, noted by the height at which the vane sits at the trailing edge of the endplate. The singular vane has been in use since the end of the second pre-season test and as I alluded to back then its job is to affect the pressure gradient outside of the Endplate, drawing the airflow inside the Endplate outward and minimising the loss of 75mm either side of the front wing this season. The slots allow some of the airflow to move between the pressure gradients forming a spiral of airflow that further aids in this attempt to draw airflow outbound.
Read more
Bite Size Tech: Force India VJM07 Rear end detail changes (Diffuser & Y100 Winglets) - China

Force India took the opportunity at the post Bahrain GP test to assess a few new rear end details that the team then adopted for the Chinese GP. 


Either side of the crash structure and within the Y100 limitations the team have been using a winglet to create upwash, at the post Bahrain test and in China this increased to two winglets either side of the crash structure (arrowed).

The team have also made alterations to the Diffuser (circled), with the largest change coming at the outer channels. The outer sections now arc over making the diffuser shorter at its periphery, with the now more complex vertical strakes still outwardly pointed in order to affect the wheels wake outbound of it. The detached Gurney trim also follows the full periphery of the diffuser rather than stopping blunt like the older specification diffuser.
Read more
24 Apr 2014
Bite Size Tech: Force India - Sidepod, Airflow Conditioner and front of floor modifications - China


2014's huge rule shake up could certainly be seen by any team as an excuse to have gone a little conservative initially, especially those running the Mercedes powerunit who clearly have a performance advantage over the Renault and Ferrari powered teams.  Force India certainly could be seen as one of those teams, although they have a good race package haven't pushed the boundaries to the extremities as some.  Having said that their deployment and installation of the powerunit is admirable for a team that is often referred to as midfield.

In search of additional aero performance the team had several key modifications lined up for the post Bahrain GP test that also adorned the car in China.  If we take a look at the VJM07's Sidepods we'll note that the undercut sculpting and rear section of the sidepod have seen some minor amendments, improving both internal and external flow structures that'll not only reap the rewards of better aero flow but also increase the efficiency of the powerunit.


As we can see in the image above the team have also made some changes to the front of the floor and surrounding components to further maximise the sidepod changes.  The sidepod airflow conditioner now arcs from a smaller bargeboard which sits slightly outbound of the main one, whilst the floor has been scrolled at the leading edge and the side scroll has been increased in height and length.  These changes work to better utilise the wake dispatched by the front tyre, increasing the effect downstream giving the new diffuser the opportunity to create more downforce.
Read more
Bite Size Tech: Red Bull RB10 Tyre Squirt Slot(s) - China


Red Bull's floor in front of the rear tyre is always an area of adaption with them running the floor in very close proximity to the tyre.  Inevitably the floor incurs minor damage throughout a GP weekend and requires attention, the team have 3D printers on site along with a plethora of that section of floor in order to make running repairs.  You'll note that, that section of floor nearly always looks like a patchwork quilt with different variants of carbon fibre in use, depending on how much it's been returned and also how much flex they're looking for and in what direction.


Up until China the team had been utilising a similar layout to that used on the car's predecessor albeit with just the singular vertical strake rather than the two used in 2013.  The principle of these slots is to shape the airflow ahead of the rear tyre and manipulate the wake as it 'squirts' laterally into the diffusers path (tyre squirt).  The rigidity of this years tyres has increased significantly over last years in order to cater for the increase in torque from this years turbocharged powerunits and so the teams will undoubtedly make gains in this area as they understand the relationship between the tyres dynamic loads and the surrounding aero.

 Above: This image is from the AMuS gallery

For China the team cut in an all new section of floor (during FP2) and continued to use it throughout the rest of the weekend.  This new section of floor featured a singular boomerang slot which allows airflow to migrate underneath the floor ahead of the rear wheel.  The most rearward section is convex to further enhance how the flow folds under the floor.  It's also worth noting the metal section surrounding the connection point to the floor that will dictate how much rigidity the floor has as the pressure builds on the surface.
Read more
23 Apr 2014
Chinese GP Press Conference - Powerunit Manufacturers


The press conference from the Chinese GP featuring the powerunit manufacturers, Charlie Whiting (FIA), Andy Cowell (Mercedes HPP), Rob White (Renault Sport F1), Pat Fy (Ferrari) and Yasuhisa Arai (Honda) discuss the 2014 powerunits


Read more
Bite Size Tech: Williams FW36 sidepod shoulder vents (China)


Since the season began Williams have been running the FW36 with a detached section of bodywork on the leading edge of the Sidepod (see image above).  The idea being that wasted airflow entering the sidepods inlet makes it's way out onto the top of the sidepods surface.  This 'jet' of air uses the 'Coanda' effect to draw airflow from close by to the sidepods surface.


During the test after the Bahrain GP and briefly in China (see above) the team used a new piece of bodywork which featured a much smaller vent facing rearwards along the sidepod, doing away with how the airflow would have previously been released around the shoulder of the sidepod too.  This was undoubtedly an attempt to focus the airflow over the central portion of the sidepod creating a shoulder with the bodywork instead.



It appears that the team finally decided that they would run neither of these solutions and simply blanked off the scene of the previous vent.  Sidepods have essentially become an area of intense development over the last few years (chiefly because of the various forms of blown diffusers used) and almost seen as wings due to the surface area they possess and how much they condition the flow to the rear of the car.  This can make them sensitive to the speed of airflow passing over them, being more efficient at one speed more so than another, this is why we see the leading edge (and just in front) of the sidepod proliferated with vortex inducing devices.

Read more
Bite Size Tech: Williams FW36 Front and Rear Wing evaluation (China)


Williams once again arrived in China looking to make a step forward and had several parts to evaluate, as we can see from the Wing stack above these changes included two front wings.  The changes might seem outwardly small (not even visible to some at first glance) but the top flap of the lower wing is much shorter in chord at the inner section, whilst the outer section of the flap retains a little more height.  After back to back testing the solutions the team opted to run the lower wing in this image.




As we can see in the upper of the two on track images Felipe Nasr filled in for Bottas and set about assessing a new rear wing top flap.  The flap consists of a V in it's centre which helps to bleed off some of the drag induced by the component.  The team could have been testing this for future races or decided it didn't offer enough balance as the team decided to run with the none V'd flap for the race.
Read more
Bite Size Tech: Lotus E22 Diffuser Vortex Generators (China)


Earlier in the season I wrote about how Red Bull had used some small Vortex Generators at the transition between the reference plane / plank and the Diffuser. In Shanghai, Lotus also trialled these small appendages in the hope they could glean some additional performance from the Diffuser. 

Above: A stricken E22 is returned to the pitlane and the crouching engineer assess the diffusers airflow with the assistance of the flo-viz paint.  In the inset we can see that the team looked into using Vortex Generators at the Diffusers leading edge (arrowed) at another stage of the weekend.

They work by disturbing the airflow in that region which could yield results at certain speed thresholds due to the adverse angle of the diffuser. However I'd also question how they affect car balance and do they simply move the point at which peak performance is available. In previous seasons the teams have taken the opportunity to shape the starter motor hole in order to do a similar job (injecting airflow instead) but with the starter hole now needing to be covered both Red Bull and Lotus have tried this solution instead.
Read more
14 Apr 2014
Comparing powerunits, understanding early season issues and the real reason why Mercedes AMG F1 are ahead


2014 has thus far provided us with the backdrop to several drama's but for me it has been the source of major frustration.  2014 marks a point in Formula One that not only see's the largest rule change in the sports history but hinges on a major technological leap forward.  Unfortunately I'm left aghast at the poor coverage supplied by the UK broadcasters (at least) which not only borders on propaganda/misinformation but moreover shows their disinterest in covering what makes the sport tick.

The latest signal of this was the Skysports feature over the Bahrain GP weekend claiming an exclusive as to why Mercedes were so fast compared to their rivals.  The piece although great from the perspective they were actually covering the technical side of the sport was good, however their claim on an 'Exclusive' is somewhat incorrect.  Myself, @ScarbsF1, @RacecarEngineering amongst others have all talked about this in the past via Twitter (albeit with the exception of Racecar Engineering who actually published it in their magazine on 5th March).  Furthermore pretty much anyone who looked over the regs ahead of 2014 would have realised that splitting the turbo and installing the MGU-H between it in the V was a great way to package it.  I even drew it way back in 2011/12 and published it in January 2013 when I took a look at the PU's and packaging on the blog.

 Above: Mercedes PU shows that the compressor end of the turbo is mounted at the front of the block

The insinuation that the works team are the only ones that could fully utilise the advantages of this turbo layout however are unfounded.  I actually corrected misinformation that Crofty gave via twitter during his '#AskCrofty' after the Bahrain GP.

(This is part of my frustration, if you don't understand or know about these sort of things then don't comment, I try to stay away from bum steering people and although I know a fair bit I'm always learning...)

The Homologation process covers the ICE, Turbo, MGU-H and MGU-K meaning that the split arrangement is run by ALL Mercedes powered teams.

Don't get me wrong, the advantages gleaned by Mercedes (works team) are reliant on the split turbo configuration but it's how it's been used to package other items that stands them apart from McLaren, Force India and Williams.  I won't go on to tear down the rest of the Sky package but suffice to say there are other technical elements that are incorrectly displayed during the presentation.

So what are the differences between the teams?

I'll start out with cooling options and for those of you uninitiated in the realms of turbocharging, a charge cooler (air to liquid to air) used to be seen as an inefficient way of cooling the inlet charge with most applications utilising an Intercooler/Aftercooler (air to air).  This is because most people perceive the additional items required by a chargecooler to equate to additional weight.  However over recent years opinion has swayed with the design of them (air to liquid to air) going back to the drawing board rather than just thinking of them as an air to air cooled, water jacketed.  Air to air coolers are most effective when able to be placed in freestream air and so you'll usually see them front mounted on road cars.  Air to air coolers for a single seater with a singular centreline turbo however brings forth some compromises in terms of pipework with much larger diameter pipework needed to carry the boost into and out of the cooler.  Symmetry is an important aspect for Formula One teams as not only do their initial calculations (CFD) run with 1/2 a car mirrored (obviously Lotus are an exception to the rule this season) but having a differential in drag/aero performance on one side of the car can of course be detrimental to performance.  This really brings rise to several layout options for the teams:

  • Twin engine radiators (smaller than their usual capacity due to the downsizing of the engine) with twin air to air coolers mounted in conjunction with them, keeping the aero status quo.  The downside of this is the increased level of pipework, especially the larger diameter boost pipes.

  • A singular engine radiator, obviously larger than the one used in the setup above mounted in one sidepod, with a singular but similarly sized air to air cooler mounted in the opposing sidepod.  The issue here would be the difference in core thickness between the water filled radiator and boost filled after cooler.  Symmetry would also be lost in terms of the boost pipe sizings vs the water hoses.

  • A charge cooled (air to liquid) setup would allow for similarly sized water radiators to be placed in either sidepod (one for engine cooling, the other for the chargecooler) with the water jacketed cooler placed between the turbo's compressor and the inlet.  This setup has a few drawbacks which invariably outweigh the positives, the jacketed cooler's weight is placed relatively high up (increased CoG) but the shorter tract between the compressor and the inlet means you have less pressure drop (increased performance).  The use of the pre-rad to support the chargecooler means that there isn't the packaging issues associated with the larger diameter boost pipes used with the air to air setups.
  • A charge cooled (Air to liquid to air) setup with an engine radiator (smaller than the iteration above), pre rad and a chargecooler, either side of the car.

Mercedes


Above: Mercedes WO5 powerunit & associated radiator layout in the right hand sidepod courtesy of AMuS

Above: Mercedes WO5 powerunit & associated radiator layout in the left hand sidepod courtesy of AMuS 

The symmetry of the two sidepods points squarely at Mercedes opting to place their chargecooler in a void between the engine block and the fuel cell, giving the shortest boost tract and requiring the least space in terms of packaging for the sidepods, whilst maintaining the symmetry of the components housed within the sidepod.

McLaren

Above: McLaren MP4-29 powerunit & associated radiator layout in the right hand sidepod courtesy of AMuS
 
Above: McLaren MP4-29 powerunit and air-to-air cooler layout in the left hand sidepod courtesy of AMuS

The MP4-29 has a twin stack of radiators placed in the right hand sidepod, whilst their air-to-air cooler finds a home in the left hand sidepod.  The layout is a little un-conventional when compared with the last few seasons with the coolers inverted. The twin radiator layout in the right hand sidepod also leads to an elongation on that side, whilst a plethora of pipework at the front edge of the bodywork points to the team circulating the airflow around the coolers.

Force India

 Above: Force India VJM07 powerunit and associated radiator layout in the right hand sidepod courtesy of AMuS

Above: Force India VJM07 powerunit and associated air-to-air cooler layout in the right hand sidepod courtesy of Racecar Engineering

Force India's approach is perhaps the most obvious choice in terms of the air-to-air variants and from the image above we can see the effort that has been made in order to get the coolers ahead of the ICE, therefore the heat generated by the exhausts is less of a factor.  Force India have opted for the more conventional laid back coolers to maximise airflow passing over their surface.  Bear in mind that the arrangement of the cooling fins have to be orientated to take this into effect too as otherwise it wouldn't be worth tilting them.

 Above: Williams FW36 powerunit and associated radiator layout courtesy of AMuS

Pictures of the FW36's internal packaging are a little rare, but what I can make out from the limited information is that they have gone for the conventional laid down orientation of the coolers.  I'd also surmise that like Force India they have opted for the engine radiator in one sidepod and air-to-air cooler in the other option but I'll verify this when I have the proof.

Above: Red Bull RB10 powerunit & associated radiator/chargecooler layout in the right hand sidepod courtesy of AMuS

Above: Red Bull RB10 powerunit & associated radiator/chargecooler layout in the right hand sidepod courtesy of AMuS 

Red Bull appear to have taken the heavier solution to chargecooling, stacking both the ICE radiator and chargecooler pre radiators in each sidepod, whilst the chargecooler is mounted aft of them.  This is perhaps more pertinent given the decisions made by Renault in terms of the turbo's configuration as the boost pipework will be shorter and placed alongside the turbocharger (having not split the compressor from the turbine like Mercedes).

Caterham

Above: Caterham CT-05 powerunit & associated radiator/chargecooler layout in the right hand sidepod courtesy of AMuS

 Above: Caterham CT-05 powerunit & associated radiator/chargecooler layout in the left hand sidepod courtesy of AMuS

Caterham have followed a very similar path to Red Bull in terms of stacking twin ICE radiators in either sidepod with the chargecoolers pre rads, the angling of these is much sharper though in order to curtail their presence ahead of the exhaust manifold.

Lotus

Above: Lotus E22 powerunit & associated radiator/ chargecooler layout in the right hand sidepod courtesy of AMuS

Above: Lotus E22 powerunit & associated radiator/ chargecooler layout in the left hand sidepod courtesy of AMuS

Lotus have also gone down the chargecooled route but have a different layout to the previous two Renault powered teams with the ICE radiators and chargecooler pre-rads mounted almost vertically/longitudinally with the chargecooler itself lying under the rear rad.  To supplement the flow of cool air in that region the team have also utilsed a floor duct for the left hand sidepod due to the increased piping created by that exhaust (I'll explain this a little more later).

Toro Rosso

Above: Toro Rosso STR9 powerunit & associated radiator/ chargecooler layout in the right hand sidepod courtesy of AMuS

I've only been able to find an exposed photo of the right hand sidepod of the STR9 thus far (and not the best angle) but I can see that the team have a double stacked radiator configuration with the chargecooler mounted aft of it.  I'd suggest that the team will have mirrored the layout in the opposing sidepod.

Ferrari powered teams

As images of the Ferrari powerunit and it's configuration aren't readily available I'll comment on the Marussia and Sauber layouts instead.  However from the limited images of the F14T I have seen bare I'd conclude the team like the teams they're supplying are running a chargecooler arrangement.

Above: Marussia MR03 powerunit shown bare in the right hand sidepod courtesy of Racecar Engineering

Above: Marussia MR03 powerunit & associated radiator layout in the right hand sidepod courtesy of AMuS
 
 Above: Marussia MR03 powerunit shown bare in the left hand sidepod courtesy of Racecar Engineering

From these images I'd surmise that Marussia have opted to run a chargecooled setup with an engine radiator in one sidepod and a pre-rad in the other.  This makes the Ferrari configuration closer to the Mercedes one than say the Renault one but it still holds a significant variation.  Ferrari have not opted to separate the compressor and turbine and run the shaft through the engines V, however it would appear the boost pipe from the compressor is routed through there (through a donut in the airbox pipework), terminating at the chargecooler.  The air is then cooled within and exits from the top into the inlets (pipework which has the green temperature stickers on it).

Above: Sauber C33 powerunit & associated radiator layout in the right hand sidepod courtesy of AMuS

Above: Sauber C33 powerunit & associated radiator layout in the left hand sidepod courtesy of AMuS

As you can see I have limited images of the C33 to work with but apart from the orientation of the radiators (in this car they are vertical) they appear to be using a chargecooled setup, the same as Marussia.

Above: Mercedes powerunit with the 'log style manifold' highlighted with the original image courtesy of Racecar Engineering

This next section may involve a bit of scrolling back to the pictures I've used above rather than filling the article with yet more images.  One of the other areas that can be changed by each team in order to enhance performance is the exhaust.  You'll note that from all of the images presented of Mercedes powered cars the teams are utilising a log manifold rather than the equal length ones we are used to seeing.  Now this is an area of performance that is a trade off and so depending on where you are wanting to make gains it would change your approach.  Furthermore there are still design considerations and marginal differentials in each design that can affect both torque and power curves. Add into the mix what the MGU-H is capable of doing in terms of spooling / supporting the turbocharger, what size and/or scroll your turbo is and you have some serious decisions to make.

Above: Red Bull having to make some hurried alterations to their bodywork during testing due to the close proximity of the exhaust to that region of bodywork. Other issues surrounding the heatsinks used for the ERS led to a higher core temperature in the sidepods than anticipated, making this a hot spot.

All the other teams but Red Bull are utilising an equal length manifold which resides aft of their engine and charge air cooling solutions.  Red Bull have laid their manifold flat underneath the chargecoolers in a configuration that lends itself towards an equal length variant, however with the limited vertical space it's difficult to ascertain whether it truly is equal length and could be a hybrid of both solutions, simply extending the header lengths.  The advantage of the layout used by the Mercedes powered teams is the sheer amount of space saved by running the manifold directly to the turbine.

Above: Marussia MR03 powerunit & associated radiator layout in the right hand sidepod courtesy of AMuS

Wastegate(s) are another component that can be selected by each team but will likely take instruction from the manufacturer in terms of their installation and operation.  Ferrari powered teams (above) have opted to have twin wastegates (one for either manifold) as part of the Turbo/MGU-H assembly with significant pipework diameters being proportioned off.  All of the other teams are using a singular wastegate with significantly smaller pipework (usually running off the centreline), whilst Lotus once again do their asymmetric thing and run only one wastegate from the left hand exhaust bank.  There are some plausible (but marginal) advantages that could be extracted aerodynamically from the wastegate that I've talked about before and this might be what Lotus are trying to do with their asymmetric layout.  The wastegate is an important element for the new powerunits and must be robust, several of drivers/teams have had issues with them already, probably most famously Sebastian Vettel.  Their control and effectiveness is important due to the way the MGU-H operates alongside it, with a decision to be made over which one curtails the turbo based on the cars current SOC (State of Charge, ERS language for the amount of energy being recovered and sent either to the ES or directly to the MGU-K).

Ferrari powered teams thus far seem to have fallen a little short of the mark with a large disparity in top end performance which was clear to see when it left Alonso a sitting duck for an attack by Hulkenberg in Bahrain.  It seems their issues revolve around the way in which the two MGU's distribute power to one another and could be the result of mistakes made in selecting the size of their turbocharger.  Towards the top end of the powerband it would be wise for the MGU-H to be harvesting power (ie curtailing power) and sending it directly to the MGU-K for additional power.  However it seems that the Ferrari powered teams are unable to do this and instead are using energy from the ES which in turn is being depleted too rapidly, resulting in less top end horsepower.

Last but no means least is a question mark over exhaust bore, you'll note from the images that all the teams have different sizes, tailored to their own performance needs.  It's not an area of massive potential due to the energy leaving the exhaust being lower than in previous seasons but still worth a mention as it can be adjusted by each individual team.

In summary the Mercedes powerunits split turbo arrangement is a performance differentiator but it's decisions that the team have made in the rest of the installation that sets them apart from even those teams that also run the Mercedes HPP unit giving them not only a power advantage but creating a more internally aerodynamic efficient car.  It's quite clear to see by the behavior of the Mercedes powered cars that their ERS in it's entirety is much more mature than their counterparts, with the Renault and Ferrari powered teams struggling generally with the transition of energy under acceleration and braking.  This affects the brake-by-wire system, as holes in the provision of energy or during harvesting will lead to communication issues between the MGU-H, MGU-K, ES, controller and braking system.  All of these lead to a lack of feel/confidence for the drivers who then struggle to let the automation that should be going on in the background do its work.

With the Renault and Ferrari powered teams having issues that really revolve around larger packaging and problems with the ERS, fixing either of these issues during the 2014 season will not only be vast and expensive but come with their own compromises.
Read more
13 Apr 2014
The 33.33 second misnomer



The way I understand Formula One and try to portray its technical intricacies isn't for everyone and I wouldn't expect it to be.  The sport is a multi faceted one where human endevour has to be matched by technical prowess, this is why the drivers who take the victories on the podium are quick to thank their team, be it at the track or back at the factory.  What does irk me though is when technical aspects of the sport are 'dumbed down', mis interpreted or worse of all incorrectly conveyed (whether it be from a lack of knowledge, ignorance or plain and simple mis information.

The latest of these is the way in which ERS works and yes I know it's a complex system to talk about but if you're going to use it in commentary don't skew how it's used.

For those of you that are going 'what the hell is he talking about' it's the mis-use of 33.33 seconds of energy available for use per lap from the MGU-K.  I understand where the figure has come from but using it without further context is a little frustrating and I'll explain why:

IF the energy provided by the MGU-K were still to be provided by a button press on the drivers steering wheel (a paddle for some drivers) and they had the setting on their steering wheel turned upto maximum (120kw/160bhp) they could drain all 4mj of energy stored in the ES in 33.33 seconds.  Therefore we can see that the time component of 33.33 seconds is simply an extrapolation of the maximum power (120kw) vs the available energy (4mj).

Unfortunately this is where you are being misled as the time component for energy dispensed by the MGU-K is much larger than 33.33 seconds per lap (or should be).  That's in part because the driver no longer presses a button on the wheel to release the energy from the batteries, but instead he will work with his engineers to map performance to the throttle pedal.  This means that the full 120kw doesn't have to be dispensed all the time and can instead by graduated to match the performance of the engine, raising the kw's dispensed the more the throttle is applied.  This of course makes it impossible for us to know the time component as it will be different for every driver, especially as, as with KERS before it the driver can select different maps to work alongside the engine map, reducing or increasing the amount of energy dispensed at a given rpm.

On top of this we have the supplemental energy flow that can be provided by the MGU-H and fed directly to the MGU-K, skipping out the Energy Store and therefore extending the 4mj's lifespan.  This means that if the MGU-K is requesting power it can be sent from either the MGU-H directly, if it's harvesting, from the ES or both! Lest we forget that energy passed directly between the two MGU's is also more efficient as it doesn't have the losses associated with transforming AC/DC or DC/AC.

(As a side note I think it's also important to mention that the MGU-K can only recover and store 2mj's of energy per lap with the other 2mj (to take the ES's level to 4mj) recovered by the MGU-H)

I understand that it's easy to be critical and that the speed that commentary must sometimes be supplied makes it difficult to convey everything, but this generalization of how the energy is 'spent' makes a mockery of what is actually going on under the skin of these cars.

This bug bear is not a new one to me as it was much the same with KERS with it often talked about as giving a 6.67 second boost.  This of course was accurate if were to extrapolate the maximum 60kw/80bhp of power that could have been used and the maximum 400kj's of energy that could be used per lap.  However even this was variable for the driver, usually from a rotary on the steering wheel with the driver able to reduce how much was dispensed in order to increase the time component.

I hope this post helps explain why I think it's important not to use the 33.33 seconds marker when explaining ERS.
Read more
The challenge ahead... Haas Formula LLC


There were echoes of 2009/10 when the FIA announced they would consider applications for 2 more slots from 2015 onwards. I say this because once again it came at a time when a budget cap had also been put firmly on the table.

As always there was plenty of interest, many I'm sure from pretenders that want into F1 but don't understand both the technical and financial task at hand.

Gene Haas (many of you will recognize this name from NASCAR) has had his application accepted by the FIA.  Haas therefore has demonstrated his credentials in terms of technical merit and financial backing, but was this based on a budget capped formula just as the new entrants in 2010 were promised?  I for one hope not, as for me Formula One should remain the pinnacle of motorsport, won by the margins that the team have worked and spent hard to achieve.  Having said that though, I still firmly believe that there are too many teams, leaving some fighting for the financial and technical scraps meaning Haas could just become another number.



Haas is important to the sport and once again tries to bridge the void that Formula One finds itself within in the states.  The relative success of the Austin Grand Prix has only been overshadowed by the constant issues surrounding the New Jersey GP, having a US based team in the sport could finally provide the New Jersey project with the financial backing it needs to come to fruition.  The USA is a huge market and one that Formula One has struggled with over the years, a US based team might finally attract the kind of attention that the sport desires.

The Haas plan by all accounts is to utilise a Dallara produced chassis for 2015 at least. This will at least take some of the pressure off the team in terms of being on the grid in time.  The problem however could come in terms of performance, with the last chassis produced by Dallara (HRT111) far from F1 specification, according to then Technical Director Geoff Willis (now of Mercedes).  Don't get me wrong I'm not saying Dallara can't produce a decent chassis for Haas but as the core of the car, the chassis is undoubtedly an area that must be got right from the start as it affects performance of everything else on the car.  As we've seen in the past drivers can be extremely sensitive to even very small margins of damage to the chassis let alone a poor core design.

Next up is another important aspect and is being highlighted this season by Mercedes superiority, the powerunit. Hondas return to Formula One in 2015 will be with McLaren as their works team, this however doesn't mean we won't see them taking on paying customers with Haas providing the most likely candidate. Rumours are also abound of a return to Formula One for both Ford and BMW but either being ready to be on the grid for 2015 would be a big stretch.  Although with Red Bull pushing Renault hard to recover ground and having strong ties to BMW in other series it's a distant possibility.  The other option would be to re-ignite the Cosworth project, who've worked on an engine for the 2014 regulations but hadn't enticed the customers to put it into production.  It is infact a target for Cosworth to re-enter the motorsport market and they have looked at IndyCar too.

McLaren have always taken the option to use their own gearbox rather than purchase one from Mercedes HPP like Force India currently do.  I'd suggest that Honda won't invest in building their own gearbox on this basis, meaning should Haas use the Honda PU they'll need to build their own gearbox (unlikely) or source one from elsewhere.  I'm sure McLaren would sell them one of their gearboxes having supplied Force India in the past, whilst Williams could be another option having supplied HRT in 2012.

Haas is also looking to retain their operations in the US which places them at odds to the rest of the field who are all European based.  This will of course have an impact on recruiting the type of staff that they'll require to be successful, by all means I'm not saying there isn't US talent out there but they perhaps won't have direct Formula One experience and this could be telling in the gestation period.

Looking down the grid to use other teams as a benchmark and you firstly have to look at the two entrants left from 2010: Caterham and Marussia.  Both have struggled to make the strides necessary to join even the midfield and that's 4 years down the line.. Both teams operate what would be a skeleton staff in comparison to some of their opponents with Caterham employing around 250 people whilst Red Bull are around 550. Now numbers aren't everything and quality also has to come into play, however F1 is a 24/7 operation with team members working in shifts to at least maintain (and ideally increase) their team performance window.  The sheer difference in terms of team numbers is testament to the challenge at hand and the differential between those at the front and the back.

Infrastructure and supply is an incredibly important aspect of Formula One and I'd argue that it would have been easier to have purchased one of the current F1 teams, asset strip them using their staff and infrastructure, learning as they go and creating a similar setup in the states.  The cost to purchase one of the existing teams could outweigh the scratch setup costs and the quicker run up the grid.  Caterham and Marussia are the obvious candidates needing just that last financial push to get them through the gate.  However Force India could be up for grabs at the right price with both Mallya and Sahara on shaky ground financially already. Whilst you'd also have to say a substantial bid could see the overhaul of Sauber and Lotus too.

The key member of staff will be who the team take on as their technical director, get this decision wrong at the start of a teams life and it'll take a substantial amount of time to recover.  I'm left wondering if Mike Coughlin has had any input thus far or will be involved with this projects down the line just purely because of his crossover between the NASCAR and F1 world.  The other more recent technical director that is currently employed elsewhere (Brembo) is ex TD of Toro Rosso, Giorgio Ascanelli.  They could of course entice someone else away from a current team or install someone that's not been employed in that role before.

Wherever or whatever Haas decides to do the task at hand seems almost insurmountable (for 2015 at least) but to succeed in F1 you must push the boundaries and so getting on the grid will be the first of many they'll need to achieve.

Note: Image from www.carolinalifestyles.com
Read more
11 Apr 2014
Bite Size Tech: Lotus E22 under nose 'snowplough' - Bahrain


Lotus have trialled but not raced their snowplough style appendage under the twin tusk nose since Melbourne, it did however get its first race outing in Bahrain.


5 pylons mounted centrally under the nose form a V and extrude down to the longitudinal plough element. With the twin tusk arrangement airflow still moves centrally under the nose but as we saw with their high nose in 2012/13, Lotus still wanted to manage the airflow under the nose, with them previously utilizing the 'Pelican' underbelly. It's not all about mass flow under the nose at the end of the day, there has to be an element of quality to the airflow. The bowling pin arranged vertical pylons and plough all work to condition the flow that cascades off into the splitter region and moreover around the sidepods. 


Read more
On-Board race footage (Australia, Malaysia and Bahrain)


Courtesy of Canal+ - I'm quite sure this should be regionally locked but whilst it's up, take the opportunity to watch 30 minutes of on-board footage from the 1st three races.

Australia


Malaysia


Bahrain


Read more
9 Apr 2014
Bahrain post race test - Technical Image Gallery - Tuesday


A selection of the best technical images from Tuesdays action in Bahrain courtesy of Sutton Images

 Sauber C33 - The team are utilising a pitot tube array in order assess the impact of the tyres wake on the components (Sidepod, Airflow Conditioner, Bargeboard, Floor etc) downstream.  The rig is moveable (vertically) and so the team can do many more measurements out on track without having to come in to reset the rig.


 Ferrari F14T - The team were utilising 2 pitot tube arrays, 1 behind the front tyre and 1 ahead of the rear tyre / over the rear of the sidepod.  The array behind the front tyre measures the wake coming off the tyre and therefore how it impacts the Sidepod, Sidepod Airflow Conditioner, Bargeboard, Floor etc aft of it.  Note its not a full fence like some of the teams use as they're looking at specific target areas of flow and don't want to impinge on performance dramatically as it then creates a further offset for the rig behind.  The reason the team would run both rigs together is all about data collection and analysis within a set time period, track time/testing is finite and so the team will want to gather this data as quickly as possible without having to make too many changes.  The offset of having the rig within the airflow can be quantified and an offset applied to the collected results.




 McLaren MP4-29 The team are utilising a moveable pitot tube array boom behind the front wheel to measure wheel wake.  Also note the small ball mounted in the front wings cascade, these are thermal imaging cameras looking at the front face of the tyre.

 McLaren MP4-29 - As we can see the pitot tube array boom is now in a different position taking measurements of how the wake from the top of the tyres wake will impinge on performance.  Also note in the inset that the team have not installed the 'Wishbone Wings' at the rear of the car to assess performance without them.


 Mercedes WO5 - testing with a pitot tube array behind the front tyre assessing it's wake




 Marussia MR03 with a pitot tube array installed behind the diffuser to understand it's performance



 Lotus E22 - Pitot tube array (fence) mounted behind the front tyre to assess the tyres wake, note how high the fence is to measure much more than the perceived interference it may have with the Sidepod




 Force India VJM07 - Pitot tube array (fence), this large fence is collating data for the whole rear of the car ahead of the front tyre, you'll note that the fence overhangs the floor to measure the effects as air is drawn into and around the tyre and how that could effect floor performance.

 Toro Rosso STR9 - another team using a pitot tube array behind the front tyre to assess the wake from the front tyre. Also note the team are not using the centralised rear wing pylon raced in Bahrain.


 Force India VJM07 - Note that the usual splash of orange on the sidepods is missing from the car



 McLaren MP4-29 from the rear we can see the team have applied flo-viz (blue paint) in order to assess the airflow without the 'Wishbone Wings' covering the suspension











McLaren MP4-29 the team also tried setting the car up with just the lower of the two 'Wishbone Wing' appendages on the suspension




 Force India VJM07 the team have made a minor change adding some small winglets either side of the crash structure to aid in the upwash of the airflow.  This is similar to solutions we have already seen McLaren and Mercedes adopt.


Read more

Total Pageviews