Open top menu
Showing posts with label F1. Show all posts
Showing posts with label F1. Show all posts
11 Jan 2013
2013 - F1 Car design trends, what's banned and what to look out for (DRD, DDRS, Pull Rod Suspension)

The 2013 regulations are somewhat similar to their 2012 counterparts with the exception of the FIA closing some loopholes used by teams to circumnavigate the rules in order to gain an advantage. 

Nosecone - Step Noses

In terms of aesthetics the teams will also have the option of covering up the 'Step noses' that became the centre of attention when the cars were first shown before testing in 2012.

The 'Step Nose' was born out of a requirement to allow airflow to pass relatively unencumbered toward the leading edge of the cars floor. The reason for the ungainly look is due to the difference in height allowable at the bulkhead and the nose tip. In order to gain the highest possible setting the nose became jaunted much to the dismay of many F1 fans. Aesthetics is not something that principally drives aerodynamicists and so the step adorned all but the McLaren and Marussia cars. The latter teams deciding to run the bulkhead of their cars lower both yielded throughout the season and adopted higher nose tips albeit without the 'Step'.

The 2013 regulations permit the use of a vanity cover (non-structural fairing of prescribed laminate) which allows the teams to effectively cover up the Stepped Nose returning it aesthetically to the regular nosecone shape F1 fans had come to know. This doesn't mean 'Step' noses have been eradicated as this is only a recommendation. Red Bull utilised the stepped area for driver cooling in 2012 rather than it's regular nose tip position, other teams may adopt this path in 2012 emulating the RB8. Furthermore as was the case for speculation toward the end of the season the nosecone and front wing pylons may be being flexed. Having a vanity cover placed over the a flexing nosecone could lead to failure of either part and more importantly the degradation of it's effect.

Above: Craig's image shows how a vanity cover may be applied to the nose of a 2013 car - his original article pertaining to this can be found here: ScarbsF1

Front Suspension


Ferrari caused another storm when they released the first images of the F2012 showing to the world their 2012 challenger would use Pull rod suspension at the front as well as the rear of the car. Pull rod suspension was last seen at the front of the car in a 2001 Minardi PS01 (Also driven by Alonso) In the early stages of the F2012's life it was clear the car wasn't as competitive as the Maranello team desired with many citing the pull rod front suspension as one of it's weaknesses. As time passed by it became clear that the suspension afforded the Ferrari team not only advantages of a lower CoG but also in the way the suspension responded with and treated the Pirelli tyres. Many other teams have since stated that they too will investigate the merits of applying pull rod suspension at the front of their 2013 challengers based on the relative success of the F2012.

Tyres

2012 saw 7 different winners from the first 7 races something that many fans angrily levelled at Pirelli's aggressive tyre strategy. The problems encountered by the teams early in 2012 were not all based on the compounds chosen by Pirelli though with the construction of the tyre causing just as many headaches. The construction of the front tyres lead to wear being a factor unilaterally causing insistences in how the tyre degraded. For 2013 Pirelli have once again changed both the construction and compounds on offer with the latter available for the teams to test at Interlagos. I wrote about this at the time: Pirelli tyre test - Interlagos However the important aspect is in regard to the construction of the tyre allowing for a larger contact patch something the teams will welcome based on their 2012 struggles.

Exhausts

Exhaust solutions have been a go to area for decades in terms of creating additional downforce but over the last few seasons the practice has rapidly increased. At the start of 2012 we saw 4 main variations for the teams to utilise exhaust gases.
 
Downwash Exhausts - Mercedes, Williams, Caterham & Marussia used these exhausts which also use the 'Coanda' effect but due to their placement it only attracts the airflow traveling over the Sidepod



'Coanda' Exhausts (Ramped and Wrap Around) Red Bull, Sauber & McLaren used this style of exhaust which later became the go to solution for the season with most of the grid converging on McLaren's style of exhaust


Engine Cover Exhausts – Lotus & Force India used these exhausts which were placed much higher on the car maximising horse power (maximum freedom for tuning lengths) and sending the exhaust plume higher as a result of the positioning.


Convergence Exhausts – Ferrari & Toro Rosso used these exits and looked to converge the exhaust plume with exiting radiator airflow

All of the designs have their own merits and would have undoubtedly have originally been chosen with regard to other factors aswell. Packaging, cooling and exhaust tune ability would have been the primary concerns for the designers sculpting their designs around these and aerodynamic demands. With 4 Engine suppliers on the grid all of these factors will change the approach used, meaning that adopting an exhaust solution in use by another team can lead to compromises in other key areas.

By the end of 2012 most of the field were running some form of 'Coanda' exhaust with the exception of Mercedes and Williams who had both trialled it but reverted to early season iterations with Williams sporting their abruptly ending Sidepod (Convergence Exhaust).

2013 will most likely see the grid converge on the same basic principle of 'Coanda' exhausts and instead of having to adapt to the style out of necessity they'll have more refined concepts designed with that layout as part of the cars blueprint. The reason I believe this will happen is the lead teams finished their campaigns running this type of exhaust but more importantly perhaps it allows for a similar effect to the EBD's we saw throughout 2010/11. Of course it's not as effective as a shrouded exhaust (2010/11 EBD) but the manipulation of the surrounding airflow leads to more airflow being drawn into the required area between the outer Diffuser wall and the tyre. Pushing airflow into this region encapsulates (Seals) the diffusers outer portion and stops tyre squirt from impinging on the diffusers flow. (Air is pushed sideways off the tyre and is sent latterally into the diffusers airflow disrupting the diffusers effectiveness)

It will be interesting to see if any of the other teams are bold enough to follow Red Bull endevours with their Cross-Under Tunnel. The team struggled with the concept initially and continued to revise the layout right up until the end of the season. (Although the latter alterations were more aimed at maximizing the DDRS system the team implemented in Singapore) The Red Bull ramp and cross-Under tunnel looked to separate the airflow regimes from above and from the side of the Sidepod by transporting the airflow from around the side of the Sidepod underneath the ramp and out of the car more centrally. This allowed the airflow from over the Sidepod to converge with the exhaust plume and move toward the gap between the Diffuser and Tyre. This of course is not it's only destination with the airflow passing between the tyre wall and the bottom of the engine cover, with it's life being made all the time easier by another Red Bull only item for 2012. Red Bull have historically shrouded the halfshafts where the exhaust plume would interact with them. This is a topic I look at in more detail in my recent technical assesment of the team: http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/red-bull-racing-historic-technical_30.html This time however they went one step further using Vertical Floor Strakes mounted underneath the shrouds to help distribute the airflow and reduce boundary layer separation. I have heard rumour that Ferrari will also adopt a similar method for their 2013 challenger highlighting the fact they may adopt a exhaust/bodywork style similar to the RB8. It would however not surprise me if Ferrari weren't the only team to adopt the halfshaft shroud for 2013.

Sidepod Vortex Generators & Sidepod Wings

In order to maximise the airflow over the Sidepods team used these appendages throughout 2012. McLaren started proceedings with their twin vertical fins mounted on top of the Sidepod a feature that filtered throughout the teams with most running 2 and others fielding 3. Sauber however fancied another route placing horizontal winglets above the Sidepod in what I've previously described as looking like a leading edge slats (as used in aeronautics). In aeronautics slats are preferred over vortex generators when the stalling angle is too great to be surmounted by the latter. In the case of both Sauber and McLaren it would seem that the width of the Sidepod cannot sustain enough Vortex Generators to surmount the Length / Angle of Attack of their Sidepod and so they used Sidepod Wings instead. An interesting development that could have already been in play on the C31 and MP4-27 would be flexible Sidepod Slats, if these were to deform at higher speed thereby closing the gap between it and the front of the Sidepod it could lead to the area becoming more efficient throughout the whole speed threshold. Interestingly Toro Rosso combined both effects as the frontal part of the STR7's Sidepod was detached from the latter part to which they then added Vortex Generators on top of.


Sidepod Airflow Conditioners

Usually these items sit on the outside edge of the floor next to the Sidepod and manage the airflow that stagnates around the Sidepod co-er sing it along the floor instead of off the floors edge. As with every component on an F1 car the longer the item is the more boundary layer will build up causing unstable flows. To make their conditioners more effective Ferrari, Caterham and Lotus all used twin element conditioner's making for a more efficient design. This isn't to say the other teams need to have twin elements in 2013 but tells us more about how the aforementioned teams tried to rectify a deficiency up stream. Sidepod Airflow Conditioners have been around for about 6 or so years no and have evolved considerably throughout this time frame so expect more of the same for 2013.

DDRS & DRD



DDRS (Double DRS) was pioneered by Mercedes at the start of 2012 and was immediately requested to be banned by the other teams. They feared that like the F-Duct that had appeared in 2010 it's design that was an intrinsic part of the W03 would be difficult and costly to develop. Furthermore it was believed that it could give Mercedes an advantage at the start of the 2012 campaign. The system which was as simple as the forethought to lay tubing that spanned from the front to rear wings allowed the team to reduce drag on the Front Wing aswell as the rear when DRS was active. The system however could not surmount the other design deficiencies of the W03 leaving it just one win all season. Red Bull keen to mount a charge at the end of the season also saw an advantage to using DDRS. The Red Bull system however didn't use the secondary function to reduce drag at the front of the car but instead further reduced drag at the rear. As with the Mercedes DDRS when DRS was activated a hole emerged in the Rear Wing Endplate that sent air down a cavity in the Endplate to the Beam Wing. Small holes in the Beam Wing then allow the airflow characteristics around the Beam Wing to change further reducing downforce and drag. DDRS has been banned for 2013 with the FIA disallowing use of the the top flap for secondary purposes, furthermore they have also redefined the rules pertaining to ducts leading from the front of the car.



DRD (Drag Reduction Device) as coined by myself and Craig Scarborough is a totally independent system to DDRS. The mainstream media unfortunately confused many F1 fans calling the original Lotus 'Device' DDRS which was the reason for us coining it DRD. Sky Sports commentator David Croft picked up on this and towards the end of the season referred to it as DRD when Lotus and Mercedes used theirs in free practice sessions.
DRD is passive and requires no interaction from the driver to activate it, the system is tuned to 'Stall' the rear wing at a predefined speed threshold. This created a problem for both Lotus and Mercedes who tested DRD frequently throughout the season but failed to race it.

In terms of a speed advantage as the device is passive the point at which it switches from producing downforce to a stall is imperative.  The RW80's / F Ducts driver interaction gave the switching capacity over to the driver allowing them to activate the system when they felt comfortable with the level of downforce available leading to around a 10KPH-15KPH gain in top speed.  In order to create a safety buffer the teams will have to be much more lenient with DRD as you don't want it stalling the rear wing on the exit of a corner too early.  This would lead to a lower drag reduction value but could still see the teams gaining upto around 8KPH in top speed.

My theory (below) is DRD produces additional downforce until the prescribed speed threshold (in much the same way McLaren's RW80 / F Duct did):

  • The rear wing planes are set at a higher angle of attack than usual
  • Air entering the airbox or additional airbox 'Ears' (Car dependant) and running through the engine cover to the Pylon.
  • The airflow then runs up the pylon and exits through slots cut into the side of the pylon, tangentially blowing across the mainplane.
  • This airflow allows the rear wing to operate up to the speed threshold whereby the airflow being received from the pylon cannot sustain the angle of attack the wing is set at. This leads to the wing stalling, detaching the airflow completely and reducing both downforce and drag.

Mercedes version of DRD featured a pylon that didn't extend to join with the mainplane allowing the slots to blow onto a wider proportion of the mainplane.


As DRD was only used in testing during 2012 it's difficult to ascertain it's true potential but with unlimited DRS usage now removed for Free Practice & Qualifying in 2013 the potential for additional drag reduction will appeal to the teams. At the young drivers test in Abu Dhabi both Red Bull and Sauber tested their own variety of DRD's with Toro Rosso also placing an appendage on their Monkey Seat simulating the position of a Double DRD.
 

DRS has been reduced to usage only within the specified zone(s) at each GP this year with it previously having unlimited usage.  This will have an effect on how the teams design their rear wing planes in 2013 with the DRS delta now changed.  Many teams were skewing their setup to allow for a maximum DRS gain but with the likely introduction of DRD and the rule changes this approach will probably alter.

Lastly just a quick mention about Sauber's test package used at the young drivers test in Abu Dhabi, the team introduced an exit on the side of the Sidepod to assist in attachment along the length of the Sidepod  a feature that may well be part of many of the 2013 designs that go along the Ramped bodywork lines.

Read more
5 Dec 2012
no image

The last 2012 meeting of the World Motor Sport Council took place today (05/12/12) in Istanbul.  The following pertains to the alterations relative to F1 and I have Italicised my notes alongside:

2013 F1 Technical Regulations

  • More stringent front wing deflection tests have been introduced - In response to further developments regarding flexing Front Wings the FIA will adjust the load tests.  As I've discussed here and on twitter in the past a serious area of development for teams now is aero-elasticity.  Being able to manipulate the Front Wing under aero load can offer significant benefits and so teams will continue to chase development in this area.  The FIA may be best placed to also look at the adoption of further deflection/load tests to other regions (ie Nosecone, Wing Pylons etc) as these too are areas the teams will use in order to further impact the rotation, flex, pitch etc of the Front Wing.
  • There is an increase in minimum weight to compensate for an increase in tyre weight for 2013 -  As I looked at in my previous article: http://somersf1.co.uk/pirellis-2013-test-tyre-brazil.html the Pirelli test tyres used at Interlagos had a new construction.  Due to the change of construction for the 2013 tyres the weight per tyre has been raised by 1KG.  The overall minimum weight therefore has been adjusted to accommodate this. 
  • Deletion of the ‘force majeure’ allowance when a car stops on the track in qualifying. The FIA will determine how much fuel the car would have used to get back to the pits and add it to the one litre sample minimum. - Several instances have occurred where teams have opted to stop their driver/car out on circuit due to an irregularity with fuel claiming that further damage could have been incurred to the engine/powertrain had they continued.  This tactic was most recently adopted by Red Bull at Abu Dhabi who stopped Sebastian Vettel on his in lap after qualifying.  In the case of Sebastian the car didn't give up enough fuel (0.850) to make the required sample anyway.  However in the future teams could stop a car out on track without the need to veil the stoppage as an engine problem.  Without further regulatory adjustments this in my opinion leaves the minimum sample rule up for abuse.  For example if a team realises early enough they can make the necessary adjustments to the engine map / revs / driver gearing etc in order to manipulate the calculations the FIA may use in order to ascertain how much fuel it would take to recover to the pits.
  • All chassis will now have higher static loads applied to them (formerly only one chassis was tested to the higher loads with subsequent chassis being tested to 20% lower proof loads) &
  • Minor changes have been made to the front roll structure design. - In order to further assist the development of safety precautions in the sport it would be irresponsible of the FIA not to change area's of the cars structure/design to reduce the chance of incident.
2013 F1 Sporting Regulations

  • For safety reasons, use of the DRS during practice [inc Qualifying] will now only be allowed in the place(s) it will be used on the track in the race - Many teams have been skewing their DRS delta to allow their drivers to use DRS out of (or indeed even during) corners to further reduce drag.  The FIA have decided that this is unacceptable in terms of safety and decided that only the standard DRS zone(s) will allow DRS usage throughout the whole GP weekend.  The FIA have stated they will however have 2 DRS zones at most GP's throughout 2013.
  • The team personnel curfew will be extended from six to eight hours on Thursday night and only two exceptions will be allowed during a season (formerly four) - In order to help teams with the processes involved in preparing the cars for the GP the curfew has been extended.  This allows for genuine preparatory work to be completed by the teams and so the FIA have also reduced the amount of exceptions available to the teams.
2014 F1 Technical Regulations

  • A new draft with numerous changes was discussed and agreed by the F1 Technical Working Group and Powertrain Working Group -
  • The requirement for cars to be driven exclusively under electric power in the pit lane has been postponed until 2017 - The electric pitlane rule has been debated ever since it was placed within the original '14' regulations with general consensus being it wouldn't make the final 2014 draft.  The largest barrier that's faced by electric pitlane usage is noise, although a car powered only by electricity will still make noise it would be almost silent when compared to a contemporary F1 car.  This brings into question the safety of team personnel with the car traveling at 100kph and producing little noise it is easy to see how someone could be injured.
  • A number of changes have been made to the power unit regulations with the aim of limiting technology in some areas in order to reduce development costs. - As no specifics have been given here all one can assume is that strides could/can be made in the implementation of ERS that would add large financial burdens on the manufacturer who hasn't initially included them in their design.  The other area that could allow costs to spiral is the materials used, although the type of materials available is already restrained they do allow for a more exotic exploitation of materials with modern techniques.
  • The minimum weight limit has been raised to compensate for additional power unit weight - This will have been a decision made by the TWG/PWG/FIA based on information given to them by the engine manufacturers who have already stated that the weight targets set out for the new engines were un-reachable.
Read more
2 Dec 2012
A deconstruction of the Brazilian GP from Sebastian Vettel's perspective

Sebastian's race didn't get off to the best of starts with him being pushed from 4th down to 6th in the run to the first corner. Things however would go from bad to worse when the German came across Bruno Senna into turn 4 sustaining heavy damage to the rear of the right sidepod and crushing at least one of the exhaust primaries. The shunt ended Senna's race but the young German now facing the wrong way continued unperturbed by the damage to his RB8.

My initial reaction when seeing the damage was that aerodynamically although the car was now asymmetric it wouldn't encumber his performance drastically. In fact my immediate reaction was I'm sure Adrian will be glad that damage is on the right side of the car with it being a clockwise circuit and most of the high speed corners turning left.

Above: Adrian Newey had Sebastian pull off the racing line alongside the pitwall so they could photograph the damage to the RB8 as it passed. He inspects the damage to assess what aerodynamic impact it may be having on his design.

Alongside that my brain shuffled through car designs like a fruit machine until seconds later: Bing, Bing, Bing I have a line of cherries and I'm thinking of the McLaren MP4-24 of which featured a floor design echoing the damage to Sebastian's RB8.


Forward of the exhaust region damage, the floor was also damaged at its edge (Marked by yellow arrows in the picture below). This damage once again was extremely fortunate with the floor being turned upward in just the right place. The first upsweep created by the damage mimics the profile of the Sidepod allowing the air to turn down the floor instead of cascading off. Around 8-9 inches back the floor had been stripped and three pieces of carbon were acting as aerodynamic pieces. The smallest of the three resided above the floor and further helped to encapsulate the airflow above the floor, meanwhile below the floor 2 elements would work in unison to create a vortex that would ultimately help to create a barrier at the floors edge.


Obviously the damage to the floor was not the only impact on Seb's RB8 with a large hole featuring in the rear of the Sidepod exposing the exhaust. The hole expanded the point around the RB8's star feature this season the 'Cross-under Tunnel' allowing more airflow into the region. Due to the way that region is constructed the panel in front of the Tunnel was destroyed and without it the airflow echoed the Williams FW34's ethos. The intention of the Williams design is to utilise airflow that enters the Sidepod by means of extraction with the exhaust gas. As the Exhaust primaries on the RB8 were now exposed to this airflow they would help to navigate this airflow to the tunnel region as it's entrance is now exposed to both airflow regimes. 
On top of this the exhaust channel itself was broken away from it's usual position and although I have no clear picture from above the exhaust channel, from the side pictures it would suggest a break in the channel exists. This break would allow airflow to move between the upper and lower surface of the exhaust channel that wouldn't normally be viable. It could be argued that this allowed exhaust gas to be re-ingested and would also help with the flow structure entering the cross-under tunnel.

A point worth noting is that had Red Bull not recently redesigned their cross-under tunnel the aero impact may have been altogether different. Previously the RB8's cross-under tunnel featured 2 inlets and 2 outlets, however since India the team had run with a much shorter ramp profile to their design which simply featured one inlet and outlet.

Above: The damaged Primary on the RB8's exhaust

The damage to Sebastian's RB8 was not limited to the bodywork but also damaged both his onboard Radio and the exhaust. Communications from the team were still clear but the team could not hear their driver clearly.
In terms of damage to their exhaust, the impact wielded quite a dent in one the exhausts primaries. Normally with damage of this magnitude I'd consider the impact on both engine power and longevity both of which I'm sure the team were concerned about. However in Sebastian's recovery from the incident I can find no reference to them dialing back the revs or changing the engine mapping. Sebastian continued to use full revs along the two long straights for his first stint pushing hard to recover the many places he had lost under the spin.
Red Bull opted to use a Resonator Chamber from Silverstone onwards (My original article looking into this: http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/red-bull-exhaust-resonator-expansion.html) which will have undoubtedly helped to balance any inaccuracies formed by the new internal exhaust bulge.

Above: The image above is one I used earlier in the season to depict the Resonator Chamber on the RB8 however the red marked arrow shows roughly the location of the indentation caused in the Senna incident.

On the other side of the car further damage can be seen to the floor just ahead of the rear wheel, this was due to the impact sustained as Sebastian was going backwards and Senna's front suspension broke due to the forces at work.

Above: As we can see the rear of the floor had been broken in the impact with Senna causing the floor to turn upward.  This also moved the vertical floor strake altering the characteristics of the exhaust plume.  Ferrari's floor is designed to upturn in a similar fashion utilising the floor slots ahead of it that the break had caused here, inadvertently returning the RB8 to having a floor duct like the ones they had removed after the complaints at Monaco.  The image also shows that during the incident with Senna the tyre itself had deformed with the lower section of the bead being pulled slightly away from the rim and the sidewall in that area looking flatter (Although this could be image quality and the scrubbed sidewall playing tricks with my eyes)

Going back to engine maps/torque maps, diff settings and engine revs: If were to look at the signature Adrian Newey 'Butterfly' Steering Wheel in the picture below we can see that Red Bull have a multi function 'TYRE' rotary knob which allows them to grade all sorts of settings based on the conditions and tyres in use. Selecting one of these presets should override the other dials allowing the driver to focus on the task at hand.  We can also see that for each tyre type (Dry, Inters, Wets) there are several settings pertaining to a larger degree of adaptability (I'll mention this throughout the rest of the race report below) As we can see the driver also has two thumb wheels to control the differential and torque map settings ideally placed for swift modification but due to their locality it makes it difficult even with onboard footage to see if these are being used.

Above: This image is a full size replica of the RB8's steering wheel brilliantly depicted by Amalgam only 250 of these are available and would cost you a cool £1750.  I can't seem to find enough change down the back of the sofa to fund the masterpiece but should you be lucky enough to be able to fund one of these they can be found here: http://www.amalgamcollection.com/

Upon recovery from his spin the first victim on his now seemingly endless up hill struggle would be the driver he nicknamed the 'cucumber' Narain Karthikeyan. He dispatched of Narain in the middle of the Senna S's who obliged by moving over to the left as Seb overtook him just before the Yellow Flag zone, for that lap started into turn 2/3.

Above: Sebastian lines up to overtake Narain into turn 2, we can see that the Electronic Flag Board is displaying the Yellow Flags however no dash lights are illuminated indicating that the drivers will be under yellow flag conditions when they pass that marker.

On lap 3 the yellow flag zone ran from turn 1 until half way alongside the pit exit with the electronic Flag Board showing Green on the right as Seb lined up to overtake Charles Pic (although the pass wasn't completed until the apex of turn 4). Toward the middle of the lap he overtakes De La Rosa at turn 8.


On Lap 4 the yellow flag zone was extended to cover the pit exit, I believe this may have been intended as a safety precaution for anyone that should be exiting the pits.  Earlier in the week this has been an area of controversy something which I myself may have even fueled on twitter.  (I was away on the Mainland working with nothing more than my iPhone but did post a picture of Seb overtaking Jean-Eric Vergne whilst his dash indicators were showing a yellow flag zone)

Above: Sebastian approaches the Toro Rosso of Jean-Eric Vergne on lap 4 whilst both the electronic flag board on his right and dash indicators show a yellow flag situation.

Above: On lap 3 the leaders were waved a yellow flag as they passed the pit exit
Above: On Lap 3 as the tail end of the pack (with Vettel) came toward the pit exit the yellow flag was retracted and they were then waved the green flag signalling a return to race conditions

Although I don't have the photographic proof I believe the same scenario was used by race control / the marshals for lap 4 covering the potential for anyone exiting the pitlane joining into a battle for position.  The problem is the inconsistency between electronic flags and the good old fashioned waved ones with the latter taking preference.

As he continued around his fourth lap Seb overtook Glock into turn 8.

Pass on Petrov on Lap 5: The yellow flag zone ran from turn 1 until half way alongside the pit exit just as it had for the Charles Pic pass on Lap 3.  Turn 6 Schumacher pulled over to allow Sebastian and Heikki to pass having picked up a puncture and was heading back to the pitlane in order to change tyres.

Lap 6 and the yellow flags have been retracted with Seb overtaking Heikki into turn 1, during the lap Mark Webber drops it in an incident involving Ricciardo in turn 1 (Leaving more debris on the track in that region) and falls behind Sebastian. Sebastian's then proceeds to pass the Toro Rosso driver along the next straight who does little to defend against the charging German. At the end of the lap he gets a good tow behind Rosberg and overtakes him into turn 1 where we now start to see the solid Yellow/Red flags displayed.

Lap 8 and the yellow/red flags are being shown into turn 1,2 & 3 but with DRS activated Seb makes a pass on Paul Di Resta into turn 4. Next up is Kamui Kobayashi who is visually struggling in the damp conditions having already used the new run off area on the lap into turn 1. Yellow Flags are shown on the electronic boards and dash into turn 8 and Sebastian is forced to slow and short shift whilst following the flailing Kobayashi. It's clear at this point the RB8 simply has much greater traction than the C31 and as the pair go under green conditions at turn 13 Vettel closes and uses the tow to pass the Japanese driver. Sky started the FlagGate controversy by claiming initially that Seb had passed Kamui here under yellow flag conditions when in fact the electronic boards weren't flashing and no dash lights were visible.

At the end of lap 8 Mark Webber having already been involved in his own incidents and now at the rear of the pack went into the pits and took the intermediate tyres giving the team a sighter on how Sebastian may fare on the same rubber. Meanwhile Sebastian's storming drive on the Medium compound tyres whilst lapping at a pace consistent to the leaders found himself back upto 6th position. With him now behind Felipe Massa on the track and the rain starting to affect the lap times (Lap 8: 1:29.701 & Lap 9: 1:30.824) the team decided to pit him for Inter's to cover off Fernando who had also pitted for the Intermediate tyres. As he exited the pits he made a change to the top left dial on his steering wheel to the 'Inter' setting which in turn will adjust the engine map. This placed Seb back in 17th just behind Webber who then proceeded to overtake Ricciardo (in turn 5) that was in front of both of them. The Toro Rosso driver naturally yielded to Sebastian in between turn 6 & 7.

Lap 11 and both Mark (in front) and Seb come off the 3rd turn with DRS available and dispatched of Kimi Raikonnen. In turn 8 the pair dispatched of Karthikeyan who moved over allowing them by, then in turn 9 the Red Bulls swapped positions as Mark allowed Sebastian by. With the deployment of KERS by Seb out of turn 14 it was obvious to see that even with the Inter's on traction is still limited as the RB8 squirmed a little under acceleration.

Lap 12 and just as Seb is coming into turn 3 he is greeted by the slower moving HRT of De La Rosa who moves over to the left not before Seb gains a little tow off of him and catapults him toward the DRS zone. This overspeed allows him to pass both Charles Pic to his right whilst mounting an assault on Nico Rosberg who had stayed left. He was unable to pass Nico by turn 4 but his German counterpart starting from the left had compromised his entry point but squirmed off toward turn 5. Biding his time and lifting a coasting much more than usual it was clear to see the RB8 had much more balance than the W03 throughout turns 6 – 13 where Seb drew up alongside and dispatched of Nico with the use of KERS up the hill.

Lap 13 and Sebastian once again caught up with a slower car heading into turn 3 making easy work of Petrov he once again had DRS available down the main straight toward turn 4. This put him onto the tail of Heikki as he squabbled with Kobayshi. Meanwhile Sebastian's main title protagonist was being held up by a Toro Rosso (Vergne) still running around on the medium tyres.

Lap 14 and with Sebastian once again in the DRS zone the Red Bull driver now chased Kobayshi toward turn 4 with Felipe Massa just ahead of the pair of them still tip toeing around on the Medium tyres making it very easy for Kamui and Seb to make the pass out of turn 5. Just like their previous encounter Seb made fairly easy work of the Japanese driver overtaking him into turn 1 on the start of lap 15 promoting Sebastian to 5th.

Between Laps 14&16 the front runners who had continued on the Medium tyres are now squabbling for the lead with Hulkenberg over hauling Jenson Button for the lead. Both drivers times fell below the Intermediate runners but Nico managed to overhaul Jenson on lap 17.

Lap 18 and Fernando decides to pit once more taking on the Hard tyre promoting Sebastian to 4th who pits a lap later (Lap 19) as the circuit starts to dry once more and the Intermediate's start to become ineffective. Fernando does enough during his in and outlaps to once again stay in front of Sebastian who are once again 4th and 5th respectively.

End of Lap 20 and the Safety car is out. When the Safety Car came in on Lap 29 Sebastian used an aggressive rear tyre warm up strategy and sawed away on the the wheel to heat the front tyres. However once the racing got back under way he had Kobayashi for company to his left into the first corner and Mark Webber to his right. His Australian team mate over cooked the braking and went off into the new run off area. Kamui however unsettled the balance and sped off past Vettel toward turn 2. On Lap 32 Kamui put the move on Fernando only for him to return the favour into turn 1 on Lap 33 all the while Sebastian was hovering hoping to pick up the pieces and whilst having DRS caught upto the back of Sauber only to hit the limiter (The full 18,000rpm) at the end of the straight before turn 4.

Lap 34 and we can now see how much more downforce the RB8 has bolted on with Sebastian using all of KERS on the last straight in Lap 33 just to hang onto the back of the Sauber. Once through the Senna S's although a couple of blips of KERS and DRS were in operation for Sebastian the Ferrari of Felipe Massa still came past around the outside of turn 4. A reinvigorated Felipe in the tail end of 2012 has certainly played the team game and his presence in front of Sebastian would be sure to put the pressure on the young German. He piled on more pressure on Lap 37 when he overtook Kamui putting himself squarely between Fernando and Sebastian.

With the conditions now starting to create a drier line on the circuit the Ferrari powered cars in front of Sebastian started to slowly pull away. Clearly, the damage to Sebastian's car and the probable higher downforce setting chosen for rainier conditions was starting to show. Starting to lose anywhere between 1 – 3 tenths per lap

With his Front Left Tyre now starting to show signs of some hefty wear Sebastian made his second stop on Lap 52 changing to the Medium tyre exiting in 10th place. He forgets to make the alteration to his Steering Wheel 'Tyre' Knob on pit exit and squirms out of the pitlane, more sideways action ensues out of turn 4 until he makes the alteration on the way to turn 5.

On Lap 53 whilst making a rash move down the inside of Lewis Hamilton, Nico Hulkenberg crashed into Lewis ending his race with front right suspension damage.

Red Bull saw this as an opportunity with the rain still falling to switch Sebastian back onto Inter's, with Lewis out and the competitors further down the road he still lay 10th. With 15 laps left and Fernando now in 4th Sebastian would still be crowned Champion. However with a likely drive through penalty for Nico Hulkenberg due to the collision with Lewis he'd need to grab a few extra places and go all out attack. The bad news for Sebastian was undoubtedly the sight of the Sauber of Kamui Kobayshi as he exited the pits in front. Having been stuck behind Kamui for some time before I'm sure his heart must have sank. However this was when the track conditions suited the Sauber, with the weather turning the advantage now very much lay in the favour of the higher downforce RB8.

Sebastian made quick work of Kamui overtaking the Japanese driver on lap 56 but mainly due to Narain getting on the racing line exiting turn 3 compromising Kamui's exit. Seb couldn't get the pass done down the straight with both drivers having DRS. However Kamui had compromised his exit speed for turn 4 and Seb capitilized. The next two laps were key for Seb and he posted bar far the the quickest times out on circuit at the time with a 1:25.927 & 1:26.927 respectively.

On lap 63 having followed Michael closely for half a lap, Michael pulled over to allow Sebastian past between turns 5 & 6 promoting Sebastian to 6th a place he would finish the race in. This move to me perfectly symbolized the changing of the guard with Sebastian edging one more championship closer to the stellar 7 championships won by Michael.


Credits to the following Twitter users in their assistance throughout my protracted writing of this article over the last few days: @cmckinleyF1 @charlie_whiting  @petermc1999 @MisterPigz
@RaymondUmbara @F1isP1
Read more
25 Nov 2012
no image

  • Sunday, November 25, 2012
  • 1
The FIA allows engine manufactures the opportunity to supply to a set number of teams. Currently we have 4 suppliers: Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and Cosworth with the latter likely to fall by the wayside at the end of the 2013 campaign. Cosworth have reportedly started work on a 2014 specification engine but with them up for sale and their most sought after products in aerospace technology the 2014 Cosworth Engine may never see the light of day.
Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault meanwhile have all invested huge sums in the 2014 engines and associated technology that will form ERS. All of the big three have had their engines on the test bench and are on schedule for the 2014 season.

Of the two Cosworth powered teams HRT are also up for sale and currently their future looks somewhat bleak. This leaves Marussia as the sole Cosworth powered car which would undoubtedly seal Cosworth's F1 fate in regards to further heavy investment in 2014.

This leaves 11 (maybe 12) teams requiring supply on the grid and so lets see where those engines may go:

Constructor Engine

2013 2014
Ferrari Ferrari Ferrari
Sauber Ferrari Ferrari
Toro Rosso Ferrari Renault
Red Bull Renault Renault
Lotus Renault Renault
Williams Renault Renault??
Caterham Renault Renault
Mercedes Mercedes Mercedes
McLaren Mercedes Mercedes
Force India Mercedes ??
Marussia Cosworth ??
HRT Cosworth ??

Force India are apparently in talks to switch supply from Mercedes to Ferrari, meanwhile Williams have had a reasonable amount of success this year with Renault and so switching would most probably be more of a financial one for 2014 if they do indeed move. This still leaves Marussia (and hopefully HRT) to find engine partners, with Marussia's technical tie in with McLaren I would not be surprised to see Mercedes power behind the Russian sponsored team.

The FIA limits the amount of teams an engine supplier can supply to 3 teams (unless the FIA give dispensation as they have for Renault this year who supply 4 teams). When Toro Rosso join Renault in 2014 this would be elevated to 5 if Williams are to stay on board, bringing the Renault reach far beyond that of their counterparts. The original limitation on engine supply was brought in when F1 had the luxury of 7 suppliers and was used to level the marketplace. With only 3/4 suppliers and 11/12 teams to supply the FIA have been asked to revise their stance as the cost of the 2014 engines will then be dramatically reduced for the teams.

Renault may however have decided to take the ball out of the FIA's court and employ another tactic we have seen before in F1: Re-Badged Engines. Renault form a much larger concern when considering the group of manufacturers their aligned with. Red Bull's announcement in Interlagos signals in my opinion their intentions as 2013 Red Bull Racing will be have Infiniti as their title sponsor. This is no coincidence with Infiniti being one of the aforementioned Renault-Nissan groups luxury marques.

This would open the door for RenaultSport to supply upto 6 teams even under the current regulations with both Red Bull teams carrying the Infiniti banner whilst one of the other Renault teams take the other slot (Most probably with a level of support from Renault/Infiniti which to my eyes lends itself well to the currently named Lotus). Caterham will most definitely remain under the RenaultSport banner with their fresh association resurrecting the Alpine brand.

Infiniti has been around the Red Bull team for quite some time but more recently their adoption of Sebastian Vettel in their ad campaigns has cemented their F1 intentions. Utilising the Renault platform in F1 the Infinti brand will quickly emerge as a master stroke used by the group to not only raise it's global profile but maximise Renault's F1 presence in a very cost effective manner.

Seems I wasn't the only one considering this as Autosport have now run this story denying Renault will rebrand their engines: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104561

Read more
3 Aug 2012
Lotus E20 Passive F-Duct System (DDRS/Super DRS) – Part 2


You may well have already read my previous article on my feelings regarding the Lotus DDRS system http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/lotus-e20-ddrs-hockenheim.html, as always the problem with not being able to see these items in the flesh leaves doubt over their actual purpose. As more images have become available it's become clearer that my original thoughts on the system although perfectly valid and usable are actually flawed. The trouble with fluidic switching systems is that there are so many ways in which you can move air from one location to another that the waters muddy.

Compounding this, Lotus had already stated that their system utilises the same loophole that the Mercedes DDRS system works within (ie using the DRS movement as a part of the flow adjustment for another device). It is plausible that is a Red Herring with the addition of the periscope simply acting as it's own device reducing drag by blowing the underside of the Rear Wing's main plane reducing drag passively above a certain speed threshold and then when DRS is activated it simply augments the DRS effect. I'll explain this first and then go on to explain how both this theory and my original one could be combined.



As we can see in the images above small slots in the periscope blow the central section of the main plane reducing drag in that region of the wing. (Flow Viz is splayed in this region denoting the reduction in drag) This concept mimics the original F Duct principles in how drag is reduced on the rear wing but falls short of being as powerful. The original F Ducts had much larger slots on the rear wing plane in order for the drag to be reduced over a larger area. The original F Duct also required the driver to act as a switch effectively turning on or off the rear wing, this was outlawed as part of the regulation change back in 2011. The Lotus system is instead tuned to reduce drag at a certain speed by specifically designing the engine cooling outlet. At lower speeds the air consumed by the airbox inlet and ear ducts can escape through the engine cover cooling exit. As the car reaches higher speeds the air consumed becomes more than can be effectively exhausted from the cooling exit and so air spills up the periscope toward the rear wing reducing drag on the lower wing plane.
The rules were amended at the end of 2010 to stop the interaction of shark fin engine covers with the wing planes and DRS was introduced in response to the teams drive to reduce drag and increase overtaking. With DRS now moving the whole top element creating a union with the engine cover would obviously be very difficult anyway.  The periscope however doesn't join to the wing frontally but on the underside and so circumnavigates this rule.

Using the periscope to blow the bottom wing plane allows a dual drag reduction system with the lower plane being blown as soon as the car reaches a pre determined speed and DRS obviously adding the larger drag reduction element as and when it's activated. Passive F Ducting to the rear wing will provide a marginal advantage during qualifying where DRS is unlimited simply boosting the DRS effect but it's during the race where the system should give Lotus the largest advantage. On circuits like Spa and Monza they will be able to increase their wing angle of attack creating more downforce during cornering and have less drag on the straights than their counterparts where DRS is unavailable.


The addition of the Airbox Ear ducts are as I mentioned in my previous article paramount in terms of balancing the system due to Airbox Spillage. As the driver comes off throttle airflow is impeded in the airbox entry and so tumbles off the sides of the airbox down the engine cover creating a turbulent airflow toward the rear of the car and most importantly disturbs the airflow around the rear wing. The ears that Lotus have employed capture this airflow in order to keep the airflow heading toward the rear wing with a laminar flow which in turn will help create downforce more effectively in the braking and turning phase (Credit Gordon Mccabe - http://mccabism.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/airbox-spillage-and-fluidics.html)

Pit Falls & Problems

Although McLaren were the first to introduce the F Duct in 2010 it's widely regarded that once integrated that the Renault team (now Lotus) had the most effective F Duct system. This obviously puts them in great stead in terms of understanding how best to utilise such devices. The problem with a passive system over a controlled system (like the original F Duct) is that the system is very much dependent on airspeed through the airbox. This may cause problems in the form of tunabilty especially when we consider the difference between the ability of a car during qualifying with a low fuel load and that of a car full of fuel. We also have to consider the high speed nature of circuits like Spa and Monza have corners with high speed exits and so reducing drag on corner exit as the passive duct inadvertly activates could be catastophic. This means that the Periscope Duct needs to be tuned to activate at a relatively high speed and as such won't have the same drag reduction capability the older F Duct did.

Combination of the above with my original theory

If we take the team at their word that the system employs the DRS as a lever to leverage another element in the system I believe that both variants of my thoughts could be in play. The problem with this is that we are yet to see a close image of the DRS open in order to establish if the wing covers any holes in the wing plane.

This would work by exhausting the airflow from the airbox inlet through the cooling hole and as it the exit becomes too small for the airflow exiting the air moves up the periscope and reduces the drag on a portion of the lower wing plane. When DRS is activated and a hole is opened on the rear wing plane a more positive draw would be created on the airflow from the airbox inlet drawing more air up the periscope and out of the slots. This would increase the effectiveness of drag reduction on this region giving a more positive DRS effect. I believe this offers the more balanced effect with a transition phase of drag reduction from both avenues.

In Summary

Until further evidence presents itself the exact operation of the device is speculation but it's application is something I'm sure the other teams will be looking closely at as in a year where the grid is so close even the smallest advantage could play a large hand in the results of the latter races. McLaren have already hinted that they haven't ruled out the possibility of such a system before the end of the season. One thing is however clear that systems linked to DRS won't be prevalent in 2013 as the teams have unanimously voted to outlaw them. This will be passed to the technical working group (TWG) who will work with the FIA in order to constrain such usage by adjustment of the regulations.  This however doesn't prevent the usage of the passive element of the system via the pylon being exploited.

Credit to Nick McDowell for the image pointing out the slots in the periscope


Original Images Copyright Sutton Images (www.suttonimages.com)
Read more
29 Jul 2012
no image


F1 can be a confusing place for the uninitiated, on one hand you have the battle of the drivers and their skill behind the wheel but on the other you have the ongoing development battle the teams have to produce the best piece of machinery for their drivers. The FIA set the regulations the teams need to adhere to when designing their cars but this is where the waters start to muddy. The rules can be pushed and bent to suit the requirement of the particular team and can be interpreted either on their own or in combination with another rule. Teams also use syntax to their advantage and so if a rule cannot be determined to be correct one way or another they will use this to their advantage. You will have undoubtedly have heard 'it's not within the spirit of the rules' unfortunately for the FIA the rules are written and if they are not correctly worded the teams will use this to their advantage.

In most circumstances the pressure to re-word/ban a new system/innovation/component won't come from the FIA originally but will be insisted upon by the other teams who feel another is gaining an unfair advantage. The inherent problem with one team finding an advantage is that it takes time, money and resources for other teams to understand, develop and implement their own iteration for their package. Dependent on the particular component this can be extremely difficult to implement due to the design being intrinsically linked to the cars original design path.

Some of my Twitter followers may have seen me use the hashtag #InnovateOrGoHome of which is my way of siding with the team who face their innovation being banned. Innovation is one of the key elements of F1 and drives forward it's position as the pinnacle of motorsport. Design features seen at the top tier of motorsport will invariably find their way to our road cars of the future and so choking development could be bad for us all.

This season has seen Red Bull seemingly pushing the limits more than most but they are not the only team to have to change their car specification in order to comply with the FIA's regulations. However as double world champions the spotlight is on the Red Bull team and so whenever a team can find a way to question the legality of their car it would be fruitful to do so.

The holes used by Red Bull in floor of the car in front of the wheels (used last at Monaco) was a response to a similar concept still being employed by Ferrari and Sauber. Red Bull in this situation knew that their design was infact a hole and not a slot like Sauber & Ferrari's iterations but used the design none the less. My articles from the time on this subject can be found here: http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/red-bull-tyre-squirt-duct.html & http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/red-bull-tyre-squirt-duct-part-2-now.html

At Hockenheim Red Bull ran a pedal map that acted in contravention of how Article 5.5.3 was meant but as the statement was ambiguous the team couldn't be penalised. The FIA have since moved to clarify the wording of this regulation in order to prevent it's usage in the future. Essentially the map used by Red Bull in Hockenheim limited the torque available to the driver by offsetting the pedal position to the power being produced. This aided in both increased drivability and a more continuous exhaust airflow allowing the exhaust gasses to provide aerodynamic advantage even when the driver was curtailing his throttle usage.

In Montreal the FIA investigated Red Bull's use of adjustment of the front suspension by hand via the driver. This would glean a large advantage if done between qualifying and the race as in Q1 the car would be at it's lightest (low fuel run) after which point the car is filled with race fuel and so the equilibrium of the car is altered. Being able to adjust either the height/stiffness of the car could lead to a large advantage. This is an operation that under Article 34.5 would mean starting from the pitlane if done during Parc Ferme conditions (ie between sessions) So what does this actually mean was being done I hear you say. Well the adjustment limits the minimum ride height thus allowing an unchanged aero platform giving a similar aero platform whether full or empty of fuel. Its unclear if the system was being employed by the team and whether the adjustment could be made by hand or by foot. If it were in use it would be another situation in which Red Bull have used the wording in the regulations in order to gain an advantage.

This leads me onto McLaren who themselves this season have fell foul of using the wording in the regulations in order to try and glean an advantage. In China the FIA clarified their stance on the way McLaren had designed the tea tray area of the car. The area has an allowable tolerance of 3mm in the design process, however McLaren were intentionally designing their tea tray to be at the limit of the tolerance. This allowed them to run with less ride height at the front as the tea tray almost tilted upward.

Before the start of the season Lotus had also developed their own reactive ride solution which was suitably banned by the FIA in fear that a war would form between the teams to gain both a stability and aerodynamic advantage. The system had already caused a stir amongst the teams and both Mercedes and Ferrari were said to be a fair way into having their own variant before the FIA banned the device.

F1 teams will always push the boundaries of the regulations put out before them and personally I see no reason to stop this. Without innovation F1 would become a spec series which is something that would be of detriment not only to the sport but the road car industry at large. They may have been banned but without innovation we wouldn't have had ground effects, the Brabham fan car, mass damper, F Ducts, Double Deck Diffusers, Blown Diffusers, Double DRS etc etc. In my opinion as long as they don't provide an issue to safety innovation in F1 should be lauded not frowned upon.  I have seen many outbursts through social media by fans unhappy that Red Bull have continuously 'broken the rules' this season, I don't see it this way they are simply pushing the boundaries.  A decision on it's legality should be provided instantly by the FIA and the rules adjusted appropriately if it's deemed to be inappropriate. This would stop the massive race teams have to gain a similar or better advantage from the device(s) in question. Much like teams adopting Double Deck Diffusers or F Ducts when they were deemed legal putting a huge strain on both resources and costs for the teams. F1 for me wouldn't be the same sport without the current technological environment we have so I part company by once again saying #InnovateOrGoHome
Read more
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Total Pageviews