Singapore GP: Race Reporter Weekend with Hilton HHonors

I’m very lucky to have been chosen as the Hilton HHonors Race Reporter for the Singapore GP. I’ll be helping out HHonors, the Vodafone McLaren Sponsor to report on the GP. I’ve already visited the McLaren Technology Centre and will post a report on that soon. Next I’ll be travelling to Singapore for a weekend of exclusive behind the scenes access into McLaren, the F1 Paddock and anything else that goes on at the night time GP.
So for the next week my blog will be focused on the trip and the insight I will gain over the course of the Singapore GP weekend. Although, I will continue reporting on the technical developments on the cars.

Continue reading

Mercedes: Shark Fin

From being in a situation where there car has had only minor updates for several races, the Mercedes development curve has gone vertical during the course of the Magny Cours Young Driver Test (YDT). While their new exhaust solution and Drag Reduction Device were both logical development directions, the reinvention of the shark fin has come as a surprise. On the last day of testing the W03 was seen with both the new exhaust system and the truncated shark fin, this is the first such fin to be seen on a car this year.

Continue reading

Mercedes: Drag Reduction Device

Amidst the other updates and wet weather at the Belgian Grand Prix, one small detail that I tweeted about  went largely unnoticed by the main stream press, Mercedes AMG ran a Lotus-style Drag Reduction Device. The additional ductwork emerging from the engine cover routed up to the rear wing and back to beam wing, apes the Lotus device. This device was run again in the Young Driver Test (YDT) this week and closer images show the device departs from the Lotus design in the way it blows the rear wing to stall the airflow.
Continue reading

Mercedes: Downwashed-Exhaust Sidepod

After 13 races of the 2012 F1 season, Mercedes AMG have finally followed the trend of side exiting exhausts to blow the diffuser area. After low placed exhausts were banned for 2012, each of the top teams found methods to coerce the exhaust plume back down from the higher tailpipe. Notably Lotus and Mercedes did not follow this route, although at the Young driver test at Magny Cours, Mercedes were seen testing the McLaren style of sidepod.

Continue reading

Monza: Rear End Analysis

One of the most insightful views of an F1 car is from the rear. From this angle we can easily assess the amount of rear wing, cooling, exhaust position\effect, suspension geometry and important elements of aero\diffuser design. At Monza this weekend XPB images kindly allowed us to show these images, which clearly show different elements of some of the cars running this weekend.

Ferrari


The F2012 has followed its own aero philosophy, so it looks different to many other cars from the rear. For Monza specifically we can see the low drag rear wing, much shallower than the usual rear wing and with the “V” cut outs on the trailing edge. Also for Monza Ferrari cut down the beam wing, the small amount of drag the beam wing creates is reduced by slimming the outer spans of the wing, to reduce the tip vortices.
Ferrari’s sidepods are laid out differently to other cars, most of the cooling outlet area is on the flanks of the sidepods, through the Acer ducts and in the area of the tail of the coke bottle shape. So when we look at the car from the rear, the central tail funnel cooling exit is not present. This design may hinder flow in the coke bottle area, but does leave far more airflow to reach the rear wing. Additionally several cooling vents are made in the narrow bodywork around the gearbox.
Around the diffuser Ferrari have gone further than other teams, with the aero parts around the perimeter. Teams often fit gurney flaps or flaps at the diffusers trailing edge to lower the pressure behind the diffuser and encourage more air to pass through the diffuser for more downforce. In Ferrari’s case the diffuser now sports two flaps above the diffuser, one lower down and the larger one above. This larger one is clearly visible, the lower one is mainly visible through the arched shaping. Having a two element design to this flap means it can be angled more aggressively to have a greater aero effect.


Along with trailing edge the flap the tall flap formed under the crash structure has also gained a two element design. Evident in this picture is the starter motor hole, the end of the shaft that the starter motor engages with is clearly visible through it, but although the starter motor shaft is round the resulting hole is far from circular. Teams exploit the ruling for this opening, by making the hole a blow slot to improve airflow through the middle of the diffuser. Rules dictate only one hole must be used and of a maximum surface area. In Ferrari’s case their two holes are joined by a small slit to make them effectively one hole. Most teams exploit this area in one form or another.

Lotus


In comparison to the Ferrari the Lotus is a more conventional shape with the sidepods, although the exhaust position is evidently different. As Lotus are one of the most successful teams to race this year without a downwashed exhaust solution blowing the diffuser. In the case of Lotus the exhaust blows into the duct formed by the rear wing. Cooling for the E20 is largely exited through the middle tail funnel.
For Monza this wing is very small indeed, the reduced drag helping the Renault powered Lotus reach higher top speeds on the long straights of Monza. Unlike other cars described here, the Lotus beam wing is not waisted away and also retains the taller flap exploiting free bodywork zone the middle 15cm of wing span. Also interesting to note with the tidy rear end of the Lotus is the extreme convergence of the wishbones where they meet the gearbox.


There are two distinct features on the E20 diffuser exit; the side exits and the trailing edge flap. Lotus expands the diffuser not only upwards but also outwards, such that the diffusers exit passes sideways out of the maximum 1000mm width allowed for the diffuser. This increases the diffusers expansion ratio, for more downforce, the trick being keeping the airflow attached to the aggressively shaped diffuser walls. Above the trailing edge Lotus fit a flap in-between the rear wing endplates.

McLaren


McLaren is very similar to Lotus with the conventional sidepod and cooling arrangements, of course McLaren exploit different exhaust positions, with the side exiting exhaust being downwashed to blow the side of the diffuser. The central cooling funnel has been augmented by two small outlets near the cockpit. These sit just inside the free area for sidepod bodywork, any further outboard and they would be subject to the strict rules on openings and curvature in the sidepod bodywork.


McLaren run a low incidence Monza spec wing, but this is not as slim as some other teams. Likewise their beam wing is slightly revised with the outer tips eased off to reduce drag they create. Below this the diffusers trailing edge is treated to a flap around most of its perimeter and inside the diffuser large single opening for the starter motor is apparent.

Red Bull


The unique shape of the RB8 is apparent in this image, the sidepods blend into the gearbox and rear structure freeing up airflow to the diffuser and beam wing. This is possible because so much cooling flow is ducted out of the central tail funnel. Although for the heat of Monza extra openings are created in the lower flanks of the sidepod. Drag reduction is aided by the beam wing being shorn of its central peak. Resulting in a “V” shape dip in the beam wing. Below the tail light a small electronic device with cabling emerging from it is visible. This is the back up timing transponder. The primary transponder to signal to the timing system sits under the nose of the car. Being mounted in the position, the transponder is exposed to potential damage, so teams fit covers over the device to protect it.

Timing transponder position as described in the Appendix to the FIA Technical Regulations

The exhaust position is clear in this image, the exhaust outlets despite pointing upwards, is actually diverted downwards by the downwash over the sidepods and the coanda effect of the sloping tail of the sidepods. These effects deliver the exhaust gas to the edge of the diffuser for a greater sealing effect. This sealing effect is critical as the Red Bull runs the car with a high rake angle, which is a low front ride height compared to the rear ride height. We can see the edge of the diffuser is nearly as high as the rear wheel rim; this rim is about 15cm high, so with the 5cm under floor step the rear ride height must be near 10cm.


Similar to other diffusers, the RB8 also sports an arched diffuser with a trailing edge flap. However, Red Bull curves the flap downwards over the arched sections, this results in a small flat edge on the flap above the arch. Due to the way the carbon fibre is finished around these flats, they appear like openings from some angles and have been mistaken for blown outlets. Lastly Red Bull continues to use extended rear wing end plates that form vanes behind the diffuser. While other teams have used this design, they have raised the bottom of the vanes to only sit in the wake coming over the top of the diffuser, not coming out from under it.

Williams


Aside from their waisted gearbox creating nothing but open space ahead of the beam wing, Williams follow many of the principles seen on the other cars in this article. The rear suspension geometry can be clearly seen with the near horizontal top wishbone and far less convergence in the top\bottom wishbones compared the Lotus. While the steep angle of the driveshaft’s shows just how low the differential is placed. In this picture the lack of cooling outlets on the Williams is apparent and very different to the Red bull & Lotus who run the same Renault engine.


For Monza the beam wing has been dramatically slimed down to reduce drag on the straights. While the diffuser sports a trailing edge flap and tall curved vertical gurney under the rear crash structure. Like many teams William paint the cover of the rear timing transponder in fluorescent paint to make is clear to the rear Jack man to avoid it during hurried race pitstop.

Lotus: DRS Device Analysis

For three races now, Lotus have had a prototype ‘drag reduction device’ fitted to the cars rear wing. This is a system of ducts and is not linked to the normal DRS that moves the rear wing flap. Mysteriously described by Lotus as the ‘prototype device’, most people in the paddock are still calling it DDRS (Double DRS), as although its not part of the DRS, its aim is to reduce drag on the straight for more top speed.
The Lotus device can be recognized by the cars sporting two roll hoop inlets and ductwork exiting the engine cover between the upper and lower rear wings. This was first tested In Friday free practice in Hungary and again in Germany, albeit only on Raikkonen’s car. For the Belgium GP, the system has been applied to both cars, but the wet Friday practice session means the team have elected not to run the device for Qualifying or the Race.
Continue reading

Win a tour of the Red Bull F1 Factory

The Competition is now closed, The Correct answers are Goldie and Kate Spaughton

Congratulations to Norm Kwong for winning the prize

Tours of F1 factories are hard to come by, so its fantastic that Red Bull’s twitter alter ego @RedBullF1Spy has offered ScarbsF1′s readers a tour of the top secret Red Bull factory to promote their New IPhone\IPad app. The prize is a tour for two around the factory in Milton Keynes, UK on 16th October at 11am, even lunch is included at the end of the tour.

Continue reading

Renault Sport F1: Explaining Torque maps

This following text was provided by the Renault Sport F1 Media Dept.

Deputy managing director, Rob White, sums up engine mapping and the latest developments.

What is a driver torque map?
The driver torque map represents the torque requested by the driver as a function of engine speed and accelerator pedal position.

What is an engine torque map?
The engine torque map represents the torque delivered by the engine as a function of engine speed and engine throttle position. In the SECU the engine torque map is used to position the engine throttles to match the drivers’ torque demand.

Are there any regulations that govern how you may control engine torque?
Yes; this is covered by Articles 5.5 and 5.6 of the technical regulations. The main points are:
Except for some specific exceptions, the engine torque must be controlled by the driver. These exceptions include: downshifts, pit lane speed limiter, anti-stall function and the end of straight limiter strategy. Note that this list is not exhaustive.
The driver may only control the torque by means of a single accelerator pedal.
At zero per cent pedal (off throttle), the torque demand must be less than or equal to zero; at one hundred per cent pedal (full throttle), the torque demand must match or exceed the maximum torque output of the engine in its current state (Article 5.5.3).
There are limits on the shape of the torque demand as a function of pedal position and engine speed (to prevent engine characteristics that could be driver aids).
Respecting these restrictions, the torque demand is shaped against throttle position and engine speed to deliver the desired response for the driver and car.

Can maps change from race to race?
Yes. Driver pedal maps can change as a function of the circuit characteristics. For example, drivers might want more precision during initial pedal application at Monaco. Similarly, some drivers insist on a wet weather pedal map.
The engine torque maps are also adjusted to take account of the engine’s power output according to the ambient conditions. The engines will all produce more torque on a cold day at Silverstone than at Interlagos (low pressure) or Malaysia (high specific humidity). This ensures that the drivers feel the same engine response at part load, regardless of weather.
Torque maps may also change as a consequence of changes to exhausts or air inlet (if teams introduce a new exhaust design or new air box).
This week’s new technical directive from the FIA requires us to submit reference map from one of the first four races of 2012, from which we can only vary ± 2%.

What was the issue with maximum torque in Hockenheim?
The FIA questioned the magnitude of difference between the maps from Silverstone and Hockenheim, where the maximum engine torque in the mid-range (10000-14000 RPM) was lower.

Why would would you want to generate less torque in the mid revs range?
The trade-offs concern driveability (the response of the engine to the driver requested torque), acceleration (less torque = less acceleration, except if grip limited) and fuel consumption. In general, reducing the torque is achieved by igniting the fuel later in the cycle by means of the ignition map. This may improve driveability smoothing out the torque curve which may help the driver manage his tyres. This is not in any way a forbidden driver aid or an attempt to mimic the behaviour of a forbidden system (eg closed loop traction control)
Reducing the maximum torque curve increases the amount of exhaust gas produced at lower torque levels very, very slightly, but does not change the exhaust gas flow at full throttle. Furthermore the scope to use the engine to generate exhaust gas is extremely limited by the specific mapping restrictions introduced for the 2012 season also by the performance trade-offs mentioned above

After two sessions today, has this made any difference?
Not significantly, but the workload for the trackside engineers has increased to ensure we maintain the same level of performance from the engine.