Force India: New Front End Aero

Sahara Force India ran a new front end in testing, with some of the distinctive features from the launch car dropped. The new set up is aimed redirecting the flow along the edges of the nose towards the floors lower leading edge. The new package consists of; a revised nose tip, front wing pylons and different turning vanes.
The team also ran a revised sidepod package with McLaren style exhaust outlets. I will cover this development in a separate post.

From the cars launch and through the first four races, the nose tip sported a hammer-head style twin camera set up. Now the cameras have relocated to further back along the nose and the nose tip now forms a more aesthetically pleasing rounded shape. Although neutral in aero section, the camera pods are placed in a position where their shape will interact with the airflow to create some aero benefit downstream on the car.
Below this the pylons mounting the front wing have been extended and form a linger vane like shape. This was something FIF1 have worked with a lot over the past few seasons. Using this shape as part of the cars aero set up for different speeddownforce circuits. Typically longer pylons for higher downforce tracks and smaller pylons for places like Monza. Although the vanes may well create some low pressure behind the neutral front wing centre section to create load at the front axle, I expect they are more for directing the airflow along the y250 axis. This is a longitudinal line along the edge of the chassis, 250mm from the cars centre line. This is effectively as far outboard aero devices are allowed and hence where teams tend to focus on vane development. Creating different flow structures along this axis, helps creates the airflow distribution at the floors lower leading edge which is critical to diffuser efficiency.


Along similar line are the new turning vanes, on the launch car these were the popular “L” shaped hanging vanes (pictured above), mounted beneath the nose cone. Now they are a pair of curved vanes under the front suspension, a similar solution to SauberRenault and adopted by Red Bull last year. Again similar to these teams there is a small split in the vane to induce a stronger vortex effect along the y250 axis.

First sight: Ferrari Revised Mugello Exhaust

Picture Via Russell Batchelor

On Day3 of today’s Mugello test, Ferrari appeared with a major update to their sidepodexhaust configuration.  Although at this stage it’s not clear if this set up is Ferraris definitive exhaust solution going forwards, or merely another interim set up.

What’s clear is Ferrari continue to follow their own path for exhaust and cooling flow.  With the main cooling outlets being via chimneys exiting from the flank of the sidepod, a solution popularly termed the “Acer ducts”, due to the presence of the sponsor’s logo on the launch spec bodywork.  With the launch car the exhaust exited through the rear exit of the ducts, and latterly the exhaust was moved to prevent overheating rear tyres and the duct cut away to allow more inboard location of the exhausts tailpipe.

Now the “Acer” ducts are brought more inwards and the exhaust exits over the top of the duct, periscope style.  This suggests the exhaust is not being aimed at the floor at all, simply along the centre of the top bodywork towards the beam wing and the winglet mounted atop it.  This would be less effective at creating downforce, but would be less sensitive to throttle position and have less of an effect on the rear tyre temperatures.

The floor and top body mouldings appear to new and quite large sections.  This also suggests that the bodywork is going to change. Often with interim bodywork the panels are smaller to allow different shaped sections to be added.  However the black heat shield panel around the exhaust is removable and may allow a switch to a McLaren style open-topped duct exit.

The continued presence of the vortex generator near the mirrors suggests some downwash effect is still being created, although the current spec is not really making use of it.

I will update this post as the test develops

McLaren: Front End Aero Development

McLaren have long since followed their own path in aero development. Certainly since 2009 the car has increasingly diverged from other team’s aero concepts and the 2012 MP4-27 is no different. However the current car has a clear lineage in some of the design solutions and the whole front end is an evolution of recent cars.

Development Chronology

2009

Their first car to the current aero regulations in 2009 sported a conventional nose, front wing and cascades.

2010

The car that was launched in 2010 had a very different front end. The drooped nosed of the MP4-24 was gone replaced by a more horizontal and shallower nose cone. Beneath this was fitted large aero device, I term a “snow plough”, Williams had run a similar solution in 2009.

From a horizontal leading edge positioned between the front wing mounting pylons, the snow ploughs surface splits into left and right sections and eventually forms a pair vertical vanes protruding below the nose. This creates a “V” section mid way along its length and the twist of the airflow along with the pressure differential between the upperlower surfaces creates vortices trailing from the rear of the vanes. This is an aggressive solution compared to the simpler turning vanes other teams use. This device probably creates some downforce in its own right, but I suspect the primary purpose is to direct the strong vortices along the Y250 axis, to drive a better airflow towards the floors lower leading edge.

Later in 2010 after a series of different iterations of endplate and cascade design, the wing substantially changed for Singapore GP.  The main plane was effectively split into two; a section ahead of the front tyres and a section inboard of that. The intersection between the sections formed an upright for the main cascade winglet. While the less aggressive inboard wing span gains a simple “r” shaped vane.

2011

McLaren continued the 2010 design of snowplough nosecone and split front wing into 2011 with the MP4-26. Again later in the year, the wing was simplified for the Indian GP with similar endplates and cascades, but the complex split shape wing profile was changed to be straight across its width.

2012

Again this format was brought forward to the launch and initial test version of the 2012 MP4-27. Only in the last days of Barcelona testing did the revised front end appear. Gone was the snowplough and the straight wing profile. In their place was a simpler nose cone and a pair of vanes dropping vertically from the nose. While the more complex split wing profile was reintroduced. With EBDs less powerful this year, teams are finding downforce levels are lower. We could conclude that the snowplough and straighter wing arrangement were better for downforce, so the new simpler arrangement may be a more efficient way of producing less downforce.

The other change in China was the deletion of the slots in the small cascade winglet. The slots would have reduced the strength of the vortex produced by the winglet, removing the slots will have increased them. This change will be made in order to direct a stronger airflow around the inside face of the front wheel.
As the team get to grips with the new exhaust regulations and start to develop more downforce, potentially some of these solutions could return. So any reappearance will tell us a story of development and aero load figures in 2012.

Lotus E20: Overview and Development

Compared to the other leading teams the Lotus appears to be quite conservative car. However performances in testing and the in particular at the Bahrain GP show the cars looks belie its pace.

E20 Overview


Unlike its rivals there isn’t a stand out feature or innovation that’s obvious on the E20. Development from the Renault R31 with its ill fated front exit exhausts (FEE) has been iterative and logical. Unlike its forebear the E20 features a simple exhaust set up, blowing over the tail of the engine for apparently less aero effect than other team’s downwashed sidepodexhaust solutions.

Indeed the sidepods are largely conventional, the peak above and below the sidepod inlet are similar to the R31, only the vane atop the sidepod front is unusual. Within the sidepods the team have spent time with internal airflow management, the left sidepod houses a large single water radiator, the left sidepod has a split cooler set up, which appears to keep the coolers mounted clear of the floor with electronics houses below. Perhaps for the KERS power control hardware. This high mounted radiator set up reminiscent of the packaging for the FEE and also similar to McLarens 2012 cooler package.

The nose is a straightforward interpretation of the 2012 regs, with the rounded undernose profile similar to 2011. Only the presence of a slot under the nose is a distinctive feature, this smiley face shaped slot is created under the nosecone and passes through the front bulkhead into the chassis. Presumably for cooling the driver or the steering rack mounted low on the front bulkhead. One interesting point on the front of the car is the unusual hump arrangement on the top of the chassis. The usual bumps used to clear the rockers and other front suspension linkages are asymmetric. With a larger bulge on the left and a smaller one to the right. This suggests something is unusual about the suspension, Renault were known for the innovation in this area with front to rear interlinked suspension, the reactive ride height system and also running with a roll damper in place of side dampers. I suspect the bulge is to neatly incorporate the asymmetric rocker arms needed for a roll damper and hence the car runs without left and right dampers. However the front of the bulkhead is so heavily packaged with other hardware it’s impossible to see the springdamping elements inside. Externally we can see that the torsion bar mounts allow for free rotation and even feature a rotary sensor to measure their movement. This shows that the torsion bars are not grounded to the chassis instead react against each other. This negates their spring effect in roll, so all roll stiffness is provided by the anti roll bar. This approach has been common on other cars for a few years.
The anti roll bar is mounted higher in relation to the front bulkhead compared to last year, equally the link between the torsions has been moved inside the chassis, rather than the external bracing strut seen on last year’s car.


At the rear, the gearbox shows no evidence of side dampers either, although these could be packaged inside the casing so also not visible externally. Its possible Lotus have made a step in suspension design, which makes the best use of the tyres or control of the aero platform better.
Lotus are another team to adopt OZ wheels with integral fairings added to the front rims.


At the rear, a lot has been made of the laterally diverging diffuser. All teams start the diffuser far narrower than the 1000mm allowed between the rear wheels, and then diverge the diffuser (in plan view) outwards towards the limit of the allowable area. This effectively limits the expansion that can be achieved within the regulatory diffuser volume. Lotus has effectively diverged the diffuser to the 1000mm limit far earlier, with the outermost channels effectively exiting out of the side of the diffuser. This potentially gains more theoretical volume for the diffuser, but also creates a far more aggressive sidewall to the diffuser, risking flow separation and the diffuser sidewall is shorter more open and hence may leak more. Other teams have followed this path in the past, so the potential benefit is there assuming the drawbacks of the geometry can be overcome.

Developments
Pre season
As one of the cars shown at the launch was a R31 rebranded and reworked to look like the E20, initial observations were hard to make. The car that commenced testing was the E20.
The first test went outwardly successfully, but problem on the first runs of the second chassis being tested at the Barcelona test showed problems with the monocoque. Subsequent checks on the first monocoque tested in Jerez, revealed the same structural problem. The tub was failing where rear leg of the top wishbone mounts. The team skipped the test to add 1kg of reinforcement to the cars.


As soon as the car recommenced testing it started to gain revisions to the floor and front wing. This included a re-profiled splitter along with its side vanes, as well as a new iteration of the front wing. The initial wing with its “R” shaped vanes and cascade winglet were nearly parallel to the cars centreline, the updated wing changed these into a more curved outswept shape. Notably the front wing pylons also house the FIA camera pods, these being mounted between the pylons and siamesed into an aerofoil shape behind the neutral centre section, to negate the lift created by this profile.

ChinaBahrain update


A new aero package was prepared for China, but the team found testing inconclusive with the variable track conditions. The package was run again in practice for the Bahrain GP and adopted for both cars from qualifying onwards. The package included a revised rear wing, with new endplates sporting a squared-off lower section and mated to the diffuser with a larger vane. The floor was also revised, although the concept was largely carried over, so the changes are in the detail geometry and not the overall shape.
At the front the wing was altered for a completely new version. At first the wings appear similar aside from the vane treatment on the endplates, but the main planes leading edge dips downs more suddenly at the on with the neutral centre section, while the flaps join the same area without the coved section on the old wing. At the wing tips, the flaps fold down to form the endplate as is common in current F1, the upper flap gaining a small extra slot to aid flow through the steepest section of wing. With this endplate-less set up, the minimum surface area regulation is met by two vanes added to the footplate. These being somewhat reminiscent of Toro Rosso’s vaned set up. It’s hard to speculate on how the new package gains lap time or bring a difference in aero efficiency over the old set up.

The new package was worth a couple of tenths according to the team and the back to back tests in free practice proved its worth over the older aero package. As with the rest of the car it’s hard to pin point where the lap time comes from, For Lotus the conventional approach and iterative detail development has brought dividends over a more aggressive approach.
One wonders how much more potential there is within the car should adopt the sidepodexhaust or DRS solutions of its rivals. If the team can successfully introduce these performance upgrades and continue to understand the tyres requirements, then there is scope for them to remain in the hunt for strong results throughout the year.

Red Bull: Bahrain Sidepod Analysis

Having been slightly off the pace in the opening three races, Red Bull clearly do not have the RB8 working as they had expected. Pole position in Bahrain doesn’t prove their issues are over, but the car sports a revised sidepod set up this weekend and this has perhaps has unlocked the potential in the car. The new sidepods are a revision of the Version2 spec sidepod/exhaust set up. The Bahrain spec simplifies the sidepod, removing the complex crossover tunnel under the exhaust ramp.

Exhaust Versions

Sidepod Version1

At the cars launch the RB8 features a simple Version1 exhaust set up, aimed at being a benign solution to get the bulk of testing out of the way, without interference from complex exhaust issues. Then later in testing the focus could switch to the greater potential performance offered by the V2 set up. The V1 set up placed the exhaust in board and rearward, blowing under the top rear wishbone. The exhaust flux blew along the tail of the bodywork and under the beam wing. Despite suggestions at the time that this set up was a novel exhaust blown suspension set up; the solution was never intended for race use.

Sidepod Version2


Then on Day11 of the 12 day preseason testing schedule, the V2 sidepodexhaust appeared. A more complex solution than either the McLaren or Sauber set up, the sidepod aimed to both direct exhaust flow at the diffuser and route the sidepods undercut flow to the centre of the diffuser. To do this the sidepod had a more outboard and rearward exhaust position.

The exhaust blows down the tail of the sidepod, over a ramp made to try to attach the exhaust flow to the bodywork via a coanda effect to direct it in the correct gap between the rear tyre and diffuser. This is the same area the teams aimed their exhausts directly at last year. This area helps both seal the diffuser from flow blown laterally from the rear tyres and also the greater mass flow of the exhaust plume creates more flow through the diffuser, with both effects adding downforce. This solution follows the same path as the much applauded Sauber solution. Although the two systems were developed in parallel and RBR did not copy the Sauber after seeing it launch. The RB8 always was planned to run the V2 set up.

V2: a tunnel is created under the Exhaust ramp bodywork (yellow)

V2: Flow from the sidepod undercut passes through the tunnel (yellow)

To keep the airflow passing over the top and centre of the diffuser, teams direct the fast moving flow from the sidepods undercut to this area. In Red Bulls case, the path of this flow is obstructed by the exhaust ramp and plume. To overcome this Red Bull have simply created a tunnel for the air to pass under the exhaust ramp and remerge towards the centre of the diffuser. This solution looks like is major aim was to direct flow to the start motor hole, an area exploited by ductwork on the 2011 RB7. Having more airflow passing into the starter motor hole, makes the hole act like a blown slot, making the airflow better up and under the middle section of diffuser for more downforce. Creating a crossover effect is somewhat like McLarens bulged exhaust fairing, that allow both the exhaust to be directed down to the diffuser edge by the downwash flow over the sidepod, but also creates a channel beneath the exhaust bulge to allow the undercut flow to reach the centre of the diffuser.
So it seems Red Bulls V2 floor make the best of the Sauber Coanda solution and the McLaren undercut solution.

What are the issues?
However this tunnel is compromised by the post-2009 area rules. Sidepod bodywork 50mm above the floor (actually 100mm above the reference plane) must meet tangential and minimum radius regulations. This means Red Bulls tunnel is limited to slightly less than 50mm in height, with a sharp top edge.


It seems it’s this crossover tunnel on the V2 sidepod that is an issue with the car. Recent flowviz tests in free practice were focussed specifically on the tunnel, as well as tests with an array of aero sensors trailing the diffuser in Bahrain. Also an insider tells me that the Red Bulls starter motor might not be creating the accelerating airflow into the steep middle section of diffuser that was envisaged. Instead the starter hole works better when blocked off. Perhaps this crossover tunnel is not flowing correctly to the centre of the diffuser and altering the accuracy of the exhaust flow towards the tyrediffuser intersection.
If the exhaust flow cannot reach the tyrediffuser gap accurately or perhaps more importantly consistently, then the driver will have a car that sensitive to throttle position.
Red Bull have been alleged to have clever engine mappings, cutting down to four cylinders at larger throttle openings at lower revs. This could either have the effect of a softer power delivery for better traction, of greater exhaust flow for more downforce at lower revs. Red Bull and Renault may still be finding ways to gain performance from exhaust mappings and these mapping have been investigated the FIA and shown to be within the regulations.
With several issues around the way the exhaust affects the cars handling, Red Bull said in China that the V2 sidepod was the potentially better solution, but the V1 set up gave Vettel more confidence. Horner admitted that it was possible to get the performance of the V2 with the feel of the V1. At Bahrain it appears that this is what RBR have done.

Sidepod Version 2.1

V2.1: With no tunnel the exhaust flow can pass without interference to the diffuser

These issues may explain the Bahrain sidepod upgrade. This new sidepod set up appears to be a rework of the V2 sidepod, most of the shape remains the same and the exhaust appears to be in the same position. So it looks like the moulds were altered to close off the cross over tunnel create a V2.1 sidepod.
With the tunnel closed off the issues complicating the exhaust and starter motor hole flow have been cleared up. But there still remains an issue with how the sidepod undercut flow reaches the rest of the diffuser. Sauber appear to manage this, but there still may be some potential airflow performance that is lost with this set up. Although the overall effect of an exhaust aimed accurately at the tyrediffuser gap may be a greater gain that that loss.
However with the tunnel gone there is a less complex route for the exhaust to reach the diffuser. With the exhaust flow better managed the intended exhaust effect will more consistent resulting in a better feel for the driver at different throttle positions and car attitudes.

V2.1: Slots in the floor aid the effect in sealing the diffuser

It’s notable that Red Bull have also reintroduced the slots in the floor ahead of the rear tyres, these haven’t been seen for a couple of years, their function is to inject some higher energy airflow into the gap between the tyre and diffuse. This, like the exhaust blown diffuser, offsets the sidewash (known as ‘Squirt’) created by the rear tyres impinging into the diffuser. Again this will all result in greater rear downforce.

If this is the first solution for Red Bulls woes, then it will be interesting how the team develop from the V2.1 sidepod. Perhaps the tunnel will reappear in revised form or a McLaren style solution will be tried.

InDetail: Caterham Front Upright

Not everything in F1 is aggressive, extreme, radical or innovative. In fact in many areas the car’s are very close in general design terms. Some times it’s enough just to soak up the detail engineering and explain what all the little bits and pieces do on the car. In this series of short articles, we’ll do just that, thanks to these amazing photographs from MichaelD. Following on from the details of the Force India front corner, with these photos of the Caterham in Melbourne, we can now see more of the upright design.

Upright


Caterham’s upright is fairly typical of most contemporary F1 designs. By regulation all F1 cars have to use Aluminum for their uprights. This one appears to be a fully machined or perhaps a cast part. Before the restriction to aluminum, investment cast Ti or MMC were common.
In format the upright is tightly fitted between the upper and lower ball joints and the two bearing for the hub. This design has been common in the past ten years, before that the upright tended to be a larger item with a large vaned housing for the bearing that would be the route for cooling air to reach the brake disc. Now teams route the cooling around the upright rather than through it. One exception of this design practice was Honda who routed the cooling air internally through an oversize hub. This design was dropped in 2010, as the design prevented the lower wishbone mount being as high the aerodynamicists wanted.
The upright creates part of the suspension geometry, with the distance between the upper and lower ball joints and the angle between them and the steering axis.
The first observation of a current F1 upright compared to any other racecar is the distance between the upper and lower wishbone joints. The upper joint is probably as high as the 13” wheel will allow, and then the lower wishbone is raised to near the wheels centerline. Having the mounts close together creates more loads in the wishbones and restricts space for a track rod to be mounted high up, with enough of a steering arm length to be efficient. This is a compromise forced by the aerodynamicists, who require the wishbones to be placed in the most beneficial position relative to the front wing upwash.


Due to the offset of the bulk of the upright from the steering axis, the design at first appears to offer a lot of King Pin Inclination (KPI), but closer examination of the ball joints shows them to be relatively normal for an F1 car. An increased KPI angle creates more camber change through steering.
We can see the upper ball joint (UBJ) that links the upright to the wishbone is created with a clevis bolted the upright. The wishbones outer end holds the spherical bearing. Shims between the clevis and the upright adjust the static camber. The lower ball joint (LBJ) is a fixed mounting and is not adjustable. We can see in the case of the Caterham that the lower end of the pushrod is mounted to the wishbone and the not upright. It joins near the spherical bearing in order to keep the bending load in the wishbone end to a minimum.

Adjustments


The steering rack is mounted low down on the front bulkhead and the track rod passes in line with the lower wishbone and attached to its own clevis on the upright. Adjusting camber also adjust steering toe angle, so any change in the camber shims will require a shim altered on the track rod arm. As the clevis is formed by the upright, the track rod arm is split, with the metal end fitting bolting to the carbon fibre arm, a shim in between this joint creates the difference I track rod length.
In between the track rod and lower wishbone is one of the two tethers to hold the wheel on in an accident; there appear to be plastic clips to hold the tether in place between the two parts.

Hub & Bearings


Rotating inside the upright is the front hub, or stub axle. This is a machined titanium part and sits on two bearings. Typically two sets of bearings are used one larger set outboard and a smaller set inboard. From the diameter of the upright you can see the differential in size is quite large. Bearing design is quite secretive, but commonly angular contact ceramic bearing are used. I was told that Honda, who used NTN bearings at the time, would have the bearing last two races and cost several thousand pounds each. Albeit this was at the time they used particularly large bearings to hold the oversize hub. The bearings are located in the upright and the hub and preloaded by the large castle nut visible inboard of the upright.
The hub is hollow and will have openings and pockets machined into it to reduce weight where stiffness isn’t required. The hub also forms part of the brake disc mounting system the wire eroded splined on the flange outboard of the upright mate to matching splines on the brake disc mounting bell. There are also drive pegs to locate the wheel. At the threaded outer part of the hub, the wheel retention system is removed. This is a sprung clip that flicks inout as the wheel nut passes over it during wheel changes. The clip will retain the nut as required by the regulation, should the wheel nut not be tightened sufficiently. It will however not replace the function of the wheel nut in holding the wheel on securely. Drivers leaving the pits will seefeel the wheel wobble slightly, driving for too long will see the retention mechanism fail and the wheel fall off. Typically the hub and wheel nut threaded are handed left of right, to help keep the nut secured.

InDetail: Force India Front Corner

Not everything in F1 is aggressive, extreme, radical or innovative. In fact in many areas the car’s are very close in general design terms. Some time it’s enough just to soak up the detail engineering and explain what all the little bits and pieces do on the car. In this series of short articles, we’ll do just that, thanks to these amazing photographs from MichaelD.
This is the front left corner of the VJM05, seen without the wheel to expose the brakes, suspension mounts, hub and electronics. Details vary from team to team, but what we see here is typical of most F1 cars, indeed some of the components are standard (electronics) or lightly modified by the supplier (brakes).

Brake Caliper

Dominating the picture is the brake caliper. This is supplied by AP Racing and will be designed around Force India requirements, albeit based on their current iteration of an F1 Caliper.
F1 Bake calipers must have no more than six pistons, two pads and two mounting points. The material is restricted by an 80Gpa stiffness requirement; aluminum lithium is most commonly used.
AP have a unique design of caliper for many Formulii, with their RadiCal (Radical Caliper) design. This being the way the inner and outer sections join via the complex bridge structure, to make it as stiff as possible. We can see the caliper is bridged in two places and a radial brace is also used. Keeping his area open is important for cooling the brake disc.
Cooling is also behind the structure around the pistons, the cylinders the six pistons within are nearly completely exposed, with just some links to the calipers structure and internal passageway to route the brake fluid. This allows the most airflow around the cylinderpiston to keep them cool. The pistons themselves are made in titanium and have a series of radial holes machined into them to also keep heat from getting into the brake fluid.
We can see the brake line entering the caliper at the bottom, having been routed through the lower wishbone. At the top of the caliper are the two bleed nipples, these allow bubbles trapped within the system to float up and be removed for better brake feel.
The carbon panel on the outer section of the caliper is either an aero piece or some protection for the caliper when the wheels are slammed back on during pitstops.

Discs and Pads

F1 moved to Carbon discs and pads in the eighties, having moved straight from Cast iron discs. Strangely ceramic discs have not been a development seen at races. Rules limit the diameter and thickness of discs, but no other regulatory restrictions are placed on these parts.
Disc and pad material varies according to their manufacturer (Carbon Industrie & Hitco). It is also tuned for each race and even for each driver. Additionally cooling patterns will vary from track to track, For Force India in Melbourne we can see the high density drillings, with three small drillings across the disc. With Melbourne being heavy on braking the pads are also drilled in attempt to keep the brake system cool. Brakes and pads wear at an equal rate, so the few millimeters gap in between disc surface and drillings is all the wear these parts will see, before catastrophic failure. As wear increases with temperature there are sensors measuring the disc surface temperature and also wear sensors for both the inner and outer pads.

Electronics
To monitor all the functions on the front corner, there will be an array of sensors fitted to the parts. These are all linked back to the main SECU, rather than cabling for each sensor passing through the wishbones to the cars main wiring loom, there is a hub fitted to the upright that collects all he signals and passes them back via a single cable. This Hub Interface Unit (HIU) is a common part supplied by MES to all the teams. It has inputs from the aforementioned Pad wear and disc temperatures sensors, as well as two wheel speed sensor (two in case one fails), also a load cell for measuring pushrod (or pullrod) loads.

Wishbone mounting


Although the aluminum upright can barely be seen beneath the brake ducts, the key function of the upright is joins the hub to the suspension. F1 does not use adjustable suspension in the same way as many racecars. That is with threaded adjusters, but instead solid suspension links are mounted the hard points with shims. These shims are used to alter the camber, ride height, pushrod offset and castor.
Teams are no longer aligning the track rod for steering with the FTWB. So often the track rod needs a separate lower mounting point on the upright. When adjusting camber, a different FTWB shim will alter the steering toe angle, so an additional shim needs to be fitted to the track rod clevis t maintain toe angle.
In this picture, we can see the upper clevis that mounts the front top wishbone (FTWB) and track rod. Force India have done this with the VJM05, but have still been able to join the FTWB and track rod to the same clevis assembly. This way camber can be adjusted with a single shim, rather than separate but matched shims for separate clevises.
We can also see the extremely high front lower wishbone position (FLWB); it’s nearly at the front axle height. Having wishbones spaced further apart is better for reducing the loads fed through them, but aerodynamics demand a higher position. We can’t see the outboard joint with the upright; neither can we see the outer pushrod joint. It’s probably that FIF1 mount these mount to the upright in a set up called ‘pushrod on upright’ (POU), this helps eight transfer with steering angle in slow corners.

 

Mercedes: Are they blowing the Front or Rear wing?

Update on how it links to the front wing

Original article/

I’ve heard a lot of reporting about the Mercedes F-Duct stalling the rear wing and the likelihood of other teams already having a similar system.

I can see the logic in why people think that the DRS controlled duct blows the rear wing elements in a bid to reduce drag. I haven’t seen any evidence of this being the case; equally I can see several issues with this theory. The problem with the theories on the DRS duct stalling the rear wing are twofold; firstly the DRS is already cutting immensely, secondly the rules greatly restrict the ability to stall the rear wing. Back in to 2010 teams were using blown slots across the full width of the rear wing, these being used with perpendicular blowing to stall the wing or tangential blowing to act as an additional slot gap for more downforce. The rules introduced in 2011 aimed to prevent both of these types of slot.
To stall either the top rear wing or the beam (lower) rear wing, you need to blow a slot. In the post 2010 rules, slots are banned in any section of the rear wing (via a 100mm minimum radius rule); this ban applies to all three wing elements aside from the middle 15cm. So to use the DRS duct to blow a rear wing slot, all you’ll stall is the very centre section of wing. This area creates very little induced drag (most of that’s created at the wing tips), so stalling it will not improve top speed by much. Thus it will provide very little benefit.

It’s possible the DRS Duct could stall the flow around the sidepod, exhaust or diffuser. I’ve got no information on this, or a valid reason how this would benefit the aero. In my opinion the blowing to stall the front wing is still the most valid theory.  Pictures have merged today of Schumachers car lifted on a crane that shows the slot sunder the front wing. other pictures also show close ups of the rear of the car, do not show any slots in the top or beam wings.

Search on sutton images for pictures d12aus3468.jpg, d12aus3467.jpg, d12aus3465.jpg

I suspect the two ducts leading from the beam wing into the engine cover are part of the system.  Either taking the DRS-duct flow to the front wing directly, or by using the DRS-duct to switch the F-Duct.  I can;t find where the F-duct switch is sited, perhaps inside the rear wing, in which case the two beam wing ducts might be of different uses, one feeding high pressure airflow to the F-Duct and the other feeding the flow to the front wing.  As this is an evolving theory, I’ll post more on this system as we start to understand it better.

I’ve looked at the McLaren, Red Bull and Ferrari rear wings, as yet I can see no shaping to suggest a DRS-Duct is packaged inside the endplates.  There’s little doubt these teams must be working on similar solutions.  Although Red Bull and Lotus may probably not be developing this solution, as they are now querying the FIA on its legality LINK

We have now acceptance by the FIA that the DRS duct is legal, that Mercedes  are running this system and pictures show the duct emerging from the beam wing reaching forwards inside the engine cover. Presumably, to reach towards the front-end of the car. No doubt more information will soon emerge on these systems.

other links:

DRS open showing the duct open beneath the flap (via AMus)

LINK

Rear wing no sign of any slots in the middle 15cm

LINK

Mercedes: F-Duct Front Wing operated by the Rear Wing DRS

Update on how it links to the Front wing

Update

Something often said of banned developments in F1, is that once understood no solution can be unlearnt. So while the FIA fights to ban technologies that they feel aren’t suited to F1, the teams will always try to apply that solution in a different way.
McLaren understood how to stall a wing by blowing a slot perpendicular the wings surface. This knowledge lead to the F-duct in 2010, as you will recall the FIA moved to ban slots in the rear wing and direct driver interaction with the cars aero. But the knowledge of blown slots to stall wings has remained and it’s been Mercedes who have been busy trying to apply it in other ways. This culminated with the tests of an F-Duct front wing late last year. Rumours continue to fly about the teams use of the F-Duct front wing (FDFW) in 2012. I understand the 2012 Mercedes AMG W03 does have an F-Duct front wing and this is operated by the rear wings DRS. Based on information I have from the sources around the team, and from looking at the cars performance and construction mean I can speculate how and why Mercedes might be using the FDFW.

As detailed in two articles last year, Mercedes are believed to have run blown slots under the front wing to stall the wing at higher speeds. Three reasons came up as to why this would be used; reducing drag, managing wing ride height and managing the cars aero balance. With nothing official being said by Mercedes, we were left unsure as to exactly why a passive FDFW would benefit the car.
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/mercedes-f-duct-front-wing/

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/update-mercedes-f-duct-front-wing/

Some observations from the Mercedes team last year might aid us in putting a picture together of how the 2012 solution might benefit. Mercedes were the first team to really exploit more of the open DRS effect and use a short chord flap. The open DRS boosted Mercedes top speed and could be used through the lap in qualifying. Despite this benefit the teams did struggle in qualifying, their race performances latterly became better than qualifying suggested. It was clear for Michael Schumacher at Least, that the cars handling wasn’t ideal and the team sought to resolve the cars nervousness.
Bearing these points in mind, the potential benefits of a FDFW become more apparent. Mercedes need more qualifying pace; they can exploit their DRS more frequently during qualifying, but in higher speed turns the cars lacks the balance for the drivers to fully commit through the turn.
If they can cure these issues, then they will further up in qualifying and able to take the fight to the leading teams. I now believe the FDFW works to manage the cars balance in high speed turns when the DRS is activated. As DRS reduces both rear drag and downforce, the car becomes unbalanced in downforce front-to-rear. In other words pointy or oversteering. Which in high speed turns in qualifying is hard to handle. At higher speeds even with DRS reducing rear wing downforce, the car has enough downforce to make it around corner, the problem is how to make the car more balanced front-to-rear when DRS is activated.
The FDFW we saw last year appeared to be passive, this uses nothing other than airspeed to trigger the slot to blow enough to stall the front wing. If matched to the speed DRS would be used at (in qualifying), the passive FDFW would help balance the car, by reducing front downforce to match that of the rear. However the front wing would always stall at these speeds, whether DRS was in use or not, so outside of qualifying the wing would stall and the car would understeer. With Parc Fermé rules in force, the team cannot change the FDFW between qualifying and the race.
Another issue with the passive FDFW, is that under braking as air speed reduced, the wing would need time to start working again. But this early phase of braking is just when the driver needs the most downforce. What the FDFW ideally needs is a method to link its activation to that of DRS, in other words an active F-duct.
As we’ve already mentioned, driver activation is not allowed, as are any other moving parts to directly alter the airflow. This brings up the Designers favourite interpretation in the rule book, primary and secondary purpose. Any part on the car can be for a primary purpose; sometimes any secondary purpose is banned or restricted. However in most cases the rules are vague and Designers are free to find secondary uses for a solution on the car. Examples of this are the cooling fans on the Brabham Fan car, the engine blowing off throttle for blown diffusers or brake torque altering ride height on the Lotus Reactive Ride Height system. In each case the first element was legal as its primary purpose was as stated, but a secondary purpose was able to be exploited.

The DRS rules are quite clear that the flap must not be shaped to allow other aerodynamic benefits. In fact this wording affects only a portion of the flap and additionally the endplate is excluded from this wording. If the team could find a way to blow into the front wing a duct when DRS is activated, then the FDFW could work synchronously with the DRS.

The hingeplate the flap mounts to, closes a hole when DRS is closed. When DRS is open the duct is revealed and the F-duct stalls the front wing

I believe Mercedes have found a way, by creating a duct through the endplate. When DRS is closed, the flap and the plate it attaches to is in a nearly vertical position. When DRS opens, the area the flap initially covered is exposed. If this area featured an opening that lead into a duct inside the endplate, when DRS opened the high pressure above the wing would force flow through the duct. With this duct then routed through the car to the front wing, when DRS is open the FDFW would be blown and stall in unison with the rear wing. Clearly when DRS closes the duct would be closed off and the duct would stop blowing the FDFW, restoring front and rear downforce.

When DRS is open, the duct passes into the beam wing and through the car. Eventually reaching the front wing slot to stall the wing.

Some evidence around the rear wing of the W03 shows this could be possible. We have to be careful to pinpoint every feature on the rear wing as being FDFW related as the DRS mechanism is hidden inside the endplate as well. Some access panels on the wing could be for DRS, FDFW or other purposes, some might be for both. In my research I’ve yet to see a clear high resolution shot of the Mercedes with DRS open, this is unusual as most other teams have been seen with the DRS in effect. Equally clear pictures of the inside of the endplate, where the flap meets the endplate, are in short supply. With this lack of material I can propose a solution, although the actual parts may diffuser is location and appearance. Its expected at this weekend Australian GP the rear wing duct will be exposed as the car uses DRS on the straights. We will need photographers with a big lens and steady hand to catch sharp pictures of the inside face of the endplate, when DRS is activated.


Evidence of the duct can be seen on the car, when the car is not moving. Clearly the W03 rear wing endplate is quite thick, an access panel that houses the DRS actuator is outboard of the flapendplate intersection, plus there is another panel in line with the beams wings intersection with the endplate. I’d suggest the duct is opened by the flap and hinge plate, the duct then routes through the double skinned endplate down into the beam wing. This then exits through the duct that mounts the beam wing to the gearbox. There’s a tortuous route for the duct through the car to reach the front wing, but this isn’t that dissimilar to the 2010 F-Duct routing. As with McLaren in 2010, the trick is to design the duct into the car at an early stage to minimise losses through the ductwork. This usefully makes it harder, but not impossible to copy. To copy this set up the monocoque needs to be altered and the nose cone needs the apertures into the front wing mounting pylons to feed the airflow into the front wing itself. This requires time to redesign and potentially re-crash test any changes.
But, can this set up be legal? The act of stalling a front wing through a blown slot is legal, although F-ducts are banned, it’s only via the slot in the rear wing that this was achieved. Direct driver intervention is banned, but the driver is allowed to operate the DRS, so any secondary aerodynamic effect of that is not prohibited in the rules.
Although the rules allow this, it’s possible the FIA could issue a Technical Directive on the matter, that any overt secondary effect of using DRS is not allowed and the whole solution could be banned in a stroke.

With a tight and competitive season in prospect qualifying performance will be critical. Notwithstanding the potential structural work to allow the duct to pass through the car, the DRS activated F-duct Front wing is an attractive option for the other leading teams.