Advert | Go ad-free
F1 Fanatic - F1
Just came across an interesting article – http://www.inautonews.com/suspicions-linger-after-neweys-cooling-slot-claim
Engineers and other designers in the paddock do not believe that the RB8’s cooling slots are just for ‘driver cooling’ and instead provide a couple of arguments that say there is no way it is a cooling device.
Check it out and let me know what you think?
Of course it’s not just for cooling. The cockpit would flood in the rain otherwise.
raymondu999 Absolutely,so the drainage channel will be in effect an aero device which could be argued is unneccesary. They have gotten the all clear from Charlie Whiting so their interpetation is clearly well thought out but the other teams may have a different view and challenge it with their own interpetations. A complicated aero innovation that costs a lot of money just to simply ensure the driver has cool toes smells and if more air is being directed towards other critical areas than to the driver, it should be banned unless they can show otherwise. But it needs to be banned now because I’m sure they have taken that into consideration and have an alternative solution which they can develop. Plus it is an ugly feature. What do you guys think?
It might not even be a slot – it might just be a groove to cause an aero stagnation point. Or they could be restarting the boundary layer
I want to believe that it’s some fancy aero gizmo but I think @raymondu999 might be right about it just being part of the external aero. I was thinking the same myself.
Surely then it would act as an air brake wouldn’t it? It’s a strange solution to just cool the drivers feet as suggested by AN and if you are right then he was telling porkies.:)
Huh? Air brake? If it was a groove there; that would cause an aero stagnation point. I won’t go too deep into the mechanics of what that is here – but basically; imagine that that groove causes a buildup of high pressure air in a bubble shape going forwards – now imagine that this bubble shape is part of the nose hump.
While we see nothing; basically, from an aerodynamics point of view – it’s as good as if the nose is a rounded hump (the “bubble” I spoke of has enough pressure that it doesn’t let air through itself).
Personally I believe it´s some sort of F-duct for the fron wing…. There must be some kind of internal channeling of the air in order to make it “flex” a bit more… I am no expert and am totally oblivious about aerodynamics… It´s just a “gut fealing”.
I think it´s there for a reason…
An F-duct makes no sense. Redirecting the air itself would cause massive drag.
Mercedes was already trying it before! And if you look at the slot… it´s not as BIG as the sidepod openings so i don´t think it would create that much drag and besides the “bubble” mentioned before would be a solution to that “drag” if there was any….
The stagnation point works if there is NO VENT. An F-duct feeding device would mean THERE IS A VENT. The vent itself would be small if any, but the piping inside would create a HELL OF A LOT of drag; and the air would be robbed of maybe 50-70%, having to go through a 180 degree U turn like that. The Merc f-duct was fed in by the nose – not the bulkhead. Rerouting the air through the bulkhead, requiring several U-turns and 90-bends along the way is just idiotic.
I get what you mean regarding the bubble and it’s effect but wouldn’t that mean there would be no airflow directed to cool the driver and also in a wet race wouldn’t it cause extra spray reducing visability?
To create the stagnation effect – the bubble – it would require (I think) there to be no vent. I’m 100% UNsure what the effect would be in a wet race – but I honestly don’t think that was for driver cooling in the first place. Maybe a small portion at best. If not; water would just stream into the cockpit in the wet races.
Good thing they have cover over their heads to keep water from coming into the cockpit…
raymondu999 So basically Newey is telling porkies if that is the case.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.