Group Admins

  • Profile picture of Keith Collantine

Group Mods

  • Profile picture of damonsmedley
  • Profile picture of Bradley Downton

F1

Public Group active 3 hours, 40 minutes ago

F1 discussion

Misdirection? The air slots on the RB8 nose

This topic contains 27 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of raymondu999 raymondu999 2 years, 7 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 28 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #130923
    Profile photo of Todfod
    Todfod
    Participant

    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?

    #192477
    Profile photo of raymondu999
    raymondu999
    Participant

    Of course it’s not just for cooling. The cockpit would flood in the rain otherwise.

    #192478
    Profile photo of Bobdredds
    Bobdredds
    Participant

    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?

    #192479
    Profile photo of raymondu999
    raymondu999
    Participant

    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

    #192480
    Profile photo of AndrewTanner
    AndrewTanner
    Participant

    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.

    #192481
    Profile photo of Bobdredds
    Bobdredds
    Participant

    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.:)

    #192482
    Profile photo of raymondu999
    raymondu999
    Participant

    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).

    #192483
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    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…

    #192484
    Profile photo of raymondu999
    raymondu999
    Participant

    An F-duct makes no sense. Redirecting the air itself would cause massive drag.

    #192485
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    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….

    #192486
    Profile photo of raymondu999
    raymondu999
    Participant

    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.

    #192487
    Profile photo of Bobdredds
    Bobdredds
    Participant

    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?

    #192488
    Profile photo of raymondu999
    raymondu999
    Participant

    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.

    #192489
    Profile photo of Joey-Poey
    Joey-Poey
    Participant

    Good thing they have cover over their heads to keep water from coming into the cockpit…

    #192490
    Profile photo of Bobdredds
    Bobdredds
    Participant

    raymondu999 So basically Newey is telling porkies if that is the case.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 28 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.