Theory: Helmut Marko and Fernando Alonso.............are the same person! Why? I've never seen them together in the same room... So "Fernando Marko", manages and plays mind games with Seb, drives a Ferrari and sorts out the RBR youth and has enough time to twitter, interesting!
I should begin this response by saying that I am most definitely not an aerodynamicist. We will have to wait and see how one concept may work better than another; but here's an attempt to shed some light by sharing some thoughts.- - -o0o- - - The 'vanity panel' (or 'modesty panel') has been agreed primarily as a means of improving the aesthetic appearance of the cars, rather than an effort to influence aerodynamics. It is also optional, rather than a regulatory requirement; and it is therefore quite possible that some may retain a visible step. So, I emphasise: the allowance of this panel is not intended to alter aerodynamics. However⦠It is important to remember that any aerodynamic concept is primarily 'holistic' in that each component affects all others. The airflow under, over and around the car can be affected by all manner of detail and all surfaces will be considered as part of the whole; but we can be sure that the Adrian Newey's of this world will not miss an easy trick if it's there! Air is a fluid. Anything which moves through a fluid will disturb it but it is the disturbance itself which can be made to act on surfaces to create the desired effect, e.g. lift (aeroplanes) or downforce for anything we'd prefer remains on terra firma [edit: or both for submarines!]. Disturbed fluids will leave regions of high and low pressure behind the disturbance, which swirl around in an effort to equalise and become still again some time later, through natural entropy. These diffferences are at their most intense immediately behind the disturbing element; and these eddies can be made to work â through their interaction with surfaces â harmonically* and cohesively, or can be left to create havoc. That said, a small disturbance of air by a small component can precede a bigger disturbance if it is followed by something bigger later in the air-flow. Bearing in mind the above, here are some other considerations we should be aware of: The 'step' we have become accustomed to is central to the car and sits immediately ahead of cockpit and driver. In principle, its location means there should be no increase drag, since the frontal area of the car remains unaffected. However, this relatively small 'extra' surface does increase turbulence sooner than if the air remains undisturbed until simply hitting driver and airbox. By altering the flow of air after this initial disturbance (wherever it actually occurs; step or not), by the placement of 'later' surfaces, it can be made to stick to other surfaces further back: in particular, past exhausts and towards the vitally important rear end with diffuser and rear wing. It is interesting to consider that by disturbing the air ahead of where it will inevitably occur in any case (cockpit/airbox), it may be easier to 'catch' further back. However, we should also bear in mind that McLaren opted for a different interpretation of the requirements for a lower nose, which completely side-stepped the step in the first place! *Tuning aerodynamics to particular harmonics (frequency and intensity of differences in pressure) is not too dissimilar to tuning a guitar string. Both have a window of optimisation which will contribute to (or detract from) the desired effect. Just as thinner guitar stings (or those of a different material) tend to vibrate faster and thereby produce higher notes, a car's aerodynamics will be optimised around a particular velocity of airflow â which may be different from one design to another. Thus it can often be the case that one car's maximum downforce is achieved at a quite different speed to another, which must surely form part of any aerodynamicist's game-plan. In conclusion: neither a stepped nose nor the lack of it have an advantage, in principle. What matters is how the first disturbance of air is controlled later on. For instance, some may consider that it is advantageous to disturb it sooner (ahead of the cockpit), thus offsetting the disturbance of cockpit and airbox, whilst others (such as McLaren in recent years) may prefer it to remain undisturbed for longer â happy to take a bigger hit later down the line.
In addition to the above, I should respond to Bando's question of "why the step was done in the first place". Safety was the only consideration. The lower nose is less prone to 'riding' over another car, whilst also affording greater protection to its own driver.
The vanity panel is neither a good solution to the problem of rubbish-looking cars nor does it cover up the fact that the stepped nose should never have existed in the first place! I understand that safety is paramount and I am firmly for the lower nosecone if it is necessary but I still believe that one issue lies in the decision by many of the teams to return to having long gaps between the wing itself and the nosecone (thankfully, not as bad as they were in the 60s and 70s!), connected only by extremely thin pieces of carbon fibre, to allow air to pass underneath the car more easily. The danger of this is its allowing the wing an opportunity to "sandwich" the diffuser of the car in front, at which point the fragile aspects of the front wing break off and the car is left just as badly off as it was before the new regulations came in. An example of the lower nosecone not solving the problem it was brought in to prevent can be seen here: [video=youtube;7UWUsmKFWJ4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UWUsmKFWJ4[/video] (please let me know if, contrary to my belief, Hamilton's wheels leave the ground before he makes contact with the rear of Grosjean) I would, however, extend my thanks to cosi for the long explanation of the forces (pun intended) at work with regards to the new vanity plates.
While we haven't yet seen the new cars, and at a moment when the anticipation approaches fever pitch for the fans, I must admit to finding the notion of 'vanity panels' quite fascinating in a sport which prides itself on technical supremacy: that is to say that aesthetics, one might say 'telegenics', are now considered an important enough consideration to be included as integral to the design of this year's cars. But, as I've said, we haven't seen the cars yet so it intrigues me to see whether this is the case.
I've done pretty well holding out without F1 this year and thank God the cars are getting unveiled soon to settle the nerves before Australia.
I'm going to hazard a guess most cars will have the panel. Last season, the stepped nose was a flaw in the regulations, exploited because teams wanted to maximise airflow under the cars, the small inefficient (aerodynamically speaking) bump, or nose, on the top of the car was significantly less of a problem. This year, the stability in the regulation means the step is probably still the most aerodynamically efficient way to maximise airflow under the car, but the vanity panel should remove the aesthetic issues, and the minor aerodynamic ones, surrounding the bump. I can't see many teams maintaining a stepped nose. How obvious the panel will be I don't know, and I'm curious if teams like Mclaren, who didn't need it last year, will adopt it. Anyone know how stringent the regulations are about the panel? I guess Newey might find an advantage in it...
Good post, DHC. This is just a response to your final sentence: As far as my understanding goes, the stepped nose is entirely optional, since the allowance of a 'vanity panel' came about through agreement amongst the teams, subsequently ratified by the FIA. …Hence my understanding that it is an allowance and not a requirement, although I share your hunch that most teams (if not all, notwithstanding McLaren who didn't have it in the first place) are likely to adopt it. Apart from anything else, designers always prefer their products to look pretty!
Just to keep the excitement up Even if its now outdated! [video=youtube;cDvux_FuoJ0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDvux_FuoJ0[/video]
Portugal's Algarve circuit is now in the running to host the TBA round this year: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/01/25/algarve-joins-running-2013-calendar-slot/
Lol, you should've started a new thread entitled "NEW 2013 MCLAREN SPY SHOTS REVEALED!!" and watched everyone freak out
I totally agree, EMSC. And whilst ownership is out of the question; I'll be cajoling, prodding, poking, persuading; and borrowing if not begging to get a chance to drive her – at some point! (I will have my way, some day)
