F1 2014 Season: Lineup's - Rumours - News

Top five pre-season technical innovations - http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/307365/top-five-pre-season-technical-innovations/

please log in to view this image

10 March 2014 – Every year, Formula 1 car launches are eagerly anticipated events. But the hype was even greater this season, with the sport's latest regulation overhaul coming into force. After the trio of tests, GPUpdate.net technical guru Matt Somerfield has put together a top five list of 2014's technical innovations to date.

1. McLaren 'Wishbone Wings'

McLaren made some intrinsic errors in the design of last year's car and were eager to make up ground so abandoned development of the MP4-28 early in order to concentrate on their 2014 machine. There had been for some time talk that McLaren would utilise a 'revolutionary' rear suspension on the MP4-29 but when it was unveiled ahead of pre-season testing back at the MTC in Woking, bar a slightly offset upper rear wishbone, the car didn't seem to sport said 'revolutionary' suspension.

please log in to view this image

However, once the team arrived at Jerez it was clear that the wishbone arrangement was what the team had been working on, with larger appendages featuring on the suspension elements. Offsetting and doglegging the rear suspension elements has meant that they are placed more rearward, in a location more indicative of the outgoing Beam Wing. McLaren, therefore, are trying to replicate the airflow structures that were generated by the Beam Wing in the past, with a low pressure zone created behind the 'Wishbone Wings', helping the Diffuser and Rear Wing to work together (upwash).

The net gain in downforce, however, would also come with a net increase in drag and so the team have shaped the elements to mitigate this loss. Furthermore, either side of the crash structure we find a tier (marked in red) of ejection points which allow the collated high pressure to be fed into the upwash, further aiding in generating the aerodynamic link between the Diffuser and Rear Wing, creating a more aero balanced car.

The arrangement requires consideration to both aerodynamic and mechanical layouts (suspension geometry, torque loading etc.) and so copying it may prove to be more of a task than many teams are willing to undertake.

2. Lower Beam Wing

please log in to view this image

There's always more than one way to skin a cat and McLaren, Williams and Toro Rosso have all taken a similar route to the loss of the Beam Wing. They've added a lower wing which sits where the floor normally would (the floor, therefore, either scalloped out or sitting ever so slightly lower), which will not only regain some of the structural integrity lost by the loss of the Beam Wing but also help aerodynamically.

The lower wing resides in a position that can affect the airflow passing over the floor, creating a small area of low pressure above the Diffuser, making its flow interact and upwash. The overall net effect is more downforce from the Diffuser and the assistance in creating a link between it and the Rear Wing.

3. Asymmetric Lotus

please log in to view this image

I couldn't have a top five technical list without mentioning the Lotus E22's Nose; we all know that most of the teams have taken function over form with the new lower nose tip regulations but Lotus have gone one step further. In order to retain as much central height to the E22's nose as possible the team have taken the rule book and turned it sideways. The nose features two tusks, one longer than the other and for good reason, as the rules stipulate that at 50mm behind the nose tip a cross section of 9000mm2 must project horizontally. With the nose's right hand tusk at least 50.01mm longer than the left it means a void can be created centrally in order to retain airflow along the car's centreline.

please log in to view this image

This isn't where it stops for Lotus, though, as when we look at the rear of the car we find more asymmetry, as both the Rear Wing's support pylon and the exhaust are both clearly off the centreline. It could be argued that Lotus are simply trying to get the components out of each other's way but nothing in F1 is done without good reason and leads me back to why copying the Lotus nose might not be altogether easy for the other teams if it's found to give an advantage. When we think of teams doing work in CFD we'd assume they do so on the entire car, but to cut down on calculations (i.e. CFD time) the teams generally only run CFD on ½ the car. Asymmetric design, therefore, wouldn't able to be factored in, as changes in airflow direction/velocity etc. would become a little like guess work. I'd therefore suggest that Lotus ran full CFD on the E22 and are not only correcting the airflow inconsistencies of running the asymmetric nose with their offset exhaust but could be looking to glean a further advantage. Lest we forget that Lotus were a team that continued to use the additional power of the longer exhaust in 2012 rather than sacrifice the power for the more aero skewed 'Coanda' exhaust solution.

4. PCU-8D

McLaren Electronic Systems (MES) have been busy readying another device for the challenges facing the more technically advanced formula in 2014. The PCD-8D is an all-new cockpit display that is capable of showing many more parameters to the driver. A little larger and heavier (230g rather than 130g) than its predecessor, the new component is an option that won't be taken up by all teams. Six of the teams (Mercedes, Ferrari, McLaren, Sauber, Toro Rosso and Marussia) on the grid have, however, decided it will increase the drivers' capabilities out on track.

please log in to view this image

The larger display is able to convey more on one screen than its predecessor, meaning the driver doesn't have to cycle through a series of button presses as often. 100 pages of customisable information can be utilised on the PCU-8D, opening up more possibilities for the driver in terms of the availability of information and how it's presented. (I've often wondered if the static red display colour of the PCU-6D's digits are an annoyance to some drivers for argument’s sake). The new display also opens up the option to display certain criteria in a graphical format that is otherwise made numerical on the older display. Furthermore, CAN messages can trigger warning screens enabling the driver to back off before a catastrophic failure.

The centralised 15 led rev display is retained at the top of the unit along with the placement of the warning flag leds either side of the display.

It's questionable that in a year where change is so prevalent in F1 as to whether changing the drivers' interface is a step too far and so some teams or drivers will continue to use the PCU-6D. Consider it like upgrading from one Playstation or Xbox to the latest gen, though; with more power you need more control and so some drivers will relish it. Perhaps this is where rookies such as Kevin Magnussen and Daniil Kyvat have an advantage too. Not only are they the next generation but they are coming into Formula 1 at a stage when the face of the sport’s technology is changing and so starting with a blank canvas/fresh perspective could help them no end.

5. Lack of Starter Motor Holes (SMH)

please log in to view this image

The eagle eyed amongst you may have noticed there is a lack of a central hole in the Diffuser this season, with the FIA having clamped down on the practice, as teams have been exploiting the SMHs for some years. The hole provided another method for which airflow could be injected into the Diffuser stream. The teams have therefore placed hinged covers in the region, meaning that the only time a hole is exposed is when the external starter is pushed into place.

please log in to view this image

That is with the exception of Mercedes who have designed their Diffuser around the problem and is why we see a 'U' bend in the central section. This 'U' allows not only the external starter access but retains a way of injecting airflow into the Diffusers airflow stream. The design is relatively easy for the other teams to copy with a re-design of the floor/diffuser but would of course need to work in line with the other aero concepts and stand up to CFD and Wind Tunnel scrutiny first.

 

Bernie now tips Lewis to win the WDC as well as Rosberg only a few weeks ago: http://sportbild.bild.de/formel-1/2...estone-tippt-auf-hamilton-35015972.sport.html

On Rosberg: http://www.crash.net/f1/news/200100/1/ecclestone-tips-rosberg-for-title.html

 

So unlike Bernie to totally about face when it suits him!

 

What are the British courts investigating him about then?
Is he having trouble getting a London GP?

 

Should be noted through the the decibel scale is not linear but logarithmic power scale (I think?).

May want to check this but an increase of 10dB is 10x more powerful (20dB is 100x).
So a drop of 11dB is just over 2x less 'loud'.

 

Yeah, I thought it was a logarithmic scale too, so that's still quite a lot quieter. Just shows how loud the V8's were!

 

He's usually so sincere.

 

Is Red Bull Racing stretching the rules again?

It appears that Red Bull are circumventing the rules once again in their search for speed for their troubled car.
This morning at the RAAF Air Force base in Victoria (around two and half hours from Melbourne) a ‘filming’ day had been organised which had an F/A-18 Hornet drag racing the Red Bull car. This in itself is not a problem – it’s straight line running after all.
An observer told TJ13, “it was a great event and the noise of both powerplants was awesome!”
However after the actual filming was completed, and the jet removed, the Red Bull car would appear periodically and complete a number of laps using the runways and taxiways as a form of track.
With the venue being a military base, photography was banned and any brave individual who felt the slightest inclination to secretly record anything was informed explicitly by the military police they would be arrested if they did so.
Mmm…. How many filming days have RBR now had? Was there an F1 observer there to count mileage?
For now we don’t know.



At least Ferrari are bigging up the prospects of the races.....

Luca di Montezemolo worried about “taxi rides”


Ferrari president has told Autosprint that he is worried about early races becoming “taxi rides” with drivers having to go slow to keep the fuel consumption below the allowed 100 kilogram limit for the race. The Italian admitted that he would prefer a Formula One that required drivers to drive at the limit, something that would clearly play into the hands of Ferrari’s Fernando Alonso. After a strong 2012, when Alonso came close to winning the title in what was clearly not the fastest car, he struggled in some races in 2013 which required a lot less raw driving skills in favour of going fast, but slow enough to keep the flimsy Pirelli tyres alive.
The latter aspect still irks LdM. “Yesterday all we looked at were the tyres. Almost all attention was focused on tyre management. It was confusing to see a driver in the lead, who wasn’t really in the lead, because he would have to come in for tyres soon. Races were too hard to follow. Now we get the fuel limit on top of that.”
But not all rule changes are met by di Montezemolos disapproval. He welcomes the additional engineering challenges of the hybrid engine systems. He thinks that experience with these complex systems will be helpful for the company’s road car division.

 

Err that's taking cheating to a whole new level if true.

 

This run was done with the RB showcar, not the RB10, so what?

 

Fair enough, but putting anything from 2014 in there would be illegal right.

 

To quote the source

Matt Somerfield ‏@SomersF1 1h
@theJudge13Twts it was the showcar running and not the RB10 pic.twitter.com/RL59o5fjv7

please log in to view this image

thejudge13 ‏@thejudge13 1h
@SomersF1 @theJudge13Twts Aha... thanks - we just had eye witness reports....


Matt Somerfield ‏@SomersF1 1h
@thejudge13 @theJudge13Twts no worries, video is currently uploading that I got from the RB content pool

 

‘Submarine’ risk with new noses realised – report (GMM)
Adrian Newey’s pre-season fears about ‘submarining’ formula one cars may have been realised. Red Bull’s criticism of F1′s all-new era had to be heard amid the depth of the reigning world champions’ winter crisis after four consecutive seasons of dominance.
Designer Newey, however, had expressed alarm about the new, low front noses, arguing not only that they are ugly, but they might also be dangerous. The reduced height minimised the risk of cars being launched into the air, but “I am concerned the opposite may now happen, that cars now (will) submarine effectively,” the Briton had said.
Indeed, an alarming image of the crash involving Kamui Kobayashi and Felipe Massa at the first corner in Melbourne has now emerged.

please log in to view this image

The photograph depicts precisely what Newey had feared — the low front of Kobayashi’s Caterham ‘submarining’ under the diffuser of Massa’s Williams, which is lifted perhaps a foot off the Albert Park tarmac. A similar incident at a higher speed could foreseeably result in contact between the elevated rear-end and the head of the ‘submarining’ driver.

 

Ferrari can't win so want rules changed... or something like that.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113249

 

Yeah, because the races last year were so exciting at the front of the field

Is a bit early to sound the panic alarm after 2 races. Some of the midfield scraps have been very good.

The others will catch up, it's just that Mercedes in particular have done their prep work correctly. If they go and change the rules again there is nothing stopping another team from getting it spot on and running away with it.

Just Ferrari throwing their toys out again as they have yet again been out-thought by the opposition.

 

I have to agree with him to be honest and I think all teams and fans should put aside their preferences and differences for the good of the sport. Developing the technology is great and I am all for it, but not at the extent to which the cars are slowed down so much that they are racing at lower fromula pace. Since the removal of in race fueling (which has been heavily debated), it has been very difficult to continue with the ultimate pace we have been used to in the past - I understand that. The changes have been too dramatic and in all areas, tyres, power unit, fuel, downforce etc. Why? The common theme seems to be that they have done every thing they can since 2004/2005 to slow the sport down - now circa 5+ seconds a lap in ultimate pace and more in the race.

We have safer circuits, better driving standards, trigger happy stewards - so why? Dominance by any team is bad, but having 1 or 2 teams way out front whilst some teams cant even run a lap at optimum pace is crazy, akin to different classes in GT racing. They cant even use the tyres to the full potential now.

 

But how much slower are the cars? We're only talking a couple of seconds a lap over last year, which they will claw back anyway.

Which rules do you bring back in and which ones should now be outlawed to make for better racing? All regs to some point will cause a problem, but not such a big a problem if you effectively allowed Formula Unlimited, in which case the disparity would be massive between those who have money and those who don't.

The gap between first and last on the grid used to be 8-9s a lap and the races were even worse than what we have seen recently.

F1 is not necessarily all about close racing, that's what Touring Cars is for.

 

If you want close racing, go watch a spec series because F1 is not a spec series.

 

I'm not sure which rules are currently working and which are not. Like I said I am not adversed to the development of technology and think its a good thing - in the long run. It just needs to be done steadily and used maybe to control the speed rather then slow them down. Creating so many changes in one fail swoop creates so many issues, leaves too many variables to chance and costs hugh resources.

I like the idea of creating the new power unit but silly things like immediatly trying to impose reduced fuel rather than allowing the technology to be developed and then bettered. No car wants to carry more fuel regardless of how fast they can go, firstly they have to fit it in the car and then they have to maul it round - so why reduce the amount allowed by the amount they have? Its like putting extra hurdles in the path of your own development. If they had left the fuel amount the same for the first year of development and then reduced it year on year it would have made more sense. Same with the tyres, creat a tyre that falls apart to create "better" racing and then harden the compounds for the following year when the formula will be known to be slower anyway?

I think my point is, that whilst I have no objection to the rules its how they have been implemented and compounded flaws in the systen from years gone by.

 

I know its not a spec series mate, but the unlevel playing field that has always existed has just been ramped even more. This isnt about domination of a clever individual design by an individual team, this is about teams with bigger or better resources having better R&D and some being hindered by things outside of their control. Every competitor has the right to be able to compete, they pay their entry fee like all the rest.