Ask an F1 Engineer anything

[shirt]

garypotter said:

are you aware if any ideas come from outside the team, such as a fan emailing a crazy idea? or an five year old sending in a crayon drawing that has resulted in an item ended up on one of your race cars?

not quite the same, but weren't wheel tethers the results of a design competition? i seem to remember it being promoted in F1 magazine back in the 90s.

[robinessex]

marine boy said:

robinessex said:

Has anyone tried a morphing wing-style spoiler on F1 ?

Speaking on behalf or most F1 engineers the approach is the car has to pass the FIA load tests and be legal to the rule wording ie no moving mechanisms but on track it can be any shape you want as long as the morphing adds performance

Edited by marine boy on Thursday 18th March 00:26

As an engineer, I love it when 'legislators' try to define an Engineering concept with words, which miserably fails, usually, the wording is open to interpretation. What exactly is a 'moving mechanism' then? I've designed structures that deflect under load, but still retain their topological form to a degree of accuracy that enables them to perform their original function.

[andburg]

as ever there is legal by the wording of the rules and legal by passing the test and the 2 can be very different.

wing flex is a great example as there is a defined test yet Red Bull in particular have wings at both ends which seems to flex / lower, they have designed wings to meet the test rather than the exactly wording.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMS9_qoM_xk

see where the rear wing is in relation to the shark fin and tell me that rear wing is not moving....

[robinessex]

I spent 6 years of my life in the old GEC mechanic test department. One of the most difficult tasks was replicating real-life loads with a substitute load. I don't think we ever achieved it exactly.

[shirt]

robinessex said:

What exactly is a 'moving mechanism' then? I've designed structures that deflect under load, but still retain their topological form to a degree of accuracy that enables them to perform their original function.

a deflecting structure under load [i.e. flexi wings deflecting under aero load] is not the same as having a mechanism designed to induce that movement via other means.

[robinessex]

shirt said:

robinessex said:

What exactly is a 'moving mechanism' then? I've designed structures that deflect under load, but still retain their topological form to a degree of accuracy that enables them to perform their original function.

a deflecting structure under load [i.e. flexi wings deflecting under aero load] is not the same as having a mechanism designed to induce that movement via other means.

A wing is profile is linked top to bottom internally with some sort of structure. It would be quiet easy to make it such that as the wing pressure load increased on the surfaces, the resultant internal structure could control the selected shape of the outer surfaces to an advantageous aerodynamic profile. One could argue that the internal structure was a mechanism in that situation. Don't forget the rule wording is no "moving mechanisms". There is no consideration of what induces the mechanism to work.

Edited by robinessex on Thursday 18th March 11:30

[Integrator_Type_R]

Some very interesting insights here, by the OP and others, thank you for sharing.

A couple more if you could so kind and indulge us..(well me)

Have you ever been starstruck by a non-motorsport celebrity? Who, in your opinion, was the coolest "famous" person that you had a dealing with?

Who was your motorsport hero be they driver, team boss, designer/engineer, journo or other? Did you get to meet them & did they live up (or down) to their reputation?

Some of my favourite racecars were the front engined LMPs from Panoz at the turn of the century. Alhough they were mostly unsuccessful, they looked quite cool. Would there be any engineering advantages of a modern front engined F1 (assuming the rules don't dictate an engine behind the driver and if they do.. then I guess it's moot and I'll have to keep that fanciful visual idea in my head)?

[MuttWagon]

garypotter said:

Thank you OP for your honest and interesting replies.

1 question - are you aware if any ideas come from outside the team, such as a fan emailing a crazy idea? or an five year old sending in a crayon drawing that has resulted in an item ended up on one of your race cars?

Personally i feel the Merc double steering angle was a brilliant idea i wonder who came up with that and if it was from another source..

I wrote to McLaren as a child as I had watched track cyclists on blue peter wearing dimpled crash helmets for better air flow and wondered why they didn't use that texture in F1. A few days later my Mum shouted up to my room telling me there was an engineer on the phone! He basically explained it was toffee due to the turbulent air around an F1 car but it was decent of him to take the time.

[Dashnine]

MuttWagon said:

garypotter said:

Thank you OP for your honest and interesting replies.

1 question - are you aware if any ideas come from outside the team, such as a fan emailing a crazy idea? or an five year old sending in a crayon drawing that has resulted in an item ended up on one of your race cars?

Personally i feel the Merc double steering angle was a brilliant idea i wonder who came up with that and if it was from another source..

I wrote to McLaren as a child as I had watched track cyclists on blue peter wearing dimpled crash helmets for better air flow and wondered why they didn't use that texture in F1. A few days later my Mum shouted up to my room telling me there was an engineer on the phone! He basically explained it was toffee due to the turbulent air around an F1 car but it was decent of him to take the time.

Brilliant - well done McLaren!

[cuprabob]

MuttWagon said:

garypotter said:

Thank you OP for your honest and interesting replies.

1 question - are you aware if any ideas come from outside the team, such as a fan emailing a crazy idea? or an five year old sending in a crayon drawing that has resulted in an item ended up on one of your race cars?

Personally i feel the Merc double steering angle was a brilliant idea i wonder who came up with that and if it was from another source..

I wrote to McLaren as a child as I had watched track cyclists on blue peter wearing dimpled crash helmets for better air flow and wondered why they didn't use that texture in F1. A few days later my Mum shouted up to my room telling me there was an engineer on the phone! He basically explained it was toffee due to the turbulent air around an F1 car but it was decent of him to take the time.

Your parents got a friend to phone you kidding on they were from McLaren

Seriously though, it was good of the engineer to take time out to call you.

[robinessex]

Here's a morphing wing. Attache the leading and trailing flaps with flexible, not pivot connections, and you have a homogenous structure that deflects, not difficult to make it do so without any additional power source other than the aerodynamic load on the surfaces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5KKumkXTqo

Edited by robinessex on Thursday 18th March 17:24

[C2Red]

MuttWagon said:

garypotter said:

Thank you OP for your honest and interesting replies.

1 question - are you aware if any ideas come from outside the team, such as a fan emailing a crazy idea? or an five year old sending in a crayon drawing that has resulted in an item ended up on one of your race cars?

Personally i feel the Merc double steering angle was a brilliant idea i wonder who came up with that and if it was from another source..

I wrote to McLaren as a child as I had watched track cyclists on blue peter wearing dimpled crash helmets for better air flow and wondered why they didn't use that texture in F1. A few days later my Mum shouted up to my room telling me there was an engineer on the phone! He basically explained it was toffee due to the turbulent air around an F1 car but it was decent of him to take the time.

I imagine that the Matt paintwork so beloved by the recent F1 generations might have a limited but similar effect; I don’t know if it’s true, but I was once told that air bound to a surface had a higher friction than air that could shear across the surface due to the minor imperfections

[robinessex]

C2Red said:

MuttWagon said:

garypotter said:

Thank you OP for your honest and interesting replies.

1 question - are you aware if any ideas come from outside the team, such as a fan emailing a crazy idea? or an five year old sending in a crayon drawing that has resulted in an item ended up on one of your race cars?

Personally i feel the Merc double steering angle was a brilliant idea i wonder who came up with that and if it was from another source..

I wrote to McLaren as a child as I had watched track cyclists on blue peter wearing dimpled crash helmets for better air flow and wondered why they didn't use that texture in F1. A few days later my Mum shouted up to my room telling me there was an engineer on the phone! He basically explained it was toffee due to the turbulent air around an F1 car but it was decent of him to take the time.

I imagine that the Matt paintwork so beloved by the recent F1 generations might have a limited but similar effect; I don’t know if it’s true, but I was once told that air bound to a surface had a higher friction than air that could shear across the surface due to the minor imperfections

You mean like the dimples on a golf ball ?

[kiseca]

robinessex said:

C2Red said:

MuttWagon said:

garypotter said:

Thank you OP for your honest and interesting replies.

1 question - are you aware if any ideas come from outside the team, such as a fan emailing a crazy idea? or an five year old sending in a crayon drawing that has resulted in an item ended up on one of your race cars?

Personally i feel the Merc double steering angle was a brilliant idea i wonder who came up with that and if it was from another source..

I wrote to McLaren as a child as I had watched track cyclists on blue peter wearing dimpled crash helmets for better air flow and wondered why they didn't use that texture in F1. A few days later my Mum shouted up to my room telling me there was an engineer on the phone! He basically explained it was toffee due to the turbulent air around an F1 car but it was decent of him to take the time.

I imagine that the Matt paintwork so beloved by the recent F1 generations might have a limited but similar effect; I don’t know if it’s true, but I was once told that air bound to a surface had a higher friction than air that could shear across the surface due to the minor imperfections

You mean like the dimples on a golf ball ?

I think the dimples are only effective on an unaerodynamic basic shape - like a ball. Or maybe it's that they only work on a shape that is likely to be rotating while in motion. I forget.

I think it's significant that fast jets and fast projectiles - bullets, cannon and artillery shells - have a smooth surface - not dimpled - that isn't particularly shiny nor matt in finish. Military jets tend to stay away from shiny paintwork so they glinting away in the sunlight giving themselves away to anyone within 50 miles but Concorde was glossy and so are all other passenger jets. They'd benefit a lot more from a matt finish than a formula 1 car because they spend their lives at around 3 times a Formula 1 car's maximum speed, if a matt finish did actually have any benefit.

So, I'm no expert but my guess would be that dimpled, rough finishes and matt paint won't make a Formula 1 car more slippery.

Edited by kiseca on Thursday 18th March 18:58

[robinessex]

kiseca said:

robinessex said:

C2Red said:

MuttWagon said:

garypotter said:

Thank you OP for your honest and interesting replies.

1 question - are you aware if any ideas come from outside the team, such as a fan emailing a crazy idea? or an five year old sending in a crayon drawing that has resulted in an item ended up on one of your race cars?

Personally i feel the Merc double steering angle was a brilliant idea i wonder who came up with that and if it was from another source..

I wrote to McLaren as a child as I had watched track cyclists on blue peter wearing dimpled crash helmets for better air flow and wondered why they didn't use that texture in F1. A few days later my Mum shouted up to my room telling me there was an engineer on the phone! He basically explained it was toffee due to the turbulent air around an F1 car but it was decent of him to take the time.

I imagine that the Matt paintwork so beloved by the recent F1 generations might have a limited but similar effect; I don’t know if it’s true, but I was once told that air bound to a surface had a higher friction than air that could shear across the surface due to the minor imperfections

You mean like the dimples on a golf ball ?

I think the dimples are only effective on an unaerodynamic basic shape - like a ball. Or maybe it's that they only work on a shape that is likely to be rotating while in motion. I forget.

I think it's significant that fast jets and fast projectiles - bullets, cannon and artillery shells - have a smooth surface - not dimpled - that isn't particularly shiny nor matt in finish. Military jets tend to stay away from shiny paintwork so they glinting away in the sunlight giving themselves away to anyone within 50 miles but Concorde was glossy and so are all other passenger jets. They'd benefit a lot more from a matt finish than a formula 1 car because they spend their lives at around 3 times a Formula 1 car's maximum speed, if a matt finish did actually have any benefit.

So, I'm no expert but my guess would be that dimpled, rough finishes and matt paint won't make a Formula 1 car more slippery.

Edited by kiseca on Thursday 18th March 18:58

A Quick Google found this:-

British Airways has conducted a surface coating trial with one of their transatlantic route-dedicated Airbus A318 aircraft and report positive results.
As an alternative to aftermarket coatings, Lufthansa Technik AG and Airbus are experimenting with a paint application process that would emulate the drag reduction characteristics of shark skin. Using specialized application, stamping and drying techniques, tiny riblets are formed in the surface of the paint. At high speed, the riblets reduce drag by reducing turbulence perpendicular to the airflow.

Also Found:-

Surface Finishes, why are they not used on an F1 car

http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/dimpled_surface...

Aerodynamicists are often asked about ways to improve the performance of race cars using golf ball dimple effect, shark skin, riblets, super smooth surface finishes, bumble bee effect (hairy surfaces), etc. This is asked so often that we have decided to dedicate a small document to the subject, to explain some of these effects...........continues

Looks like the jury's still out on this one at the moment

[Halmyre]

kiseca said:

robinessex said:

C2Red said:

MuttWagon said:

garypotter said:

Thank you OP for your honest and interesting replies.

1 question - are you aware if any ideas come from outside the team, such as a fan emailing a crazy idea? or an five year old sending in a crayon drawing that has resulted in an item ended up on one of your race cars?

Personally i feel the Merc double steering angle was a brilliant idea i wonder who came up with that and if it was from another source..

I wrote to McLaren as a child as I had watched track cyclists on blue peter wearing dimpled crash helmets for better air flow and wondered why they didn't use that texture in F1. A few days later my Mum shouted up to my room telling me there was an engineer on the phone! He basically explained it was toffee due to the turbulent air around an F1 car but it was decent of him to take the time.

I imagine that the Matt paintwork so beloved by the recent F1 generations might have a limited but similar effect; I don’t know if it’s true, but I was once told that air bound to a surface had a higher friction than air that could shear across the surface due to the minor imperfections

You mean like the dimples on a golf ball ?

I think the dimples are only effective on an unaerodynamic basic shape - like a ball. Or maybe it's that they only work on a shape that is likely to be rotating while in motion. I forget.

I think it's significant that fast jets and fast projectiles - bullets, cannon and artillery shells - have a smooth surface - not dimpled - that isn't particularly shiny nor matt in finish. Military jets tend to stay away from shiny paintwork so they glinting away in the sunlight giving themselves away to anyone within 50 miles but Concorde was glossy and so are all other passenger jets. They'd benefit a lot more from a matt finish than a formula 1 car because they spend their lives at around 3 times a Formula 1 car's maximum speed, if a matt finish did actually have any benefit.

So, I'm no expert but my guess would be that dimpled, rough finishes and matt paint won't make a Formula 1 car more slippery.

Edited by kiseca on Thursday 18th March 18:58

I'm sure I read somewhere that in Concorde's case, a high-gloss finish for reflecting sunlight absorption was more important than a low-drag finish. When they painted them blue to advertise Pepsi, it seriously affected their ability to fly at its maximum speed for any length of time.

[AnonymousF1]

garypotter said:

Thank you OP for your honest and interesting replies.

1 question - are you aware if any ideas come from outside the team, such as a fan emailing a crazy idea? or an five year old sending in a crayon drawing that has resulted in an item ended up on one of your race cars?

You're welcome. Not to my knowledge.

[Sandpit Steve]

Halmyre said:

I'm sure I read somewhere that in Concorde's case, a high-gloss finish for reflecting sunlight absorption was more important than a low-drag finish. When they painted them blue to advertise Pepsi, it seriously affected their ability to fly at its maximum speed for any length of time.

They painted the fuselage blue but left the wings white in the Pepsi livery, but still faced speed and time restrictions due to heat buildup

https://simpleflying.com/pepsi-concorde-livery/

In regular service, that aircraft used to be about a foot longer in the air than on the ground, due to thermal expansion, which had to be catered for in the design. One aircraft now has a flight engineer’s cap stuck next to his panel, as the FE on the final flight put it there just before they slowed down for the last time...

[AnonymousF1]

Hugo Stiglitz said:

Damon Hill, Schumacher and others were well known for developing and setting up the cars, giving feedback along the way. Damon was a test driver for Williams first as well.

OP are you saying nowadays it's more about the car, really?

No, not at all. The cars are far more complicated now than the ones Damon and Michael drove. In particular, driver's are challenged on more cognitive levels (example, adjustments on steering wheel, whilst receiving/transmitting information on radio, whilst driving wheel to wheel on the open lap on cold tyres/high fuel). The best driver is one who can excel at all these things, at the same time.

Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lewis literally turns up at pre season testing and adjusts it to his taste?

Possibly. Although usually a driver would be in the factory ahead of the season start for a number of things - seat, steering wheel and chassis fitting/ergonomics, simulator, discussions with engineers, promotional work.

Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hes not in the factory at all, doing any test miles when it's out of the box raw and doesn't sit in extensive briefings?

There are extensive briefings and debriefing either side of each session. The drivers take part in these.

Edited by AnonymousF1 on Saturday 20th March 12:43

[AnonymousF1]

Total loss said:

I don't know about the fronts, they could be still fully mechanical, I've read before about F1 brakes being electrically activated, I assumed both front & rear?
I was being very simplistic with my explanation, probably too much, yes pedal feel is everything, not all drivers preferring the same set up, when you have different drivers driving the same car, some will say alls good and another will say the brakes require too much effort or the pedal is too long!

Fronts are conventional hydraulic operation, rears are hydraulically operated but via electronic control. This is known as BBW = Brake By Wire. It is regulatory and the same for every team.