Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

F1 Tehnika


  • Please log in to reply
274 replies to this topic

#16 alpiner

alpiner
  • Members
  • 10,845 posts

Posted 11 January 2009 - 21:43

Ilustracija uz Downforceov fenomenalni tekst


KERS builders Flybrid Systems(koristiće ga Williams) demonstrated a working Formula 1-spec device at the Autosport International show.

Posted Image
  • 0

#17 alpiner

alpiner
  • Members
  • 10,845 posts

Posted 11 January 2009 - 21:45

I McLaren startuje sezonu bez KERS-a?

McLaren test driver Gary Paffett has revealed that McLaren could still decide to run without its KERS device, despite the team holding an edge over rivals Ferrari in the arms race to develop the technology.

The controversial Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS), which harness waste energy under braking and convert it into additional power for the driver, are due to be introduced this year, but with less than three months before the start of the season only two teams, McLaren and BMW, are believed to be running to schedule with their development programme.

Ferrari have publicly disclosed that they are behind schedule and over budget, and it has been rumoured that that Italian team has abandoned its programme with electronics partner Magneti-Marelli altogether. President Luca di Montezemolo meanwhile has brandished the device as a “mistake” ruling out a possible application to road cars.

Renault and Toyota are also believed to be behind schedule. Toyota have said that it is unlikely they will begin the season with the device at all, while any problems at Renault have repercussions for its customer outfit Red Bull Racing.

Paffett, one of the first Formula One drivers to use the KERS technology, admits that with an increasing number of teams looking to start the season without the device, McLaren could follow suit – especially if the weight advantage of not using the system is too large.

“Yes, the rumours are that Ferrari are struggling with their KERS device, but there is no guarantee that everyone will be running the system anyway,” he told Forumula1.net at the Autosport International Show.

“Our system is coming on relatively well and we are happy with the development, but I can’t say that we will definitely run it. It all depends on the trade off between the weight and how much time it is going to give you. There is only a limited amount of lap time it can give you with the available power.

“Since the equipment is based at the rear of the car alongside other core components, there is possibly an advantage of running without the device and having a better car setup. It is going to be interesting. We haven’t made a final decision about whether to use it or not.”

The KERS devices were introduced by Formula One’s governing body, the FIA, primarily to make the sport more environmentally sustainable but also to increase overtaking.

Paffett is sceptical about whether KERS will deliver more overtaking and points to the possibility of the teams using the boost at the same part of the track to yield improvements in laptime.

“The amount of power you get is a fair amount and everybody is allowed to use the same amount of power for the same amount of time, over the course of the lap,” he said.

“Ultimately it’s down to the team to decide whether to use the additional power for overtaking or for lap time benefit.

“But if it’s for lap time then you could have an advantage of three tenths of a second per lap and the teams will likely use the boost in the same place. So whether it will be viable for overtaking I don’t know.”

The McLaren driver points instead to the new aerodynamic regulations which enforce a 50 per cent reduction in downforce as a more likely overtaking stimulus.

“The reduction in downforce will help the cars run closer, so that will aid overtaking. But it is still going to be limited. The cars are not going to suddenly be without downforce and run nose to tail.”

Almost all the teams are planning to use a battery to store and convert the waste energy, only Williams are known to be developing a flywheel version of the KERS device.

This puts doubt over whether KERS will have the intended environmental impact and FIA President Max Mosley has already suggested that a ban on chemical-based storage could be enforced.

“We are increasingly of the view that the use of chemical storage should be prohibited in Formula 1,” the FIA President said, “owing to the unsuitability of the batteries currently available.”

The current trend towards battery-based devices allied to the problems that the teams have been experiencing in their development programmes raises doubts about the long term future of KERS.
  • 0

#18 alpiner

alpiner
  • Members
  • 10,845 posts

Posted 14 January 2009 - 12:54

The importance of simulation in F1


Stefano Domenicali has been talking about Ferrari's plans for the coming season at the Wrooom ski event at Madonna di Campiglio in Italy.

Domenicali says that the cost-cutting initiatives that have been agreed have altered the way in which teams go about their business and getting the cars out early has been very important in order to maximise the testing before the in-season testing ban comes into effect. Much of the running in the next few weeks will be to gather data which can then be used for the simulations that will replace circuit testing.

Domenicali says that Ferrari's budget this year is lower than in the past but says that there will be investment in more simulation technology.

"Each team decides how much to spend and what are the useful investments for the racing team and for the production cars," he said.

It is believed that Ferrari is working to expand its computational fluid dynamics capabilities but there is also major work going on to create a fullscale F1 simulator. McLaren is believed to be the only F1 currently using a dynamic simulator at the moment, but teams are incredibly secretive about what they are doing and the Woking team will not even confirm this. The team is believed to have spent as much as $40m on this and worked with British Aerospace engineers. The driver sits in a full-size F1 monocoque, in front of a large, curved plasma screen on which are projected images of the race tracks. The whole unit is mounted on a device called a hexapod, which is a motion platform which features six independently-actuated legs, the lengths of which change in order to orient the platform. Sound and imagery add to the environment created. Some of the simulators induce sickness because of a discrepancy between the perception of visual motion and the corresponding motion cues experienced by the human body. This has led engineers to develop dynamic simulators, which have the entire hexapod moving around to meet the body's need for the sensation of real motion. This means that a simulator is about the size of a professional basketball court with the simulation unit moving around inside it. This is so effective that drivers are able to establish car set-ups before teams ever go near to the race tracks involved.
  • 0

#19 alpiner

alpiner
  • Members
  • 10,845 posts

Posted 14 January 2009 - 19:37

Domenicali tvrdi da je BMW jedini tim koji ne želi odlaganje KERS-a

14 January 2009 by Keith Collantine

Ferrari boss Stefano Domenicali has named BMW as the obstacle to deferring KERS technology in Formula 1.

The Maranello based team has been perhaps the most vocal opponent of the controversial energy reuse technology, but most teams actually wanted to delay the voluntary deployment for another year.

In the F1 teams’ alliance FOTA, however, total unanimity is necessary for measures to be adopted immediately.

“We specified that resolutions must be reached unanimously,” Domenicali confirmed at the Madonna di Campiglio ski event in the Italian Dolomites.

“But sometimes you have to compromise as well,” he is quoted as saying by the German news agency SID. “Everyone could accept that, except BMW.

“Only if we all work together will the future of F1 be rosy, rather than dark, as we are experiencing now,” Domenicali charged.

He insists that the track debut of Ferrari’s KERS on Monday went well, “however it is the wrong moment to introduce such a complex system”.

“It has nothing to do with Formula 1. A lot of money has been thrown out of the window,” Domenicali added.
  • 0

#20 alpiner

alpiner
  • Members
  • 10,845 posts

Posted 01 February 2009 - 10:15

Technical analysis: Diffuser debacle
By Craig Scarborough Saturday, January 31st 2009, 15:24 GMT



This week a row has erupted over the design of two teams' diffusers, after the new Williams and Toyota emerged sporting radically different diffuser designs to the other cars launched so far.

Williams came up with a 'double decker' diffuser design, while Toyota initially tested an extension to the middle of their diffuser, and then later added a double decker section of their own. Both these designs raised eyebrows up and down the pitlane, as they appear to stretch the wording of the new rules.
Posted Image

Having spoken to both teams' technical directors at the Portimao test, neither feels their designs are that different to their rivals' and clearly both are confident that they are not contravening the regulations.

As part of the 2009 package of aerodynamic rule changes designed to reduce downforce and increase overtaking, the FIA mandated a smaller diffuser in a more rearward position.

With the shock of losing 50 per cent of their downforce because of these changes, teams have been working hard to get the bodywork shaped to the new rules to regain the lost downforce.

One of the critical elements in making a diffuser work is internal volume, so the new regulations now limit the main part of the diffuser to a width of 1000mm, a length of 350mm and a height of 175mm - as seen on the McLaren in the picture.
Posted Image

However the diffuser rules are simply a section of the wider bodywork regulations, which also include sections which allow bodywork in areas not intended for the diffuser. Williams and Toyota have exploited these areas with their new cars. No doubt other teams know of these loopholes, but have yet to run their interpretations.

There are two interpretations of the regulations being exploited with these diffusers.

1) Both cars appear to use the same loophole that allowed the teams to run an extra channel above their diffuser under the outgoing rules.

Although the rules now demand a diffuser height of 175mm above the reference plane, this is measured from below - using the 'bodywork facing the ground' articles in the rules. Therefore the actual diffuser can be taller, if they can get around the second paragraph of the article 3.12.7 that demands a continuous line where it meets the flat floor at the axle line.

This is an ambiguous rule which appears to allow more than one surface to exist in this area. Thus both teams have been able to create a double decker diffuser, their main diffuser (highlighted in yellow) is as long, wide and tall as the rules allow (the red line), but they have made the middle section stop short of meeting the flat floor - instead the floor extends into the upper diffuser (shown in green).
Posted Image

This is a creative way of interpreting the F1's Technical Regulations as outlined below:

Article 3.5.2: The width of bodywork behind the rear wheel centre line and more than 200mm above the reference plane must not exceed 750mm.

Article 3.12.7: No bodywork which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear wheel centre line and a point 350mm rearward of it may be more than 175mm above the reference plane. Any intersection of the surfaces in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car.

Williams and Toyota's interpretation has a precedent, as it was exploited by most teams last year. The area above the lower diffuser is covered in article 3.5.2, which allows bodywork to be up to 200mm above the reference plane (25mm higher than the lower diffuser) and as wide as 750mm.

This can create about 10 per cent more diffuser exit area, and the higher expansion of the flow through the diffuser creates more downforce. A couple of teams have questioned whether this interpretation is allowed under the current rules, although it is not thought any has lodged a formal question with the FIA.

2) Toyota have an additional diffuser aft of the main diffuser (shown in blue). This sits in a 150mm wide area that is intended for the rear crash structure and rear wing mounts. The same area has been exploited in recent years with small winglets mounted atop the rear crash structure.
Posted Image


Although the rules demand no bodywork above 175mm, this only applies to the area between the rear axle line and point 350mm behind it: article 3.10.4 creates a void between 350mm and 500mm behind the axle.

This extra 150mm x 150mm area can be up to 400mm high, some 225mm taller than intended for the diffuser, and it is this area that Toyota have taken advantage of. Again the taller exit creates more potential for downforce.

In addition, the rule also allows this part to extend beyond 500mm (behind the axle line) as long as it sits alongside the rear impact structure (200mm and 400mm above the reference plane). This is an area yet to be exploited by any team's diffuser:

Article 3.10.5 states: Any parts of the car less than 75mm from the car centre line and more than 500mm behind the rear wheel centre line must be situated between 200mm and 400mm above the reference plane.

Teams often approach the FIA during the design process to clarify whether their interpretations of grey areas are within the regulations, although in this instance sources have informed autosport.com that neither Williams nor Toyota submitted their design to the governing body - although Toyota are believed to have exchanged correspondence with the governing body regarding diffusers.

Interestingly, FIA sources have revealed that a diffuser design related to the current intrigue has been approved - although it has not been confirmed whether this is one used by Williams or Toyota.

Testing is not bound by the technical regulations, so the issue could continue to be debated until the opening race. Melbourne is the first time that the cars are formally scrutineered, and the first opportunity for any protest to be lodged - although it is possible that the FIA could clarify its view of the rules in question before Melbourne.
  • 0

#21 alpiner

alpiner
  • Members
  • 10,845 posts

Posted 08 April 2009 - 10:51

KERS not to blame for teams' struggles

Wed 08 Apr, 10:09 AM


A cursory assessment tells another tale, but KERS is not responsible for the struggles of some teams this season, Pedro de la Rosa insists.

At the opening two races of 2009, only seven cars used the voluntary energy recovery technology, while fully non-KERS teams including Brawn, Toyota and Williams excelled.

Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen grappled with his malfunctioning KERS unit throughout the Sepang weekend, and Fernando Alonso believes Renault should reconsider its deployment of the heavy technology prior to China.

But McLaren test driver de la Rosa told Spain's Marca newspaper: "Our problems are in other areas, not KERS.”

"If it was just a matter of getting rid of it and going faster, we would have done that already," the Spaniard added.

"We are not using it for commercial reasons or anything like that, it is simply that it makes us faster. The balance of the car is almost identical with or without (KERS). It does not harm us," de la Rosa insisted.

It is also true that, while assessing the wisdom of deploying KERS, Alonso burst up the grid from ninth to third at the start in Malaysia.

Williams is fine-tuning a unique flywheel-based system, and Technical Director Sam Michael said: "We want it on our car as soon as possible."

Kubica: "I think KERS is advantageous in race situations like overtaking and defending your position - and defnitely for the start."

"The distance from the start line to the first corner made for bigger gains for KERS cars at the start in Malaysia, but you could already see in Melbourne that KERS does make a difference. If you take the situation between Fernando Alonso and Timo Glock, Fernando was much slower, but he was boosting on every straight and Timo just didn't have the opportunity to pass.

Edited by alpiner, 08 April 2009 - 10:55.

  • 0

#22 Trofej

Trofej
  • Members
  • 4,307 posts

Posted 03 August 2009 - 18:18

Zamolio bih Downforce-a ili nekog drugog da, ako znaju, nama laicima pojednostavljeno objasne taj difuzor, sta je tu toliko revolucionarno. Jer, secajuci se Lotusa 79 nekad, shvatam koliki je, danas, uticaj aerodinamike. A Brown je bas dominirao zbog difuzora.
Znaci, sto prostije, jednostavnije, srpski... da ako je ikako moguce skontam tu zagonetku. Gledao sam seme, ali nisam ukapirao. Hvala unapred.
  • 0

#23 Rad-oh-yeah?

Rad-oh-yeah?
  • Members
  • 17,714 posts

Posted 03 August 2009 - 18:36

Zamolio bih Downforce-a ili nekog drugog da, ako znaju, nama laicima pojednostavljeno objasne taj difuzor, sta je tu toliko revolucionarno. Jer, secajuci se Lotusa 79 nekad, shvatam koliki je, danas, uticaj aerodinamike. A Brown je bas dominirao zbog difuzora.
Znaci, sto prostije, jednostavnije, srpski... da ako je ikako moguce skontam tu zagonetku. Gledao sam seme, ali nisam ukapirao. Hvala unapred.

Difuzor ti je upravo slicno onim Venturijima sto je imao Lotus 79, ali je mnogo manji i nalazi se pozadi a ne po bokovima bolida. Generise aero-silu tako sto izvlaci vazduh ispod bolida i "lepi" ga za stazu.

Ove godine je ogranicena aero-sila prianjanja (a povecana mehanicka - otuda sad slikovi) pa su i maksimalne dozvoljene dimenzije difuzora smanjene, takodje i njegovo pozicionisanje je strozije definisano. Sve u cilju da se smanji njegova efikasnost.

Neki timovi su se zato dosetili da okace difuzore koji odgovaraju dimenzijama ali da takodje oblikuju ostale elemente na repu bolida tako da deluju u skladu sa postojecim difuzorom (koji je sam po sebi unutar dimenzija utvrdjenih pravilima - znaci legalan), i na taj nacin prakticno dobiju jedan slozeni difuzor vece zapremine nego sto je to predvidjeno.

Bron je za to koristio kuciste menjaca iznad samog difuzora da bi ga povecali u visinu.

Tojota je koristila kres strukturu i nosace zadnjeg krila i svetla da bi produzili difuzor unazad.

Vilijamsovo resenje je bilo negde izmedju ova dva.

Sa druge strane Red Bul je originalno probao jedno manje efikasno resenje a to je da produzavanjem bocnih povrsina zadnjeg krila prema dole zatvori prostor sa strane gde vazduh ulazi preko zadnjeg ogibljenja prema difuzoru i na taj nacin mu poveca dejstvo.

Sada vec svi timovi (osim mozda Fors Indije) imaju neko resenje na ove fore koje zaobilazi duh pravila ali ostaje u okvirima slova pravila.
  • 0

#24 EunosCosmo

EunosCosmo
  • Members
  • 483 posts

Posted 03 August 2009 - 20:12

Po meni je problem baš u tom "Zaobilaženju duha pravila"!
Ovim nije smanjena aerodinamička sila prijanjanja i otklanjanje "prljavog vazduha". To je bio najveći problem predhodne decenije, koji su konstruktori želeli da reše. Hteli su da vrate preticanje na stazi (ne kroz pit lane) u F1.
Samim time, trud konstruktora da naprave bolide koji mogu preticati, pada u vodu, zbog poštovanja "slova pravila"!!!!
...i eto nas opet na početku, jer je obnovljen "Konkordski sporazum".
  • 0

#25 Trofej

Trofej
  • Members
  • 4,307 posts

Posted 03 August 2009 - 21:28

Lotus 79 mi je bio jasan, ali ovo nije - pa zar nisu svi znali znacaj toga? Nije mi jasno cime je to Brown napravio rsum tokom prve polovine sezone, znam da je difuzor, ali kako? Sta je to toliko specificno da Ferrari, McLaren i ostali ni s kersom nisu mogli ni da mu primirisu? Cini mi se da je taj dupli difuzor bio ubojiti nego Lotusovi bokovi i zavesice.
  • 0

#26 Rad-oh-yeah?

Rad-oh-yeah?
  • Members
  • 17,714 posts

Posted 03 August 2009 - 23:51

Po meni je problem baš u tom "Zaobilaženju duha pravila"!
Ovim nije smanjena aerodinamička sila prijanjanja i otklanjanje "prljavog vazduha". To je bio najveći problem predhodne decenije, koji su konstruktori želeli da reše. Hteli su da vrate preticanje na stazi (ne kroz pit lane) u F1.
Samim time, trud konstruktora da naprave bolide koji mogu preticati, pada u vodu, zbog poštovanja "slova pravila"!!!!
...i eto nas opet na početku, jer je obnovljen "Konkordski sporazum".

Jeste, povecava se dejstvo "prljavog vazduha" ali ni priblizno u onolikoj meri koliko je to bilo ranijih godina. Sta ce ti bolji dokaz od prosle trke - alo, Madjarska gde se obilazi!!! Mislim da smo na ovoj trci videli vise preticanja za poziciju nego tokom prethodnih 10 sezona ukupno.

Ono zbog cega sada bolidi imaju problema sa preticanjem, a videlo se lepo na trci u Silverstonu, i bice verovatno isto i u Monci, je limiter broja obrtaja motora. Taman kad mu udjes u zavetrinu i kad te povuce, i kad bi trebalo da izadjes u stranu i samo prozujis pored njega, tebi motor dodje do limitera i jednostavno ostanes na istoj maksimalnoj brzini kao taj sto ga pokusavas obici. I naravno da nema nista od obilazenja.

Lotus 79 mi je bio jasan, ali ovo nije - pa zar nisu svi znali znacaj toga? Nije mi jasno cime je to Brown napravio rsum tokom prve polovine sezone, znam da je difuzor, ali kako? Sta je to toliko specificno da Ferrari, McLaren i ostali ni s kersom nisu mogli ni da mu primirisu? Cini mi se da je taj dupli difuzor bio ubojiti nego Lotusovi bokovi i zavesice.


Pa otprilike je jednako ubojito i jedno i drugo. Mislim, svi su znali da povecanjem zapremine difuzora povecavaju i njegovu efikasnost, ali se Bron prvi setio kako to da uradi a da ostane u slovu pravila.

Ono sto je interesantno je da je ova ideja zapravo potekla iz Super Aguri tima, i da je nakon njihovog zatvaranja Honda preuzela njihovu konstruktorsku ekipu koja je radila na ovom Bronovom (ustvari: Hondinom) bolidu. Nakon sto je postalo jasno da Hinda nece nastaviti da se takmici deo otpustenih radnika je nasao posao u Tojoti gde im je prodalo foru a Tojota je prosledila Vilijamsu zajedno sa motorima. Otuda ova tri tima sa ovakvim resenjem.

Red Bul je dosao na slicnu ali ipak znacajno drugaciju ideju (mada su i oni navodno razmatrali resenje poput Bronovog) a u Renou tvrde da su pre pocetka sezone pitali u FIA da li je tako sta legalno pa im je receno da nije.

Ostali se nisu ni setili da pokusaju na ovaj nacin da izvrdaju pravila.

Ovo do sada je sve legitimno i OK, jer u duhu F1 je oduvek bilo da se u okviru slova pravila pronadje sto vise rupa i sto vise nacina da se tehnicki sto dalje odgura. Ovakve inovacije su upravo ono sto je u zlatno doba F1 radio Kolin Cepmen i slicni velikani - prvi stavio motor kao deo nosece konstrukcije sasije, prvi stavio krila, prvi primenio venturije i zavesice... - i zbog toga ja ne mogu apsolutno nista da zamerim Bronu i ostalima sto su se super snasli.

E sad, u cemu je problem: kad su se ovi bolidi prvi put pojavili na testiranjima, cetiri meseca pre pocetka sezone, svi ostali timovi su zatrazili misljenje FIA o legitimnosti difuzora. Da se tada presudi, pa ako je OK da i ostali krenu da ih razvijaju, a ako nije OK da ovi sto ih imaju mogu da predizajniraju zadnji deo bolida na vreme za prvu trku sezone. Ali, FIA je jednostavno odbila da donese sud i rekla je timovima da podnesu zvanicnu zalbu na prvoj trci sezone pa da ce onda razmotriti. Razlog za ovakvu odluku FIA je bio cisti pokusaj da se unese razdor medju timove koji su u tom momentu predstavljali jedinstveni front protiv FIA i Mozlijevih pokusaja za nametanje budzetskih ogranicenja i novih tehnickih pravila (sto sam spomenuo na onoj drugoj temi).
  • 0

#27 Trofej

Trofej
  • Members
  • 4,307 posts

Posted 04 August 2009 - 10:46

Ima li neke fotke Brona iz zablje perspektive, da od ispod vidim taj difuzor? Meni je jasan princip, ali ne i kako to izgleda. Jer, 6 pobeda u 7 trka ja ne pripisujem Batonu nego difuzoru.
  • 0

#28 Rad-oh-yeah?

Rad-oh-yeah?
  • Members
  • 17,714 posts

Posted 04 August 2009 - 16:16

Ima li neke fotke Brona iz zablje perspektive, da od ispod vidim taj difuzor? Meni je jasan princip, ali ne i kako to izgleda. Jer, 6 pobeda u 7 trka ja ne pripisujem Batonu nego difuzoru.

Sad vec svi imaju nesto slicno, manje-vise ti svejedno kojeg gledas otpozadi.

Evo ti vrlo pojednostavljena sema koja pokazuje razliku izmedju doslovno i "kreativno" interpretiranih pravila. Gore je klasican difuzor, dole je resenje slicno Bronovom. Sam difuzor je u ovom slucaju zapravo cak i manji nego sto je maksimalno dozvoljeno ali u sklopu sa ostalim delovima na repu bolida formira tu ekstra komoru gore pa ukupno gledano dobijas vecu zapreminu:

Posted Image

Evo ti jedan malo stariji video koji u detalje objasnjava o cemu se radi:

http://www.f1fanatic...xplained-video/

Evo ti ga Tojotin - primeti da je u centralnom delu ispod svetla produzen unazad:

Posted Image

Ovo s leva je Bron gde se dboro vidi ta ekstra komora, a desno je originalno resenje na Ferariju sa pocetka sezone bez tih spornih varijanti, vidis da je skroz ravan:

Posted Image

Inace, Bronov bolid je bio generalno dobar, jer mu ni Tojota ni Vilijams nisu mogli ni prismrdeti a i oni su imali "kreativne" difuzore. Tako da nije sve bas toliko jednostavno da bi se moglo pripisati jednom spornom detalju.
  • 0

#29 Trofej

Trofej
  • Members
  • 4,307 posts

Posted 04 August 2009 - 19:52

Hvala na trudu, polako shvatam...
  • 0

#30 Trofej

Trofej
  • Members
  • 4,307 posts

Posted 11 August 2009 - 11:53

Evo odlicnih fotki difuzora sa trke u Budimpesti 2009.
http://www.schlegelm....php?topshots=1
  • 0