Jump to content

- - - - -

F1 Tehnika

  • Please log in to reply
286 replies to this topic

#271 Rad-oh-yeah?

  • Members
  • 20,891 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 20:10

Povratak ajkulinog peraja me je postakao da tragam za ranijim izdanjima i na koncu sam sproveo istraživanje. 46 bolida su tokom istorije u jednom momentu imala ovo rešenje.

Einar Alm iz Finske u svojoj specijalki na bazi Forda na VN Estonije 1936. (slika skroz dole):




Ovo bi se moglo nazvati ekstremnim primerom ajkulinog peraja (u pitanju je Granpri bolid-jednosed, da ne bude zabune!), a ovaj zanimljiv eksperiment nije dao zeljeni rezultat jer iako je ovakav bolid bio vrlo aerodinamican ogromne bocne povrsine su bile preosetljive na udare vetra sto je izazivalo probleme sa upravljivoscu. Nakon samo par pojavljivanja u ovakvo ruhu bolid je konvertovan ponovo u konvencionalnu konfiguraciju.

  • 1

#272 /13/Ален Шмит/

/13/Ален Шмит/
  • Members
  • 4,224 posts

Posted 03 April 2017 - 12:01

Odlican vebinar o aerodinamici u Formuli 1


Edit, na mobilnom ne mogu kvalitetno embedovati video.

Edited by /13/Ален Шмит/, 03 April 2017 - 12:59.

  • 0

#273 /13/Ален Шмит/

/13/Ален Шмит/
  • Members
  • 4,224 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 20:02

Halo shelved as Formula 1 picks 'shield' for 2018 cockpit device

Formula 1 is set to ditch the halo cockpit protection system and prioritise the newly-introduced 'shield' concept for 2018.

The decision was taken in Tuesday's Strategy Group and F1 Commission meeting in Paris.

The halo had originally been on course for introduction this season before being postponed for further testing and an intended 2018 debut following a previous unanimous Strategy Group vote.

But the device, which teams trialled during practice sessions last year, had divided opinion.


During the Chinese Grand Prix weekend earlier this month, the alternative shield concept - a see-through screen that would not cover all of the cockpit - was presented by the FIA during the Friday drivers' briefing.

It has now emerged as the favoured choice, with the FIA stating: "A number of more integrated solutions for additional frontal protection have been studied, and the decision has been taken to give priority to the transparent 'shield' family of systems.

"The FIA aims to carry out track tests of this system during this season in preparation for implementation in 2018."

Touted as a better compromise between safety and aesthetics than the halo or Red Bull's proposed aeroscreen concept, the shield drew mixed reviews when shown to drivers.

Daniil Kvyat, Kevin Magnussen and Romain Grosjean were among the sceptics about both the shield and the general need for cockpit protection, while Felipe Massa urged critics to prioritise safety over aesthetics.



Zapravo Formula E će sledeće godine preteći Formulu 1 u revoluciji zaštite glave vozača i sad FIA pokušava navrat nanos uspostaviti spomenutu zaštitu u F1 pre FE. Što bi moglo da se pokaže kao katastrofalna stvar jer za neke stvari treba vremena. Formula E jako ljuti Formulu 1 jer s zbrzanim formatom trkačkog vikneda mogu raditi i implementirati stvari puno brže od F1. Na primer, staklo nove zaštite vozača se neće tako brzo uprljati na FE bolidu u odnosu na F1 jer su sesije kraće i sl. također Bernijev san o Londonu, Nju Jorku, Parizu, Hong Kongu pa i neki drugi kao trka u Africi je uzeo Agag. Komično Agag je napravio eTrku od milion dolara u Las Vegasu, ono što je Berni sanjao da uradi s F1 ali u stvarnom svetu, ko da je Agag to uradio s rešenicom "it's something". Mada je ovo samo moje skromno mišljenje i mislim da se F1 ne trka s FE..

Edited by /13/Ален Шмит/, 25 April 2017 - 20:25.

  • 0

#274 /13/Ален Шмит/

/13/Ален Шмит/
  • Members
  • 4,224 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 14:50

S AMuSa, Google Translate u akciji..

Shield tests in Monza and Singapore

The Formula 1 commission has halted the halo. At the same time, the FIA ​​announced that it would extensively test the "Shield" replacement solution in order to deploy it in 2018. Crucial is the judgment of the drivers.

The halo is dead, long live the shield. This is the same way to describe the recent decision of the Formula 1 Commission. Halo, known as "Halo" around the cockpit, was not approved by the teams and half of the drivers. Just as not the Red Bull shield presented a year ago in Sochi.
The FIA, under the direction of Laurent Meckies, has been working on a replacement solution for quite some time. It is a one-meter-long protective PVC shield integrated into the chassis. It should be able to defend flying objects from a maximum of one kilogram up to 225 km / h from the car and thus the driver. The project internally operates under the name "Shield" at the FIA.
The shield is visually the most beautiful solution
Until now, the protection screen was only presented to the teams and the drivers. Auto motor and sport has seen the sketches of the Shield. Of all solutions used so far, it is by far the most elegant. The disc, which is curved in the middle, begins where the nose passes into the chassis and runs in a line just above the chassis, behind the front cockpit edge. The sides of the disc are flush with the neck guard.
Before the shield regulation, it has to be tested in four stages. The first consists of computer simulations, followed by an accident in the laboratory . The disk is bombarded with a ball at the appropriate speed to see if it is holding. The third step takes place in the boxing race. The FIA ​​wants to check whether the drivers are disabled when entering and exiting.
The last part of the test series is the decisive one. The drivers will try the Shield in two Friday sessions to find out if the visibility is impaired. There are already concerns that the windscreen starts in the rain and turns the already already poor visibility into a total blind flight. If the timetable is observed, the driving tests will happen in Monza and Singapore.
Pilots not yet excited
The driver's judgment depends on whether the Shield is introduced in 2018. So far, the pilots are still cautious. "The Shield certainly looks better than the Halo - at least as far as the visual impression is concerned, but we have to try out on the track how it feels in the car," said Valtteri Bottas.
Daniel Ricciardo also commented on the decision of the FIA: "The first impression is okay, but now we have to start with the development, only then can we say more."

  • 0

#275 Rad-oh-yeah?

  • Members
  • 20,891 posts

Posted 19 June 2017 - 12:10

  • 0

#276 Rad-oh-yeah?

  • Members
  • 20,891 posts

Posted 28 July 2017 - 12:49


  • 0

#277 Rad-oh-yeah?

  • Members
  • 20,891 posts

Posted 03 October 2017 - 16:06

  • 0

#278 alpiner

  • Members
  • 11,204 posts

Posted 06 October 2017 - 22:01

Biometric gloves to help monitor drivers in 2018!






Always on the cutting edge of technology, Formula 1 will introduce a biometric glove for drivers next season which will monitor several medical factors.

The technology includes a small sensor stitched inside a driver's glove capable of measuring pulse rate and oxygen levels in the blood, two parameters essential in addressing a driver's medical condition in the event of an accident.

Ultimately, the technology, which is supported by the Global Institute for Motor Sport safety, will also have the ability to monitor body temperature and respiratory rate.

Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull drivers tested the special biometric glove in Hungary this summer.

In an interview with the FIA's in-house magazine Auto, FIA Deputy Medical Delegate Dr Ian Roberts spoke of the merits of the technology and its purpose.


"We know that the monitoring of people is essential in terms of their medical care," he said.
"Drivers in incidents are no different. We would like to start monitoring and assessing them as soon as we possibly can.

"But the equipment that we currently use is relatively bulky and is only applied after the incident has happened.

"There are also times when the driver isn’t immediately accessible to us, so if we can’t see him or we’re not actually next to him, there’s limited information that we can get."

As an example of the technology's function and use, Roberts pointed towards Carlos Sainz' accident in practice in Russia in 2015, when the Spaniard was trapped under a barrier, making his condition impossible to assess.

"Accurate monitoring was impossible until we got hands-on, and obviously we couldn’t do that until the barriers were moved," he said.

"If we had monitoring on him straight away we could have planned our rescue even better than we did.

"With this new technology, the moment a driver has an incident we will receive physiological readings and biometrics, so he is continually monitored from point zero right through to the initial response and on to the medical center."



Edited by alpiner, 06 October 2017 - 22:02.

  • 2

#279 Rad-oh-yeah?

  • Members
  • 20,891 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 15:32

TECH TUESDAY: How F1’s smaller teams influence the big boys
27 Mar 2018

You might think that it’s F1’s bigger-budget teams - with more resources at their disposal - that set all of the sport’s technical trends, and the rest just follow. But actually, it often happens the other way around, as Mark Hughes and Giorgio Piola explain…

It’s not unusual to see a James Allison or Adrian Newey casting an eye over the designs of cars from the smaller teams as they gather upon the dummy grid or in the parc ferme area. For although the big team resources inevitably find the most effective interpretation of the regulations overall, often a small team can come up with detail innovation that simply hadn’t been thought of elsewhere and which is then copied and integrated on the cars of bigger teams.

The cooling slats on Williams' 2016 FW38. © Giorgio Piola

A good example of this process in action can be seen by looking at the slatted cooling outlets introduced around the cockpit by Williams in 2016 (see above). By releasing some of the hot air surrounding the radiators into an area of low aerodynamic sensitivity, the cooling slats formed by the overlapping bodywork around the cockpit sides of the Williams FW38 allowed the main radiator inlets at the front (and the outlets at the back) to be smaller and thereby less aerodynamically costly.

The horizontal gills worked in conjunction with the twin vertical slats behind. It was a detail very much part of the low-drag Williams philosophy of the time. The fast air from the free airstream moving over the top of the cockpit will be drawing the hot air from the gills faster, increasing the speed of the flow past the radiators, helping minimise their size.

Hot air from the horizontal gills forward of the vertical slats will also be extracted harder, as the flow is encouraged to merge with that exiting from the slats further back, which is itself being accelerated by the airflow coming over the top of the cockpit sides. Essentially, the three flows are being encouraged to merge into one, making for greater aerodynamic efficiency. The disruption of the air exiting the horizontal gills can also help reduce the lift created on what is quite a bluff part of the sidepod bodywork.

The Williams-aping colling slats on Mercedes' 2017 W08. © Giorgio Piola

Knowing a good thing when they’d seen it, in 2017 Mercedes adopted the same principle on their world championship-winning W08 (as shown above). But they didn’t merely copy – they refined the idea further by raising the whole section containing the horizontal gills, to enhance the effect of reducing the aerodynamic lift that tends to be induced by that part of the bodywork.

The introduction of the halo for 2018 has changed the airflow around the cockpit area and this is reflected in the further refinement of the original Williams principle on the current Mercedes W09 (shown below). The twin slats have been replaced by one bigger slat which is now inset into a contoured dip in the bodywork aft of the slat which will induce a low pressure area, pulling the air through yet faster. It can be seen how the contouring of the bodywork connecting the gills to the slat is encouraging the merging of the two flows.

Mercedes further refined their slat solution this year. © Giorgio Piola

Innovating in tandem

A slightly different example of small team innovation was evident last year. When Mercedes introduced their W08 they were proud of an innovation they had made with the mounting of the front suspension whereby the upper wishbone picked up from an extension to the wheel hub that allowed the wishbone to be mounted much higher, enhancing the airflow headed for the radiators (shown below).

The Mercedes W08 featured a novel front suspension layout - but it turned out it wasn't unique... © Giorgio Piola

But Mercedes were then disappointed to note that the little Toro Rosso team had made the exact same innovation on their STR12 (shown below).

Independent of Mercedes, Toro Rosso introduced a very similar front suspension concept on the STR11. © Giorgio Piola

This choice of mounting the top wishbone on an extension to the hub is intrinsic to the choice of where the radiator inlets are placed. With a conventional mounting of the wishbone, the radiator inlets tend to be higher in the sidepods, with the main airflow to them going over the top of the upper wishbone.

This year, Sauber have followed Mercedes' and Toro Rosso's lead with their front suspension design. © Giorgio Piola

Mounting the upper wishbone higher gives the airflow a passage beneath, one which allows the radiator inlets to be lower. It’s a principle that’s been retained by both Mercedes and Toro Rosso this year and adopted also by Sauber on the new C37 (shown above). Toro Rosso’s former designer Luca Fubatto was recruited to Sauber last year and his influence can be seen also in the similarity between the aero vanes on the front suspension of 2016’s Toro Rosso and the current Sauber, which features an enhancement of the idea, with two vanes (arrowed) now working in conjunction.

Similar details to those seen on Toro Rosso's STR11 can now be seen on the 2018 Sauber. © Giorgio Piola

The STR11 featured a small single vane (indicated by the red arrow in the picture above) that aligned the airflow coming off the front wing outwards towards fins that kept the disturbed wake of the front wheels separate from the airflow further inboard heading for the barge boards and sidepods. How the suspension vanes connect up the flow to those fins further back can be seen in the Sauber illustration.   

It all goes to show, when it comes to innovation in F1, every team is pushing the limits, no matter what their resources.

  • 0

#280 Rad-oh-yeah?

  • Members
  • 20,891 posts

Posted 04 May 2018 - 16:06

How Formula 1 teams have jumped upon a floor loophole

By: Giorgio Piola, Technical Editor
Co-author: Matt Somerfield, Assistant Technical Editor
3 hours ago

Formula 1's rule book has expanded massively over the years, and has got increasingly more complicated as new regulations have been added or evolved.

One consequence of a constantly changing rule book is that sometimes rules can end up contradicting each other – or a clause aimed to stamp out a certain design gets made irrelevant.

This is something that happened with the 2017 floor rules, as a regulation originally intended to stop teams exploiting holes in the floor was made inconsequential.

That's because when the floor width was increased from 1400mm to 1600mm last year, a separate clause banning teams from having holes 700mm from the car's centreline was suddenly made irrelevant.

Teams quickly realised that without it being updated to reference an 800mm lockdown, there was a 100mm area on the edge of the floor where they were free to utilise holes again.

And it is Ferrari that has led the charge, with the most complete concept in perfecting the holes in the floor evident on its 2018 car (see below), although other teams are now copying in their own unique ways.

Ferrari SF71H new floor
Photo by: Giorgio Piola

The value of the holes

The use of slots or holes ahead of the rear wheel are used to combat 'tyre squirt' and improve diffuser performance – and all teams now make use of them to a greater or lesser extent.

The rotation and deformation of the rear tyres put the surrounding airflow into a constant state of chaos, resulting in airflow being pushed - or 'squirted' - laterally into the diffuser's path.

Left unchecked, this robs the diffuser of peak performance and creates inconsistencies, both of which impede the driver's progress.

For years now, designers have sought ways of controlling the turbulence created by the rear tyres, utilizing various floor shapes, holes, slots, strakes and even exhaust gases in order to sculpt the airflow's direction whilst also enhancing the diffuser's edge vortex.

For teams, the difference between a slot and a hole may appear inconsequential to the eye, but the difference in performance between a rigid hole and a slot that loses performance as the floor deforms under load can be quite big.

As an example of the performance on offer, Ferrari ran several iterations of these slots during 2017, numbering anything from three to six slots with various lengths and angles used in order to deal with the given circuit characteristics.

Red Bull RB8 floor protested, small slot for legality (right inset)
Photo by: Giorgio Piola

The last team to run fully enclosed holes in this area of the floor were Red Bull in 2012 (left inset), when in quite controversial circumstances its design helped the team win in Monaco.

That victory prompted unease from some of its rivals and there were threats of a post-race protest, but in the end the other teams did not see that through.

However, the FIA's stance was subsequently clarified over what would be considered legal, a situation that led to the slots we've come to know.

Ferrari SF71H floor slots
Photo by: Giorgio Piola

The last Ferrari to use fully enclosed holes ahead of the rear tyre was the F10 from the 2010 season, latterly used in tandem with its exhaust blown diffuser.

McLaren MCL33 Renault floor detail
Photo by: Sutton Images

While Ferrari is not the only team to utilise the enclosed tyre squirt holes – as a glance down the grid shows most other teams are doing so also – it is the only team that has specifically designed its cars around this concept.

Other teams have spotted what Ferrari has been up to, and have made moved to seal off the edges of their previous slots – as can be seen in the McLaren image above.

This is far from an optimised solution though and means that Ferrari has stolen a march on its rivals in the short term.

However, expect Ferrari's rivals to come up with more bespoke solution when the raft of major updates appear from the Spanish Grand Prix.

  • 0

#281 Rad-oh-yeah?

  • Members
  • 20,891 posts

Posted 21 June 2018 - 19:33

  • 0

#282 leone

  • Members
  • 3,608 posts

Posted 18 July 2018 - 17:08

Tehnologija, boliglava cijene razne opreme, obseg cijelog poduhvata organizacije i neki interesntni detalji...





  • 0

#283 leone

  • Members
  • 3,608 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 16:37

1.6-litre V6 protiv 3.0-litre V10 - mozda vidimo novi brzinski rekord ovog vikenda.



Promoted: How Monza challenges modern Formula 1 engines


Monza: La Pista Magica; the cathedral of speed; the circuit where, during the 2004 Italian Grand Prix weekend, Juan Pablo Montoya set a qualifying lap with an average speed of 261km/h - the fastest ever, at a grand prix.

The Autodromo Nazionale Monza, then, is all about speed: long straights, fast corners and wide chicanes. And speed needs power, so at this circuit more than any other, the work of F1's engine manufacturers - Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and Honda - is under greater scrutiny than at any other destination.

"It's a typical 'power' track", says one engineer; "It's the one that rewards you most for power," echoes another.

No surprise that Montoya's record lap, during which his top speed nudged 370km/h, was set in a Williams FW26, powered by what was then recognised as F1's most powerful motor: a BMW 3.0-litre V10, pumping out around 950bhp.

For the first time since then, current-gen 'hybrid' F1 power units ('PUs') can match or exceed that level of power output, thanks to their sophisticated combination of a 1.6-litre V6 internal combustion engine, a turbocharger and two electric motor-generators.

Together these elements are now reckoned to be producing a total of around 1000bhp in the best PUs and as lap times have fallen by as much as three seconds this season, there's every chance that Monza may be host to new all-time speed records being set at this year's Italian GP, in September.


Monza is regarded as an 'outlier' among the 21 tracks that comprise the 2018 calendar: its full-throttle demands are towards the limit of what engineers must prepare for when designing components for the season ahead: around 75% of a 5793-metre Monza lap is spent at full throttle.

This means that certain components such as pistons, cylinder heads and crankcases are placed under far greater stress than they are at lower-speed tracks with lower full-throttle loadings - Monaco, for example. Circuits at which less time is spent at full throttle are described as having a lighter 'duty cycle'.

But when duty cycles are high, as at Monza (or Baku, in Azerbaijan, which has the highest full-throttle times of all, owing to its series of long straights), the V6 turbo internal combustion engines operate at cylinder pressures approaching three times that of the old naturally aspirated V8 engines, and they run in a much slower engine speed range - typically no more than 13,000rpm.

As a result, those parts of the engine requiring most engineering 'TLC' have changed. In a screaming 2.4-litre V8, developing a valve train capable of performing reliably at 20,000rpm used to be a major challenge. Now, however, the so-called 'bottom end' of the engine - pistons and the main structure of cylinder heads and crankcase - are under greater duress.

On a long straight, such as the exit from Monza's Parabolica corner to the first chicane, the pistons build up temperature - as do all the parts in contact with combustion - so considerations such as cooling capacity for the PU are brought to the fore.

After prolonged periods of full throttle, temperatures of internal components rise dramatically and can continue to rise even when the throttle is 'lifted'. Peak gas temperatures of 1500C can be recorded as 'instantaneous crown temperature' - right at the very surface of the piston. By way of context, that's several hundred degrees hotter than molten lava and around the smelting point of iron in a blast furnace.

Clearly, then, the metallurgical demands of component design within an F1 PU are onerous, for as well as being able to resist the extreme temperatures and pressures being created with the internal combustion engine, the metals used also have to be highly conductive, allowing heat to be 'pulled away', in order to reduce internal temperature peaks.

In previous generations of F1 engine technology, certain high-tech and ultra-expensive alloys such as aluminium-beryllium were used to forge components that were both light and capable of withstanding the extreme explosive forces inside a Formula 1 engine.

Latterly, however, materials use has been restricted by the sport's technical regulations, in order to limit costs. This means that most internal combustion engine components are made from conventional materials, although the quality and purity of those materials is crucial for yielding the best performance.

For certain specific components, 'exotic' materials are allowed, such as titanium-aluminide on valves. But generally, materials like metal-matrix-composites (MMCs) are now forbidden, having previously been permitted. Meantime ceramics - an area of keen motor industry research - are allowed only for defined components, such as ball-bearings or rotors in high-pressure pumps.

Less restrictive past eras of F1 regulation also permitted the construction of so-called 'Monza special' engines - motors that were tailored to extremes of power output, perhaps at the expense of low-end, out-of-the-corner performance, possibly even at the expense of reliability. All that mattered was the ability to shove a car fast down the straights.

Some turbo engines of the mid-1980s, particularly those built by BMW, could produce in excess of 1500bhp, but only for two or three laps during qualifying, after which their innards were discarded and the motors rebuilt.

Such wanton excess is a thing of the past under current technical regulations, as all drivers are permitted only three PUs each to last the entire racing season of practice, qualifying and racing.

"Each individual engine will see a cross-section of track types over its life span," notes one engineer, "so you cannot tailor the engine towards tracks like we used to do. That sort of optimisation is now largely restricted to the calibration of the power unit."

Indeed, now that building engines specifically suited to a certain track, or track type, is effectively outlawed, calibration, or precise setting up ('tuning') of a power unit has taken on a new level of importance.

The contrast between Monza and Monaco is once again illustrative. At stop-start Monaco, energy harvesting (ie recovering kinetic energy under braking and storing it in an on-board battery, for use later in the lap) is relatively easy, as there are so many braking 'moments' around each sinuous, 19-corner tour. But at high-speed Monza, only two of its 11 turns require hard braking, so energy harvesting is more difficult.

Accordingly, the set up of calibration differs. For Monza, peak power has to be "absolutely beautifully dialled in", along with the fuelling and ignition timing, in order to provide the 'biggest bangs'. Monaco requires a greater focus on drivability - repeatability of torque delivery at the driver's request and the sharpest, most reliable and precise throttle response.

Calibration also varies between individual PUs, for despite microscopically tight build tolerances in some of the most high-tech engine assembly shops anywhere on the planet, no two Formula 1 engines are quite the same. "There is a base calibration for the engine," says another leading F1 engineer, "but then every engine performs slightly differently. Each of the six cylinders performs slightly differently within the engine, too, so you can have a relatively 'good' and 'bad' engine - even though the gap between them is tiny."

Adjustments are also made to tailor PU performance to an individual driver's style: a driver who "bangs the throttle and catches the car on opposite lock" will require a subtly differentengine set up from a driver who is more progressive.

All of which makes the challenge of setting an all-time fastest Formula 1 lap at this year's Italian GP even more demanding than it might initially appear...



  • 0

#284 Rad-oh-yeah?

  • Members
  • 20,891 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 14:23




  • 0

#285 Rad-oh-yeah?

  • Members
  • 20,891 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 14:25

  • 0