How creative are teams being using the ES?

[shady]

Is anyone aware if the rules locked the 120kW in the ES to the mguh/k. From what I have read they dont, there may be some other regulation however that prevents the following idea. "I dont know what I dont know" and would just like to know if Im mistaken. Rules PDF: (http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... -12-03.pdf)

Article 5.12 explains that, the closest thing that can be used to determine the limits is a basic UML diagram in appendix 3: Bottom right corner


Unlimited energy from the ES and both mguh/k to "Other Ancillaries". With that said, theres a paper that was published about two years ago on plasma actuators; an excerpt from the abstract:

"...An example of this class of actuators is shown to generate boundary layer streaks, which can be used to accelerate or delay the laminar to turbulent transition process, depending on how they are applied..."

the whole paper can be studied here: http://cpdlt.mae.ufl.edu/pdf/2013/JAP_R ... D_2013.pdf

A video of the process can be seen here: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-wrangling- ... craft.html

That is incense that is in still air, being induced to flow over the surface.

Unless I am completely unfounded, why not exploit the unregulated parts of the regulations? Think Dyson's fanless fan but done with F1 engineering. If this is a loophole, it would most likely get closed given the way the FIA approaches tech..

[shady]

I assume that your referring to 3.15 Aero Influence.. Its written for moving parts. The example I gave has no moving parts. I am just saying as its written, this would pass as legal. The rules dont account for this way of thinking at all, which is why right now is the perfect moment to exploit such a gap. Even if halfway through it gets shutdown (FRIC/Mass Dampers, although those are bad analogies because they moved/steadied the platform) a team can utilize this in a myriad of ways.

[tuj]

My thought is that it would take an awful lot of work and redesign to energize the critical surfaces with plasma to get the air to do what you want. Then the risk is that the FIA bans the technology the first time your car crashes / catches-fire / is-seen-to-glow. If you base your whole design on a part that could get banned, that's a massive risk and could ruin your whole season. Mercedes always knew FRICS might get banned, so it didn't really matter to them when it did; they had a back-up solution ready that was nearly as quick.

Put it another way: look how much detail is going into the nose right now and how much it's design influences the bodywork that follows. Change 1 part of the package and suddenly a lot of other stuff has to change to be right.

[shady]

Yea but that has rarely stopped an F1 team from exploring something new. FRIC got to a point where CW said, this is moveable aero. They would have to rewrite the whole reg to close loophole as it stands right now. Paddy Lowe said that the whole suspension philosophy on the W05 was based around FRIC, they did not have a backup, they just went conventional. This year the W06 is based on a new 'regulated' philosophy.

Even if you start with the diffuser, or even better. Internally controlling the airflow under the CF chassis cover, and testing it that way.

Why has FIA basically said use the ERS anyway you see fit, and the only implementation across the WHOLE field is mguh/k..? Since aerodynamics is so exceedingly important now, being on the potential precipice of the electrodynamic age in F1, kindles a passionate emotion. I just dont know if Im way off base, but I just dont see it.

[tuj]

Paddy Lowe said that the whole suspension philosophy on the W05 was based around FRIC, they did not have a backup, they just went conventional.

Do you really believe this? Do you really believe that Mercedes, the most well-funded team on the grid right now, went into their first chance at a championship without a back-up suspension system? The LOTUS was designed around FRIC, and it showed after they took it off the car. But the Merc? It hardly missed a beat.

BTW, Paddy Lowe didn't have anything to do with the W05; all the work was already done when he got there.

[shady]

Somewhat, yes:

Nonetheless, Lowe admits the 'out of the blue' banning caught Mercedes by surprise and having built the all-conquering W05 around the system, it was forced to make important changes to its design philosophy for 2015 with the W06.

“FRIC was banned in the middle of last year, out of the blue really, so we had to react as best we could around it,” Lowe said. “The 2014 car was based around FRIC and it was central to the suspension concept. So with FRIC illegal in 2015 we took a fresh look for the 2015 car which has been a big topic but there was plenty of time to react to it between Hockenheim and now.

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/214590/1/f ... -2015.html

Its F1, its worth the risk.. The faintest whiff of an advantage is exploited, which is the basis of my confusion, my assumption is that this isnt a new idea, and is banned somewhere that Im just not seeing. However if its not, then Id like to find out why nothing is being pursued/developed for/on the track.

[tuj]

shady: The FRIC ban didn't really do anything. First off, every team in 2014 had FRIC on their car. Now the Williams and Merc and maybe the Lotus had some measure of roll control as well as attitude control with their system, but pretty much the advantage of the FRIC system was something that was still able to be achieved with essentially conventional suspension components and more careful setup. The setup window may have narrowed for the cars, but there was certainly no drop-off in pace. Here's one rumor I heard prior to the German GP:

"But I’ve spoken to a few key people about the whole FRICS thing. It isn’t obvious that Mercedes are getting more from it than anyone else. They may be – but I think it’s just a hope of some, rather than a conviction. They – and Williams – do have the refinement of side-to-side control which most, including Red Bull, do not. But there are downsides as well as upsides to that. I may be wrong, but my feeling from talking to team people is that if the ban is in place it’s not going to be making a whole lot of difference to the competitive order."

[shady]

this is WAY OT: tuj are you saying that a subset of teams that had this wouldnt have an advantage? Or just that eventually everyone would have it and thered be no difference for having it?

Regardless, That didnt stop three teams using Double Diffusers. Theres still the basic question as to the legality, the efficacy and performance delta is a wholly different question.. Primarily created this thread to determine if the rabbit hole was even an eligible thought exercise.

[tuj]

shady; the only thing I am saying is that FRIC did not do that much more than a conventional setup. It saved weight (eg. no heave dampers) and maybe provided a little larger setup window for some teams (and narrower for others). The teams have found ways to emulate FRIC with pseudo-conventional components. Also, my point is that the W05 design philosophy is not really known by Paddy Lowe as it was Brawn, Costa, et al. who designed the car.

Finally, my point is that utilizing plasma surfaces to control airflow is probably not that energy-efficient in terms of plasma vs. conventional carbon pieces. AND I think the FIA would take a dim view of plasma-energized surfaces.

[shady]

Dim view or not, that doesnt today, make it illegal.

[Moose]

Honestly, I can't see a good reason why FRIC was banned. The logic that the FIA used to ban it could equally well be applied to anti-roll bars, and those aren't banned.

[tuj]

Ok, so way back in 2007, I was writing about plasma generators and more importantly, MEMS. MEMS; Micro-fabricated Electro-Mechanical Systems. Basically it’s a strip very tiny little vibrators on the leading edge that create turbulence in the 'boundary layer', which is the layer of air very close to the surface. This air essentially 'sticks' to the wing, but doesn't flow off, thereby increasing the effective thickness of the wing. Creating turbulence in this layer reduces its thickness, reducing drag and flow detachment. This can also be accomplished by tiny holes in the surface, which jet air into the boundary layer.

So does it work? Oh yeah, all the teams have known about this for at least 15 years if not more. The cars have had alternators for since, like ever, so it's not like they haven't had the opportunity to do this.

My question to you is: why isn't there a high-performance stunt or fighter plane using this technology? Or why isn't it being used on F1 wings? If the highest-performance applications haven't found a use for the technology, maybe its a bit more difficult than you figure.

My guess is that getting it right is too costly in terms of energy; better to just put that juice back to the wheels.

[shady]

MEMS is still moveable aero, which in the end contravenes the rules as written. This is only one, but this particular study would have no moving parts. I dont think either of us in a position to determine the cost:benefit of F1 R&D departments. What is cool is that no one can definitively say that this line of thinking is illegal.

The idea of stalling a wing at high speed, and increasing airflow over the same physical wing in low speed corners should be attractive to any team, especially these smaller teams.

We dont have any numbers to determine the viability of resource allocation, but even then it would only take one team. MBAMG spent a large sum on an idea that other teams thought too complex, and it paid off, and will continue to.

[tuj]

I did find an article from 2013 on New Scientist about some amateurs who have put this on a plane wing and successfully demonstrated increased lift with plasma at a high AoA. Pretty cool stuff. There was an academic paper in 2009 about using pulsed plasma.

This paper presents a detailed explanation of the physical mechanism of the nanosecond pulsed surface dielectric barrier discharge (SDBD) effect on the flow. Actuator-induced gas velocities show near-zero values for nanosecond pulses. The measurements performed show overheating in the discharge region on fast (τ sime 1 µs) thermalization of the plasma input energy. The mean values of such heating of the plasma layer can reach 70 K, 200 K and even 400 K for 7 ns, 12 ns and 50 ns pulse durations, respectively. The emerging shock wave together with the secondary vortex flows disturbs the main flow. The resulting pulsed-periodic disturbance causes an efficient transversal momentum transfer into the boundary layer and further flow attachment to the airfoil surface. Thus, for periodic pulsed nanosecond dielectric barrier discharge, the main mechanism of impact is the energy transfer and heating of the near-surface gas layer. The following pulse-periodic vortex movement stimulates redistribution of the main flow momentum.

So like I've said, this technology is 'relatively' mature, the idea isn't new. Your guess is as good as mine as to why the teams aren't using it.