Formula E

[FW17]

Don't understand this even though I'm not an aero expert. F1 cars in the days of flat bottoms and relatively unregulated diffusers (mid-80's to ~ 2000?) had rear diffusers that extended well behind rear wheel centerline.

Well i said the rear tyre line not center line

Even if it did it was kind of balanced by the rear wing end plates, in case of the FE car the entire rear wing has been deleted


I dont follow FE, so dont care what it looks like

I was just looking forward to a car closer to the concept that was presented last year

[wesley123]

So most people ask for ground effects in F1 instead of wings causing dirty air, and when FE adopt that route, most people does criticize it

I do get why they do so though. There are a few 'issues' that are present here in relation to the open wheeler as we know it.
1. It lacks a rear wing
2. The diffuser ends further to the rear, and the lack of a rear wing only increases this perception.

IMHO this car looks like the start of a revolution I´ve been waiting for years. I think wings are outdated. Nowadays engineers can create more than enough DF without using wings wich produce turbulence, dirty air, aero problems to the chasing car, and harm wheel to wheel racing.

Maybe not the most developed concept but it´s just a start for a spec series, I can´t wait to see how this will evolve

I don't think the reason to drop the rear wing is based on aero performance in any way, shape or form. Everything about this car is designed to be marketable, and that is okay as it is a spec series aimed at electric cars thus, the cars performance shouldn't come from the car itself, but from the drivetrain.

[jjn9128]

So most people ask for ground effects in F1 instead of wings causing dirty air, and when FE adopt that route, most people does criticize it

That is not a GE tunnel, it is just an enlarged diffuser.

This is semantics, people want F1 to be dominated by underbody downforce (which they call "ground effect", ignoring that the whole car is in ground effect). This is no Indycar underwing, but the floor will be producing most of the downforce on the car. The main reason for getting rid of the rear wing in FE is to reduce drag, they're claiming >300km/hr top speed with this car, but it will also aid the batteries in lasting a race.

Don't understand this even though I'm not an aero expert. F1 cars in the days of flat bottoms and relatively unregulated diffusers (mid-80's to ~ 2000?) had rear diffusers that extended well behind rear wheel centerline.

Formula E cars are known to be quite rear-heavy, which is compatible with typical city street circuit with lots of straight-line accel/brake and slow corners. So the aero CP should be pretty far aft.

From 84 to 2008 the diffuser kick could not start before the front face of the rear tyres (330mm ahead of the RWCL) up to 1994 the diffuser could be up to the rear face of the tyres (660mm long), from 1995 only the central 300mm could extend that face back and the rest was restricted to the rear axle line. Formula E is rearward weight biased (~200kg of batteries then the motor/inverter in the back), but probably has a similar COP and weight to an F1 car at the start of a race.

[Andres125sx]

So most people ask for ground effects in F1 instead of wings causing dirty air, and when FE adopt that route, most people does criticize it


IMHO this car looks like the start of a revolution I´ve been waiting for years. I think wings are outdated. Nowadays engineers can create more than enough DF without using wings wich produce turbulence, dirty air, aero problems to the chasing car, and harm wheel to wheel racing.

Maybe not the most developed concept but it´s just a start for a spec series, I can´t wait to see how this will evolve

That is not a GE tunnel, it is just an enlarged diffuser.

I didn´t say anything about tunnels, and I think diffusers are part of ground effects, aren´t they? They take advantage of the ground to produce DF as air going from a tight space (diffuser leading edge if that makes sense) to a bigger one with no possibility to be filled with more air (because the ground is sealing the diffuser) decreases pressure producing DF

There needs to be a clear distinction between a open wheel car and a sports car prototype.

Any reason?

[roon]

The floor curves up at the front, as was introduced to F1 last year. Note where the front lip of the floor intersects the safety cell. If the top of the floor is anything to go by, the underside of the floor may not be flat.



Regarding aesthetics, I'm not convinced we're seeing styling here, v. aero optimization. So, I think my initial reaction was wrong. The rear wings are an implementation of an F1 exploratory study done years ago to reduce wake turbulence. Some of you may remember the "centerline downwash" concept the FIA proposed in 2005. It should be no surprise that an FIA driven spec-series would implement its previous research--including the halo.







The angled inboard RW endplates serve the function of a shark fin.



The diamond-shaped chassis is hiding the side impact structures behind generous leading/trailing edges. Note the diamond is widest approximately in the same location as to where the previous FE chassis located its side crash structures--either side of the cockpit, also as in F1.





The front wing follows the general F1 2009 concept, like the front of the floor. The wheels pontoons are pretty basic aerodynamics--leading and trailing edges.

Can any features of this car can be called 'styling' in the sense of arbitrary, meaningless shapes?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Or in the context at-hand, "Any sufficiently sophisticated engineering exercise is indistinguishable from styling."

[jjn9128]

The floor curves up at the front, as was introduced to F1 last year. Note where the front lip of the floor intersects the safety cell. If the top of the floor is anything to go by, the underside of the floor may not be flat.

I'm not sure what you mean about the front of the floor on an F1 car curving up only since last year?! Plus the floor is most definitely flat up to a rear diffuser.


After that the only thing in your post I see as accurate is that the diamond shape upper surface covers the top side impact spar. CDG never worked as planned - even in your image the pressure deficit of the wake is greater at ground level (i.e. impacting the underbody of a following car) on the CDG image than the 2005 car.

This car was designed like a road car, the concept was created by a designer, then the aerodynamicists were set loose to optimise it. It is an efficient car, but it will not be high downforce in the way an Indycar/F1/LMP are because it doesn't need to be.

[roon]

The floor curves up at the front, as was introduced to F1 last year. Note where the front lip of the floor intersects the safety cell. If the top of the floor is anything to go by, the underside of the floor may not be flat.

I'm not sure what you mean about the front of the floor on an F1 car curving up only since last year?!

The floor front lip radius doubled in size last year per the regs, is what I was getting at. The general shape looks like an F1 2017 front floor corner.

CDG never worked as planned - even in your image the pressure deficit of the wake is greater at ground level (i.e. impacting the underbody of a following car) on the CDG image than the 2005 car.

Was there track or wind tunnel testing? I thought it only existed on paper. You'll notice the large red area behind the CDG car, and the vectors pointing in the opposite direction, and the blue area which would be under the trailing car, where you'd want it, and these being the intention of the concept, you might say the objective was reached...

The goal seems to have been: maintain or increase downforce available to a trailing car via altering the direction of airflow which the trailing car sees. Not reduce drag for the trailing car.

[Andres125sx]

It should be no surprise that an FIA driven spec-series would implement its previous research

It was designed by the FIA

the Gen2 Formula E car is the first vehicle to have been designed by the FIA - the governing body of motorsport. "I’m very proud that the FIA has been at the forefront of this car’s development, it’s something new for the Federation, and the project has been a huge success," said the organisation's President Jean Todt

http://www.fiaformulae.com/en/news/2018 ... ula-e-car/


Edit: watching the video above, I like it a lot more in black CF, or in other words, what a poor livery!!. I´m sure when each team use his own paint scheme some of them will look gorgeous

[wesley123]

. The rear wings are an implementation of an F1 exploratory study done years ago to reduce wake turbulence. Some of you may remember the "centerline downwash" concept the FIA proposed in 2005. It should be no surprise that an FIA driven spec-series would implement its previous research--including the halo.

Considering the wing angle turbulence created by the rear wing hardly is a problem.

Can any features of this car can be called 'styling' in the sense of arbitrary, meaningless shapes?

I'd consider the surface over the sidepod something that is motivated by styling. Also the rear wing itself is largely motivated by styling. The agressive angles on the various bodywork elements are all motivated by styling. And it makes sense, considering it is a series based around the electric powertrain and not aerodynamics.

FE is doing rather well in terms of marketability, thus it is only logical to create a marketable car.

[roon]

I'd consider the surface over the sidepod something that is motivated by styling. Also the rear wing itself is largely motivated by styling. The agressive angles on the various bodywork elements are all motivated by styling.

The F22 looks aggressive, but this is the result of radar, supersonic needs. Could make the similar claim about V-tails and ruddervators. There is sometimes intention behind what looks cool, beyond trying to look cool. Ultimately it's a spec formula with set downforce & drag criteria. There would be a million different ways to achieve said value within a myriad of shapes. Regardless of their rank or title, the person making decisions within such a context will inevitably be making guesses and arbitrary decisions; stylists inevitably.

Solutions not resembling the familiar can be perceived by some, myself included, as arbitrary or 'styled.' The latter term is not, however, divorced from engineering & science, which have their trends, styles, and fashions as in any art.

[wesley123]

The F22 looks aggressive, but this is the result of radar, supersonic needs. Could make the similar claim about V-tails and ruddervators.

The F-22 doesn't need to sell, it was designed to do that, not to be marketable.

There is sometimes intention behind what looks cool, beyond trying to look cool.

Can't disagree with that.

Ultimately it's a spec formula with set downforce & drag criteria. There would be a million different ways to achieve said value within a myriad of shapes. Regardless of their rank or title, the person making decisions within such a context will inevitably be making guesses and arbitrary decisions; stylists inevitably.

Solutions not resembling the familiar can be perceived by some, myself included, as arbitrary or 'styled.' The latter term is not, however, divorced from engineering & science, which have their trends, styles, and fashions as in any art.

I don't doubt that the car required set specifications, and that the design reaches them. However, out of the solutions possible the choice certainly went to the better looking. ie. The manta ray-like extension around the cockpit houses a side impact structure. It certainly does not need to look that way; The solution on current car works just as well. And it's not like it is a LERX either, Also, the piece lies a small bit over the sidepod; it's not a flush surface either.

[NathanOlder]

Noticed in yesterdays race that they have ditched the minimum pit stop time now. So they can leave the pit as soon as the seat belt is done up.

Could be a little dangerous as they race to save every tenth they can. I can imagine a driver trying to fasten his own belt on the way down the put lane. Maybe the seat belt has a switch inside that wont let the car accelerate until the belt is locked in.

[jjn9128]

Scarbs has done a good article on the belt tension sensor they used in Chile. I'm not sure how the mechanics know the belt is tensioned correctly, if it's an audio or LED cue? But I don't think it prevents the car starting up.
https://drivetribe.com/p/fe-clunk-click ... bEF8MWHZUg

Also Techeetah and Dragon fined for modifying their belts to make the stop faster - within the letter if not the spirit of the rules.
http://e-racing365.com/formula-e/techee ... ntroversy/

[Rodak]

Could be a little dangerous as they race to save every tenth they can. I can imagine a driver trying to fasten his own belt on the way down the put lane. Maybe the seat belt has a switch inside that wont let the car accelerate until the belt is locked in.

Have you ever driven a Formula car? The driver can't fasten the belts; it's too confining and there is no room for the driver to manipulate belts. You need a mechanic to do it. Tighten, yes, but buckle? No.

[NathanOlder]

The driver can still tighten his belt yes, so he can still tighten it while driving down the put lane. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word fasten, i meant tighten.