Technical review: the fly-away races

Posted on

| Written by

Ferrari and five other teams must change their mirror designs in Spain

The next round at Barcelona will be a feast for technology fans as teams bring their biggest updates yet to their 2010 cars. John Beamer looks at the developments so far this year and what to expect in Spain.

Despite spending the first four races far from home the rate of development has been impressive as teams scrabble to replicate McLaren’s F-duct and Red Bull’s alleged ride-height control system.

Several teams also have to modify their mirrors for the next race and everyone is chasing more downforce with some interesting front wing and diffuser designs apparent.

Wing mirrors

After the Australian Grand Prix the FIA announced that outboard mirrors would be banned from China. This was put later back until Spain after the affected teams complained it didn’t give enough time to retro-fit inboard mirrors onto their cars. What’s all the fuss about?

The problem with outboard mirrors is two-fold. First, the mirror is a couple of feet from the driver which limits his field of vision. Take your average road car. The side mirror closer to the driver gives a much wider field of vision than the one on the passenger side. In fact there is a significant inside blind spot which is very close to where cars position for an overtake – more or less where Sebastian Vettel was relative to Mark Webber at the first corner of the Malaysian Grand Prix.

Second, the high speed and stiff suspension of an F1 car makes the mirror vibrate like something from Ann Summers, which means that drivers can’t really see much anyway.

Who cares about what drivers can and can’t see? After all, every last drop of performance counts and outboard mirrors are worth up to one tenth of a second per lap. That was the difference between third and sixth on the grid at Shanghai.

Mirrors integrated with pod wings have two benefits. First, they are in the the turbulent air coming off the front wheels – so they aren’t really interfering with the car’s aerodynamics. The pod wing’s role is to channel this air away from the car so it doesn’t interfere with the undercut and floor aerodynamics. A great way to see this is to look at a low-front shot of a F1 car (from the front wing looking back) and you’ll see how the pod wings line up with the inside of the tyres.

Second, the presence of the mirrors allows the pod wings to be marginally higher and so more effective. Interestingly, McLaren tried outboard mirrors for the first time in Australia and the FIA prevented the team from racing them. Shortly after the ban was announced. Was this a sneaky attempt on McLaren’s behalf to get outboard mirrors canned?

Read more: Sidepod mirrors banned from next race

Ride height control

The other big tech story of the fly-away races were the rumours about ride height control devices. Ever since Red Bull’s astonishing qualifying pace in Bahrain, where the car appeared to be bottoming out despite running low fuel, many in the paddock believed the Milton Keynes-based outfit was running some sort of ride height system.

Other teams, most publicly McLaren, threw resources (or at least said they were) at trying to copy whatever Red Bull had – despite Red Bull being adamant that it had no such system on its RB6. In the week before China the FIA issued a clarification which stated that ‘Any system, device or procedure that regulates the suspension set-up is illegal’. As such McLaren said it abandoned its copy-cat suspension.

There were suggestions that McLaren was trying to flush out the FIA’s decree in an attempt to get Red Bull to redesign its car but following another one-two in qualifying at Shanghai it’s becoming clear that other forces are at work to make the RB6 the best car for one-lap pace.

Watching Vettel glued to the track on high-speed corners demonstrates how much raw downforce the RB6 has. In addition the Red Bull is the only car to have pull-rod suspension. The allows a lower centre of gravity and also ensures a cleaner passage of air around the coke-bottle zone to the diffuser (the suspension arms do not get in the way). However, by placing the rockers closer to the floor the double diffuser is compromised. On the MP4/25 the double diffuser is the centrepiece of the car and is integrated with the beam wing, whereas on the Red Bull the device is far less extreme.

This is likely to mean that the Red Bull device has lower absolute downforce but is more consistent across different ride heights – it is less prone to stall. In addition more underbody downforce will be generated in, say, the McLaren whereas Red Bull appears to derive downforce from front-to-back across the whole car. In essence for a higher ride height (demanded in qualifying by the parc ferme rules) the Red Bull generates more grip, which given the fundamental design differences between Red Bull and the rest of the paddock means it is hard for others to catch up.

F-Duct

What 2009 was for double diffusers, 2010 is for F-ducts. McLaren pioneered a device – which they call the RW80 – which allows the driver to open and close a valve in the cockpit that channels air through the shark-fin engine cover to ‘stall’ the rear wing.

The speed trap data suggests the F-duct was worth 5-6kph top-speed and on the long straights in Malaysia and China the device was responsible for the McLaren’s strong pace – it could be worth up to four tenths of a second per lap.

Current generations of F1 wings generate obscene amounts of downforce but at the cost of a lot of drag. If the wing can be stalled either through the use of an F-duct or a flexible slot (which is banned) drag is reduced allowing the car to hit a higher top speed.

This stall happens by mixing slower air from the duct with the faster air coming over the top of the car. When this mixes together the air is considerably disturbed, which is what causes the lower lift and hence lower drag (the lift induces a lot of the drag).

We’ve now seen Sauber, Williams, Ferrari and Mercedes all test versions of the F-duct – and we know that most teams have some form of F-duct in development. Because the chassis is homologated and the F-duct requires a couple of holes to route the airflow through teams are trying a variety of devices. Sauber, for instance, mounted the F-duct entry hole on the sidepod, although they have yet to make the rear wing stall sufficiently to consider running it in a race.

In China Ferrari tested an interesting system where air appeared to be entering through a hole in the shark fin cover before being blown over the rear wing. It also blows over the diffuser in an attempt to induce further stall and a higher top speed.

It is unlikely that positioning of the entry slot allows the device to be driver-activated. But it could just be that the team haven’t got the entry duct ready yet and just wanted to test the exit duct. Ferrari’s test was hampered by a blown engine suffered by Fernando Alonso.

However it may be that the team aren’t able to add the necessary hole at the front of the car to create a driver-operated version because of the chassis restrictions. Ferrari may instead implement a system that is speed-controlled – once the car exceeds a certain speed the air will get blown over the wing to cause stall. However Ferrari will have to achieve that without contravening the rule banning moveable aerodynamic devices. Ross Brawn mentioned that Mercedes is investigating a passive system rather that a driver-activated version like McLaren’s.

What’s clear is that McLaren designed the MP4-25 with the F-duct in mind. At pre-season testing they ran arrays of airflow-sensing pitot tubes close to where the system’s ‘snorkel’ is situated and on the rear wing, most likely to perfect the complicated aerodynamics involved in such a device. The question now is how successfully their rivals can mimic the device.

Front wing

Since Bahrain, Renault has developed one of the more interesting front wing designs seen in recent races. The upper cascade traverses from above the main plane and, unusually, extends over the top of the end plate (above the footplate). The cascade also has a small endplate at its extreme which has continued to evolve since Australia.

In addition at the footplate there is a horizontal strip that runs front to back which reduce the air that tips off the footplate into the low pressure zone. Both of these tricks will help downforce and the modifications to the mini-footplate are likely to aid consistency – i.e., the device is less sensitive to different pitches and ride heights.

Last year Red Bull gained a reputation for churning out new front wings faster than a Virgin-Cosworth runs out of fuel. This year seems no different and in China Red Bull introduced quite a radical modification to its front wing assembly.

The endplate is new – it blends together as one-piece and looks less complex than its predecessors. It actually looks like a classic endplate rather than a fusion of the cascade with the endplate and is a step towards the McLaren philosophy of endplate design. It’s not clear why Red Bull have done this. Perhaps the narrower 2010 tyres mean the endplates need to work less hard to manage airflow around the tyres and by closing up some of the slots more consistent performance can be achieved. (Compare it to the old front wing tested by Webber on Friday).

In addition a couple of turning vanes have spouted under the nose to ensure a more even flow of air under the chassis and to the floor. It also prevents turbulent air from the tyres disturbing from contaminating the underfloor airflow. This is similar to what Ferrari introduced in Bahrain and is becoming standard fare up and down the pitlane. Creating more consistent airflow to the floor increases underbody downforce.

Diffuser and floor

Ferrari has spent a lot of time refining its design around the floor. The front splitter under the chassis has gained a venturi-like device around the area where ballast is housed. This shows the lengths to which aerodynamicists go to eke out the last kilogram of downforce.

Unsurprisingly most of the development happens at the back of the car around the diffuser area. In pre-season testing McLaren cut a slot in the floor ahead of the rear tyres. The new double diffusers are working very hard and require sufficient airflow to avoid separation. Bleeding in a little additional air into the side channels is likely to make the diffuser work more consistently. Given the positioning of the duct ahead of the rear tyre it will also reduce amount of air displaced by the rear tyre, which should cut drag a little.

Renault brought a new diffuser to China that integrates into the beam wing in a similar manner to that pioneered by McLaren on the MP4/25. This integration with the beam wing ‘pumps’ the diffuser more, which means the air needs to overcome a shallowed pressure gradient on exit. This leads to higher and more consistent downforce.

Remember the stunt that Red Bull pulled in testing when it plastered fake exhaust stickers onto the bodywork when in reality the real exhausts where low down by the rear tyre? At the time it was uncertain whether Newey was trying to feed the diffuser with exhaust gasses and also whether exiting the exhausts so close to the rear tyres may cause the rubber to overheat. In Malaysia, Newey added a turning vane aft of the exhaust exit to steer the gasses away from the tyres. It’s unclear whether this then channels the air towards the diffuser side channel ala the McLaren floor slot.

The European races

And so the F1 circus turns to Europe with the Spanish Grand Prix in a couple of weeks. Historically this has marked the point when the major teams launch their first significant upgrade package and this year will be no different. All major teams have new packages in the works. Many team are expected to launch their version of the F-duct – keep an eye on whether they can replicate the performance advantage of the MP4/25.

The new teams are also working hard to update their cars. Who knows if Virgin will have its new, larger fuel tank ready in time but the design effort that is being put into this must distract from general car development. Mike Gascoyne has also promised that Lotus is on track to launch a revised T127, which should result in a far more sculpted car as opposed to the rather boxy launch effort.

Perhaps the biggest redesign is by Mercedes. The Brackley-based outfit has admitted that it got its weight distribution calculations wrong and the W01 suffers from chronic understeer. Apparently in Spain we are likely to see the wheelbase lengthened and the introduction of a B-spec chassis. This will see weight shifted a bit further back to reduce understeer. That should certainly please Michael Schumacher.

Although as a race Barcelona is likely to be dull – it should be a tech lover’s paradise!

F1 technology

Browse all F1 technology articles

This is a guest article by John Beamer. Find more articles by John here. If you want to write a guest article for F1 Fanatic you can find all the information you need here.

Imag (C) Ferrari spa, Williams/LAT, Ferrari spa, F1 Fanatic, Renault/LAT, Red Bull/Getty, Lotus Racing

42 comments on “Technical review: the fly-away races”

  1. I think these will mix up the grid a little. Question: Where was the picture of the McLaren taken?

    1. I took that one, at the first day of the second test in Jerez, on February 10th:

      https://www.racefans.net/2010/02/10/f1-testing-pictures-10th-february/

      1. You know Keith, I remember us all talking about that device on here – alot of people said McLaren must be having problems. We now realise that this car would have been at least 4 tenths slower because they haven’t put the front part of the duct on place yet.

        Looking at that picture again, however, i’m beginning to think the long arm is just a big dummy device to detract your attention away from the little pitot tube on the top inside where they want their real reading! Clever thinking!

  2. Edward Marshall
    26th April 2010, 10:45

    Great article,

    Look forward to Barcelona to see who’s running top of the development pack.

  3. Nice article John. Good talk about Spain too. It is a brute of a race to get through usually but the biggest moves technically seem to happen at the race.

    Williams might want to get a move on or may find themselves with a Lotus up their backside from the talk the team is putting out.

    1. Sauber might want to cross the line too.

  4. Am I allowed to hope for a dry race so we can see where the teams really are with development and upgrades?

  5. Wow, information overload!!! Great work John, it’s goin to take a few hours to work through that lot!

    I can’t wait to see the “B” spec Lotus in Spain. Once those boxy sidepods are gone I really do think they will be able to give the slower drivers in the established teams a run for their money.

    You said exactly what I was thinking with regard to Mercedes. The less understeery, longer wheelbase W01″B” should suit MSC a lot more. This could be the start of Mercedes push for the WDC and Constructors Cup…

  6. I think the most interesting question is about Schumacher. Does it all really depends on car setting? After the next modifications no more excuses…

    1. I have to agree, how is Nico doing so much better in exactly the same car?
      Are Mercedes now going to go the way of Ferrari and only make cars that suit Old Schuey and nobody else?

      1. I think i read somewhere, that Nico does mind the understeery nature of the car as well. Just he does better adapt to it than Michael at the moment because Michael has a lot more to get used to again.
        So the car would be better for the both of them, maybe Nico can win his first race shortly then?

      2. This changing the chassis issue is curious. Apparently, it is not a new chassis, but a repaired one from a testing wreck. How is this one going to have a different weight distribution—unless Mercedes somewhow altered the chassis between testing and now, in a way that would need not be homologated? Anyway Schumacher’s historic strength, like all the greats, has been in working around an ill-handling or unsuitable car. It was always Barichello who was whinging about the “handling” or the “balance.” So it was also with Hakkinnen and Coulthard, etc. This swapping of the chassis is dismaying. I’m not a fan of the man, but I hate to see his career fade like this. And I hate to see a great team like Mercedes waste resources on a lagging driver when they have one who is doing a stellar job in an obviously capable car.

  7. “After the next modifications no more excuses…”
    If he wins he wins if he doesn’t he is still the most successful driver of all time.

  8. “makes the mirror vibrate like something from Ann Summers”

    Just brilliant

    1. Totally agree…best quote ever!!

      1. Yeah, another classic LOL

        1. Quote of the day for tomorrow’s round up comes from ‘John Beamer’ for this little gem…

  9. avatars!!! yipee! I hope Barcelona boosts Schumacher’s competitivness. hopefully a few spots of rain will mix things up too.

    1. Yeah, I just noticed them too! We haven’t had a wet Spanish race for 14 years though.

  10. Excellent article, hands down. Especially the front-wing part, which is usually overlooked in comments.

    What still bugs me, is the snorkel on the nose of Kubica’s R30. It is said to cool the driver, but if thats the case, then why Petrov’s R30 doesnt have one?

    1. yeah, i’m interested to know which area of the car actually constitutes the ‘monocoque’. (which is homologated)

  11. Another excellent piece John, I’ve always been confused about the pull-rod system’s advantages. Can anyone give me an idea on how the two work differently?

    1. Tom Hitchings
      27th April 2010, 16:50

      I would second this. Haven’t been able to find a clear explanation online.

  12. Good work John, than keeping us up to date. This is the only F1 site I bother with anymore so your wealth of information is much appreciated.

    I’m with rampante on no more rain races for a while. We need to see the cars real pace.

    1. this car is beautiful!
      i love 2008 cars, 2009 n 2010 cars r bland.
      i like the 2010 cars better than 2009 cars though, they look nore polished, but 2008 cars r jus awesome, they look fast!

      1. The 2007 Mclaren looked great until they added that awful bridge wing. Ferrari’s bridge wing in 2008 looked better imo, attached directly to the nose:

        http://www.f1-site.com/wallpapers/2008/tests/ferrari_fiorano/2_ferrari_fiorano.jpg

  13. Great update and overview of what to expect from the development race.

    I think i would actually like an incident free Barcelona to see where the teams stand and weather the F-duct will allow some overtaking for the McLaren (and others maybe) in spain in the dry.

  14. Did you get some news on the background of the Ferrari request to bug out something on the valve opening/closing system of their engine.

    I found an interesting article here: http://www.formula1journal.com/2010/04/ferrari-pneumatic-valve-problem-by-flood1.html

    Maybe they just got a little bit over enthusiastic with improving the engine?

  15. is it possible for merc to have 2 diff cars for 2 diff drivers?
    coz this car seems to be doing quite well in the hands of nico but mike has some balance issues, if they come up with a new car, nico might not like the change.
    does that mean nico becomes the “barrichello” for schumi again?

  16. Bring it on, Spain! :)

  17. With regard to the “F-Ducts”, I do wonder whether the teams that can’t make them driver activated might end up losing time as theoretically McLaren will be able to set their car up with more downforce in the corners…

  18. When you see what McLaren had to do in perfecting their system, it seems highly unlikely another team will be able to retrofit such a system and then refine it using only the race weekend practice sessions. (But the flow-vis and pitot tubes on the car were ominous, weren’t they?) As Adrian, suggests, I expect that other teams will waste valuable time and money developing a system that won’t be half as efficient. Meanwhile McLaren will be able to refine the rest of the chassis at least as fast as the others. They can’t sprinkle Newey-dust on their car, but it really seams they have stolen a march on the rest of the field this time, a la, the double diffuser.

  19. Do my eyes deceive me or are our gravatars back?!? :D

    Brilliant, brilliant article John. They’re always superb and make me feel like I’ve learnt something. This will take me a few hours to get my head around though.

  20. Nice article, but


    In addition the Red Bull is the only car to have pull-rod suspension

    Needless to say, the STR car also has pull-rod suspension, though they’re probably irrelevant if we focus only on teams likely to grace the podium.

  21. Well I was most interested in the simplified outwash front wing that Redbull have brought. The orginal outwash on the McLaren was incredibly complex, developed over the whole of 2009 right up from Hungary when Kovalinen first tested it. Then McLarens performance jumped the second they simplified it, an put those proper bargeboards on, awful waste of recources there, technical article on James Allen site seemed to sum up this years technical battle, an to some extent last years.

    Redbull went for downforce genrated over the whole car, while Brawn put massive development on a simple concept with radicle parts. This year Ferrari an Redbull have taken the whole car route, the Ferrari looks like a less developed RB6. While McLaren have gone super low drag body, almost a devloped BGP01, for the new rules. Mercedes appear to have developed the BGP01 without allowing for the new rules.

  22. great read john, if i only knew what half it ment :)

  23. Fascinating. Quote: “you’ll see how the pod wings line up with the inside of the tyres”.
    This makes sense for wind-tunnel testing. However, down force is needed only in corners when air flow isn’t straight front-to-back. I assume that the pod wing position in the neutral position described is the best compromise for both left and right turns.

  24. I love these technical articles by your guest writer John Beamer. I find them fascinating although I don’t fully understand the technical details especially aero terms.

    Can John write an introduction to aero for the likes of me, or indeed has he done so already?

  25. Four tenths!! That is huge!!

    However, I don’t think any of the other teams will be able to achieve such a huge performance advantage by using just a passive (non-driver operated) system.

    Somehow, the driver will have to be used. If not his knee, some other body part (which is farther from the cockpit – as the cockpit is freezed for development) will have to be used.

    Perhaps teams could use the foot which operates the brakes. After all, that foot is not required on straights.

  26. I seem to recall Martin Brundle in his insert at the China GP say that what we know as the F-Duct, McLaren call the RW80…

  27. This article is a huge improvement in readability and seems much more accessible to your average joe like me. Whatever you’re doing, keep doing it! :)

Comments are closed.