加里·安德森：红牛与梅赛德斯真正的区别细节
红牛在最近的连续三站赛事中取代了梅赛德斯，成为F1的主导力量。那么，两辆赛车之间的真正区别是什么？
随着F1规则的发展，我常常 wonder 设计和研究领域的成千上万的非常聪明的人可以带来什么新技术到外面的世界。是的，这样的机会一直有限，因为F1汽车上的部件一直太贵，无法直接转移到路上汽车上，但利用它们并证明它们的价值的灵感一直存在。
如果Colin Chapman用他的地面效应汽车，Gordon Murray用他的驾驶员躺下概念，风扇车和加油，或者Derek Gardner用他的六轮Tyrrell，如果他们坐下来准备新赛季，他们会如何看待当前的缺乏创新、严厉、过度规定的规则？
尽管如此，我们仍然看到车队提出的不同之处。没有重大的视觉概念差异，但正如常说的那样，魔鬼在细节中，而这些细节确实带来了收益。
现在，车队们不再追求秒或甚至十分之一秒的进步，而是寻求百分之一秒的提升。对于引入开发套件所付出的所有努力，这样的微小回报很难真正确定你是否取得了进步、停滞不前，或者实际上退步了。
这就是梅赛德斯目前所处的境地。从赛季开始就占据主导地位，并且是遥遥领先的车队，却遭遇了挫折。它在马来西亚引入的开发套件让它感到困惑。是的，数据显示一切都在向积极方向发展，但车手们发现赛车更加难以驾驶，因此也更难从中稳定地提取出圈速。
另一方面，红牛车队却采取了相反的策略。它从自己标准来看几乎灾难性的开局，到占据杆位并赢得最后三场比赛。是的，其中一场是冲刺赛，正如马克斯·维斯塔潘所说，这并不真正算数，但即便如此，这也仅仅表明，在引入开发的时候，任何硬币都有两面，只有一面（或者说一面会）取得成功。
从领先位置开始，让我们比较一下红牛和梅赛德斯。
梅赛德斯和阿斯顿·马丁据我所知是唯一两个在赛季开始时就将前翼安装在第二个元素上的车队（用红色椭圆突出显示）。这意味着在直线模式下，只有第三个元素（橙色高亮箭头）的角度被减小。
总的来说，这个概念可能节省了一些重量，但总的来说，它意味着前翼元素更多地是一个流向优化器，而不是一个主要的下压力产生装置。我这么说是因为第一和第二个元素之间的槽口距离机翼下表面最低气压区域相当近。这个低气压会产生下压力，基本上它会把车拉向赛道。在梅赛德斯的概念中，它将简单地通过那个槽口拉过更多的气流。
我们可以看到，三个元素和弦长度的差异并不大：前翼用浅蓝色箭头突出显示，中间用绿色箭头突出显示，后翼用橙色箭头突出显示。它们的弦长也相当恒定。
红牛、法拉利和麦克拉伦都选择了另一种方法：一个更长的弦长主平面，用深蓝色箭头突出显示。在直线模式下，他们减小了第二个和第三个元素的角度。
我将那根深蓝色的箭头转移到梅赛德斯的前翼上，以展示我对前翼第一元素和第二元素之间缝隙的理解，这个缝隙正好位于其两个前翼元素的总弦长度的中间。
第二和第三元素的弦长，用绿色和橙色箭头突出显示，向外增加。这意味着在船体内部和下方，气流方向变化更少，这里的目的是将最佳和最快的空气质量流引导到地板前缘。
此外，在红牛赛车中，尾翼边缘的细节比梅赛德斯更为复杂。这应该会减少在制动时车辆前部接近地面、在转弯中滚动和转弯出弯时，当翼片的外部部分越过出口边缘时的敏感性。
接下来是地板中央部分的尖端，红牛的地板安装系统（绿色突出显示）基本上将车辆分成两部分。在该安装系统的中间还设置了一个小叶片（紫色突出显示），以帮助整理从前翼中央部分流出的气流。
导流板和地板板区域相似，但实际上在处理它试图管理的气流方面却相当不同。
总的来说，元素的数量相似。然而，红牛似乎在尝试做更多的事情来整理前轮胎的湍流（尾流）。由于F1是一个开放式轮子公式，管理轮胎周围的气流，无论是前轮还是后轮，对于汽车的整体空气动力学性能至关重要。
此外，轮子阻塞可能占汽车阻力的约40%。
当汽车穿过空气时，它必须移除大量的空气。被移除的空气试图填充轮胎后面的空隙，因此管理它并确保它不会对其他产生下压力的设备产生不利影响，基本上就是导流板和地板板区域的作用。红牛正在做更多的事情来尝试在它能够从地板脚板产生下压力之前管理那种湍流，实际上就是地板的前角。
与现在大多数车队所采用的简单下洗侧箱不同，红牛车队保留了抬高的外箱部分，给它带来了一个类似内沟，其侧视图与梅赛德斯侧箱非常相似。
这是为了帮助管理侧箱上的气流并进入变速箱两侧的中央区域，而不是仅仅在油桶区域的整个宽度上产生更多的气流。这样做可以改善扩散器在中央部分最需要改进的地方的性能。
红牛车队似乎在这里实施了一个颇具争议的策略，它有一个非常尖锐的尾缘，红色高光线在这里转为白色。
规则定义了侧箱上角允许的最小半径。大多数车队只是选择这些最小半径，但任何规则都关乎寻找任何灰色地带。通过拥有这个更尖锐的角半径，当来自上侧箱内沟和外侧箱表面的气流汇合时，它将以不同的速度移动，所以基本上沿着那个尖锐的角，它将产生一个涡流，如果正确集中，将沿着后刹车管道的内侧移动，从而在那些刹车管道上安装的转向叶片上产生更高的下压力，进而改善扩散器的性能。
黄色高亮线基本上是梅赛德斯侧箱的侧面轮廓。
我们现在转向后轮胎接触面前面的区域。这同样涉及到管理后轮胎周围的气流，尤其是轮胎接触面区域。
当轮胎在赛道表面上旋转时，你会得到所谓的轮胎喷溅。它既向内又向外。向外，你基本上可以任其自由行动，但向内的轮胎喷溅可能会对扩散器的性能产生不利影响，进而影响整个底板。
这个区域的细节和理念相当相似。红牛的通风系统似乎更靠前，正如你从地板下面的槽口阴影中可以看到的，槽口自然地引导到后轮胎接触面的内侧。
尽管这些是连接地面和车顶的凹槽，但目标实际上是减少从车顶流到底下的溢出物。它们通过将轮胎接触点后方的空腔与轮胎喷射的高能量连接起来，起到密封系统的作用。反过来，通常由于车底低气压而被吸到车底下的气流，现在也被吸到轮胎接触点周围。
扩散器不再是简单的斜坡连接到矩形出口区域的时代已经过去了；现在它是由多个叶片和有策略地放置的开口组成。不想批评梅赛德斯，但红牛的系统似乎在元素细节上更胜一筹。至于梅赛德斯，我还会质疑其内部延伸部分，它将扩散器的后缘连接到翼片，如果可以这么称呼的话，用紫色突出显示。
扩散器的这个内部部分距离来自其他任何组件的气流结构影响最远，因此在这个区域最大化性能可能会很有吸引力。然而，当汽车接近地面或环境温度和/或赛道温度升高时，该区域的气流会变得有些懒散。
当这种情况发生时，很容易诱导气流分离，尤其是在内部垂直表面和扩散器上表面的接合处。
法拉利是第一个引入排气出口斜坡的车队。在许多关于它如何在规定范围内通过其差速器位置实现这一点的讨论之后，其他大多数车队也或多或少地实现了相同的解决方案。基本上，规定要求排气出口的最小尺寸。它必须是圆形的，出口角度也是定义好的，所有这些都是为了减少排气吹拂的可能性。
然而，有志者事竟成。其中一个论点是，规定中没有控制安装支架。无论什么理由，目标都是一样的：在排气出口后面放置某个东西只是将排气流向上方，由于排气出口的一部分被封闭，它增加了其速度。
在全油门和转弯出口时，这两个因素都会改善后翼的尾部下压力，以及我之前提到的那个中央扩散器区域的一致性，该区域之前出现过分离问题。
很多时候我说细节决定成败，所以你可以说，梅赛德斯的双元素叶片应该比红牛的单元素版本要好一些，但在这个案例中，我认为这并不重要。基本上，它是一个改变非常不稳定和湍流排气气流速度和方向的封闭塞，因此添加这个组件做了大部分的工作，优化细节只会带来非常小的回报。
如果我是国际汽联决策小组的一员，我会在一开始就禁止它。理由是，你无法看到所需的开阔空间，它没有达到所需的圆形，并且最后一部分没有在所需的范围内。
坦白地说，我并不是说哪一个方案比另一个更好。得出这个结论需要无数小时的头脑风暴和风洞以及CFD的空气动力学测试。我需要的不仅仅是让我的耳朵分开的东西，而是需要几百（个）其他的贡献。
这主要是为了展示从非常具体的规定中可以产生多大的差异。是的，这些规定不允许你重新发明轮子，但它们仍然允许你在知道什么是最优的，或者希望是最优的之前进行一些思考。
英文原文
Red Bull has taken over from Mercedes as Formula 1’s dominant force, based on what we saw in the recent triple-header. So what’s made the difference between the two cars?
With the way F1 regulations are going, I often wonder what new technologies the thousands of very clever people who work in the design and research areas of these teams can bring to the big world outside. Yes, the opportunity for that has always been limited, as parts on an F1 car have always been much too expensive to transfer directly to road cars, but the inspiration to exploit them and prove their worth has always been there.
What would Colin Chapman with his ground-effect cars, Gordon Murray with his driver-lying-down concept, fan car and refuelling, or Derek Gardner with his six-wheeled Tyrrell think of the current uninventive, draconian, overly-prescriptive regulations if they were sitting down to sharpen their pencils in preparation for the new season?
All that said, we still see differences between what the teams come up with. There are no major visual concept differences, but as is often said, the devil is in the detail, and that detail really does pay dividends.
Now, instead of seconds or even tenths of a second of improvement, the teams are looking for hundredths of a second. With this small return for all the effort of introducing a development package, it is difficult to really be sure if you have moved forward, stood still or actually gone backwards.
This is where Mercedes finds itself at the moment. The dominant team from the start of the season and a runaway championship contender has stumbled. Its development package introduced in Malaysia has confused it. Yes, it says the numbers all add up to a positive, but the drivers are finding the car more difficult and, with that, finding it harder to consistently extract the laptime from it.
On the other hand, Red Bull has done the opposite. It has come from a more or less disastrous start by its standards to be on pole and win the last three races. Yes, one was a sprint, which, as Max Verstappen said, doesn’t really count, but even so, it just shows that when it comes to introducing developments, there are two sides to any coin and only one (or should I say won) will come up trumps.
Starting at the front, let’s compare the Red Bull and Mercedes.
Mercedes and Aston Martin were, as far as I am aware, the only two teams to start the season with the front wing mounted on the second element (highlighted with the red ellipse). This meant that, for straight mode, only the third element (orange highlight arrow) was reduced in angle.
Overall, there is probably a small weight saving with this concept, but in general it has meant that the forward element is more of a flow-direction optimiser as opposed to a major downforce-producing device. I say that because the slot gap between the first and second elements is fairly close to where the lowest air pressure is on the wing’s underside. This low pressure creates downforce, basically it pulls the car towards the track. On the Mercedes concept, it will simply pull more airflow through that slot gap.
We can see here that the chord lengths of the three elements are not vastly different: forward highlighted with the light blue arrow, middle with the green arrow, rear with the orange arrow. They are also fairly constant in chord along their span.
Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren have all gone for the other approach: a much longer-chord mainplane, highlighted with the dark blue arrows. When in straight mode, they reduce the angle of both the second and third elements.
I have transposed that dark blue arrow onto the Mercedes front wing to show what I mean about the slot gap between the forward element and the second element being slap bang in the middle of the total chord length of its two forward elements.
The chord lengths of the second and third elements, highlighted with the green and orange arrows, increase going outwards. This means that there is less airflow direction change inboard and under the chassis, where the objective is to get the best and fastest mass airflow to the leading edge of the underfloor.
Also, on the Red Bull, the detail of the trailing edge of the endplates is more sophisticated than on the Mercedes. This should reduce the sensitivity when the front of the car is close to the ground under braking, in roll mid-corner and on corner exit when the outer part of the wing runs over the exit kerbs.
Moving on to the leading edge of the central section of the floor, the Red Bull floor mounting system (green highlight) basically splits the car into two halves. It also has a small vane (purple highlight) halfway up that mounting system to help tidy up the airflow coming off the central section of the front wing.
The bargeboard and floor plate area is similar but actually fairly different in how it treats the airflow that it is trying to manage.
Overall, there are a similar number of elements. However, Red Bull looks as though it is doing more to attempt to tidy up the front tyre turbulence (wake). F1 being an open-wheel formula, managing the airflow around the tyres, both front and rear, is critical to the car’s overall aerodynamic performance.
Also, the wheel blockage probably accounts for something like 40% of the car’s drag.
As the car passes through the air, it has to displace a serious volume of air. That displaced air tries to fill the void behind the tyres, so managing it and making sure it doesn’t detrimentally affect the other downforce-producing devices is basically what this bargeboard and floor plate area is about. Red Bull is doing more to attempt to manage that turbulence before it does what it can to generate downforce from the floor footplate, in effect the front corner of the floor.
Instead of having a simple downwash sidepod as most teams now have, Red Bull has retained the raised outer section, giving it a gully inboard which is very similar in profile to the Mercedes sidepod in side view.
This is to help manage the airflow over the sidepods and into that central area around the sides of the gearbox, as opposed to just generating more flow through the complete width of the coke bottle area. Doing this can improve the diffuser’s performance where it struggles most, in its central section.
Red Bull also seems to have pulled off something of a controversial coup here, in that it has a very sharp trailing edge where the red highlight line turns to white.
The regulations define the minimum radii allowed on the sidepod’s upper corners. Most teams simply go for those minimum radii but with any regulation, it is about finding any grey areas. By having this sharper corner radius, as the airflow from the upper sidepod gully and the outer sidepod surface joins up, it will be travelling at different speeds, so basically along that sharp corner it will instigate a vortex which concentrated correctly, will travel along the inside of the rear brake ducts, generating higher levels of downforce on the turning vanes that are mounted on those brake ducts and in turn improve the performance of the diffuser.
The yellow highlight line is basically the Mercedes sidepod’s side profile.
We now move on to the area in front of the rear tyre contact patch. This is again about managing the airflow around the rear tyre, especially the tyre’s contact patch area.
As the tyre rotates on the track surface, you get what’s called tyre squirt. It goes both inboard and outboard. Outboard, you can basically let it do what it wants to do, but inboard tyre squirt can be detrimental to the performance of the diffuser and, in turn, the complete underfloor.
The detail and the philosophy in this area are quite similar. The Red Bull vent system seems to be further forward and, as you can see from the slot shadows on the ground below the floor, the slots lead naturally to the inside of the rear tyre contact patch.
Even though these are slots in the floor connecting the top surface to the underside, the objective is to actually reduce the spillage from the top surface going underneath the car. They act like a sealing system by connecting that fairly high-energy tyre squirt to the void behind the tyre’s contact patch. In turn, that airflow that would normally be pulled underneath the car by the low pressure on its underside is also pulled around the tyre contact patch.
Gone are the days when the diffuser was a simple ramp to a rectangular exit area; now it’s a multitude of vanes with strategically placed openings. Not to criticise Mercedes, but the Red Bull system seems to have just that little bit more detail to its elements. The other thing I would question on the Mercedes is the inner extension that connects the trailing edge of the diffuser to the beam wing, if it can be called that, highlighted in purple.
This inner section of the diffuser is furthest away from any influence from airflow structures coming from any other components, and because of that it can be tempting to maximise the performance in that area. However, when the car is close to the ground or the ambient and/or track temperature increases, the airflow in that area gets a bit lazy.
When that happens, it’s very easy to induce airflow separation, especially along the junction of the inner vertical surface and the diffuser’s upper surface.
Ferrari was the first to introduce the exhaust exit ramp. After many column inches about how it had managed this within the regulations only because of its differential position, most of the other teams have achieved more or less the same solution. Basically, the regulations call for an exhaust outlet of a minimum size. It has to be round, and the exit angle is also defined, all of which is to reduce the potential for exhaust blowing.
However, where there is a will, there is a way. One of the arguments was that mounting brackets weren’t controlled in the regulations. Whatever the reasoning, the objective is the same: having something behind the exhaust outlet simply redirects the exhaust flow upwards and, as part of the exhaust outlet is blanked off, it increases its velocity.
On full throttle and at reasonably high revs on corner exit, both of these will improve the rear downforce from the rear wing and consistency in that central section of the diffuser that I spoke about suffering from separation problems earlier.
Many times I say the devil is in the detail, so I suppose you could say that the twin element vane on the Mercedes should be a little better than the single element version on the Red Bull, but in this case I don’t think it really matters. Basically, it is a blanking plug that alters the velocity and direction of the very inconsistent and turbulent exhaust gas flow, so adding the component does most of the heavy lifting and optimising the detail would give a very small return.
If I were part of the decision-making group at the FIA, I would have banned it from day one. The reasoning would be that you couldn’t see the required opening, it wasn’t round as required, and the last section wasn’t within the required angle.
To be honest and upfront, I’m not saying either package is better than the other. To reach that conclusion would require countless hours of head-scratching and aerodynamic testing in both the windtunnel and CFD. Instead of just what keeps my ears apart, I would need a few (hundred) others to contribute.
This is mainly to show just what differences you can get from a very prescriptive set of regulations. Yes, those regulations don’t allow you to reinvent the wheel, but they still allow for some grey-matter scratching before you know what’s best, or hopefully best.
The Race ·
内容来自公开信源，聚合内容版权归原作者与来源所有。