Top five technical innovations seen at Jerez

ERS LIGHTS

When the Mercedes W05 was unveiled to photographers, the rollhoop shone with the light from an array of green LEDs.

Rather than this being a reflection of the fuel sponsor's colour scheme, it was the first view we've had of a new safety-light system for 2014's more powerful ERS.

Up until last year, any car fitted with KERS had to have a safety light on top of the chassis to warn marshals and mechanics of the car's electrical safety status.

But its position facing upwards in front of the cockpit was hard to see from a distance, so for 2014 safety lights have been added to the rollhoop and the rear tail lamp.

These lights are controlled by the car's ECU. If the ERS is in a safe condition, then lights are green; if not they're red. These lights will come on if the car is in the pitlane or if it stops.

MESL DASH

With the increased emphasis on ERS for 2014, the teams have been allowed to use a complex dash on their steering wheel.

Although teams started to use large LCD displays on their steering wheels in the early 2000s, the introduction of the FIA control ECU in 2008 halted their use and only a McLaren Electronics PCU-6D dash was permitted.

Toro Rosso is one of the teams using the new optional LCD Dash display © XPB

This LED display only offered a limited range of information to be displayed, and for many was a regressive step in passing information to the driver.

The new PCU-8D is a new 4.2 LCD colour display, which offers teams near limitless options to display information to the drivers.

Teams have the option of using this dash or the older format.

The difference will be in how much information their drivers need and a small 100g weight gain for the new display.

McLAREN SUSPENSION BLOCKERS

At its launch, McLaren's rear suspension drew attention with the unusually angled rear legs of the wishbone and toe-control arm.

After delays caused by hydraulic issues on the first day of the test, the MP4-29 took to the track and immediately surprised with the fairings added to these suspension members.

Both the trailing suspension elements sported large fairings, which create a curved vertical surface when viewed from behind.

Closer inspection shows the fairing to be almost cricket-bat-shaped blockers, with a rounded front profile enclosing the suspension member, and a lip and flat rear surface forming a top-hat-like profile.

Clearly not a mechanical or structural solution, these fairings are purely for aerodynamic purposes and replace the effect of the beam wing, which was removed from the regulations this year.

The rear-suspension legs are fitted with cricket-bat-like fairings (yellow) to help replicate the effect of the banned beam wing

McLaren has been clever to integrate the blockers into the entire rear-end philosophy of the car, as the gearbox and rear crash structure had to be adapted to fit the trailing legs of the suspension.

Having these angled legs means McLaren can still meet the regulation that suspension elements must be straight in between mounting points, while then offsetting the fairing profile to align them with the rear edge of the diffuser.

It's clearly the diffuser that's affected by this solution as the cricket bats slim down to a conventional profile near the rear wheel.

When airflow passes down the sidepods and into the Coke-bottle tail of the car, it hits the large cross-sectional profile of the fairings. Air spills under and over the profiles and this creates a large low-pressure zone directly behind the car.

Air exiting the diffuser is encouraged into this zone, which in turns pulls more flow through the underfloor, creating more underbody downforce. Of course this comes at a cost: the solution creates huge amounts of drag, which is a big penalty in a fuel-efficiency formula.

AUTOSPORT technical consultant Gary Anderson believes that at top speed, as the ride height drops, the fairings could create larger gaps and relieve some of their effect for a reduction in drag at higher speed.

Although clearly aerodynamic, these fairings appear to be legal in most interpretations of the regulations.

They are counted as part of the unsprung part of the chassis (ie suspension) and hence they're allowed to move. They are symmetrical in cross-section and are within the maximum length and cross-sectional ratio for suspension members.

The key precedent is that teams have exploited aerodynamic benefits from suspension for many years. If you ran an F1 car in CFD with and without suspension members, there would be less downforce with the wishbones removed!

From behind the vertical surface formed by the fairings is apparent © XPB

But this is an extreme interpretation of the rules and, although the FIA appears happy with the design, others feel it's gone beyond what is an acceptable shaping of the suspension members and may contravene older technical directives.

The only area that both Gary Anderson and I think may be controversial is that, while the suspension members are straight between the inner and outer mountings, the 'fairing' is doglegged to allow it to run along the trailing edge of the diffuser.

It will have to wait for the first race weekend in Melbourne before anything formal can be done about protesting the design.

WILLIAMS BEAM WING

The loss of the rear beam wing is a problem for the aerodynamicists, as the wing connected the upflow from the diffuser to the rear wing. With this beam wing gone, the compound effect of the connected airflow costs overall downforce.

Williams has replicated the banned beam wing as a low wing just ahead of the diffuser (yellow)

McLaren has found an aggressive solution but Williams has a simpler, more elegant one. It has fitted a beam-wing-style wing low down above the diffuser; this sits below the 150mm maximum height for bodywork around the diffuser and is totally legal.

The wing profile slims slightly as it passes under the gearbox and, as with the 2013 beam wings, serves as the means for passing the rear wing's loads into the chassis. So Williams does not have a rear-wing-support pillar.

Other teams are likely to have similar solutions in place for Melbourne. There are a number of areas around the rear of the car that allow loophole devices such as this.

INTERCOOLING

Part of the challenge for designers this year is the cooling demand from the power unit.

One of the factors in the increased cooling is the need to cool the air after being compressed by the turbocharger, before it goes into the engine. Cooler and therefore denser charge air has more oxygen and, as a result, creates more power.

Typically, F1 teams have used intercoolers to cool charge air, with the radiator-like structure passing the charge air through tiny tubes, and the external airflow taking heat out of the intercooler.

This is thermally efficient and light. But the current breed of intercoolers are huge, three to four times thicker than a conventional water radiator, and end up filling an entire sidepod. This is bad for aerodynamics as the drag of the cooler area, as well as the extra sidepod volume enclosing the intercooler, are a major penalty.

The intercooler (yellow) is large, taking up valuable space in the sidepods

Another means of intercooling is to use water as an intermediary cooling step. Water-to-air intercoolers enclose the charge air-cooler core with a water jacket. The water conducts heat away from the tubes, and then this water is separately cooled with the water radiator in the sidepod.

This method is far more thermally efficient and requires a smaller intercooler area and a small water radiator. This benefit is compounded as the water-air intercooler does not need to sit in the airflow and can be tucked away for aerodynamic benefit; secondly, the smaller water radiator saves on drag and sidepod space.

Even the pipework can be smaller, so turbo lag can be slightly reduced as the path from the turbo-to-inlet tract is shortened.

This solution has been used in F1 in the past: Toleman's Hart engine of the early 1980s initially used water-to-air cooling for the single turbo. So although this solution is proven to work and has major aero benefits, why isn't it adopted more widely?

The answer is that the complexity of the plumbing, the water pump and the water jacket all add weight to the car.

The water-jacketed intercooler is small and allied to a small water radiator

So few teams have been able to adopt this method, as the cars are on the edge of the weight limit already.

It is understood that Ferrari, Marussia and Sauber are using water-to-air as well as the Mercedes factory car. Those top two teams at least can afford the weight penalty of the heavier set-up, and can thus recoup the benefits in aerodynamic performance.

These sidepod-packaging advantages could allow better airflow to the rear of the car for production of downforce.

It's possible that this could have played a part in Ferrari and Mercedes foregoing the anteater-nose design for one that compromises airflow to the rear in favour of front-end downforce.