Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

[Ciro Pabón]

Guys, again, this thread is going to be merged, you're still talking about MacLawrence. When I do it, it will appear broken. Twelve hours to go, nobody has said a peep.

[segedunum]

It's ridiculous trying to keep track of this topic in several different threads. It is a feature of the MP4/25 so we should discuss it here.

no it isnt its a movable valve!! a wing is an aero device and they dont move the wing they move the air thats why its such a simple idea

People are focusing on movable aerodynamic devices and whether the driver is excluded from such a process, and there are regulations governing a driver's role, but this is a system that actively and specifically decides to change the aerodynamics of the car. There is something that is moving there to disrupt airflow. Without movement of some description it doesn't work. It's not a passive system, that much is clear. If it was, that would be a grey area but it would be too hellish to control.

Seriously, movable aerodynamic devices and systems that alter the aerodynamics of a car in a specific way have been debated at length for decades and they have long been banned by the regulations because they generally ended up being dangerous. Suppose this wing stall ends up being stuck on into a corner? Do we know what the effect will be? It reminds me of the 'sticking skirts' of the ground-effect era that produced more than a few accidents. That's the problem, it becomes a large variable. God knows where someone like Adrian Newey would take this, and I see the ground effect era happening all over again.

[Sebp]

If you merge the threads then I suggest you incorporate the Snorkel dicussion into this one. We should be discussing all sorts of driver operated aero devices here.

[conni]

they move the air over a normal wing wots the difference

conni

[Pandamasque]

When conni first mentioned a 'valve' I thought of a valve as a movable devise in the car (a solid part most likely made of CF or aluminium). If the the snorkel airflow just redirects the airbox airflow acting as a 'valve' then it should be perfectly legal, as the only moving part would be called Jenson or Lewis.

[Giblet]

It is legal. Let it go. You are wrong. Your opinions on it's safety and legality are all moot at this point.

They have a found a loophole in the rules that allows them to use the driver to redirect air to the wing. He is part of the system but excluded by the rules as he is not part of the car. You don't like it, fine, we understand. Move on.

The drivers right foot is a traction control system. WE CAN"T STAND FOR THIS!!!11!! CALL CHARLIE WHITING!!@@@!!!1111.

Seriously dude, get over yourself and let this one go.

[conni]

nice 1 giblet

conni

[PlatinumZealot]

This is the drawing that I said I was going to post a few weeks ago.

This is alternative 1. No snorkel (passive version):

At high speeds the pressure inside the top duct builds up enough to divert the flow. THe bulge in the ducitng is necessary so the air does not attach to the wall and is free to turn.



Alternative 2. Snorkel

I haven't really figured out the layout of this yet.

[DaveKillens]

This is how it works. First point is that the air entering the mystery scoop on the nose does not provide air to the rear wing slot, instead it controls the flow of air inside the airbox.

Inside the cockpit, most likely around the driver's left foot (my belief it is mounted above the left foot) is a small plenum box, fed from the mystery scoop. There is a second conduit that runs from this plenum box to the airbox. This conduit is probably somewhere 1.5 to 2 cm in diameter. The plenum box has a hole in it, and it allows the air being fed into it to escape into the driver's cockpit. But when the driver chooses to stall out the rear wing and reduce drag and downforce, he moves his left leg or foot to cover this hole in the plenum box. The pressure rises, and is directed along the conduit to the airbox.

Inside the airbox is a fluidic switch, and when the air pressure coming from the conduit coming from the little plenum box rises, it diverts the air designated for the rear wing to flow away, thus decreasing the airflow to the rear wing slot, stalling the wing.

There are no moving parts, everything is rigid and secure. Trust me, there are no flapper valves or crushable hoses.

The driver receives simple instruction on it's use. When in a straight line, move the left foot to cover the hole. That's it, the entire instructions. All the driver has to know is that this system can be activated only in a straight line.

This system is simple, and is designed fail safe.

This is how it works. The driver is racing along, and enters a straight. Once the car is past the corner, he lefts his left foot about 5 cm and covers this little hole. The driver maintains this until he decides it's time to brake. His left foot comes off the hole, drag and downforce are restored to the rear wing, and his left foot presses down on the brakes.

[rich1701]

can a driver comfortably block a draft of air flowing at 180mph with his foot?

[conni]

yes it isnt like electric its pressure sensitive

conni

[timd]

Well regardless how it works that must be a nice breaze on a hot day at the track in an F1 car.

Thats got to be worth something for driver comfort and pushing alone lol.

If it does work how we assume that is. Id say it does have to be part of the computation of its value that the hot tracks will be far more bareable for the drivers. For Charlie to say its legal it cant be so clear as a blockable pipe imo, much more subtle than that. Just an airway channeled the leg "could" get in the way of. That would give a fair bit of bleed. So even a smallish advantage, which is all i think this gives does give more. Plus its a new development avenue so can be improved.

Mclaren last year started with a horrible car but improved it loads. They have now grown a pair and are prepared to make big moves in the belief they will get the right after further development. I see them being sub optimum first few races but comeing on strong later in the season but that is pure guess work.

[segedunum]

It is legal. Let it go. You are wrong.

For someone who stamped his feet and made a big thing of 'discussing' this when it suited him I find that funny. Now that he doesn't want to he wants to take his toys away. You're a big part of the reason why this thread got broken off into half a dozen different pieces.

Your opinions on it's safety and legality are all moot at this point.

They are nevertheless legitimate concerns based on the past history of moveable, changeable and active aerodynamic devices in Formula 1, which you don't discuss or expand upon................yet again.

Are you actually going to discuss what you think will happen with this device if it gets stuck on in the middle of a corner, or are we just going to get more inane defensive crap? The former is, afterall, why we have these topics.

They have a found a loophole in the rules that allows them to use the driver to redirect air to the wing. He is part of the system but excluded by the rules as he is not part of the car.

He isn't excluded by the rules at all because there are regulations that specifically exclude such systems - and they don't explicitly exclude a driver being a part of that. You have NO response to that other than "OMG it'z legal!! $$%%%%@@@@@@" It adds nothing but crap to a thread already filled with such crap.

Fine, you think it's legal as does the FIA (until they do another U-turn in which case someone else will be 'right'). There's nothing more for you to discuss. Let others get on with actually 'discussing' it and its legality based on things we actually know about.

[segedunum]

they move the air over a normal wing wots the difference

What's that got to do with it?

[sticky667]

can a driver comfortably block a draft of air flowing at 180mph with his foot?

i imagine it can't be any worse than the pressure of a brake pedal halting a car at 180mph in 3 secs.