Are CDG wings useless?

[Ciro Pabón]

Pardon my ignorance: it is true that CDG wings (splitted rear wings to be used next year) are not going to improve overtaking? Has anybody done a simulation on this?

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns17297.html

[flynfrog]

light speed and i were talking about running a simulation on the super ocmputer i have at school when it gets up and running

but i think it might be wores since you have double the vortices coming off the rear of the car

[DaveKillens]

This new weird wing rule is supposed to allow less downforce than before, and my personal opinion is that instead of one huge mass of turbulence, there will be two smaller ones instead. So if I assign arbitrary values to disturbance of airflow, we now have a 10. With the new CDG setup, we will see 4+4. That's my personal opinion.
Additionally, the change back to slick tires will give much improved mechanical grip. And of course, that will make the car less dependant on aero. Lap times should remain the same, but speed will be achieved by more tire grip, but less aero downforce.
Of course, this is all speculation, we shall just have to see how the racing is next year.

[MrT]

Fluent/AMD ran a comprehensive test study using CFD on the wing prior to it;s proposal. They found it would help in theory, in practice is a different matter though. I think theres little point in trying to disprove the theory usin CFD as Fluent have already dont this and I doubt you'll beat there experiance as they know the code and it's limitations

[Tom]

Wait and see...

[Scuderia_Russ]

I agree with Gary Anderson in that it looks like something a first year aero student would come up with for his first project. Apparently this design is fundamentally flawed because it lowers the pressure in the following cars airbox so much that they won't have the engine power to overtake even with all of the other aero benefits the wing gives! Put it in the bin!

[kilcoo316]

I think it will be clean useless.


The diffuser will have a much stronger upwash than the pitiful vortices created (far far above this upwash field) by the two rear wings.


The solution is to ban the diffuser and enforce minimal blockage around the gearbox to allow as much (and as clean as possible) flow through to the car wake so its streamlines will be roughly parallel to the ground plane.


Small scale turbulence will always exist, but at least this way the effective angle of attack of the following car, and the larger turbulent eddies currently present should be reduced.

[DaveKillens]

It's a complex solution to a simple problem. The cars are so aero dependant that following in the wake of another car reduces it's aero effectiveness. The solution? Instead of an untried rear wing configuration, just look at other racing series that do have close racing, and regular passing. Racing series like NASCAR, Touring cars, and even Champ cars are able to have passing and exciting action for the fans. Sedans are much less aero dependant, and rely much more on mechanical grip. In Champ Car, the same holds true, but with the inclusion of a "push to pass" system.
There's no disgrace or dishonor in copying what works, and Max and his elitist cronies should offer a simple solution(s) that already is in use around the world, and would cost the teams a lot less money to impliment. I shudder to contemplate how much has already been spent, and will be spent in wind tunnels by all teams to figure out this new problem. And I'd be very surprised if this new CFG wing rule doesn't have changes down the road, leading to more confusion by the fans, and more money spent in the wind tunnel.
Presently, this system apppears valid in the sterile world of CDF programs and the wind tunnel. But once it is implimented and the teams start to figure things out, they will try to find any way within the rules to create a messy aero trail behind the car that once again restores the status quo, and it will be hard to follow the car ahead.

[Apex]

Apparently this design is fundamentally flawed because it lowers the pressure in the following cars airbox so much that they won't have the engine power to overtake even with all of the other aero benefits the wing gives! Put it in the bin!

I read that same atricle that your mentioning russ, but if you check the pic out - the two contradict one another.

Could be two things happening:
1 - Renault dont want the wing so they go public saying that it wont work, trying to get the fans on their side
2 - The FIA picture has been faked, to give the impression that their concept works.

[theSuit]

There was an article in Race Tech a few months back about it. The idea is not so much a reduction in turbulence per say, but rather to try and get the central part of the flow to flow down, onto the wings of the following car - hence the D in CDG.

However, the article went on to be very skeptical of the merits of the plan.

IMHO, there are far better ways to improve overtaking without having to enforce the CDG wing (and let's be honest, the FIA's attempts to influence aero design haven't exactly produced the result they intended).

And for the record - NASCAR isn't real motorsport. It's rednecks driving crap cars in circles.

[Apex]

There was an article in Race Tech a few months back about it. The idea is not so much a reduction in turbulence per say, but rather to try and get the central part of the flow to flow down, onto the wings of the following car - hence the D in CDG.

However, the article went on to be very skeptical of the merits of the plan.

Yup, come to think of it - if your making downwash instead of (the current) upwash, your be producing lift instead of downforce.

If this is the case then following a car would be the only way to stay on the track - but how does the leading car keep it on the black stuff. lol!

[Ciro Pabón]

Could be two things happening:
1 - Renault dont want the wing so they go public saying that it wont work, trying to get the fans on their side
2 - The FIA picture has been faked, to give the impression that their concept works.

Thanks, Apex, very interesting. Actually, it is the first time I have seen a "cut" (or section) of the rear vortex. Apparently, this cut goes through the centerline of the car (through the "hole" between the two wings). Might this section exaggerate the effect?

Wouldn’t CDG concept create “heavy vortexing”? (it could be a nice new verb: I “vortexed” him out of the race…)

@theSuit: could you give us some ideas about the "better ways" (not mentioned already)?

Moreover, dude, (not so seriously) would you say that F1 are snobby Europeans driving obscenely expensive cars in a queue, "per say"? Besides, what's wrong with NASCAR? They had the CDG idea years ago:

[img::]http://www.redneck-humor.com/files/picture/48141815.jpg[/img]

[DaveKillens]

I can understand Renault resisting the change to a totally new aero package. They currently have one of the best aero packages, with a very well balanced car. Going to the CDG wing is basically sending everyone back to the starting line, and wiping out any Renault advantage.
As I intimated in a previous post, the teams will most likely find a way to mess up the airflow behind the rear wing, to discourage cars following behind. In theory there seems to be a "hole" that would allow a car to close up, but in practice, I don't expect that to happen.
Why, oh why do they want such a complex and expensive solution for a simple problem?

[theSuit]

@theSuit: could you give us some ideas about the "better ways" (not mentioned already)?

Moreover, dude, (not so seriously) would you say that F1 are snobby Europeans driving obscenely expensive cars in a queue, "per say"? Besides, what's wrong with NASCAR? They had the CDG idea years ago:

Right, here we go...

Starting with aero, (which I ought to say is not really my area) what I think has happened over the past few years is that the rule changes aimed at reducing downforce have done so by lifting wings away from the ground, limiting the design of the floor to generated downforce etc.

The response has been the proliferation of wing-lets etc on the top side of the car, most of which are there to steer as much air over the rear wing as possible. My hunch is that this make the cars far more vulnerable to others' wakes. With ground effect type aero there's a nice boundary condition in the shape of the ground - so be there a car in front of not there's not much change to the flow.

(Yup there are concerns with ground effect what with bottoming out and going flying, but...)

Secondly I'd point you to this article at Crash.net:
http://web78.f-1.com/feature_view~t~-B- ... d~9843.htm
Smaller cars / wider tracks and modest changes to some corners could do a lot to help. Even treating the tarmac differently could help promote overtaking - even some of the great old circuits could benefit without needing to be changed much.

Further, the past few years have thrown up some really exiting races on tracks that are not renowned for their passing places - there's something wrong with the accepted wisdom that you cant pass at the Hungaroring and Monaco when this season they've been the seen of some of the most prolific overtaking. I can't help but think that there's something wrong when people say "there are X passing places on the circuit". I thought overtaking was something the drivers did... not Hermann.


Which leads me to my next point: qualifying. Does anyone else see the irony in complaining that there's no overtaking when we deliberately arrange it so that the race starts with cars arranged in speed order? There'd be a damn site more overtaking if we ditch qually and just start the race in reverse championship order. Championship would remain open longer too.

One lap qually last year was better too - by forcing a trade to be made between grid position and strategy there was a tactical element that though still present is reduced by the 'fuel economy run'. The racing was far more likely to see overtaking when there was a 'false' pole than when the grid is in perfect speed order.

On the plus side, the move to control tires should help - consider the 2003 season. Some days were Bridgestone days, some Michelin. When the former, Ferrari won, when the latter the wins were split between several teams. Hungary this year was a microcosm of the phenomenon. Tires just have such an overwhelming effect that if you're on the wrong brand for a race you've really not got a hope.

Finally, there's a fundamental problem when you've got limited variation between cars. In F1 you find that there is such a concentration of engineers and money and good drivers that it's a miracle that there's any difference between performance - the cars all tend to the optimum solution allowed under the rules quickly due to the amount and quality of testing and development done. It's only with changing rules that things get 'interesting'. Though not a one make series, the top teams have cars that are nigh on perfect - under the regulations and laws of physics. And there's just not enough variation among the drivers to make the difference. Consider passing under braking - when the cars are braking for 40m (which is a heavy stop in F1) then getting a 4m advantage, enough to pass, means that one driver (and car) needs to be 10% better than the other, and thats a lot of variation for what are almost the top 22 cars and drivers in the world.

You asked for this remember!

I'll leave you with my most controversial thought - it's not that bad at the moment. Sure there's not that much overtaking, but the season is still interesting. Sure you have to wait for overtaking, but at least you enjoy it when it happens. And when you do get the good races they are really good.

(As to NASCAR, well, I think JPM description sums it up: "The technology is zero, the engines are V8, American style with carburettor, not injection. They are steel cars, tubular, huge. One goes inside a cage, in a carbon seat for protection and it has tyres this big. The season begins in February and it finishes in November It goes thru 36 weekends of 52 in the year. The race least two hours, the long ones last four and a half hours."

Motorsport is supposed to be about technology. It's what makes it unique from other sports: the equipment matters. It's a team sport, and most of them are there to make the equipment right. If you think that a front running F1 team will have on the order 500 people in it, then the car should matter at least as much as the driver.

And 4 and a half hours! I've never managed to watch a full lap of Indy Car let alone NASCAR. Straight, turn left, turn left... oh look QVC are selling a juicer... )

[DaveKillens]

Well thought out theSuit, I appreciate your input. Most of your comment I agree with. I do, however, disagree that motorsport is about the technology. Personally, it's about the competition, and the car is just the platform. If you want to view high technology, just go to the local airport and watch the aircraft take off and land. There's more tech in those planes than any F1 car. Just my personal point of view.
I do watch NASCAR on occasion, although the hype and BS is quite nauseating at times. Oval racing is like opera, it takes a developed taste. And it's not for everyone.
But the most interesting and exciting racing I have seen this year has been in Champ cars, Bourdaqis, Tracy, Allmendinger, Ranger, Legge, and so on. The outcome is always in doubt, driver skill, luck, and strategy is always important, and boy oh boy, there's always lot of excitement. And it's basically a fixed formula, one engine, chassis, and tires for all.