I am completely out of my depth here, so probably asking a stupid question.
Two parts to the same question. Is there any stipulation of surface finish on wings, or anywhere really, and could this surface be 'roughened' at say the outside edges of the wing to create a vortex 'seal' or ramp?
As in the vid above, 'air forced upwards gives force downwards( paraphrased )' would it mean a disturbance at the wing ends redirects this airflow upwards?
Apologies if it is a stupid question, or if I have not stated it well
The only benefit from heavily asymmetrical damping forces is an ill handling car... Kinematic rules apply no matter what.
If it makes the car bad, there's no reason to include it in the rules. Ergo, if they choose to ban it, it's because it's something the teams could use to good effect. The issue, as ever with the FIA's rules, is a grey definition rather than a black and white one.
Who defines what "heavily asymmetric" is and when does it get defined? And what is meant by "heavily"? 50%? 100%? Some other "picked at random from the bag" figure? It's set up for another round of protests between two or more teams at some point during the season. It's set up for "the show".
I'd assume the 'heavily asymmetric' ban is there to prevent teams using their 'dampers' as a spring element. Note that the previous paragraph finishes with "Spring elements using a fluid medium are not permitted". These damper requirements are probably there to prevent teams from using fluid based springs and calling them dampers.
I am completely out of my depth here, so probably asking a stupid question.
Two parts to the same question. Is there any stipulation of surface finish on wings, or anywhere really, and could this surface be 'roughened' at say the outside edges of the wing to create a vortex 'seal' or ramp?
As in the vid above, 'air forced upwards gives force downwards( paraphrased )' would it mean a disturbance at the wing ends redirects this airflow upwards?
Apologies if it is a stupid question, or if I have not stated it well
There’s no stipulation I’m aware of on surface finish. But you won’t get much vorticity to “seal” anything
Yeh, seal was the wrong word. Deflect is the word I should have used.
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
The only benefit from heavily asymmetrical damping forces is an ill handling car... Kinematic rules apply no matter what.
If it makes the car bad, there's no reason to include it in the rules. Ergo, if they choose to ban it, it's because it's something the teams could use to good effect. The issue, as ever with the FIA's rules, is a grey definition rather than a black and white one.
Who defines what "heavily asymmetric" is and when does it get defined? And what is meant by "heavily"? 50%? 100%? Some other "picked at random from the bag" figure? It's set up for another round of protests between two or more teams at some point during the season. It's set up for "the show".
I'd assume the 'heavily asymmetric' ban is there to prevent teams using their 'dampers' as a spring element. Note that the previous paragraph finishes with "Spring elements using a fluid medium are not permitted". These damper requirements are probably there to prevent teams from using fluid based springs and calling them dampers.
There used to be a damper ‘trick’ in NASCAR where they used large amounts of rebound damping to ‘pull’ the cars down in an attempt to seal the front spoiler and outside body edge to the track for an aero gain. It is also something that what’s done in Indycar racing on the big ovals.
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
Having messed around with the setup of these cars for a few hours over the course of 2 months, I have some notes. Take it with a grain of salt, it's just a game.
I remember at one point Williams had no main springs on its suspension, it just used the heave spring and anti-roll bar to control wheel movement.
From my experience, the cars like fairly soft springs and stiff heave spring and moderately stiff roll bar in the rear. It makes the rear ride height more consistent. Also having more roll stiffness improves the consistency of the diffuser.
In contrast the front wing works much better when you have less roll stiffness in the front. This is because the wing gets closer to the ground under roll with softer wheel and roll rates relative to the rear. Cars can still tackle kerbs and bumps but you have to be more careful than the outgoing cars.
You have to be much more delicate with the brake pedal under trail braking, pitching forward lifts the diffuser off the ground. The braking performance isn't bad if you can control the platform because you can trailbrake right up to the apex if you do it gently enough.
A wild idea from me, could it be usefull to drive a little nose up, tail down? The plank ends quite far in front of the rear tires, so it would bring the back third of the floor down and also the diffusor sidewall.
