And produce big drag and big turbulence... indycars with underbody downforce still make slipstreams but without all that turbulence, making the cars much less nervous.PNSD wrote:Big wings produce big wake, ie slipstream.
And produce big drag and big turbulence... indycars with underbody downforce still make slipstreams but without all that turbulence, making the cars much less nervous.PNSD wrote:Big wings produce big wake, ie slipstream.
Big wings don't necessitate big drag. A single plane element wing of say 1 metre width with wing-tip structures will produce far less drag than a current F1 wing. F1 wings produce so much drag and turbulence because they are running at over 70° angle of attack (the upper element). If they used a single plane with a wider span to produce the same downforce the drag and turbulence would be far less - almost negligible.ISLAMATRON wrote:And produce big drag and big turbulence... indycars with underbody downforce still make slipstreams but without all that turbulence, making the cars much less nervous.PNSD wrote:Big wings produce big wake, ie slipstream.
The front wings are already almost as wide as the car, how much wider do they need to be? I did like the older wider rear wings.Scotracer wrote:Big wings don't necessitate big drag. A single plane element wing of say 1 metre width with wing-tip structures will produce far less drag than a current F1 wing. F1 wings produce so much drag and turbulence because they are running at over 70° angle of attack (the upper element). If they used a single plane with a wider span to produce the same downforce the drag and turbulence would be far less - almost negligible.
Is that so?ISLAMATRON wrote:Quite the opposite... GP2, like Indy car rely much more on underbody down force and ground effects,
Apples to oranges. Indianapolis is a multi-line circuit, F1 typically does not run on such circuits.ISLAMATRON wrote: Please watch the Indy 500 this weekend and watch how they can dice at high speed(200+ mph)
kilcoo316 wrote:Is that so?ISLAMATRON wrote:Quite the opposite... GP2, like Indy car rely much more on underbody down force and ground effects,
Explain the following then please:
Apples to oranges. Indianapolis is a multi-line circuit, F1 typically does not run on such circuits.ISLAMATRON wrote: Please watch the Indy 500 this weekend and watch how they can dice at high speed(200+ mph)
See the shallow ramp angle?ISLAMATRON wrote:see the big venturi tunnels(much like INDYCAR)? I'm not saying diffusers are the (only)key to close racing, but underbody/ground effects downforce as a whole.
Please enlighten uskilcoo316 wrote:See the shallow ramp angle?ISLAMATRON wrote:see the big venturi tunnels(much like INDYCAR)? I'm not saying diffusers are the (only)key to close racing, but underbody/ground effects downforce as a whole.
Know what that infers for the wake?
Know what it infers for downforce levels?
A shallow ramp angle means:ISLAMATRON wrote:Please enlighten us
Down to the track again. The F1 layout had a high-speed grip-limited corner just before joining the oval bit - and there wasn't much of a chance to follow there, not with the old aero rules. The F1 cars drove on less than half the oval, and watching the footage there, the drafting cars always seemed to catch up on those leading them, but it was too short, considering they started "chasing" far behind due to that corner.ISLAMATRON wrote:and regarding your apples to oranges to comment, I wouldnt really call it a multi-line circuit maybe 1.5 cars wide line but my point is INDYCARS race much closer there than F1 cars ever did in turn 13 of the USGP (turn 1 on the Indy track)... when did we ever see F1 cars there(turn 13) side by side even though they were going much slower.