I agree with everything you said but I think we must check this in CFD to see if drag is higher or smaller. Members from aviation stack claim that drag is higher when slot is closed...
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
I agree with everything you said but I think we must check this in CFD to see if drag is higher or smaller. Members from aviation stack claim that drag is higher when slot is closed...
Teams already did this slot sealing for drag reduction, as recently as 2006. Here's one article, but you'll find more all over the internet
I will do test for my self...Vanja #66 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2023, 21:42
Teams already did this slot sealing for drag reduction, as recently as 2006. Here's one article, but you'll find more all over the internet
https://www.f1technical.net/development ... -rear-wing
FIA demanded slot gap separators to be added in-season and ever since, since it is a moveable aero device.
Make sure you use full 400x200mm space for wing and flap allowed by current rules, this will enable to have a big enough camber of the wing. I'd also go for a big flap angle, at least 60-65°, like Red Bull is using.
CFD has big time correlation issues, especially when comparing computed drag to measured wind tunnel.
I dont care if numbers are real, I just need do drag comparation for wing with slot vs same wing with closed slot....Hoffman900 wrote: ↑17 Dec 2023, 17:14CFD has big time correlation issues, especially when comparing computed drag to measured wind tunnel.
Might be fine for illustration, but don’t believe those numbers, and anticipate 10%+ errors between real life and virtual.
yes ....Hoffman900 wrote: ↑17 Dec 2023, 17:14... CFD has big time correlation issues, especially when comparing computed drag to measured wind tunnel.
.... anticipate 10%+ errors between real life and virtual.
Well, the simulation was done for a Formula Student car, so there are some major differences in wing geometry (the slot is too big and the flap is at a lower than optimal angle, both things reduce pressure drop potential) and simulation boundary conditions - most of all the free stream velocity - compared to an F1 car. I don't agree with some of their conclusions and explanations, but I will keep those details to myself.
I dont understand why pressure drag or they call it profile drag(isnt this integration of static pressure around wing??) is higher when flow separate?
If I ask someone to help me understand something and I can't understand it even after I was given a few examples and explanations, I would keep thinking about on my own as well and try to put things together. Much more constructive than questioning the person I asked to help me. But hey, that's just me...
As I said before, their wing geometry is not adequate, they aren't working the wing hard enough so they could generate benefit of f-duct-type drag reduction over a wider range of parameters they were looking at. They don't generate a Cp which is low enough in the first place. Their flap is too small, the flap angle is too small, their slot is too big and resulting wing camber is relatively small for a high-downforce motorsport rear wing. Compare their design with Latios' (which also doesn't have too much of a camber, but the whole wing is at a higher angle) and 2010 McLaren with actual f-duct.
Of course, but Fluido did ask only how a stall reduces dragjjn9128 wrote: ↑18 Dec 2023, 17:40You all seem to be under the assumption flow separation is the only mechanism. Ground effect - particularly F1 ground effect - is very heavily dependent on vortices to improve/maintain load. If those vortex systems break down your downforce goes too, so your pressure drag reduces (along with that vortex induced drag).
Thanks Vanja for help, sadly at this forum I cant ask questions for general aerodynamics(to learn more), only related to F1 aero. What is your opinion about level of aerodynamics knowledge at aviation stack echange, CFD forum and physics forum?Vanja #66 wrote: ↑18 Dec 2023, 21:17If I ask someone to help me understand something and I can't understand it even after I was given a few examples and explanations, I would keep thinking about on my own as well and try to put things together. Much more constructive than questioning the person I asked to help me. But hey, that's just me...
You can view my forum profile page and click on my "website" - my LinkedIn account - to see who I am, I don't keep my identity a secret on this forum.
As I said before, their wing geometry is not adequate, they aren't working the wing hard enough so they could generate benefit of f-duct-type drag reduction over a wider range of parameters they were looking at. They don't generate a Cp which is low enough in the first place. Their flap is too small, the flap angle is too small, their slot is too big and resulting wing camber is relatively small for a high-downforce motorsport rear wing. Compare their design with Latios' (which also doesn't have too much of a camber, but the whole wing is at a higher angle) and 2010 McLaren with actual f-duct.
https://i.ibb.co/JFnssQQ/f-duct.jpg
Do you expect significant suction drop while trying to induce stall on a wing that's not working at the very edge of stall? If we said already that stall induces a Cp of about -1, you need a wing geometry that generates Cp well under -1 to see any benefit of drag reduction by stalling the wing on purpose. After that, you optimise it and introduce a very large flap angle to enhance this effect...
Hamilton even mentioned this in an interview this season when he said he'd seen stuff in development and the flows were really complicated under the floor.Hoffman900 wrote: ↑19 Dec 2023, 00:04The problem almost all these “aero analysis” youtuber / social media accounts, save for Kyle Engineers is they draw everything as if flow is laminar. It’s not and there are vortexes all over the place of a F1 car, which makes them even harder to model and for most, to even have a resemblance of an idea of what squigglies to draw on an image.