CDG wing concept

[joseff]

I'm not sure who's idea this CDG was, but I clearly recall that it involved MrM's old business-buddy Nick Wirth, a man who never had much success with anything.

After the one that broke in Imola, Nick Wirth shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a racing car wing. Tragic.

[Ian P.]

If you are looking to design a car for a seed rangeto 180 km, I would expect you would be focused on efficiency rather than downforce. At the power levels you arelikely to be running at, you won't have the luxury of being able to use power to generate downforce to reduce wheel-spin.
I would focus on the underbody of the carrather than high drag appendages stuck out in the airstream.

[xpensive]

I'd say the opposite Ian P., the aerodynamic drag only requires 22% of the engine-power at 180 compared to 300 km/h.

[xpensive]

Ha, wait 'til you try manage half a dozen of those...it's spelled ulcer.

[Michiba]

That split rear wing doesn't look too bad to me. It would balance the wide front wings brought in for this year.

[mach11]

i emailed a GP 2 team and i have found no result.... is there any possibility that i can get the dimensions of this CDG wing which is actually mounted on a F1 car.....

[gridwalker]

It never got past a basic design phase & was never mounted on a car.

I guess you could email Nick Wirth

[mach11]

can this CDG wing be mounted over the rear wheels???

[Scotracer]

can this CDG wing be mounted over the rear wheels???

It could be...but it would require some serious regulation re-writing.

[wesley123]

I read once abiout the CDG wing, and what i read then(didnt know if it is correct what i say) is that the rear wheels have a positive effect on the rear wing, the article said that the rear wheels wake encouraged the air under the wing to keep attached and flow faster, so it would generate alot more downforce, might be one of the reasons it was never tested for real.

[tahadar]

I read once abiout the CDG wing, and what i read then(didnt know if it is correct what i say) is that the rear wheels have a positive effect on the rear wing, the article said that the rear wheels wake encouraged the air under the wing to keep attached and flow faster, so it would generate alot more downforce, might be one of the reasons it was never tested for real.

That would the same case for any other wing mounted above a spinning wheel, as they create a region of low pressure above the wheel which would help accelerate air under the wing and aid in production of downforce. The CDG wing was never tested because it was only envisioned for an ideal straightline case where one car would be perfectly in line behind another car on a straight. What would happen in any other scenario wasnt really though about from what I understand. either way, the teams quickly put down the CDG idea and it was left behind.

[wesley123]

always thoguht the wheel generated high pressure.

Actually, i think the CDG wing would generate more donwforce then the normal rear wing, because the low pressure of the rear wheel. The CDG in drwaings seems to be a simple rear wing cut in 2 parts, so they have the same size, that they are mounted to the sides of the car only adds more downforce to that points(correct me if im wrong)

[tahadar]

the top surface of a spinning cyclinder produces low pressure and the bottom surface produces high pressure. in the case of a tyre, the low pressure will be above the tyre.

besides, the CDG wings were behind the rear wheels and not above, placing some of the suction side of the wing in the turbulent rear wheel wake. add this to a lift-generating central section (i.e. the downwash part of the CDG concept) and what you have is definitely not the recipe for increased downforce!

[Ogami musashi]

It was not the low pressure, it was simply that the close proximity of the wheel was supposed to re energize the bottom surface boundary layer making it less prone to stall.


Now, the plans were to have 50% less downforce than in 2006.