Hanford Device

[Giblet]

Could the forced implementation of this device (flat plank across rear wing) help F1 cars in the ability to follow closely?

Or is it more suitable to high speed applications like it was in the 90's with CART?

Hanford Device

[Steven]

Interesting pondering!

It would be interesting to see if someone could try and run this in a CFD tool.

For sure this will create more of a wake and possibly more advantages in the slipstream. One additional thing to consider is how this could actually decrease the interaction of the rear wing with the diffuser. Remember that the OWG raised the rear wing height partially because of that, but this device could add to it further, simplifying the design of the rear bodywork.

Possibly the most important thing to see would be if the addition of this would unbalance the following car or not, something that's also been a hot topic in the OWG in 2008.

[Giblet]

Found on Scarbs site.

[Belatti]

I dont like anything that reduces efficiency this way.

This is like hammering your finger because your head aches... so that your new finger ache will make you forget your head....

At the end, we have a wing with no downforce and a lot of drag. Wouldnt it be simpler to be more specific in wing design rules and reduce DF without injuring drag?

Only imagine the cars at Catalunya with the wings used at Monza...

[ISLAMATRON]

+1 on that Belatti

[PNSD]

The Hanford device was more about producing a slipstream than anything else I thought.

The only other way I know how to create a big slipstream is big wings!

[Giblet]

Bad analogy. It would be more like hitting yourself lightly on the head actually heals your finger, not makes the situation worse. It's a trade off of one thing for another....

So a device that slows the cars slightly, with a trade off of being able to follow closely is a bad idea at its's core?

I don't understand.

I find it interesting that they looked at the CWG concept and this was overlooked.

Slipstreams are a problem in F1, and this produces one.

[ISLAMATRON]

Slipstreams are not a problem in F1, turbulent wake is the real problem.

[Belatti]

So a device that slows the cars slightly, with a trade off of being able to follow closely is a bad idea at its's core?

More power input/fuel consumption + worse laptimes = bad idea

Less power input/fuel consumption + worse laptimes = good idea

[Giblet]

Slipstreams are not a problem in F1, turbulent wake is the real problem.

I think that sums it up for me, and makes it more clear, but I wonder one thing: A car in a slipstream vs a car in turbulent air following at the same distance, which would negatively impact the wings more?

I think I understand Bellati what you mean about efficiency, however if a following cars millions of dollars of aero research and implementation are rendered near useless, how efficient is that?

If a slipstream was forced, maybe the following car wouldn't act nearly as unpredictably as in the turbulent air? But would adding a Hanford Device just make a car with a turbulent area and a slipstream?

Also, would this device cause the rear wing to become less and less efficient as speeds increased, like on straights? That would be a possible good thing?

Not debating, just trying to understand.

[ISLAMATRON]

absolutely, we are all trying to understand

Thing about the Hanford is that it was put on CART cars with huge tunnels, not f1 cars with pretty much flat floors and huge wings.

When those CART cars pulled behind the other the turbulence in the slipstream did not effect it as much as in modern day F1.

The main point is CART cars made less turbulence and were also less effected by other cars turbulence.(because they relied on tunnels for their downforce and not wings as in F1 today). And it continues like that to this day because they must rely on stability when they are racing as close as they do on those ovals.

So adding the Hanford to the Cart cars is much different than adding it to a modern day F1 car.

At least thats how I see it.

GP2 has big tunnels too, I sure wish F1 would get smart and get back to it.