FIA - Centreline Downwash Generating (CDG) Wing

[Spencifer_Murphy]

ok ok ok...back to the topic guys

I just thought about that CDG Rear Wing. Currently it is accepted by all in the business that it is NOT the rear wing that is causing the major problem. Sure it causes A problem...overtaking has decreased in the past few years...but it must be noted that Silverstone 2004....GREAT 4 overtaking...silverstone 2005...POOR. This must be due to the 2005 reg. Now most I have spoken 2 or heard speak suggest this is due to all the winglets, flick-ups, airbox wings etc. They create too many sources for turbulant air. By spliting the rear wing up into two pieces aren't we making the situation worse? Sure it will decrease the turbulance between the rear wheels...but what about the rest of the car's width? won't that still be affected? And then just think, it i known that a large portion of the drag on an F1 car is caused from its wheels...so the turbulant air from the rear wheels is just going to b made worse by the two rear wings directly behind this. Now keeping this in mind...isn't it funny how the FIA did NOT release CFD diagrams which allow us to see what is going on behind the rear wheels? Sure they showed us a side-on view...but we cannot see from here the difference between what is going on behind the rear-wheels and inbetween them!

And just another thought...Turbulant air...bad for wings trying to make downforce...hence the 2003 engine cover designs. So what happens when we mount rear wings Directly behind turbulange generating rear wheels?! Its madness! We'll endup with skitish rear-ends and car spinning everywhere. Unless they add more wing attack angle...guess what...that means more drag...which means more turbulance...which not only is exactly what we are trying to reduce...it also means LESS top speed on the straights...weren't the FIA trying to reduce speeds a while back???

I feel a conspricy theory comming on...

[manchild]

Scuderia_Russ,

I don’t see why you are taking this personally. Different people have different viewpoints. Why should I overlook fact that AMD is partner with both FIA and Ferrari? I have my views and reasons to suspect events that occur.

If you think that I fell comfortable on this forum or that I like most of the posts that you’re wrong. I often get annoyed and frustrated like “Michael Moore on republican convention in Texas” but I’m not telling others to stop writing what they think. Since both of us including the others can only speculate what is the truth until it is revealed different views will exist.

I was defending teams after Indy GP and several months later FIA canceled all charges against them. No one who stood on FIA's side regarding that case bothered to post anymore even though FIA actually admitted that it had punished the innocents. What I’m trying to say is that I’m sticking to my beliefs and I don’t have anything against reading different ones.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

I hear ya manchild...but u gotta remember that you have one view piont and loadz of other have a similar (but different one to you)...so it may seem that every1 is ganging up on you, they aren't they r just putting forward their own view...but the're are so many of them. U just can't debate every opposing view...or u'll end up getting annoyed and frustrated....and u'll end up going off topic...like now lol.

Please don't get me wrong. I enjoy reading your posts, a forum is for discussion, and a discussion would be pretty damn boring is everybody agreed. Its really nice for me to come on here and know that You will be putting forward your own, quite unique sometimes, ideas, and Fx, Scuderia_Russ et al will be arguing the toss with you. What isn't nice is seeing you all at eachother's throats.

I mean for examle Hudson_Hawk has some very controversial ideas...but like a good gambler, he knows when to quit. You used to aswell...just dont let it all get you too angry manchild...i mean y do u want to be angry when surfing the net...its ure freetime...use it wisely mate.

...and there's ure daily leacture from me lol! (Sorry if i offended anyone...i didn't mean to...i just want us to get alloing when we debate)

[manchild]

...Now keeping this in mind...isn't it funny how the FIA did NOT release CFD diagrams which allow us to see what is going on behind the rear wheels? Sure they showed us a side-on view...but we cannot see from here the difference between what is going on behind the rear-wheels and inbetween them!l...

Good point,

It appears that this will enable following car to approach car in the lead only if it follows in same axis but aero disturbance sideways will be enormous. In a way it looks like that following car will be able to close in but than get trapped behind car in the lead without a possibility to function aerodynamically once it chooses to move out sideways. I’d really like to see the pressure and CFD diagram from above…

BTW, I'm not getting angry I just sometimes feel alone here – “charging at windmills”

[Spencifer_Murphy]

LOL...without wantin to be mean...its just funny that out of my post u agreed with the bit that's anti-FIA haha

Typical you, eh manchild?

Newayz..I also was thinking that all that discurbed air from the wheels & wing "assemblies" may not travel perfectly linear behind the car...turbulant air is unpredictable in a sence isnt it? so whats to say it might not fill that void between the CDG wing?

[johny]

yeah this sounds so fiarrarist it won't work

charging at windmills

you could appear a little fool to us, but you'll be famous someday

[manchild]

No, I’m discussing it aerodynamically while I still think that it is conspiracy. I’ve sort of made my point (informed the public) and now I’m leaving conspiracy theory to await its destiny.

Before your post I didn’t think about how it would look from above and it got me thinking. Yes, I understand what you wanted to say about turbulence might occur in the zone between the wings. We actually don’t have a slightest idea what width that pressure diagram covers… It could be 10mm or 1000mm. I wonder why they didn’t make better presentation of it? I'd like to see photo of model in tunnel with smoke tracers.

[Guest]

with corel paint

[manchild]

hehe… just thought of something else – rear view in mirrors will be blocked by wings and driver won’t be able to see what is going on except for far behind (view between the wings) which is more-less irrelevant…

[bigpimpinsean05]

lol oh great now were going to have crashes left and right because the driver in front couldn't see the car attempted to pass him. Just what we need to make racing more exciting. Copying out of NASCAR. lots of crashes=good racing in NASCAR's book haha j/k. nah but i would seriously like to see more data on this new rear wing they plan on pretty much enforcing on the teams. Seems like it might work but i have my doubts. That and every rendition i have see on current f1 cars it just looks retarded

[joseff]

Oh for cryin out loud can't we just clip the wings? limit the profile to Monza-like dimensions. Easily doable, has no visibility problems and looks half as ugly. Plus it's quite obvious that less wing = less turbulence = easier to follow cars anyway.

The other side of the CDG is that allowing bodywork behind the rear wheels (biggest drag producing component) will result in drastically reduced drag and therefore raising speeds.

Personally I prefer no wings, but won't be good for the sponsors I'm afraid

Seriously, I think the whole CDG affair is just an AMD publicity stunt.

[manchild]

Here is a visual hint of how rear view mirror visibility (safety) will suffer

[RH1300S]

Interesting point about the mirrors.

Idea - get rid of them! Why so? Well, without mirrors the guy in front cannot make a block and the guy behind knows the guy in front can't see him so has to make allowances for that fact when positioning his car. If you consider weaving on the straights - with mirrors you can make a well timed chop, but without them you risk involving yourself and anyone around you in having a huge crash - IMHO people won't weave down the straight if they can't see where the other fellow is.

The other suggestion mooted - dramatically limit the wing and get rid of appendages will certainly be better than now. To me, the downwash (hate the term) wing actually tries to take it a step further and create an environment where cars can run even closer together.

It's plan view behaviour is exactly what I started asking about way back at the start of this thread. The air off the wheels is turbulent now (so is the air directly behind the car). With the CDG wing there is smoother air behind the car, even if the air behind the tyres/cdg wings does extend across the car a bit - it must be smoother than now and surely is not much different to stripping wings off the cars alltogether - if you want less turbulence than that you need closed wheels.

What happens behind the tyres? I can envisage the the cdg wing could actually clean up the flow leaving the rear tyre - although the downforce produced will be pretty miserable.

Could it be that the FIA have produced the germ of an idea that dramatically cuts downforce and lets cars run closer together?

If there is any conspiracy - maybe they are selling the idea as a way to let cars follow closely, when really they are getting a big cut in downforce and speed

[jaslfc]

boyz!! i think there are alot of different opinions on this latest fia ruling.. let us not forget that this is for 2007 and i think there will be feedback frm teams in the next 12 months.. all u might know they might even find a different solutution.
I wanna ask.. is movable aero components good or bad for overtaking?

[Sawtooth-spike]

The most important thing is...

How will the sponers respond to havin there adverts split in 2 on the back wing?