Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

[PlatinumZealot]

The separator stops the wings from flexing too much I think. So when Horner said they were stalling wings in the past they were doing it by flexing the wings. This is what SLC was saying some pages ago.

But one this is clear; Christian Horner said stalling the rear wing reduces the drag. This is why I was warning people that we should not use the behaviour aeroplane wing, which gets more drag in stall and AoA as a basis for the F1 wing.

[volarchico]

Obviously this cant be true or planes could take off at 10mph......

This is off topic for this thread really, but a airplane wing doesn't have to be stalled at 10mph (again, stall is all about angle of attack)...it's just not generating enough lift to offset the weight at those slow speeds.

[ringo]

This discussion is hurting the team more than anything.
I hope redbull doesn't figure it out

[PlatinumZealot]

Obviously this cant be true or planes could take off at 10mph......

This is off topic for this thread really, but a airplane wing doesn't have to be stalled at 10mph (again, stall is all about angle of attack)...it's just not generating enough lift to offset the weight at those slow speeds.

Angle of attack and speed.. but F1 you can't change the angle of attack you can only change the speed.

At one contstant speed for a plane wing, you increase AoA until it stall. For formula 1... at one constant speed... you see? You can't vary the angle of attack in the race. You have to stall the wing by changing the air itself.

[mx_tifoso]

"Our question ultimately will be: 'Is it clever design or is it in breach of the regulations’? They must be very confident that it’s legal. I would think it will be legal.”

- Christian Horner.

In the last sentence is he referring to what he thinks will be the outcome or what he would think if he was part of McLaren?

Because there's no point to protesting it if he thinks it will be declared legal.

[Pup]

well thats a blanket statement you persist in making without any explanation, diagram or anything other than I'm a Phd in Ground vehicle aerodynamics and work for an f1 team.

So until you actually explain yourself with science and not a belligerent attitude toward a counter intuitive concept I will consider you a fanboy with a fantasy.


Look forward to your side of the story.

I completely agree. I just finished reading through the McLaren thread and this thread after starting three days ago with the first post (yes I read them all...) and I came here today to specifically post exactly what you just said. I would love an explanation from SLC about how stalling the wing works to reduce the drag. Since he has his PhD and he's so confident in his solution, it should be no problem for him to teach it to someone else. I'm willing to learn, but I can't believe someone if they have no way to prove their opinion and aren't willing to try an explain themselves. I've had aircraft aeronautics pounded into my head for many years so perhaps that is my downfall in trying to understand this concept applied to an F1 car, so I'd really appreciate a lesson.

But he has explained it. I've explained it. Others have explained it. It was explained on the 2nd post of this thread. It's explained on this very page twice.

The induced drag that is lost in a stall is greater than the form drag that is increased in stall.

There it is. That's it. That's the theory.

Not satisfied without numbers? Me either. Want to disprove it? Be my guest.

[wrcsti]

Obviously this cant be true or planes could take off at 10mph......

This is off topic for this thread really, but a airplane wing doesn't have to be stalled at 10mph (again, stall is all about angle of attack)...it's just not generating enough lift to offset the weight at those slow speeds.

+1. I keep trying to get my flight school teacher to change the way he describes things like wingtip votices. He said they start when the plane lifts off the ground, he also says thats when the wing produces lift. He evaded my coments about it but both of those are completely incorrect. There is just not nearly as much as when the airplane has higher AOA and airspeed.
Also planes can fly at 10mph. Some guy designed one that had a curved section of wing around the propwash, thus using the prop as forward movement and lift.

Also I am pretty sure at the extreme AOA of the second element it would be stalled if it was not for the bottom element. I bet it acts more like a spoiler than a wing in how it generates downforce. Having this blown gap can bring back some of the wing type of downforce or help get more air around the wing. Could this be the deadzone?

[ringo]

I think the problem here is that people are referring too much to air craft wings. I am convinced a blown flap requires a power source, where as base bleeding does not.


Another consideration is that F1 wings have gurneys on their trailing edge, low aspect raito and end plates this does have an effect vortex formation and i think the slot is addressing the Vortex street and wake behind the car.

Christian Horner knows what he is talking about too, he is building one himself

[SLC]

in as few words as possible:

F1 rear wing: highly cambered

high camber: downforce comes with severe induced drag penalty

closing rear-wing slot-gap or making it stall in any other way: downforce reduced

downforce reduced: drag reduced (significantly outweighing the drag penalty of a more lossy wake)

drag reduced: improved top speed

This is 100% correct. And as Pup said, this has been explained numerous times throughout this thread.

Stalling the top wing has been a part of F1 aero development for the past 10 years - through flexible elements (either opening or closing the slot gap, and yes, both will eventually stall the top rear wing) or upstream devices which sufficiently alter the incidence onto the rear wing at speed.

[SLC]

Another consideration is that F1 wings have gurneys on their trailing edge, low aspect raito and end plates this does have an effect vortex formation and i think the slot is addressing the Vortex street and wake behind the car.

It isn't.

[McMacca]

Who said DEADZONE? (again)

[myurr]

Also planes can fly at 10mph. Some guy designed one that had a curved section of wing around the propwash, thus using the prop as forward movement and lift.

Pretty old concept actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_V-173

[Pedro]

I guess it is that slot (barely visible) which is considered illegal by Ferrari and Red Bull which are awaiting clarification:


But I think: if they feed it via shark fin, why it would be illegal?


F1news.cz
http://f1news.cz/technika/34131-je-zadn ... nelegalni/

[timbo]

But I think: if they feed it via shark fin, why it would be illegal?

IMO the legality question arises from notion that the flow is somehow controlled by driver. If that is the case it may be considered active aerodynamic system.

[mcdenife]

I guess it is that slot (barely visible) which is considered illegal by Ferrari and Red Bull which are awaiting clarification:

No. The slot is fine. I think they are being sneaky and just trying it on. It seems they are saying the wing slot-gap separators was mandated to stop attempts to stall wings, when in fact it was to stop the wings flexing too much. The flexing issue
was about the fact the wings deformed at speed and thereby reducing the gap mandated rather than the effect of the said gap reduction.