Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

[TheMinister]

About the snorkel: was it ever discovered why the F2007 had a scoop on the front?

http://trendsupdates.com/wp-content/upl ... macher.jpg

There's no hole for cooling on the front of the nosecone. So I'd be willing to bet that one was for driver cooling.

Once air is channeled through a cars body work to produce downforce that airstream is now a system.
However the only variable to it's performance is the cars airspeed.
With the fluidic switch, that airstream becomes intentionally interupted. Just because air is the switching mechanism does not make it legal. In this case the air is a device.

I doubt that the air is about to be ruled an illegal aero device. I can see the FIA pulling another highly cynical rule interpretation though, like with the mass dampers.

[neilbah]

If the brake fluid is hot enough at the master cylinder/reservoir to need air cooling, then the design of the callipers, disks and wheel cooling scoops is not going to be good enough. I do not think brake fluid cooling is the reason.
The access panels are probably for the fluid reservoirs though and just happened to be convenient for another purpose.
I think the place chosen is simply the best convenient spot for uninterupted air flow at all speeds.

i dont believe thats what its for either, just trying to understand people who think its to cool something.. i agree with you on the uninterrupted air flow.

[rifrafs2kees]

As pointed out by "TheMinister", the 25 doesn't have an air inlet in the nose I won't rule out that the snorkel is for cooling be it for the driver/equipment or both. We should note that the rear of this car is probably the tightest of any mclaren or anybody else has designed. while they'll be able to cool the engine suffiently, I doubt that the ambient air under the engine cover will be as cool as it used to be. Is it possible that they moved some electronic device that cannot withstand this heat upfront?

Now, why would they use a snorkel instead of the usual hole in the nose tip? Could it be possible that in order to make the splitter under the nose more effective, the need to leave the nose intact to maintain as much pressure as possible on the nose? It's also important to realize that the snorkel isn't necessarily more draggy than the hole in the nose because it provides a shorter path to whatever needs to be cooled unlike the latter.

Another thing? Is it possible that there're another hole somewhere on the splitter below that links up with the snorkel? If there is such a thing, a pressure sensor can be used to measure the differential pressure between the top and the bottom of the nose to determine the effectiveness of the splitter.

Actually, I was wrong. It does have an air inlet in the nose.

[volarchico]

The Ferrari duct is in a completely different place. Not right where a drivers left knee is.

The perspective is a bit different, but they sure look to be in the same place to me (left versus right of course, but still).

[Pup]

C'mon guys - let's get real. Without the snorkel, the unicorn is gonna suffocate.

[Jersey Tom]

Maybe it's there to air out the driver's smelly feet.

In other news, that Ferrari has some serious front load transfer goin on.

[tok-tokkie]

The further the air has to go the lower the pressure, this is why the upper element of wings are near vertical. It works with the bottom wing, which helps to keep the flow attached to the upper wing element by directing the flow upwards.
A slot on the rear of the upper element helps to keep the boundary layer attached and allows an even steeper wing with even lower pressures.
As the wing becomes steeper the centre of low pressure angles further rearward but the decrease in pressure is bigger than the effects from the change in angle, so the DF Resultant, (which has to be vertical to the cars travel) is higher.
Take away this low pressure by blocking off the slot flow and DF goes right down with a reduction in the drag from the low pressure area behind the wing. It only needs a flow of air introduced at an angle to the mainflow in the shark fin, to negate the outlet air at the slot and create this change.

I don't think the bit I have put in bold is correct. The car is not a free body like an aircraft. The force generated by the wing is linked mechanically to the car. The force acts on a lever pivoted on the rear axle trying to lever the back of the car downwards (& the front of the car upwards). The downforce on the rear wheels is applied through this lever. Hence one of the advantages of raising the rear wing high as it increases the leverage (besides putting the wing in undisturbed air). The steep angle of attack of the upper wing (which is more like a slotted flap for the first wing) makes the lift vector normal to the lever between that wing and the rear axle. When the wing is stalled the lift vector is removed thus considerably reducing the levered downforce & also the drag (which is horizontal to the ground labelled resultant drag in this diagram).

[autogyro]

The further the air has to go the lower the pressure, this is why the upper element of wings are near vertical. It works with the bottom wing, which helps to keep the flow attached to the upper wing element by directing the flow upwards.
A slot on the rear of the upper element helps to keep the boundary layer attached and allows an even steeper wing with even lower pressures.
As the wing becomes steeper the centre of low pressure angles further rearward but the decrease in pressure is bigger than the effects from the change in angle, so the DF Resultant, (which has to be vertical to the cars travel) is higher.
Take away this low pressure by blocking off the slot flow and DF goes right down with a reduction in the drag from the low pressure area behind the wing. It only needs a flow of air introduced at an angle to the mainflow in the shark fin, to negate the outlet air at the slot and create this change.

I don't think the bit I have put in bold is correct. The car is not a free body like an aircraft. The force generated by the wing is linked mechanically to the car. The force acts on a lever pivoted on the rear axle trying to lever the back of the car downwards (& the front of the car upwards). The downforce on the rear wheels is applied through this lever. Hence one of the advantages of raising the rear wing high as it increases the leverage (besides putting the wing in undisturbed air). The steep angle of attack of the upper wing (which is more like a slotted flap for the first wing) makes the lift vector normal to the lever between that wing and the rear axle. When the wing is stalled the lift vector is removed thus considerably reducing the levered downforce & also the drag (which is horizontal to the ground labelled resultant drag in this diagram).

I agree with all you say but the resultant DF still has to be vertical
(strait down).
Leverage and the effects of front wing and all other aero has to be taken into account but DF will always be strait down.

[Raptor22]

indeed the vertical lift vector and horizontal drag vector are components of the total lift through the axis of the wing.

if the moments of the total lift resultant is taken into account then we need to factor in the moment of the front wing about the rear axle as well.

we cannot conveniently forget certain principals because it helps to explain something we wish to be happening.

total DF is always taken through the centre of pressure of the car anyway.

So if you are resolving just the rear wing element then the approach of working with the resultant is ok. but it is incorrect to resolve the DF on the rear axle this way.

[Hangaku]

The drivers are fit as can be, and don't need extra cooling, especially with a drag penalty.

Did you watch any of the Grands Prix last season? Did you not read, or in fact see on video, how much the drivers were suffering in the extreme temperatures at some of the races? Regardless of how fit someone claims to be, they are always going to suffer when it gets too hot.

But I digest, this is a much more interesting story if it's really some convoluted snorkel system that's placed at the front of the car to assist airflow at the rear of the car! I mean, that makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Personally, I think it's a whole lot more realistic than that.

In fact, I've had inside information about this whole device. It's called a "Scherzinger Nozzle", and has been designed because someone wants to ensure the family jewels are kept at a decent family-producing temperature!

[marcush.]

The drivers are fit as can be, and don't need extra cooling, especially with a drag penalty.

Did you watch any of the Grands Prix last season? Did you not read, or in fact see on video, how much the drivers were suffering in the extreme temperatures at some of the races? Regardless of how fit someone claims to be, they are always going to suffer when it gets too hot.

But I digest, this is a much more interesting story if it's really some convoluted snorkel system that's placed at the front of the car to assist airflow at the rear of the car! I mean, that makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Personally, I think it's a whole lot more realistic than that.

In fact, I've had inside information about this whole device. It's called a "Scherzinger Nozzle", and has been designed because someone wants to ensure the family jewels are kept at a decent family-producing temperature!

ah this has to be an ego thing.The guy using a cooling vest is a girl isn´t he?
The environment of a F1 car is debilating the driver that is for sure .It can´t be good to be battered hours and hours at those frequencies..also getting torn up in nasty accidents that in earlier years you would not have survived...I think anyone not taking into account that driver comfort is a prime reason for drivers not making mistakes and being relaxed in a most demanding situation do not understand
what it is all about:concentration and precision in a severe environment ,very close to the line ...everything you can do in terms of driver comfort is appreciated and over a race for sure also worth time .

[Giblet]

The drivers are fit as can be, and don't need extra cooling, especially with a drag penalty.

Did you watch any of the Grands Prix last season? Did you not read, or in fact see on video, how much the drivers were suffering in the extreme temperatures at some of the races? Regardless of how fit someone claims to be, they are always going to suffer when it gets too hot.

But I digest, this is a much more interesting story if it's really some convoluted snorkel system that's placed at the front of the car to assist airflow at the rear of the car! I mean, that makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Personally, I think it's a whole lot more realistic than that.

In fact, I've had inside information about this whole device. It's called a "Scherzinger Nozzle", and has been designed because someone wants to ensure the family jewels are kept at a decent family-producing temperature!

No I didn't. I missed the whole last season. I was too hot and had a fan on, and because of that I could not hear the commentary. Being cool is that important.

You're attitude is unwelcome. I saw a suffering Fernando Alonso, who's drink system failed.

It does make sense BTW, as a control valve. If you look back at the thread, you'll see, while nobody knows for sure, that it has become more plausible, and has been discussed technically. All you offer is naysaing with no solid evidence or theory to add it up. Saying drivers get too hot, and now they have a snorkel is not 2+2 math like you insinuate. I never said it's NOT for cooling, but I don't believe it's needed this year, when it wasn't last year. Teams paint their 'stickers' on the cars now, as it has less drag. An intake where that is not needed last year is suddenly needed this year, with a drag penalty?

But I digest, then to follow that, I DIGRESS.

Don't try too hard to use 'big' words, that sound like you've taken from the Ricktionary.

It's peach and cake.

Why would the cooling hole be on one side? How will the hot air penetrate their suits? They already roll up cuffs to get cool, and have vents in their helmets.

Not just hot air, extra hot exhaust air from a car in front.

[Hangaku]

Exactly why is my attitude unwelcome? I'm disagreeing with you about something. You've stated that drivers aren't affected by the heat, because they are super fit, and I've suggested that you are pretty much about as wrong as wrong can be. Do your research. In fact, I'll do it for you:

http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews ... /9277.html

Search for the subheading How does excessive heat affect team members and drivers?. For you to say that cooling doesn't assist a driver, is absolute nonsense.

Now, on to your next rants.

If there weren't naysayers, discussion wouldn't exist, because everybody would agree with each other. That's the beauty of being human. Maybe you should do well to learn about that, before you starting choking over the thought of somebody disagreeing with you.

Seems to me like you're just an angry person, that doesn't like being told that he might be wrong.

"But I digest" is a nod to digressing, while putting digression to mockery. Just FYI.

[Giblet]

Sorry, I won't be drawn into an argument with you over my opinion when no fact is involved.

Move along junior. You don't know, neither do I. I stand by my opinion, and if I am wrong so be it.

[cupidstunt]

All you offer is naysaing with no solid evidence or theory to add it up.

I wouldn't call it naysaying, it's just that some of these theories are bordering on the absurd. I'd call it a reality check. If the wing is tuned to "stall" at high speed, then what happens when the driver has to brake/turn in at the end of the straight? Surely the reduced rear downforce would cause a lack of balance and end in the driver going backwards?

And I'm still to be convinced by any knee activated theories. How on earth could this be used reliably?

I don't really think it's just for driver cooling either, I think it's there to improve cockpit aerodynamics, as mentioned before.