Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

[Giblet]

No, we don't know. Some of us think we do, and some of think we don't, and some of us don't want to discuss it, and others don't want anyone discussing it.

Try the search feature.

But here is a place for you to talk about it, and watch us talk about it.

[Ciro Pabón]

I merged the two previous posts into this thread.

[volarchico]

I'm sad SLC decided to leave. He definitely had good contributions and seemed to have "inside" info and good inputs! Yet at the same time, even though I've begun to believe most everything he's said, I can agree with Raptor22 and ringo that the paint diagram he keeps referring to as "explanation" really don't explain anything (and I don't even mind that it was "poor" artistically since I can't draw either!). Showing "unstalled" with big downforce arrows and drag arrows and then showing "stalled" with little arrows doesn't prove or explain anything. It just repeats pictorially, what he was saying in words. The question everyone's been asking is: "Why do the force vectors do what they do?" But still, I wish he'd come back and keep up the debate because I found it exciting to read every day!

[Raptor22]

If his employer allows him time to post on internet forums then I'm sure they will let him use their Catia to generate the required flow diagrams to prove his point.

Right, so I wasn't gonna bite but I'm weak, and this *will* be my last post, but the above sentence alone tells me just how little you know about the aerodynamic process within modern F1.

Good day.

You know in a way, I'm pretty fed up with your immature attitude.
You insist on a followership but won't construct a proper argument with diagrams and numbers. But you want me to believe.

Like many here, i have a strong background in aeronautics, mostly in the supersonic regime and we all have a certain understanding of how wings work.
Wing are wings whether they are attached to a tube 10km above the ground or whether they are attached to the boot lid of a car at 300km/hr, they are wings.

each time you are challenged you throw an immature tirade citing the challengers ignorance while very clearly over stating your apparently superior intellect and understanding but without real substantiated proof.

yet you want us to believe...

Dude, I'll miss your input but perhaps you need to grow up a little. I cannot believe your style of debate helped you to obtain a PhD, since you would need to undergo rigorous peer review of your work. If you responded to your reviewers in the manner in which you respond to challengers on this board I don't think they would grant you your PhD. I have worked and still work with many PhD's and none exhibit your attitude to challenge. Some respond with great sarcasm but they supply numbers and proper diagrams which seals their argument.

I and many other have waited patiently over the last few days for proper illustrations from you, but still nothing but stick beating. Some have enjoyed the flogging of the concept into their mind, perhaps because they want to believe; it is that fantastic a concept.

Quite bluntly, if this is your attitude then good riddance.

The concept you presented is very interesting and even if you are proven correct over the next year I would still want to understand in great detail how this works and not have someone try and beat belief into me with stick. That's education.

Somehow I doubt your theatrics will result in an exit. Your ego will prevent that.
Give us something substantial, but save the attitude for your mum and dad. they brought you in this world, they are obligated to tolerate you. We don't.

[Raptor22]

The interesting thing, in my opinion, is how it works the air entering the airbox to produce the rear wing into losses. I do not believe in the theory of the knee-snorkel. The air entering the cockpit "loses all its speed". Not good for much. I dont think you can make any entry of air into the place that reaches the rear wing in good conditions.Greeting s

e ut
Yeah I agree that flow from the forward pitot inlet could be utilised for anything but creating pressure somewhere. But if thats it primary function it could effectively be mounted anywhere.
the only electronics under that part of the tub is the circuitry for the steering wheel inputs and the computer that communicates with the ECU.

Adjustable systems that could be controlled from the wheel are;

1) Power steering sensitivity to change the degree of lock for the wheel for tight corners or high speed corners. This could have potential benefits in driver energy saving since they start the race with very heavy cars.

2) Engine mapping adjust

3) electronic diff adjust

4) front wing incidence adjust

5) driver powered drinking / feeding system

and possibly more.

If the pitot inlet is for cooling then McLaren must have a substantial piece of electronics in the cockpit.

but if it works with a pressure switch then it must be providing a substantial degree of pressure for such a small opening which I can't believe either. Without knowing the internal dimensions of the alleged piping it would be a stab in the dark to work out how much pressure it could generate.

No I'm still with you on this in that its probably for cooling something.

[mx_tifoso]

...

Adjustable systems that could be controlled from the wheel are;

1) Power steering sensitivity to change the degree of lock for the wheel for tight corners or high speed corners. This could have potential benefits in driver energy saving since they start the race with very heavy cars.

...

Does this mean that different steering racks won't be necessary for Monaco? Or was that never the case in the first place?

[Raptor22]

no not different racks but just a higher or lower degree of power assistance depending on the corner, similar to electronic power steering systems fitted to passenger cars.
In slow corners the PS has a high degree of assistance, on the straights and through faster corners where less lock is require it provides a lower degree of assistance to aid precision.

I don;t think that the cars ever had mor ethan one steering rack. What they did have was a steering rack with the teeth cut at a different pitch the more the steerng lock was provided to lighten the load on the driver

[delacf]

e ut
Yeah I agree that flow from the forward pitot inlet could be utilised for anything but creating pressure somewhere. But if thats it primary function it could effectively be mounted anywhere.
the only electronics under that part of the tub is the circuitry for the steering wheel inputs and the computer that communicates with the ECU.

Adjustable systems that could be controlled from the wheel are;

1) Power steering sensitivity to change the degree of lock for the wheel for tight corners or high speed corners. This could have potential benefits in driver energy saving since they start the race with very heavy cars.

2) Engine mapping adjust

3) electronic diff adjust

4) front wing incidence adjust

5) driver powered drinking / feeding system

and possibly more.

If the pitot inlet is for cooling then McLaren must have a substantial piece of electronics in the cockpit.

but if it works with a pressure switch then it must be providing a substantial degree of pressure for such a small opening which I can't believe either. Without knowing the internal dimensions of the alleged piping it would be a stab in the dark to work out how much pressure it could generate.

No I'm still with you on this in that its probably for cooling something.

In general, I agree. I think the device is aimed at cooling. I do not understand that the air inlet has an aerodynamic advantage. I don't believe in the theory of the knee-snorkel. I may be wrong, perhaps.

Greetings

[Giblet]

The cars have indeed needed a different steering rack for Monaco. I have heard both Martin Brundle and the SpeedTV guys discuss this.

[Tristan]

If his employer allows him time to post on internet forums then I'm sure they will let him use their Catia to generate the required flow diagrams to prove his point.

Right, so I wasn't gonna bite but I'm weak, and this *will* be my last post, but the above sentence alone tells me just how little you know about the aerodynamic process within modern F1.

Good day.

You know in a way, I'm pretty fed up with your immature attitude.
You insist on a followership but won't construct a proper argument with diagrams and numbers. But you want me to believe.

Like many here, i have a strong background in aeronautics, mostly in the supersonic regime and we all have a certain understanding of how wings work.
Wing are wings whether they are attached to a tube 10km above the ground or whether they are attached to the boot lid of a car at 300km/hr, they are wings.

each time you are challenged you throw an immature tirade citing the challengers ignorance while very clearly over stating your apparently superior intellect and understanding but without real substantiated proof.

yet you want us to believe...

Dude, I'll miss your input but perhaps you need to grow up a little. I cannot believe your style of debate helped you to obtain a PhD, since you would need to undergo rigorous peer review of your work. If you responded to your reviewers in the manner in which you respond to challengers on this board I don't think they would grant you your PhD. I have worked and still work with many PhD's and none exhibit your attitude to challenge. Some respond with great sarcasm but they supply numbers and proper diagrams which seals their argument.

I and many other have waited patiently over the last few days for proper illustrations from you, but still nothing but stick beating. Some have enjoyed the flogging of the concept into their mind, perhaps because they want to believe; it is that fantastic a concept.

Quite bluntly, if this is your attitude then good riddance.

The concept you presented is very interesting and even if you are proven correct over the next year I would still want to understand in great detail how this works and not have someone try and beat belief into me with stick. That's education.

Somehow I doubt your theatrics will result in an exit. Your ego will prevent that.
Give us something substantial, but save the attitude for your mum and dad. they brought you in this world, they are obligated to tolerate you. We don't.

I fully support this post since the aggressivity, immaturity and the lack of clear scientific explanations were obvious from SLC (and I am not talking about a phd without public these nor defense, the confusions between the induced drag and the pressure drag, the funny MS Paint, the list of statements etc ...).
There is citation I like and that would suit in this context: Never argue with the fool because he will drag you down to his level and win by experience.

Considering the real issue here:
I beleive that what C. Horner means by "stalling" is a separation at the flap (2nd element) and not a clear stall... if it is so, by blowing some air with a slot at that aera, this will improve the airflow (keep it attached longer) and add both downforce and drag (cf the figure posted from Abbot's book earlier). If (and that's only a IF and guess) the upper element is flexible enough, I guess, at high speed only (300kph?), the slot might shut by itself, leading to the previous flow situation around the wing but no stall as we define in aero.

[autogyro]

The slot does not have to 'shut' at high flow speed.
It only requires that the air being fed to the slot runs out of volume at a fixed speed and then there will not be enough air to form a boundary fill.
A suitably sized intake will do this on its own.

[Shaddock]

The cars have indeed needed a different steering rack for Monaco. I have heard both Martin Brundle and the SpeedTV guys discuss this.

And cut down front wishbones.

[impaero]

A totally random idea: what if the slot isn't blowing air, but sucking it in? What happens to the flow?

[autogyro]

A totally random idea: what if the slot isn't blowing air, but sucking it in? What happens to the flow?

How would sucking on a low pressure area achieve anything?
Sucking air in has been tried on the top high pressure area of a wing.
It uses up a lot of energy.

[Tristan]

The slot does not have to 'shut' at high flow speed.
It only requires that the air being fed to the slot runs out of volume at a fixed speed and then there will not be enough air to form a boundary fill.
A suitably sized intake will do this on its own.

That's maybe another option!
I think the engineering of this reduction of air in the slot (either via intake design or flexibility of wings or anything else) seems to be quite tricky to achieve and I don't know if it is simply possible.