Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

[conni]

Diesel Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:13 pm Report this postReply with quote
Talent


Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:27 pm
Posts: 428 Private message n smikle wrote:
Diesel wrote:
Look inside the airbox, two channels.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/u ... 4_25_2.jpg

Dead zone located, I was suspecting all this time the inside of the bodywork could be used aerodynamically, however i did not want to spoil it for everybody. After the whole Goony thing from the start of the thread we all avoided the whole deadzone thing. Being a Mclaren fan too, i don't want other teams using Mclaren's innovations

That opening under the air intake, may well be linked to the shark fin round back, Similar to the 2008 Ferrari nose.

I'm not talking about under the airbox, that's just like they had last season and probably isn't an opening, just some clever aero.

No deadzone, it was just bullsh*t from somebody who wanted to make new friends by being a know-it-all.

Inside the air box you can see something at the top sectioning it off. I suspect the bottom half feeds the engine and the top half is for cooling.

i had a pm from goony he said to tell diesel to KISS MY ARSE and he has plenty of friends im not sure i should repeat the rest of it but i think it sounded about right for you and a few others on here

conni

[hollus]

Since it is already 9 days old information, I thought I would bring it up to the front, now that the whole world is copying from here. With such a device, or some other implementation of it, you can control the flow of a large mass of air using a very small one.
The diagram was originally posted by ########. Correction, looks like it was first posted by Tok-Tokkie on March 3. It is now on page 9 of the Air Inlet thread. Sorry I got it wrong with all the thread splitting.

And just for clarification. It i all theories, only people at Mclaren know how it really works, but the evidence is mounting. Oh, and presumably Charlie Withing also knows how it works...

[HOS]

I don’t know if this makes much sense, but last year I used to see some drivers moving their heads sideways to allow more air through the engine air intake right behind (probably to get better cooling in the straights). To a certain extent wouldn’t that be altering the aerodynamics using body parts, as Mclaren is now doing ?

[Pup]

i had a pm from goony...

It's a shame he was treated here like he was. I hope he was able to stay on at McLaren, or at least able to land on his feet elsewhere.

It's sad that there are six separate threads and lord knows how many pages written here about this thing, yet the plain truth is that there have only been three posts by three people that have shed any real light on the subject at all. The rest (including everything I've said) has just been mindless bickering and repetition.

And of these, the only two who bothered to share their secrets with us here on F1tech have since been run off by our peculiar brand of hospitality.

Shall we some up this whole thing in just three posts?

tripple decker was SOOOO last year you want info on the DEAD ZONE that will be the hottest thing next year BUT i cant say anymore about it aint i a bugger =D>

goony

I've heard a rumor from "a friend of a friend" that the McLaren extended engine cover is a little sneakier than people perhaps think. We know there is a "cooling" duct in there somewhere - and the rumor I've heard is that they are ducting air into the rear wing (and yes, I mean into - their rear wing main plane was hollow last year, which is how they ended up with an effective three element top rear wing) and due to clever positioning of exit ducts they are able to make the wing assembly stall at high speed.

Rumour has it McLaren are using some sort of pressure sensitive circuit (google "fluidic switch") within the roll hoop to control the mass flow down the engine cover duct - it can be extremely precise in its velocity switching effect, and that the mechanism can be controlled (but obviously not in any active or electronic way - this would be very illegal) via the driver's leg or knee.

[Shaddock]

I don’t know if this makes much sense, but last year I used to see some drivers moving their heads sideways to allow more air through the engine air intake right behind (probably to get better cooling in the straights). To a certain extent wouldn’t that be altering the aerodynamics using body parts, as Mclaren is now doing ?

Drivers aren't movable aero devices, it's laid down in the rules. They can move and interact as they wish within the car. Moving their heads allows more air to the engine to increase bhp and speed.

[sticky667]

From what I heard I came to this conclusion;

http://f1t-bahrain.piczo.com/post/66502 ... 9_Sca?cr=3

Would this be right?

If not could you correct me?

why does the driver need to be black?! LOL

[segedunum]

We're focusing on the driver, as he is not part of the car. The car get's crash tested, and scrutinized without the driver in it, as car and driver are separate entities.

I don't know why people are focusing on the driver. The driver might merely be one part of the system but it is still a clearly a moveable aerodynamic device overall. The regulations can't be got around by looking at the driver. We've been through this moveable aerodynamic device saga before. It's not merely a side-effect of what the driver does but a specific system that is designed to do one thing, and one thing only. It's pretty. Anything that affects aerodynamics can becovered by the regulations and looked at.

Everyone says it's legal, but not within the spirit of the rules. Problem is there is not a section in the rules called "spirit".

Everyone does not say it's legal at all, and talking about the 'spirit' of the regulations won't help either. McLaren have a changeable aerodynamic system.

Put simply the FIA just don't want more scandal.

[conni]

im sorry but your talking ---
surely a movable aero is an aero that is MOVABLE!!!! they dont move the wing they just adjust how the airflow is controlled

conni

[segedunum]

If we extend the logic we could quite easily argue that all of the vortex generators are illegal (because they are there purely to disrupt the airflow in order to gain a benefit elsewhere on the car).

No, that's just plain daft and shows a plain lack of understanding as to how these things relate. They don't make active decisions about when to change airflow. This system clearly does. That's the difference.

On a general point, I wonder how many of those passionately arguing against the McLaren system's legality are ardent supporters of other teams / drivers.

You can wave goodbye to any credibility you do have right there. That's way off-topic.

[segedunum]

But the stewards and the FIA decide if something is legal. It doesn't matter if we think they're a bunch of idiots (and I'm sure that we would agree on that conclusion in many circumstances) they are the ones who decide.

OK. Feel free to accept that decision then while others discuss yet another silly decision by the FIA that contravenes their own regulations - and we're not talking a grey area here.

[segedunum]

You can't ban air for being a moving aerodynamic device, it would be like banning water because its wet.

There's a hell of a lot more than just air involved here.

The regulations clearly state that the driver isn't a movable aerodynamic device...

The regulations clearly ban any systems a car has that makes active decisions about how and when to alter airflow. They've been there for years. This is such a system. Whether the driver is involved at some point is neither here nor there. We're not talking about innocuous and random airflow off a driver's helmet here because there is an active decision making process and pipework within the car for the purpose.

The regulations clearly ban such systems, do not make allowances for drivers to be involved and that's why there are exceptions for certain systems.

[Steve S14]

im sorry but your talking ---
surely a movable aero is an aero that is MOVABLE!!!! they dont move the wing they just adjust how the airflow is controlled

conni

^ i agree totally. My understanding is that the driver plays a role in allowing air to pass somewhere through his cockpit. A rule change would be necessary to make this illegal. The main problem is that since rivals cannot completely understand what is going on, it will be difficult to protest the correct aspect of the system.


I havent seen anyone mention that gaping hole right at the very back of the engine cover, under the shark fin. Could it be possible that the air flow changes direction between there and inside the fin? I believe it would normally pass over the top of the DDD increasing downforce, and the switch causes it to come out the back of the wing through the fin, disrupting airflow and stalling the wing.


Im all for this system, i think its ingenious and am glad it was declared legal. Since i am a Mclaren fan, i also think they are taking a big risk given the sorts of penalties they seem to attract. (*cough*Ferrari International Assistance*cough*). While i do agree that this sucks for other teams who did not discover this, i believe it is a sort of rebellion after last years DDD. They are saying "You wanna mess? we can play this game too!". I wish they also were running KERS, that would be the real icing on the cake.

[ringo]

And they may as well spoil any edge in performance the MP4 25 has.

[Scotracer]

We're focusing on the driver, as he is not part of the car. The car get's crash tested, and scrutinized without the driver in it, as car and driver are separate entities.

I don't know why people are focusing on the driver. The driver might merely be one part of the system but it is still a clearly a moveable aerodynamic device overall. The regulations can't be got around by looking at the driver. We've been through this moveable aerodynamic device saga before. It's not merely a side-effect of what the driver does but a specific system that is designed to do one thing, and one thing only. It's pretty. Anything that affects aerodynamics can becovered by the regulations and looked at.

Everyone says it's legal, but not within the spirit of the rules. Problem is there is not a section in the rules called "spirit".

Everyone does not say it's legal at all, and talking about the 'spirit' of the regulations won't help either. McLaren have a changeable aerodynamic system.

Put simply the FIA just don't want more scandal.

Bullshit...it's not. For instance, if you removed the driver from the equation and had some sort of flow divert-er that caused the wing to automatically stall at a given speed that would not be a moveable aerodynamic piece: all the bodywork would be rigid. An 'aerodynamic device' is some mechanical device used to produce an aerodynamic effect...how on earth could you ever mandate that to the airflow itself? It's the moving air that causes the effect in the first place!

Flow changes regime with speed...would that be considered a moveable aero piece because it doesn't stay laminar over its entire surface at all running speeds? 'course not.

[autogyro]

Quote: There is a hell of a lot more than just air involved here.

What exactly?