Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

[bosanac1]

here is 3d rendered video of the mclaren stall wing.
http://video.gazzetta.it/?vxChannel=Primo%20Piano

its in italian but pretty self explanatory.

also no mention of the snorkel.

[Pup]

This is how it works..

My understanding is that..

I don’t know if this makes much sense, but...

From what I've read...

From what I heard...

I think that...

FFS guys, there's nothing more to figure out - three freakin' posts from weeks/months ago laid it all out for us, all from insiders who know wtf they're talking about and who either don't post here or whom the rest of you lot ran off for their karayzee ideas. We know what's going on. We know the details. We know everything. We knoooooow.

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

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.

[Pup]

Inside the cockpit, most likely around the driver's left foot (my belief it is mounted above the left foot) is a small plenum box, fed from the mystery scoop. There is a second conduit that runs from this plenum box to the airbox. This conduit is probably somewhere 1.5 to 2 cm in diameter. The plenum box has a hole in it, and it allows the air being fed into it to escape into the driver's cockpit. But when...

1.5 to 2 cm you say? I'd have guessed 3, 4 easily.

[Pup]

why does the driver need to be black?!

It's not the knee.

Bada-boom! Thank you. Thank you.

Back to the Virgin thread for me...

[Fil]

so what's actually on-track at Bahrain for McLaren..?

This..


or this..

[Rob W]

This whole thing is ridiculous.

the driver activates a system that changes the cars rear wing aerodynamics. It's illegal, pure and simple.

I think Charlie and the FIA are in the best position to decide this.

If you'd like to make a more constructive go at your take on it you could point out the relevant rules which this 'solution' (well, let's call it that) breaches.

- No part of the car's aerodynamics moves so it isn't moveable.
- A driver is not part of the car and thus can't be considered a 'device' of any sort on an F1 car.

There is a creative way to interpret many things in the rules - last year's diffusers show this - but it doesn't necessarily make them illegal.

I've not seen any rules which state the fundamentals of the car's aero cannot alter during a race (we know for a fact they do on a small scale actually with the wings flexing ever so slightly even with the rules to prevent it), only that you can't have moveable (whether manual or automatic) devices.

[FluidicSwitch]

Hi, This is my first post here and I do not come from an F1 or Engineering background.

I would like to thank all of you who contibute to these forums, I have been reading them for insight ahead of what other sources publish. I have been particularly excited to watch the possible explanations behind the MP4/25 "F-duct" evolve into a fairly convincing theory.

I would like some clairification as there does still seem to be some incosistancy re: whether the driver control will divert air away from or into the slit in the rear wing, also could someone explain diagramatically how this "stalls" the wing.

I was wondering whether these "fluidic switches" could have been developed first without the need for driver control. Could a simpler system work based purely on the pressure in the intake feeding the switch increasing with airspeed? Could a system be built with multiple intakes in say, the airbox, which has a fluidic switch that changes the direction of airflow only over a certain air-speed thus reducing drag only at top speeds on the straights?

The disadvantage of such a system over Mclaren's would be that you could not reduce drag out of slower corners or on shorter straights where the the required air-speed is not acheived. There might be safety implications too on very high speed corners eg. Blanchimont but maybe this could be remedied by altering the required airspeed to "switch" the drag off according to the circuit (eg by changing the aperture of the vent).

Mclaren's solution does seem more complete and very clever. The reason I am suggesting this is that other teams may not be able to fully copy their system due to homologation of their tubs whereas this idea might be quicker to develop?

Thoughts?

[autogyro]

I am at lunch with someone I consider a genius in aerodynamics tmr.
I will ask if there is an workable automatic method.
I think there is but I am not going to comment just yet.

[FluidicSwitch]

I Posted this a while ago to the Aero-specific forum but the discussion seems to have moved back here, very confusing:

Hi, This is my first post here and I do not come from an F1 or Engineering background.

I would like to thank all of you who contibute to these forums, I have been reading them for insight ahead of what other sources publish. I have been particularly excited to watch the possible explanations behind the MP4/25 "F-duct" evolve into a fairly convincing theory.

I would like some clairification as there does still seem to be some incosistancy re: whether the driver control will divert air away from or into the slit in the rear wing, also could someone explain diagramatically how this "stalls" the wing.

I was wondering whether these "fluidic switches" could have been developed first without the need for driver control. Could a simpler system work based purely on the pressure in the intake feeding the switch increasing with airspeed? Could a system be built with multiple intakes in say, the airbox, which has a fluidic switch that changes the direction of airflow only over a certain air-speed thus reducing drag only at top speeds on the straights?

The disadvantage of such a system over Mclaren's would be that you could not reduce drag out of slower corners or on shorter straights where the the required air-speed is not acheived. There might be safety implications too on very high speed corners eg. Blanchimont but maybe this could be remedied by altering the required airspeed to "switch" the drag off according to the circuit (eg by changing the aperture of the vent).

Mclaren's solution does seem more complete and very clever. The reason I am suggesting this is that other teams may not be able to fully copy their system due to homologation of their tubs whereas this idea might be quicker to develop?

Thoughts?

[donskar]

Good for McLaren (my lest favorite team). F1 needs more outside the box thinking.

[FuzzyDice]

i watched the qualyfication today and i think i saw another car with the scoop just like McM one, but i wasnt 100% concentrated on tv so i might been mistaken but im 100% sure that another car had 2 lids on the nose in the same place where McM has its scoop

we gonna see those scoops some more

[ESPImperium]

McLaren forced to bring a more "legal" DDD to Aus: http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=co ... Itemid=219

Personally the McLaren stall rear wing device is illegal, its a movable aero device that isnt in the spirit of the rules, id like to see it banned. The only movable aero should be done to the front wing via the steering wheel. But thats just how i feel about it.

[Sean H]

i watched the qualyfication today and i think i saw another car with the scoop just like McM one, but i wasnt 100% concentrated on tv so i might been mistaken but im 100% sure that another car had 2 lids on the nose in the same place where McM has its scoop

we gonna see those scoops some more

the scoops have been around for a long time, it is the function of the scoop, or more importantly, the path of the airflow that is most important. It will be more than just putting a scoop on the front, you would also need a new airbox/sharkfin/wing and then a proper way to route and control that airflow through the cockpit to the airbox.

When we start seeing thicker sharkfins attatched to the rear wing we will know other teams are trying this theory.

[autogyro]

It realy amuses me all these people on here saying this devise shoould be banned.
Perhaps one of these who seem to know all about it can actualy tell us what moving part they mean and why it should be banned.
Come on you might be correct and then again you might just make a fool of yourselves.

[riff_raff]

Technically, the engine's intake throttles are driver controlled aero devices. Would it not be legal for a team to put a single large throttle plate at the inlet to the airbox, which was cleverly shaped to divert some airflow when closed to help improve the downforce of the rear wing going into a corner?

I don't believe there is currently any rule in F1 prohibiting such a device.

riff_raff