Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

[Fil]

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.

Charlie & the FIA simply have their hands tied as the rulebook they are bound by has nothing in place for such a design.

That is the only reason this is legal.


Is it breaking the 'spirit of the rules'? Of course, but the only teams that ever care about that are those who didn't think of the creative design first.

[deterherligt]

There is a new artcile on formula1.com about the mclaren:

http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/ ... 4/727.html

There is a clever solution to control the system. A duct has been placed at the front of the chassis, which feeds additional air into the process, over saturating it and stopping it functioning. On the straights, where this solution is most important, the drivers have the ability to close the duct with either their left leg or arm.

[CMSMJ1]

The mass damper was a device that was not even in the air stream and was banned as a moveable aero device.

The points regarding helmets and airboxes are not related either.

My gut feeling is that the device is outside the spirit of the rules and that it is also legal in the written word.

However, there is always scope to ban the device on safety grounds..

[gridwalker]

The mass damper was a device that was not even in the air stream and was banned as a moveable aero device.

The points regarding helmets and airboxes are not related either.

My gut feeling is that the device is outside the spirit of the rules and that it is also legal in the written word.

However, there is always scope to ban the device on safety grounds..

Oh, don't mention safety ... it didn't go down well when I pointed out the dangers of allowing HRT to run a shakedown test during Q1 ...

I don't believe in the spirit of the rules : even if it existed in the first place, the notion should have been kicked to the kerb after the DDD fiasco last season.

To be frank, with all else being equalised, I think that this innovation by McLaren should be applauded and not condemned. We have moved on a long way since the days when cars were racing with movable wings raised high above the cars on fragile pylons mounted directly onto the suspension ... if active aerodyamics were legalised and properly regulated, modern technology could make them both safe and reliable.

The fact that teams have to design systems to work around such restricted regulations actually makes them more unsafe, because teams will always push at grey areas in the rules but ensuring that they don't venture into prohibited areas will compromise these systems and prevent them from working at their optimum efficiency.

Just my tuppence worth ...

[Just_a_fan]

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.

All of this talk about "spirit of the rules" is laughable. Look at Ferrari with its clever wheels, its side pod gills, all of the teams with their side pod deflectors / mirror supports. All of these things are against the spirit of the regs that tried to reduce downforce and / or improve overtaking.

If "spirit of the rules" is to be applied to McLaren's system then please let's have a similar application to all of the other clever systems that are there explicitly in contravention of the "spirit".

[Jersey Tom]

As an engineer, I really like this thing. Very clever. You'd think there must have been a better option on where to hide it though, to make it a bit less obvious.

In any event, it's a system by which the driver controls the aerodynamics of the rear wing. I haven't read the sporting regs, but I'd imagine driver-controlled aero is not legal.

[Just_a_fan]

As an engineer, I really like this thing. Very clever. You'd think there must have been a better option on where to hide it though, to make it a bit less obvious.

In any event, it's a system by which the driver controls the aerodynamics of the rear wing. I haven't read the sporting regs, but I'd imagine driver-controlled aero is not legal.

So far the FIA has declared it legal. That's all that matters. If the WMSC are asked to look at it then the legality might change but until then it's legal.

[Fil]

I haven't read the sporting regs, but I'd imagine driver-controlled aero is not legal.

Rather, its just not regulated. That is its saving grace.

It isn't breaking any rules because there are none for it.

[RacingManiac]

I think the difference is that this falls into the area of FIA not knowing HOW to regulate this.....the only moving part is the driver, even if the rest of the part hinges on that, you can't regulate driver's movement....If the driver is not there, it does nothing but blowing air into the cockpit.....and thus serves no purpose other than cooling the seat cushion.......

I agree with Jersey Tom though, its wierd how not discreet it is in its packaging.....

[Rob W]

Charlie & the FIA simply have their hands tied as the rulebook they are bound by has nothing in place for such a design.

That is the only reason this is legal.

Is it breaking the 'spirit of the rules'? Of course, but the only teams that ever care about that are those who didn't think of the creative design first.

I see your point but the 'spirit of the rules' line has been shown to be a failed arguing point before. The spirit of the rules is only in the eye of the beholder. There is no rule(s) saying preventing or even implying to prevent what McLaren are doing. If there is people should show it/them.

This idea simply doesn't break this rules are they are written. Fact. It doesn't even require lengthy debate as the mass-dampers or DDDs did.

Rules can only be written to cover ideas which are considered by the rule-makers. If someone comes up with an idea the rule-writers never even thought of and which doesn't breach them as written then I fail to see how it can be considered outside of the 'spirit' of the rules.

It seems only to exist, as you say, in the minds of people who didn't come up with potentially game-winning ideas like reactive suspension, ABS braking, traction control, wheel fairings, mass dampers, DDDs etc.

[Ciro Pabón]

Guys, I moved to this thread some posts made in the McLaren MP4/25 Thread.

I see many people is still confused about my intentions when I split this thread away from the car thread.

I will rename this thread Driver Controlled Aerodynamics. To minimize the confusion I've already provoked, I will change the name of this thread in a couple of days.

I repeat, loud and clear: this thread is going to be called Driver Controlled Aerodynamics.

[TheMinister]

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?

First off, welcome to the forums. If you like arguing and F1 this is the place to be. I'm gonna go ahead and assume you are a journo (and if you work for the BBC for gods sake explain it properly to the commentary team, who kept getting it backwards. Also tell crofty I love him).

So to answer your questions; with no driver input, the rear wing is exploiting the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coanda_effect to act as a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulation_control_wing. By blowing air from the slit, it effectively makes the wing harder to stall, so Mclaren can run it at a higher angle of attack than they otherwise could, giving them more downforce. I haven't seen any particularly good diagrams of this yet, but those wiki pages have some decent pictures on them. So you can then stall the wing simply by reducing the flow from the blown slit (obviously only at high speeds). Stalling reduces the downforce but also the drag, through some long and complex explanation involving the wingtip vorticies.

To answer the second question, yes you could have it set such that the slit stops blowing (or reduces enoungh to stall it) at a certain speed. There were some diagrams a while back showing that, I can't be bothered to find them but the concept is perfectly doable- and without fluidic bistable switches (if you used those, then the sky's the limit or whatever). If this was the case, you'd have to tune the system to stall the wing at any speed above that of the fastest corner on the track.

Anyway enjoy the forums, if you do work for the beeb a shoutout for either F1Tech or TheMinister would be just hunkydory.

[DaveKillens]

In Formula One, the second a new and innovative concept arrives, the rest of the teams figure things out, and quickly. The key is to keep everyone in the dark until the last moment. Roger Penske lived by that philosophy. So the moment the Mclaren showed up testing that weird scoop on the chassis nose, people in the pits were figuring things out quickly. Trust me, at this very moment, all teams are working on implimenting this system, and I expect it to come into service VERY SOON.

The system I proposed is fail-safe, the rear wing generates the maximim downforce it is supposed to, and only stalls out when the driver places his foot (or leg) over a hole that normally is not covered by normal motions of the driver.

[FluidicSwitch]

Thank you Minister for your explanation.

Unfortunately I am not a journalist, BBC or otherwise. However I am sending a shout out for F1tech to my limited audience, consisting of my pet cat "Muppet" and the incessant cicadas in the back garden here in Sydney.

I suppose the gist of my question was why there were no passive systems out there, especially as this would have been less obvious to other teams and would seem to be a logical prior step in development before developing a driver-controlled system.

[Giblet]

This whole thing reminds me of an old Loony Tunes cartoon, where an elephant is pitching in a baseball game, and the players are up in arms. I can't beleive I can remeber this, and the umpires answer.

"There's nothing in the rule book that says an elephant can't pitch"