Cleaning the flow behind an F1 car?

[impaero]

This has probably been asked before, but is there an easy way to clean the flow to allow closer racing?

How about sticking a grid (like what you find in wind tunnels) on the back? Will next year's ban on DDDs make much difference or do we need a return to more ground effect/ less wing based downforce?

[King Six]

Well...

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Re ... 05-01.html







---

I say enforce rules which ask for simpler front/rear wings, and of course, single diffusers. Also bring back the 2 metre wide tracks (pre-1998 wide cars) which offer better mechanical grip I believe.

Your basic idea is to reduce reliance on downforce and increase mechanical grip, rather than going for a more complex idea of having a nicer wake.

I think...

[spinmastermic]

Another one of the main problems when following another cars dirty air is that it causes over-heating. How about setting a minimum area for the radiator intakes. About 20% bigger than the current cars. It won't clean up the air bihind, but could reduce the over-heating problem and allow cars to chase.

[autogyro]

Such a pity that Max Mosley had ALL the answers with the FIA low rear turbulence car design and KERS.
This year would be great racing if he had only managed to kill off FOTA and that goon Montezemolo.
Now we have to wait until next year for Todt to do exactly the same.
This year Ferrari hopes to have racing trains that they can lead by throwing money at their cars as usual.
Gonna be boring guys.

[flynfrog]

Such a pity that Max Mosley had ALL the answers

just stop there



never let a lawyer try to outsmart engineers

[autogyro]

Such a pity that Max Mosley had ALL the answers

just stop there



never let a lawyer try to outsmart engineers

To start of with Max is not just a lawyer and has more engineering knowledge than many in F1.
Secondly, the answers from Max were worked out by the best engineering brains in F1 before Max cleared them for use.
It is people like the playboy criminal Briatore and the motor mouth Montezemelo who destroyed any chance of sensible regulation for 2010. It is Fota that has given you a boring season of no overtaking based on a minimal engineering knowledge.

[Just_a_fan]

do we need a return to more ground effect/ less wing based downforce?

Gets my vote.

Using big wings is a bad way to get close racing. The only reason the DD is bad for the car behind is because they went and made the front wings lower. Making the wing lower makes it more sensitive.

I'd raise the front wing (and make it narrower again) and increase the allowable radius on the front edge of the floor below the sidepods. Then get rid of the DD. Allow the diffuser to be two channels, one each side of the gearbox and rigidly define what they can have. I'd do a drawing of where the diffuser is allowed to be. That way you'd keep d/f levels but they'd be generated in a less "sensitive" way and prevent loophole jumping.

The reason that double diffusers and blown rear wings etc. exist is because the regs are a written document. If they defined controlled zones with decent drawings then they'd be no arguements.

[sticky667]

Such a pity that Max Mosley had ALL the answers

just stop there



never let a lawyer try to outsmart engineers

To start of with Max is not just a lawyer and has more engineering knowledge than many in F1.
Secondly, the answers from Max were worked out by the best engineering brains in F1 before Max cleared them for use.
It is people like the playboy criminal Briatore and the motor mouth Montezemelo who destroyed any chance of sensible regulation for 2010. It is Fota that has given you a boring season of no overtaking based on a minimal engineering knowledge.

I hate to stray off topic, but has anyone else noticed most of the prominent key figures in the FIA/FOTA debacle last year have all but disappeared from the sport? Briatore, Howett, Theisen, Mosley, Donnelly

[kilcoo316]

Such a pity that Max Mosley had ALL the answers with the FIA low rear turbulence car design and KERS.

The low turb wing was a load of bull.

Would never have worked. I don't know who did the study, but they found what the FIA wanted them to find.

[kilcoo316]

To start of with Max is not just a lawyer and has more engineering knowledge than many in F1.



shhhh.

Secondly, the answers from Max were worked out by the best engineering brains in F1 before Max cleared them for use.

No. Mosley often acted without consulting the teams.

It is people like the playboy criminal Briatore and the motor mouth Montezemelo who destroyed any chance of sensible regulation for 2010. It is Fota that has given you a boring season of no overtaking based on a minimal engineering knowledge.

Nope. Mosley tried to use the DDD to drive a wedge into FOTA. By rights, it should have been banned, greatly aiding overtaking (if Mosley had heeded the OWG, it would have been banned - he didn't). But it wasn't... so we are left with what we have today.

[autogyro]

Sorry Ciro I will not respond even though the poster is absolutely wrong and has no idea how F1 works. I will try keeping on thread.
Max Mosley could not make any technical or sporting decision on his own the FIA does not allow for this.
The FIA has its own engineers of equal if not better ability than the teams.
If a poster is stateing that the low turbulance rear aero projected by the FIA working group will not work, could the poster please explain why.

[WhiteBlue]

Autogyro is absolutely right on this one.

1. The high down force diffusors are entirely the teams responsibility. They did not accept the FiA proposal of limited downforce made in 2007 which involved movable wings.

2. Max Mosley had a full physicist education and maintained a pretty competent level of engineering consultancy.

3. The FiA proposal for 2010 again involved movable rear wings and low downforce design which was rejected by Montezemolo and FOTA.

4. Downforce is the easiest way to faster lap times but it also destroys the clean air behind cars. It is absolutely essential that F1 cars are restricted to a maximum of downforce (1 metric ton order) that is essential for their performance target. Movable wings can be a part of that solution and smaller restricted diffusors obviously as well. But to stop wings to create turbulence in the vital fast and medium fast corners you must implement a downforce maximum.

[Sawtooth-spike]

On your 4th point whiteblue. How would you measure the downforce? To make sure that at no point the car goes over the 1 metric ton (just for example). The only reason i ask is that if this was the rule then the teams would run at exactly 1 metric ton (all agreed?), so if some external fact eg air pressure effected this and took it over the limit, we would after the race see people being disqualified for going over (which nobody wants).

I agree with the Idea, its just how you do it thats the problem.

[kilcoo316]

Sorry Ciro I will not respond even though the poster is absolutely wrong and has no idea how F1 works.

I will try keeping on thread.
Max Mosley could not make any technical or sporting decision on his own the FIA does not allow for this.

Max regularly "clarified" the rules, which does not require the consent of the teams.

The FIA has its own engineers of equal if not better ability than the teams.

shhhh. 1 or 2 engineers without facilities vs. 40 aerodynamcists with a windtunnel is not an even fight.

If a poster is stateing that the low turbulance rear aero projected by the FIA working group will not work, could the poster please explain why.

The diffuser results in a large upwash field behind the car, this field is quite uniform close behind the car if 'viewed' in a spanwise direction. The field originates near the ground plane.

The two rear wings are located quite a distance above the ground plane. The trailing vortices that were intended to reduce this upwash affect are too small - as a result of the wings small span, so would never overly penetrate/damp the upwash field of the diffuser.

In addition, the two trailing vortex systems would quickly couple to add to the overall upwash effect at the rough centre position of each wing..

[autogyro]

Sorry Ciro I will not respond even though the poster is absolutely wrong and has no idea how F1 works.

I will try keeping on thread.
Max Mosley could not make any technical or sporting decision on his own the FIA does not allow for this.

Max regularly "clarified" the rules, which does not require the consent of the teams.

It is the FIA that decides regulations not just Max Mosley, the teams only advised, which is the only way for proper regulation to work. Now FOTA has totaly messed this process up and endangered the very future of F1.

The FIA has its own engineers of equal if not better ability than the teams.

shhhh. 1 or 2 engineers without facilities vs. 40 aerodynamcists with a windtunnel is not an even fight.

I am sorry but concluding the aerodynamic ability of the FIA and its qualified advisers from a position designing paper aeroplanes in Ireland is hardly either correct or respectful enough for further comment.
Nick Wirth does not have a wind tunnel but he does have a F1 car, what do you have?

If a poster is stateing that the low turbulance rear aero projected by the FIA working group will not work, could the poster please explain why.

The diffuser results in a large upwash field behind the car, this field is quite uniform close behind the car if 'viewed' in a spanwise direction. The field originates near the ground plane.

The two rear wings are located quite a distance above the ground plane. The trailing vortices that were intended to reduce this upwash affect are too small - as a result of the wings small span, so would never overly penetrate/damp the upwash field of the diffuser.

In addition, the two trailing vortex systems would quickly couple to add to the overall upwash effect at the rough centre position of each wing..

It is the central airflow which is almost laminar that is used to clean the diffusser wake, not the trailing vortices from the two wings.