Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

Post

hollus wrote:Ringo:
I that scheme, the airflow to the rear wing looks unrestricted. In reality, all that air will have to come out of a small slit, surely that increases the pressure again?
But all perfectly plausible, we await your video.
Yes, i was just demonstrating the concept so i chose simple pipes. I didn't want to take the chance to overcomplicate it when i don't really know what is happening. It's always good to have simple models that can be easily understood.

I also think the diameters are tunable, so you do have a point.
For Sure!!

User avatar
TheMinister
0
Joined: 20 Feb 2008, 00:03

Re: Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

Post

A question just occurred to me; the Mclaren top air intake doesn't seem to be any bigger than usual.

I was under the impression that this intake fed the engine, and thus was as big as allowed to create pressure forcing air into the engine.

Doesn't this system mean the Mclaren engine effectively has a smaller air intake? Wouldn't that mean a drop in power?

Or have I hideously misunderstood the air intake system?

User avatar
doopie2you
0
Joined: 26 Feb 2010, 13:42
Location: Zuid-Holland

Stall the Wing?

Post

Lately i have done some research for myself about McLaren's rear wing.
But all the time i find a term could Stall, they say it means that the downforce that has bin made my the wing drops away.

But i don't understand it.

Image

The picture tels me that the air underneeth the wing goes away when the air comes out of the secret slot. But the downforce is created at the top side of the wing not underneeth it, so how does it work?
What does IDK means?? (someone) i dont know (other dude) OMG no one knows

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Re: Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

Post

kalinka wrote:Time will tell. It's only my opinion about this. Maybe I'm a minority with that,but I'm still convinced that it's very hard to block a HOLE with your knee, when you can't even see it. Imagine how it would be hard even with your hand, to block a hole that you can not see. With those multilayer suits they wear, it's almost impossibble to block a little hole I think. I'm not going to post about it any more, because I think it's not so important question. I hope at the end I just can tell you : I told you, remember ? :)

The whole wisconception started when someone assumed that the pipe could be crushed by the driver, most likely around his knees. But the regulations are very specific, nothing can move. So that rules out any crushable piping, and flaps or check valves. So how does a driver control the airflow without any moving parts? The driver can when all he has to do is cover a hole. But this hole location has to meet certain criteria. It has to be out of the way, and only activated by the driver only when he choses to do so. It has to be very simple and easy for the driver to actuate. And it has to be fail-safe, so that the loss of lift can be commanded only in a very specific way, and can not be triggered by a mistake by the driver (such as pressing the wrong button).
The way I figured it was that this hole was located above and slightly to the left of the brake pedal. It would be designed so that all the driver has to do on a straight was to move his left foot a bit to the left then up into a slight recess. And the hole would be located where the driver's foot covers this hole.

The sole of his foot covers the hole, and airflow is diverted. The driver enters a corner, his left foot moves away from the hole and over the brake pedal, and it's back to normal business.
Racing should be decided on the track, not the court room.

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

Post

Here is the video folks, first time using the program to create flow trajectory vidoe so bear with me.
Blue is low pressure , red is high, everything else is in between.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7eG2TosLY8[/youtube]

The lower pipe is over the bridge wing and the upper pipe leads to the wing slit. Small, almost vertical pipe is supposed to be from the snorkel.

What is happening here is that the snorkel pipe is not activated at all, ie there is no air being supplied to the fin chamber from the snorkel.

If you look closely the air coming in from the intake, is evenly dispersed between the lower and upper pipe at low speeds where the pressures are about the same.
As speed increases things change though.

Both outlets create suction. The underside of the rear wing draws more vacuum than the covered pipe over the bridge wing.
And if some find it confusing that I said suction on top the bridge wing, which should be high pressure, i am referring to the little shroud over the pipe. Air passing by the sides of this shroud will pull on the flow in the pipe causing low pressure.

Here is the shroud over the pipe atop the bridge wing (it has a little flow vis in it) just so you know what i am talking about.
Image

So with that we have 2 outlets pulling vacuum. As speed increases the pressure drops more. The pressure drops at different rates over the outlets. The flow in the fin chamber will deviate to the outlet that has the faster rate of drop and has the lowest pressure over all.
This can happen without the help of the snorkel air to direct the flow.

In the video the car is accelerating for 3 seconds, though i tested it up to 10. I used accel of 11.1 m/s^2 and mapped the pressure vs time drop under the wing i built, in another model earlier, and also over it's bridge wing, with a little shroud in the middle part. Knowing this i can map the end conditions on the outlets and inlets.
pressure drop of shrouded pipe:
Image

The rear wing suction is way more than the shrouded outlet pipe. rear wing in pink, shroud in blue:
Image

Obviously a time will come where the wing suction so great the flow will take the easier rout with the least resistance. The flow will go to the slot naturally, no help needed from a snorkel. This can be seen in the video, where the lower pipe flow begins to get red, this is relative to the suction pressure of the wing slot and the flow is clearly diverting upwards.
What i find surprising is that it sucks so much, it is pulling air from the lower outlet pipe backwards. At least that is what i am seeing, i don't know what to deduce from that though.

What I also took not of is that the fin slot begins blowing at 1.8s!, the car is barely up to speed, it's going to need the down-force at such speeds. This is where i think the tuning of the pipes come in. It could be mclaren made them in such a way that the flow deviates not at the low speeds mine does, but at a much higher speed (captain obvious).
This is done by restricting the fin slot to a smaller area, or flaring the shrouded pipe. They can also use the snorkel air to influence what and when things happen in the fin chamber.
It can blow to push the air in any which way. Maybe up like mines, or downward, which ever suits how their chamber actually looks and operates.
So with that i'd say the system is both passive and reactive, ie if the snorkel is for real. But the system can operate passively.

I will now turn on the snorkel and see what kind of influence it can have, maybe it forces the diversion earlier. Or it can be remodeled to delay the diversion. The pipe diameters can also be changed, an orifice restrictor or venturis could be added; so many variables.

Any criticisms let me know, i could have overlooked something.
For Sure!!

User avatar
forty-two
0
Joined: 01 Mar 2010, 21:07

Re: Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

Post

Excellent work Ringo, hats off to you for that!
The answer to the ultimate question, of life, the Universe and ... Everything?

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

Post

When I get the time, i will restrict the upper pipe to prevent the flow from readily turning there, then try using the snorkel pipe to see if the deflection will force the flow to the restricted pipe. This is a method to have the wing stalled at the drivers input, instead of passively.
Designing the chamber took a little calculation, i had to use 2d collision to figure out what angle the defected stream would go. This is just rough work because the air is not perfectly elastic and i could not find a coefficient of restitution for air.
Secondly you have to take into consideration the mass flows of the snorkel air stream and the inlet air stream, this will affect the deflection angle.
The system should be able to be modeled as an electrical circuit as well.

Any thoughts on the possibility the snorkel is just a cooling duct, and Whitmarsh is sending everyone on a wild goose chase?
For Sure!!

firbanks
firbanks
0
Joined: 19 Feb 2010, 20:27

Re: Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

Post

ringo wrote:Any thoughts on the possibility the snorkel is just a cooling duct, and Whitmarsh is sending everyone on a wild goose chase?
It is an interesting theory that you postulate, but if it is indeed a passive system, then it would have to be tuned to only go into effect at some velocity above the highest cornering velocity for a given circuit, plus some margin of safety. Imagine going through Eau Rouge or 130R and suddenly losing some downforce percentage. This constraint could limit the usefulness of the system, while a driver operated system could allow for use on shorter straights for which the maximum cornering velocity was not exceeded.

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

Post

Yes, that adds a valid reason for having the snorkel; there needs to be a margin of safety and control.
A knee operated snorkel can act as an over ride of the passive system. Sort of like an alarm clock that is tuned to ring at a certain time, but needs a human hand to shut off the alarm or abort the alarm all together.

I also agree that the way how teams test nowadays with simulators, chances are they know exactly what is happening in every corner and every straight of every track so tuning the system for each track is possible. However if a track has some high speed turns along with high speed straights, that can be a problem as you say. How can a passive system differentiate between a high speed turn and a straight with similar speeds?
That could be where the human element comes into the control system. :)

I am undecided about the whole thing, but i like the passive/re-active idea, it covers all bases, but i wont be surprised if snorkel was simply a cooling duct.

We can also wait and see Sauber's interpretation of the F duct as well.
For Sure!!

autogyro
autogyro
53
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 15:03

Re: Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

Post

Well done ringo, your work on this has been invaluable.
Of course we could be completely wrong but so what.

tok-tokkie
tok-tokkie
37
Joined: 08 Jun 2009, 16:21
Location: Cape Town

Re: Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

Post

Image
I think the snorkel air works the other way round.
Normally the air from above the drivers head goes to the slot in the upper wing where it helps to keep the airflow attached to the wing giving increased downforce & drag.
When the driver blocks the hole in the pipe from the snorkel it injects air from above to divert the air from the upper wing to down the gearbox way. The upper wing airflow then separates from the rear side (stalls) reducing both downforce & drag - when running down the straights.
I think the snorkel air should be injected from the top to make the airstream take the lower route.

User avatar
horse
6
Joined: 23 Oct 2009, 17:53
Location: Bilbao, ES

Re: Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

Post

Repost from the Sauber thread, but I thought it might generalise the discussion a bit, again.
horse wrote:This is VERY interesting!

Image

Look how the channel travels into the main element, not the flap (top arrow).

Also notice that the original slot system (bottom arrrow) is still being used. How these systems work together is a mystery!
In addition, another post in the Sauber thread seems to indicate that the pipe is fed from the sidepod rather than the snorkel.

Autosport also reports that the system is not controlled actively, yet.
"Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words." - Chuang Tzu

User avatar
raceman
0
Joined: 25 Jul 2009, 08:57
Location: Pune, India

Re: Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

Post

horse wrote:Repost from the Sauber thread, but I thought it might generalise the discussion a bit, again.
horse wrote:This is VERY interesting!

Image

Look how the channel travels into the main element, not the flap (top arrow).

Also notice that the original slot system (bottom arrrow) is still being used. How these systems work together is a mystery!
In addition, another post in the Sauber thread seems to indicate that the pipe is fed from the sidepod rather than the snorkel.

Autosport also reports that the system is not controlled actively, yet.
it is fed indeed by a snorkel rather than the sidepod, but this snorkel is placed above the left sidepod and not in front of the cockpit

Image

User avatar
forty-two
0
Joined: 01 Mar 2010, 21:07

Re: Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

Post

Just to add a little more confusion into the mix, this shot taken in Melbourne shows the McLaren tub without the snorkel:

Image

Perhaps this adds weight to the "tuned" theory rather than the "controlled" theory? Perhaps as many people have speculated, the snorkel was merely there for cooling for Bahrain?


EDIT Sorry guys, red herring. I think that the snorkel wouldn't be visible here anyway as this is only the nose, not the tub.
Last edited by forty-two on 25 Mar 2010, 16:02, edited 1 time in total.
The answer to the ultimate question, of life, the Universe and ... Everything?

User avatar
forty-two
0
Joined: 01 Mar 2010, 21:07

Re: Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall

Post

raceman wrote:
horse wrote:Repost from the Sauber thread, but I thought it might generalise the discussion a bit, again.
horse wrote:This is VERY interesting!

Image

Look how the channel travels into the main element, not the flap (top arrow).

Also notice that the original slot system (bottom arrrow) is still being used. How these systems work together is a mystery!
In addition, another post in the Sauber thread seems to indicate that the pipe is fed from the sidepod rather than the snorkel.

Autosport also reports that the system is not controlled actively, yet.
it is fed indeed by a snorkel rather than the sidepod, but this snorkel is placed above the left sidepod and not in front of the cockpit

Image
Two things spring to mind looking at these pictures:
1. The McLaren airbox has a specially designed second inlet at the top. Could it be that adding one of these in-season would not be allowed under the rules, so Sauber had no option but to place the inlet somewhere else?
2. Presumably, they will suffer pressure losses due to the kinks which will be needed in the ducting between sidepod top and rear wing.

Also find it intriguing that they appear to be feeding the bottom of the bottom element rather than the top element as McL seem to be. Perhaps this is only one half of the system McL are working on?
The answer to the ultimate question, of life, the Universe and ... Everything?