Is F1 getting boring?

[autogyro]

Not nearly as boring as the effect aero is having on F1.

[autogyro]

Miquels question defines an AoA more than the stall angle and an increase in the resulting profile drag.
This was not my statement.
I stated that a reduction in DF resulted in a reduction in drag.
DF or lift is lost at and just before the stall angle not after it.
The loss of lift/DF and induced drag from it is more than the drag remaing from the wing.
If this was not the case there would be no purpose in developing blown rear wings.

[Ogami musashi]

Miquels question defines an AoA more than the stall angle and an increase in the resulting profile drag.

Miguel asks for a clear state:

Actually, Ogami, I believe you don't even need to change the design. If you increase the angle of attack of a wing over the stall AoA (although it may vary a bit with speed), wouldn't you get more drag with less lift?

Stall+AOA, the AOA past Clmax.
Simple.

This was not my statement.
I stated that a reduction in DF resulted in a reduction in drag.
DF or lift is lost at and just before the stall angle not after it.

Tyring, please brush up your earo knowledge, you're wrong from the start.

Guess what is an AOA at which you stall? An AOA where the CLmax you just reached (so prior the stall) starts to evolve non linearly.
So the lift is certainly not lost before the stall state and certainly not enough to reduce induced drag for the sole reason induced drag is a function of CL and aspect ratio.
If the Stall angle is the angle just after the max CL this is also the angle just after the max induced drag is atteined;

Stalling a wing with AOA has never been a mean to reduce drag, did you every heard of airbrakes??

The loss of lift/DF and induced drag from it is more than the drag remaing from the wing.
If this was not the case there would be no purpose in developing blown rear wings.

[/quote][/quote]

That means nothing, nothing at all. I'm sorry but do not try to argue with me on things you don't at least know a little.

The stall of the Merc wing is done below the stall AOA, it is simply a reduction of effective camber.


And not to lose track of your not founded-not argumented idea: that is absolutely NOT a reason to state that in general diminishing Downforce decreases drag.

I'm at lost to make you understand what me and kilcoo tried to say to you since the start, those are real physics, not random opinion mixed with personal feelings about a mafia of people trying to impose their science.

Downforce doesn't necessarily means drag! Period.

Re-read our post, you have all the explanation needed.

[autogyro]

Miquels question defines an AoA more than the stall angle and an increase in the resulting profile drag.

Miguel asks for a clear state:

Actually, Ogami, I believe you don't even need to change the design. If you increase the angle of attack of a wing over the stall AoA (although it may vary a bit with speed), wouldn't you get more drag with less lift?

Stall+AOA, the AOA past Clmax.
Simple.

This was not my statement.
I stated that a reduction in DF resulted in a reduction in drag.
DF or lift is lost at and just before the stall angle not after it.

Tyring, please brush up your earo knowledge, you're wrong from the start.

Guess what is an AOA at which you stall? An AOA where the CLmax you just reached (so prior the stall) starts to evolve non linearly.
So the lift is certainly not lost before the stall state and certainly not enough to reduce induced drag for the sole reason induced drag is a function of CL and aspect ratio.
If the Stall angle is the angle just after the max CL this is also the angle just after the max induced drag is atteined;

Stalling a wing with AOA has never been a mean to reduce drag, did you every heard of airbrakes??

The loss of lift/DF and induced drag from it is more than the drag remaing from the wing.
If this was not the case there would be no purpose in developing blown rear wings.

[/quote]

That means nothing, nothing at all. I'm sorry but do not try to argue with me on things you don't at least know a little.

The stall of the Merc wing is done below the stall AOA, it is simply a reduction of effective camber.


And not to lose track of your not founded-not argumented idea: that is absolutely NOT a reason to state that in general diminishing Downforce decreases drag.

I'm at lost to make you understand what me and kilcoo tried to say to you since the start, those are real physics, not random opinion mixed with personal feelings about a mafia of people trying to impose their science.

Downforce doesn't necessarily means drag! Period.

Re-read our post, you have all the explanation needed.[/quote]

I suggest you let McLaren know your explanation, they will no doubt be very pleased to realise that their wing does not work and they are doing things completely wrong
I will try to remember next time I try stalling when I am flying next weekend.

[Ogami musashi]

I suggest you let McLaren know your explanation, they will no doubt be very pleased to realise that their wing does not work and they are doing things completely wrong
I will try to remember next time I try stalling when I am flying next weekend.

Well, this will end this discussion, you didn't understand any of my posts (you couldn't reply to any single points ..) so i'm annoyed.

Thank you.

[autogyro]

I suggest you let McLaren know your explanation, they will no doubt be very pleased to realise that their wing does not work and they are doing things completely wrong
I will try to remember next time I try stalling when I am flying next weekend.

Well, this will end this discussion, you didn't understand any of my posts (you couldn't reply to any single points ..) so i'm annoyed.

Thank you.

I believe this is Germanengineerings thread, so I do not know how an aero expert can decide when discusions are to cease.
Oh and by the way, I have never said I was right in any of my posts.
One thing is certain however and that is that F1 is getting boring for most of those who watch it and the main reason is that aerodynamics has taken over almost all of the development and it means not one jot to most spectators.

[Pandamasque]

No, this has been a thread dedicated solely to the discussions of autogyro's aerodynamic competence for a while. You two could as well use PMs.

[autogyro]

No, this has been a thread dedicated solely to the discussions of autogyro's aerodynamic competence for a while. You two could as well use PMs.

I agree panda and I am sorry for that.

[donskar]

Back on topic: Is F1 getting boring?

Well, let's go to the source for an answer. What does a very highly respected member of F1 have to say about tomorrow's race?

"I think the weather and the safety cars will be the spectacle tomorrow, to be honest," says Ross Brawn.

How sad. And likely to be true.

[Mr Alcatraz]

I'm mildly optimistic about this race, and am hoping for a real slugfest rain or shine.

[Germanengineering]

What a race!

[xxChrisxx]

It's all about the track bud, and changing conditions.

[Rob W]

I found it quite ironic that Hamilton, the driver who screams so often about how he's got no grip or his tires are graining etc also screams at the team for putting him on new tires which he looked like he'd definitely need and then, at the end of the race, looked more worn than his team-mate's who did dozens more laps on his*.

(*to be a little bit fair on him he did spend a lot of it fighting with those around him which his team-mate didn't have to)

[Germanengineering]

I think your right. We have to go back and look at previous seasons and look at what tracks make for great races.

[xxChrisxx]

I think your right. We have to go back and look at previous seasons and look at what tracks make for great races.

Any track untouched by Tilke.

Old ones, particulally tracks with elevation changes make for good races.
Being fair to Herman the German his designs are constrained by totally bollocks regulations. (max 10 degree incline, must have certain lengths of straghts)