Team: Paddy Lowe (TD), Tim Goss (DE), Martin Whitmarsh (TP)
Drivers: Lewis Hamilton (3), Jenson Button (4)
Correct .. the beam wing is fine .. it's the diffuser that needs the energy to work. The wing only needs free air flow, which they have.Owen.C93 wrote:I wouldn't have thought you would want exhaust flow going to the beam wing, otherwise you start creating low pressure over the diffuser. Yeah it will help, but I would think that blowing it over the diffuser would work much better.
BreezyRacer wrote:Correct .. the beam wing is fine .. it's the diffuser that needs the energy to work. The wing only needs free air flow, which they have.Owen.C93 wrote:I wouldn't have thought you would want exhaust flow going to the beam wing, otherwise you start creating low pressure over the diffuser. Yeah it will help, but I would think that blowing it over the diffuser would work much better.
You are correct. In fact if you look at the cross-section of a simple aircraft wing, the top surface will be curved whilst the bottom will be flat. The air travelling over the top has to travel further and so flows at a faster rate. This results in the air pressue above the wing being lower than that below the wing - hence lift. This is basically how aircraft stay in the air.myurr wrote:I don't think accelerating the air over the top surface of the car is what they want to do - my understanding is that this would reduce the pressure and lessen the downforce generated by the floor (the pressure difference between the two would be reduced).segedunum wrote:Still thinking out loud on the subject of those sidepods, and probably for my own benefit..... There's really two things you want to do with the air going towards the back of the car:
1. Get as large a volume of clear air to the back and to the diffuser as you can. That's why you see lots of extreme packaging solutions, new gearboxes and pull-rod suspensions these days.
2. Accelerate that air as best you can over your bodywork surfaces before reaching the rear of the car to ceate more downforce when it reaches there.
Now, with McLaren's sidepod arrangement they've obviously thought a lot about 1. They've made deep cuts into their sidpods to get a larger volume of air to the rear of the car. However, I can't see where they've thought about 2 - accelerating and energising that air as best they can. They've just got two straight channels as far as I can see without doing anything else.
On other cars with their sidepods and bodywork you see intricate curves and deep undercuts to try and create pressure points and accelerate most of that air as best they can before it reaches the rear of the car. Because of what McLaren have done they obviously can't curve the outer parts of their sidpods and create undercuts as other teams have done because they don't have the space.
It might well all work fine as long as they're doing something major with that volume of air once it reaches the back of the car, but they're asking a lot of whatever it is they're doing there.
Dude, there're some seriously intelligent and experienced race folk in this forum. Just because you can't understand F1 aero doesn't mean noone else here can. I'm in the middle of a mechanical engineering degree(with two papers completed on race aero) with years of amateur racing experience, if that doesn't let you start to understand aero, then what does? By the way, there're plenty of people here with much better credentials than mine.JaymzVsTheWorld wrote:It's funny you people trying to understand F1 aerodynamics when you really DO NOT HAVE A CLUE!
Sorry Giblet, what wires? Do you have a pic?Giblet wrote:Are those wires fibre optic cables?
They do look like them, but usually they are shielded.
Just for your info: the primary mechanism creating lift is not the difference in surface length as you mentioned. That is a common misconception. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28fo ... ansit-timeadrianjordan wrote:You are correct. In fact if you look at the cross-section of a simple aircraft wing, the top surface will be curved whilst the bottom will be flat. The air travelling over the top has to travel further and so flows at a faster rate. This results in the air pressue above the wing being lower than that below the wing - hence lift. This is basically how aircraft stay in the air.
Actually it's always surprised me that no-one has tried to generate downforce by having a flat top to the sidepod and a curved bottom to them with a gap below to the floor - although I need to look closer at this year's Toro Rosso as perhaps that is what they are doing.
Your are right they are there BUT that is only one config they are running. The most basic one at that.mclaren113 wrote:I found it guys. You can see it clearly here, just below the wide rear wishpon!
True it's frustrating. Well that's what we get for getting so involved. Remember the days when we would just watch the race and that was it!N12ck wrote:i think this is quite funny, lets play the game, guess where the exhaust is
so far we have about 4 different places, maybe we are all right and they are just testing which is best?
Have you looked at aircraft wings in ground effect? Ground effect affects the way these perform. F1 cars are ground effect devices. Tip: stuff on aircraft doesn't necessarily transfer obviously to ground effect cars...adrianjordan wrote: You are correct. In fact if you look at the cross-section of a simple aircraft wing, the top surface will be curved whilst the bottom will be flat. The air travelling over the top has to travel further and so flows at a faster rate. This results in the air pressue above the wing being lower than that below the wing - hence lift. This is basically how aircraft stay in the air.
Actually it's always surprised me that no-one has tried to generate downforce by having a flat top to the sidepod and a curved bottom to them with a gap below to the floor - although I need to look closer at this year's Toro Rosso as perhaps that is what they are doing.
