Flexible wings 2011

[godlameroso]

Wouldn't having a soft heave spring bad for aero? I have no idea to the physical values attached to the stiffness of the shocks or torsion springs, although I think some teams don't use torsion springs just anti-roll bars, and heave springs. Technically you don't need torsion springs if you have a heave spring, and anti-roll bars because the springs only dictate how much the suspension can move, not how they move. Perhaps having torsion bars anti-roll bars, and heave spring all in combination can allow more precise use of the suspension. F1 cars aren't as sensitive as LMP or GT cars to mechanical setup, because F1 cars are more about aero. It's trickier with LMP or GT cars because the diffuser and front splitter play such a large role in overall downforce, whereas in F1 you have large very efficient wings.

[godlameroso]

I know that front wing has other functions too and that its biggest role is to produce as much downforce as possible .I even agree with the green arrow which is perfectly correct.The airflow is running between the top and middle element of the front wing. But like I said before. The top element is pushing the airflow towards the outer part of the car(or around the front tyre).Here is new picture from China http://skrci.me/rcGht.Isn't obvious?

Or,look at Coanda effect.Here is description for quick demonstration:"Get a small stream of water coming down from the sink,and then place the bottom of the spoon next to the stream.Dangle the spoon next to the stream coming from the tap,so it can swing back and forth a bit.It helps to attach a piece of tape at the handle end to act as a hinge. Move the spoon up to the edge of the stream so it barely touches. When you do the water will flow around the bowl of the spoon and off the bottom deflected to the side and the spoon will move into the stream.Spoon is actually being pulled towards the stream of water. Gases behave pretty much like liquids.".This effect indicates even why the front wing is bending.And believe me,there is just enough downforce as it is needed,the only difference is how the front wing directs the air flow.

Coanda effect:
http://www.ny.airnet.ne.jp/satoh/coanda7758.jpg

This is exactly what I meant, look at the nosecone for the RB7, I apologize if it's off topic, but the nosecone looks like an upside down spoon/beak/dome, I have a feeling this shape speeds up air under the nose, which is why they have those huge fins hanging under the nose cone, Ferrari has them as well, but the nose on the Ferrari is narrower and lacks that spoon/beak/dome shape. Matter of fact Toro Rosso are the only ones that have a similar nose cone, a lot of details are different but only because they have a modified RB5 chassis.

Furthermore, let's say this shape does create some downforce, well look at where it's being generated. Directly at the nose cone, which is where the wing is attached to the chassis. Perhaps the nosecone(because of how it's designed) deflects ever so slightly due to the downforce it creates; and in combination with the natural wing deflection caused by it's downforce, magnify it's effect all while remaining legal.

[malcolm]

Or,look at Coanda effect.Here is description for quick demonstration:"Get a small stream of water coming down from the sink,and then place the bottom of the spoon next to the stream.Dangle the spoon next to the stream coming from the tap,so it can swing back and forth a bit.It helps to attach a piece of tape at the handle end to act as a hinge. Move the spoon up to the edge of the stream so it barely touches. When you do the water will flow around the bowl of the spoon and off the bottom deflected to the side and the spoon will move into the stream.Spoon is actually being pulled towards the stream of water. Gases behave pretty much like liquids.".This effect indicates even why the front wing is bending.And believe me,there is just enough downforce as it is needed,the only difference is how the front wing directs the air flow.

Coanda effect:
http://www.ny.airnet.ne.jp/satoh/coanda7758.jpg

This is exactly what I meant, look at the nosecone for the RB7, I apologize if it's off topic, but the nosecone looks like an upside down spoon/beak/dome, I have a feeling this shape speeds up air under the nose, which is why they have those huge fins hanging under the nose cone, Ferrari has them as well, but the nose on the Ferrari is narrower and lacks that spoon/beak/dome shape. Matter of fact Toro Rosso are the only ones that have a similar nose cone, a lot of details are different but only because they have a modified RB5 chassis.

Furthermore, let's say this shape does create some downforce, well look at where it's being generated. Directly at the nose cone, which is where the wing is attached to the chassis. Perhaps the nosecone(because of how it's designed) deflects ever so slightly due to the downforce it creates; and in combination with the natural wing deflection caused by it's downforce, magnify it's effect all while remaining legal.

http://quikk.se/?97eb4

I don't want to be mean and just post a Wikipedia link, but I believe you are confused about the Coanda effect. It refers to jets of fluid being attracted to curved surfaces, not to convex compound-curved (or even uniformly curved) surfaces generating lift force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coand%C4%83_effect

As for the concave shape of the underside of the nose, it would only act to slow down the air and thus increase pressure, if it was designed for the purpose you state; however, I think the purpose is mainly to have greater space between the nose and the wing to allow for the upwash to have a lesser effect. I'm not sure on that, as the centre section of the wing produces positive lift (FIA mandated profile), so obviously there would be no upwash from it alone. Therefore I am mostly just doing IFD (Imaginary Fluid Dynamics, as opposed to CFD) to figure that there is an overall upwash from the outer sections, likely with a low-energy, large diameter vortex, and Red Bull wants the chassis to be further away from it or to simply allow for bigger barge-boards to take care of the flow.

Wouldn't having a soft heave spring bad for aero?

That depends on the damping. If the damping is high enough that the nose rarely rebounds from braking (diving) or aero load, then it only stands to help the aerodynamics as it gets the nose closer to the ground.

says to me vettel braked quite a bit later

It only says that Vettel was behind Hamilton at the start of that manoeuvre - only the trailing car has DRS.

Also, brakes are not applied yet. The DRS cannot be activated when the brakes are applied. This is still under acceleration or at terminal velocity.

[ianwit]

That picture must be when Vettle overtook Hamilton turned right and went straight into the pits behind Button. Hamilton's tyres were on a serious downward spiral as dozy Button also forgot to pit which left them both (maccas) out for one lap too long.

[Tim.Wright]

Wouldn't having a soft heave spring bad for aero?

You can't generalise any relationship between vertical stiffness and aerodynamic performance. In any case, what I was suggesting was that ratio was in the direction of a softer front. Could be implemented as a stiffer rear or softer front depending on how you want the body attitude to move

Tim

[godlameroso]

Have you ever stuck your hand out the window of a car and made the same shape as the nosecone of the RB7? The air pushes your hand down, because although the air under your hand slows down, the air over your hand slows down more, and creates an overall negative lift at least for that area. I think once teams copy this, they will gain a tenth or two. However I think RB7 makes more downforce with the cooling ducts than other teams, which I think is what gives them their edge, at least in qualifying.

If you can't use the airflow inside the chassis to generate downforce then why were the shark gills banned?

[godlameroso]

Wouldn't having a soft heave spring bad for aero?

You can't generalise any relationship between vertical stiffness and aerodynamic performance. In any case, what I was suggesting was that ratio was in the direction of a softer front. Could be implemented as a stiffer rear or softer front depending on how you want the body attitude to move

Tim

My mistake.

[malcolm]

Have you ever stuck your hand out the window of a car and made the same shape as the nosecone of the RB7? The air pushes your hand down, because although the air under your hand slows down, the air over your hand slows down more, and creates an overall negative lift at least for that area. I think once teams copy this, they will gain a tenth or two. However I think RB7 makes more downforce with the cooling ducts than other teams, which I think is what gives them their edge, at least in qualifying.

If you can't use the airflow inside the chassis to generate downforce then why were the shark gills banned?

wat.

1) the air going over the nose probably speeds up and drops in pressure. That's why Ferrari put a hole in their nose. Also, something tells me that the testing you did with your hand out the window failed to accurately replicate the aerodynamics of the RB7 nose. It's not as simple as an endplate deflector that kicks air around the wing; the nose is sculpted to minimize lift, reduce drag and direct flow to the floor.

2) how did we get onto the subject of cooling ducts and louvres? Louvres are great when you want to equalize pressure (look at fenders on LMPs). Sorry, I don't get where you are going with this.

[godlameroso]

1.)How would it speed up, it has to climb a curve and smack the driver's helmet, regardless I'm not talking about the nose, all the way to the front bulkhead, I'm talking about the tip of the nose. The nose cone tip, in the picture in the previous post you will see it's the yellow colored part, the rest of the nose is blue. Notice how the wing supports are placed under the drooping part of the nose cone. I'm positive this shape causes the tip of the nose to deflect a few mm this combined with the wing's deflection and I could see why people think the wing is illegal.

2.) The yellow and red arrows are ducts, the green one is for the brakes and the blue one is for cooling. That's for an LMP car, I'm sure F1 cars have more effective ducting, and Red Bull probably has the most effective ducting for creating downforce. That's why Newey doesn't like KERS it interferes with the ducting inside the chassis. The RB7 has that huge hole in the back for a reason, and it's not to house small animals nor is it to just to expel hot air. Look at the back of the McLaren, the hole in the back is tiny, as is with almost all other cars. Red Bull are the only ones with that big an opening.

[animax]

@malcolm

Animax: Coanda effect? Seriously? How does that even fit into this discussion?

How does a flexible front wing have anything to do with pushing air around the tires? Because it flexes to perhaps two degrees from horizontal? Calculate the sine of two, and you'll see how close to zero the lateral effect would be.

Also, variations in the geometry of the third flap serve to change the effective chord profile of the wing. While that curved part may push the air over a tiny bit, again, it won't do much at all in terms of lateral air movement.

The angle of the image you posted is misleading. Look at these five images; there is no way you can claim that the upper element acts like some sort of giant scoop.

Are you kidding? I'm sure that this paper from 2005 http://skrci.me/W9fKW will clarify F1 aerodynamics.Here is just a taste of it:

The Coanda effect is also utilised on a modern Formula 1 car with the purpose, not of generating downforce directly, but of guiding and conditioning airflow in one place, as a means of maximising downforce elsewhere....

[Richard]

Some folk are asking about rake over in the Chinese GP thread. This was discussed last year.

If the floor is curved (within tolerance), then the geomtric pivot point would be under the driver's seat, not at the leading edge of the tea tray. Furthermore, there would be more plank wear in that area, as opposed to at the leading edge of the tea tray for a straight floor.

Images from 2010 viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8764&start=585



Webber's car from Valencia 2010, the wear marks (lighter parts) show the high spots on the plank:

[malcolm]

@malcolm

Animax: Coanda effect? Seriously? How does that even fit into this discussion?

How does a flexible front wing have anything to do with pushing air around the tires? Because it flexes to perhaps two degrees from horizontal? Calculate the sine of two, and you'll see how close to zero the lateral effect would be.

Also, variations in the geometry of the third flap serve to change the effective chord profile of the wing. While that curved part may push the air over a tiny bit, again, it won't do much at all in terms of lateral air movement.

The angle of the image you posted is misleading. Look at these five images; there is no way you can claim that the upper element acts like some sort of giant scoop.

Are you kidding? I'm sure that this paper from 2005 http://skrci.me/W9fKW will clarify F1 aerodynamics.Here is just a taste of it:

The Coanda effect is also utilised on a modern Formula 1 car with the purpose, not of generating downforce directly, but of guiding and conditioning airflow in one place, as a means of maximising downforce elsewhere....

First, good job and picking and choosing parts of my replies to comment on. What about the other paragraphs?

Second, good job at using a theory so basic that it doesn't actually apply to your arguments. All that you've done is referenced a theory that basically states that air stays attached to a body. It doesn't back up any of the varying arguments that seem to change from post to post, giving me headaches.

Given that, are we in agreement that flexible wings do not aid in pushing air around the outside of the tire? And we also agree that the curves seen in the upper flap of the RB7 does not act like a giant scoop but more like a regular wing?

Aside from that, if you want to have a discussion about F1 aerodynamics, stop talking about spoons and actually discuss, *in detail*, how you think effects work such as the Coanda effect, Kutta Condition, Kutta-Joukowski Theorem, Bernoulli Effect or even if you want to rock the Navier-Stokes Equation. Most of us here get this stuff (yeah, ok, I was a little mislead about the Coanda effect, but upon reading your article it just basically infers that flow will adhere to a curved body... it doesn't really relate to whatever you are arguing, which seems to change from post to post).

You can't just say "COANDA EFFECT" and then expect people to say "oh wow, you're right because you used big fancy words and name-dropped fancy theorems". You actually have to explain yourself.

Please try to be more clear. I used to suck at English-Literature class in school, until my teacher told me a technical way to write an essay: Point, Evidence, Explanation. If you use those three things correctly whenever you argue something, you can't lose. Please: make a point, use a bit of evidence (effects, theorems and equations, or even a quote), and then explain how that applies to your argument. It will make it easier for everyone to understand.

1.)How would it speed up, it has to climb a curve and smack the driver's helmet, regardless I'm not talking about the nose, all the way to the front bulkhead, I'm talking about the tip of the nose. The nose cone tip, in the picture in the previous post you will see it's the yellow colored part, the rest of the nose is blue. Notice how the wing supports are placed under the drooping part of the nose cone. I'm positive this shape causes the tip of the nose to deflect a few mm this combined with the wing's deflection and I could see why people think the wing is illegal.

2.) The yellow and red arrows are ducts, the green one is for the brakes and the blue one is for cooling. That's for an LMP car, I'm sure F1 cars have more effective ducting, and Red Bull probably has the most effective ducting for creating downforce. That's why Newey doesn't like KERS it interferes with the ducting inside the chassis. The RB7 has that huge hole in the back for a reason, and it's not to house small animals nor is it to just to expel hot air. Look at the back of the McLaren, the hole in the back is tiny, as is with almost all other cars. Red Bull are the only ones with that big an opening.

1) The same reason why air produces lift when it "climbs a curve" over an airplane wing. With subsonic flows, shapes like that sort of act like a nozzle, speeding up the flow. Most shapes like that will feel a greater effect from the air speeding up over the top rather than any effects of changing the direction of mass flow (you need a sharp corner and a steep incline for it to act like a NASCAR spoiler or the nose of a Riley & Scott MkIII). Notice how LMP louvres start before the top of the curve of the fenders? That means that the air has accelerated even though it is still moving upwards.

What you are doing with your hand out the window is replicating a NASCAR spoiler because of the angles you likely put your hand at, and the inability for your hand and fingers to keep the flow attached over them (they are far from a smooth body).

2) I have to ask you the same question... what are you even arguing?

The red arrows are ducts to allow the diffused air from the front diffuser to escape. The yellow arrows are ducts that allow air to pass through to minimize drag and perhaps enhance the diffuser by blowing air over it. Again, it doesn't directly produce downforce, it just aids other devices in producing downforce.

Beyond that, the RB7 is designed to minimize the effect of dirty air going over the diffuser and beam wing. Instead of just letting that dirty, confused turbulent air coming out of the sidepods and radiators ruin the effects of those devices, Newey channeled it up to exit between the beam wing and the main wing, where it would have little effect on downforce. He was not creating downforce by channeling that flow up, but allowing other aerodynamic devices to be more efficient by redirecting that dirty flow so that those other devices could get clean, laminar flow to them.



See where it is aimed? It will exit the hole and go over the beam wing (if it was designed to enhance the beam wing as some sort of blown apparatus, the hole would be aiming for under the wing). It is close to the beam wing so that it doesn't dirty the air going under the upper, main wing.

Sorry, but you are wrong: that hole is actually just there to expel hot air; however, it aims to expel it into a region where it will have the lowest consequences on the aerodynamic devices around it.

More info: http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/02/1 ... d-cooling/

[godlameroso]

1.) What you are saying is true for airplane wings, because airplane wings don't have a driver's head at their trailing edge. Still I'm talking about the droopiness of the nose tip and how it gets magnified at speed(even if it's only a few mm) and influences the height of the FW. From what I can perceive it was assumed that raising the nose would increase positive lift, and yet we have every team going for high noses.

To just declare me wrong like that is a bit close minded, I think. Perhaps I should be more precise with my words, and think them out more carefully. Regardless, I appreciate that you at least correct me and are willing to discuss the issue.

2.) The air that passes through the radiators is hot and turbulent, my question is would channeling that air through a tighter section of ducting relative to the radiator cavity clean it up some?

[malcolm]

1) I'm confused; I thought you were just talking about the nose up to the front bulkhead... not all the way to the driver. Just like a wing, there would be a small high-pressure area around the stagnation point on the nose (where they have a little hole for cooling of various things), but then as the air accelerates over the nose, it would drop in pressure (if it raised in pressure, you'd see them installing big fences, like the misguided approach seen on 70's Group-5 cars). The air gets rather confused around the driver, as there is a big opening and then it hits the driver's helment; however, that doesn't really affect the part of the nose you are referring to.

Aside from that, the nose itself won't produce any discernible downforce; it will, however, possibly allow for some flex as it is pulled down by the wing. That being said, I think the current consensus is that the wing is likely only marginally flexible (not much more than other teams), that the nose is probably not too flexible (again, it would have to withstand the forces applied by the FIA test), the wing supports may be rather flexible, allowing for increased angle of attack and wing-droop, but that the bulk of the reason why the RB7 front wing is so close to the ground is the high rake and flexible tea-tray splitter that allows the nose to droop further.

I don't mean to offend when I say you are wrong. We've all been wrong several times in several occasions.

2) Channeling the air may straighten it out somewhat, but if that was their intent, I would probably bet that there would be some strakes/fins installed to try to straighten the flow, similar to a wind-tunnel's flow-straightening device after the giant propeller... I'm just guessing here, however. But the biggest clue is where they are pointing that opening: toward nothing. It's far away from the upper wing, and aims just above the beam wing as not to affect it.

Though in terms of a general idea for using radiator flow for downforce, I think that's what McLaren is up to (I recall reading it somewhere, I think). But that's a topic for another thread.



The biggest thing is that if everyone states their point, provides a bit of specific evidence (quotes, theories, etc) rather than just posting a big PDF by Katz or whoever, and then explains how that evidence applies, it'll be a lot easier for people to get what you're saying. We're not talking about simple stuff here, so it should take a bit of time to compose your arguments so that everyone understands everyone else.

[godlameroso]

Look back at the second post on pg 48, look at the nose tip section of the RB7 the part that is yellow, it ends by about the bull right before the front wheels. There are only two teams besides Red Bull which have this specific shape, the Toro Rosso, and the Mercedes, everyone else save Force India, (which has an interesting nose tip section) just has two ramps converging at the tip. I don't even want to get into speculation about the advantages of this shape I don't have CFD software at my fingertips, nor do I have a wind tunnel. From sticking my hand out the window and trying to emulate this shape, I can feel my hand get pushed down. Maybe my knuckles wrist and forearm hair slow the air down enough to create a pressure differential, I don't know, net effect however is arm wants to go down.