Front Wing F-Duct

[marekk]

These zig-zagged tapes you are referring to cause the boundary layer to become turbulent which postpones flow separation (the same reason why dimpled golf balls have lower drag than perfectly round ones).

Right. My fault .

Than maybe it works like self-adjusting boundary thickness control device (turbulator) described in this paper ?: http://www.lange-aviation.com/pdf/in_th ... -02_01.pdf

Funny thing: most of the research was done in Delft

Could it be possible to let the air leave the slots at a greater velocity than the surrounding flow? And thus lower the pressure at the bottom of the wing and create more downforce? I think there's no way you can get some proper flow through such narrow ducts, but who knows... If it is possible, this would increase downforce but also drag (like sending air through a duct usually does).

Pressure difference means acceleration, but i doubt this amount of air can have any significant impact on the total downforce, other then by controlling separation or laminar to turbulent transition point.

Also, maybe the duct chokes above a certain velocity which would mean the drag penalty disappears (which explains the use of the term 'F duct').

At top speeds around 100m/s air compression starts to be a factor, so i would say yes to chocking theory - even more so taking into account that, judging by the pictures, outlet slits area seems to be much smaller than inlet.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Scarbs post on the Merc GP wing--> http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/10/2 ... ront-wing/

[Ferraripilot]

Sounds like other teams are letting it be known that this is a Brawn diversion tactic, which it very well could be as the arguments substantiating such a position are credible.

[Per]

Could it be possible to let the air leave the slots at a greater velocity than the surrounding flow? And thus lower the pressure at the bottom of the wing and create more downforce? I think there's no way you can get some proper flow through such narrow ducts, but who knows... If it is possible, this would increase downforce but also drag (like sending air through a duct usually does).

Pressure difference means acceleration, but i doubt this amount of air can have any significant impact on the total downforce, other then by controlling separation or laminar to turbulent transition point.

Yes, you are probably right about this. Also the amounts of air we're talking about, plus the fact that it's on the front wing, means that drag is probably not an issue here. Which is why I now actually think it would make no sense to want to turn this device on or of like a 'true' F duct.

(And yes, the author of that paper has quite a reputation in the field of laminar airfoils and boundary layer aerodynamics. I'm a student at the same faculty but I'm more into mechanical design, materials etc. But this is off-topic.)

[donskar]

Sadly (IMHO), if this "front F duct" has any meaningful impact on performance, it will be banned. And if it were effective, Newey would have done it already. LOL

[siskue2005]

Sadly (IMHO), if this "front F duct" has any meaningful impact on performance, it will be banned. And if it were effective, Newey would have done it already. LOL

oh like the DDD? oh wait!

[raymondu999]

Sadly (IMHO), if this "front F duct" has any meaningful impact on performance, it will be banned. And if it were effective, Newey would have done it already. LOL

oh like the DDD? oh wait!

To be fair siskue - As I recall; Renault and Red Bull engineers did approach the FIA with drawings of the concept and had their idea shot down. Brawn asked about the concept verbally I believe - and the FIA didn't see anything wrong with it

[Per]

Sadly (IMHO), if this "front F duct" has any meaningful impact on performance, it will be banned.

Why? It doesn't seem dangerous in any way (like last year's driver-controlled F ducts) and it doesn't seem expensive either. It adds some manufacturing complexity but I don't think this is too big a hurdle for any team.

[wesley123]

Sadly (IMHO), if this "front F duct" has any meaningful impact on performance, it will be banned.

Why? It doesn't seem dangerous in any way (like last year's driver-controlled F ducts) and it doesn't seem expensive either. It adds some manufacturing complexity but I don't think this is too big a hurdle for any team.

in what way is the DDD or EBD more dangerous? You see where I'm going

[Per]

But those are definitely huge design efforts to implement on a car (especially if you have to implement it on a car that has already been built), so I could believe that the development costs for a DDD/EBD are quite high. Or does that sound like bullocks?

[Lycoming]

EBDs were killed because it messes with the "green" image they're trying to promote (trivial, in my opinion) and to reduce development costs for the smaller teams (heat shielding material isnt cheap) and DDDs i believe were killed to increase overtaking by decreasing wake turbulence.

truthfully I'm not sure why they banned DDDs, and the reasons for killing EBDs are trivial (though I'm not disappointed to see them go). but I don't see many teams attempting to use this concept, its goals seem completely different from the F-duct we're all familiar with.

[siskue2005]

Sadly (IMHO), if this "front F duct" has any meaningful impact on performance, it will be banned. And if it were effective, Newey would have done it already. LOL

oh like the DDD? oh wait!

To be fair siskue - As I recall; Renault and Red Bull engineers did approach the FIA with drawings of the concept and had their idea shot down. Brawn asked about the concept verbally I believe - and the FIA didn't see anything wrong with it

But not Newey!
And only after they got a tip , that they went FIA for clarification.

[raymondu999]

But not Newey!
And only after they got a tip , that they went FIA for clarification.

We don't know if it was Newey or not yes; but Renault and Red Bull were one of the first to ask, along with Brawn