Wings - drag v downforce

[jordangp]

needless to say that that massive wing was added for monaco..the track that needs the highest downforce and the only track that drag matters very very little..

Exactly, Monaco is the only track where your theory begins to make any logical sense.

[amouzouris]

needless to say that that massive wing was added for monaco..the track that needs the highest downforce and the only track that drag matters very very little..

Exactly, Monaco is the only track where your theory begins to make any logical sense.

its not my theory...im saying that its a fine balance of lift to drag ratio...!!

[kilcoo316]

needless to say that that massive wing was added for monaco..the track that needs the highest downforce and the only track that drag matters very very little..

You don't remember the X-wings before that again then no?

[jordangp]

needless to say that that massive wing was added for monaco..the track that needs the highest downforce and the only track that drag matters very very little..

Exactly, Monaco is the only track where your theory begins to make any logical sense.

its not my theory...im saying that its a fine balance of lift to drag ratio...!!

Sorry, It was implied to kilcoo, you're completely right.

[amouzouris]

its ok! we are cool!!

[kilcoo316]

As for wake effects, that was kinda my point, as to why they don't just bolt wings on.

Because the effective angle of attack of the downstream wings will mean they won't generate much downforce - it'll screw up the flow to the rear wing - so your small centreline wings will have compromised your rear wing leading to lower overall downforce.

As for the centre line, why don't they have several wings under the rear wing, and at the back of the diffuser?

You ever learned about how the close coupling of biplane wings will eventually reduce the overall lift produced after a point?

That's free space, it's been used before.

Rules... rules rules rules.

as you said it's about balance

Aero-balance.

Do you know what that means?!?

[kilcoo316]

im saying that its a fine balance of lift to drag ratio...!!

It really isn't.


Go ask anyone else who really knows what they are talking about and they'll tell you the same thing.

[jordangp]

@kilcoo316 don't try to undermine me, I know what I'm talking about. Everybody knows its all about the downforce/drag ratio and not peak downforce. I could come back to every point you made, but there's no point trying to get it through to you.

Have you read the rules in the last 4 years? My point about the central 150mm is completely legal, just so you know... come back to me when you have a better standing of the regulations, and at least the basics of what a car is trying to achieve.

[PNSD]

@jordan: like kilkoo says, and Reca said, it is all about downforce, except at monza maybe

That is ABSOLUTLY NOT true.... Jordan have totaly right... Balance is the key....

Thankyou someone who atleast knows the basics

I assure you, as someone who has spoken to an engineer who formally worked for Williams, contractually.

Downforce is everything.

You have 4 rotating tyres... drag is not really a concern in most applications considering the amount of drag these things produce!!!!

[amouzouris]

so let me get things straight...you are trying to convince me that what ALL F1 teams are trying to achieve with each new car...that being the best possible LIFT TO DRAG RATIO...is just wrong and they should just get 5000 N of downforce and it doesnt matter that the car will only do 200 kph in the straights.....
and to prove what im saying...look at RED BULL in 2010...the car had MASSIVE amounts of downforce but it was too draggy...so at monza...montreal...and other tracks it was slower...then look at red bull again in 2011..the car had it spot on!! the best lift to drag ratio on the grid...that is why it got ALL poles but 1...

[kilcoo316]

@kilcoo316 don't try to undermine me, I know what I'm talking about.

You don't have the faintest idea about what your talking about.



Unless you want to start comparing qualifications?

[PNSD]

so let me get things straight...you are trying to convince me that what ALL F1 teams are trying to achieve with each new car...that being the best possible LIFT TO DRAG RATIO...is just wrong and they should just get 5000 N of downforce and it doesnt matter that the car will only do 200 kph in the straights.....
and to prove what im saying...lokk at RED BULL in 2010...the car had MASSIVE amounts of downforce but it was too draggy...so at monza...montreal...and other tracks it was slower...then look at red bull again in 2011..the car had it spot on!! the best lift to drag ratio on the grid...that is why it got ALL poles but 1...

Don't be confused by engine performance differences, set-up choice, DRS effectiveness, and of course in 2010, the f-duct.

Point is, you are comparing two years with loads of different variables.

[amouzouris]

for crying out loud...Mr. Newey...Mr. Byrne...Mr. Costa...Mr. Bell... or ..Mr. scarbs...if you can see this...PLEASE talk some sense into them...

[N12ck]

@kilcoo316 don't try to undermine me, I know what I'm talking about. Everybody knows its all about the downforce/drag ratio and not peak downforce. I could come back to every point you made, but there's no point trying to get it through to you.

Have you read the rules in the last 4 years? My point about the central 150mm is completely legal, just so you know... come back to me when you have a better standing of the regulations, and at least the basics of what a car is trying to achieve.

The whole point of a F1 car is to get the least drag for the most downforce possible and finding that balance, if you had wings all the way down the central 15cm you would get alot of downforce yes,,,, but you will be eaten alive down any straight due to drag, and therefore your overall laptime will be overall worse, its the Downforce/ drag ratio that needs optimised

[jordangp]

@kilcoo316 don't try to undermine me, I know what I'm talking about. Everybody knows its all about the downforce/drag ratio and not peak downforce. I could come back to every point you made, but there's no point trying to get it through to you.

Have you read the rules in the last 4 years? My point about the central 150mm is completely legal, just so you know... come back to me when you have a better standing of the regulations, and at least the basics of what a car is trying to achieve.

The whole point of a F1 car is to get the least drag for the most downforce possible and finding that balance, if you had wings all the way down the central 15cm you would get alot of downforce yes,,,, but you will be eaten alive down any straight due to drag, and therefore your overall laptime will be overall worse, its the Downforce/ drag ratio that needs optimised

Exactly. If it was pure downforce. Why isn't the bodywork shaped in to one huge aerofoil with giant AoA it just doesn't work that way.