Wings - drag v downforce

[bhall]

If F1 raced at the Indy oval, there you'd see an interesting aero package I bet. Or at Martinsville. Bahaha.

That would be interesting. I think F1 wings for the traditional course at IMS would be nearly flat, and Martinsville cars would look like those found at Monaco, only on steroids.

[Just_a_fan]

Lots of rubbish talked in this thread, sadly.

Paraphrasing a friend who spent many years as a race engineer with a good number of teams:

"You make more lap time in slow corners than fast corners. This is because you're in slow corners for longer than you are in fast corners so any reduction in time taken in the corner is repaid massively in lap time."

So, the point is that downforce enables you to spend less time in the slow bits of track than the guy with less downforce. But it also enables you to brake later in to the slow bits and accelerate earlier coming out of those slow bits. So you're faster all the way through the slow bit (corners).

Another example, I asked an F1 engineer why his car often topped or was close to the top of the speed traps speeds but was not so good on lap times. "Simple", was the reply "we've got f**k all downforce". It really is that simple.

For those asking why the cars don't have wings here or there or why the car isn't wing shaped: the rules preclude it.

Sure, the rules allow the rear 150mm centre section to be filled with wing profiles, but the rules don't allow that additional downforce to be balanced by additional downforce at the front. So the rear downforce is not used.

Want it explained even more simply? Red Bull won last year and the year before because they had more downforce. Were they quickest in a straight line? Nope, not even close. So they weren't worried about balancing top speed and cornering speed (i.e. drag and downforce) they just went for downforce.

Why? Because if you can brake 5 metres later, carry 10km/h more through the corner and accelerate 5 metres earlier out of the corner then you don't need to worry about being 15km/h slower in top speed at the end of the straight that follows. Monza is an anomaly because it is a circuit with few corners and lots of high speed straights. If all of F1 was like that then the requirements for the car would be different. But they're not because F1 circuits these days major on low/medium speed corners and relatively short straights. So downforce wins over drag.

[hardingfv32]

Red Bull won last year and the year before because they had more downforce. Were they quickest in a straight line?

Then how do you explain the times when other cars were faster with the request higher trap speeds?

Brian

[hollus]

A question for someone with better observation powers than me:
Do teams systematically max up the AOA of one of their wings and adjust only the other wing?

If the answer is yes, they are maximizing downforce while maintaining balance.
If the answer is no, they are not maximizing downforce.

Who has pictures to pitch in?

[Tozza Mazza]

A question for someone with better observation powers than me:
Do teams systematically max up the AOA of one of their wings and adjust only the other wing?

If the answer is yes, they are maximizing downforce while maintaining balance.
If the answer is no, they are not maximizing downforce.

Who has pictures to pitch in?

It's normally just the flap of the rear wing which Angle's of Attack changes

[hollus]

Then the question would be in the front wing was at maximum AOA.
More often than not they increase (or decrease) the angle of the front wing in pit stops. I guess if the balance was wrong that it the easiest to change during the race?

[Pierce89]

I know, I agree with you. Never argued your point.

I was meaning others who just shoot you down without researching at all, but accidentally quoted you, like no-one can seriously sit there and tell me that drag is not a factor in car design, for example, internal drag, intake drag etc,,,,

I mean I have a fair few books here on vehicular aerodynamics, and open wheel aerodynamics. Hard to find a page where drag isn't mentioned.

,[/quote]
I'm sorry guys but, I had to do this. What you are saying is "technically" correct.But, IN F1, Aero engineers spend something like 85% of effert on increasing downforce. Shelly and Kilco confused you guys because they were referring to deveopment effort towards increasing downforce.They didn't mean you add HUGE wings everywhere(which as they said might hurt overall downforce)F1 car run at L/D in the neigborhood of 3.5, but I guarantee yoy that a part with an L/D pf 2,5 will still get on that car if its a good step in downforce.
Overall a winged open wheel car generates a ton of drag which you can't really get rid of,Because of the huge drag you start with,plus an exremely high power to weight ratio, drag reduction gets no thought away from Monza and Spa.

You DEFINITELY are in bad company arguing with Shelly over aero.(I also consider myself a decent source for aero info seeing that I am working on a double major in Mech engineering and Aeronautics)

[Pierce89]

Red Bull won last year and the year before because they had more downforce. Were they quickest in a straight line?

Then how do you explain the times when other cars were faster with the request higher trap speeds?

Brian

anomalies from track to track(set-up ,an unfavorable spot in aero-map etc.)

[amouzouris]

ok..to get things straight...i agree with the argument that more downforce will always be faster than some less downforce but less drag and more straight line speed...examples rb7 and w02.....BUT im saying that 2 cars with the same amount of downforce and one is less draggy than the other...the car with less drag will win..so this is why im saying its not all about downforce...and a very recent example is rb6 with rb7...both cars had the most amount of downforce on the grid....but the rb7 was far less draggy than the rb6....so it dominated every track and got pole position in all but 1 GPs....

[marcush.]

I don´t believe more downforce is really king under all circumstances.I think first of all you only want downforce when you need it...e.g under braking and when cornering maybe to an extend under acelleration from corners....but say you have dificulty making your tyres last it may be contraproductive to put more vertical load on it.so you may be forced to reduce vertical load mechanically (e.g .stiffen up the car to reduce load transfer) or change weight distribution to make it all work ..
I´d say ajn efficiency gain is always appreciated as you reduce drag for the same downforce level-clearly that will improve your laptime and trap speed.
As long as there is a spec tyre there must be a limit of vertical load a tyre can handle and that is the same for everyone.So maybe you can get an advantage on some tyre variant ,be it sof t supersoft or hard but overall the story is the same for everyone -once you know what the tyre can handle you need to get as close to that and not over it to extract the max.

[marekk]

Red Bull won last year and the year before because they had more downforce. Were they quickest in a straight line?

Then how do you explain the times when other cars were faster with the request higher trap speeds?

Brian

More engine power, working KERS, better brake balance, optimal gear ratios, driver's quality ...

[N12ck]

Here is an analysis on the sauber diffuser, and sure enough it talks about drag reduction, and if drag wasnt important on an f1 car why did they ever have the F duct?

C31 diffuser may lack any eye-catching innovations but is nevertheless full of interesting details . The roof tab is slotted to allow portions of air bleed through hence reducing drag,

Source: http://formula1techandart.wordpress.com ... c-details/

[Jersey Tom]

It's not that drag isn't important. If you can shed drag for "free" as it were, then sure you'll go faster.

The point is that if you can add downforce, you're in all likelihood going to go faster because the typical associated drag penalty doesn't outweigh the cornering and exit speed bonus.

[N12ck]

I'm not disputing that, however those who say drag is meaningless in f1 which some have, it is not

[Pierce89]

Here is an analysis on the sauber diffuser, and sure enough it talks about drag reduction, and if drag wasnt important on an f1 car why did they ever have the F duct?

C31 diffuser may lack any eye-catching innovations but is nevertheless full of interesting details . The roof tab is slotted to allow portions of air bleed through hence reducing drag,

Source: http://formula1techandart.wordpress.com ... c-details/

sorry but that errant analysis proves little. Yes Df is king, but you're totally misinterpreting what people mean. Of course everybody knows that too much drag is bad, but the point they're making is: that at every track bar Monza(and to a lesser extent Spa)no real development goes into reducing drag, only increasing downforce. That doesn't mean that a part with a 1000N of drag and 40N of dwnforce will go on the car. Each part still has to earn it's way L/D wise. They are only saying that development goes to increasing downforce at a minimum L/D, no development goes into reducing drag because most all of the drag is already earning its way in terms of downforce.(Not including tires which you can't really do anything about under the current regs)