Lotus E20 VD

[issues4]

On British broadcaster Sky’s ’F1 Show’, television pundit Ted Kravitz explained that - unlike Mercedes’ pioneering device - the Lotus version is in fact not attached to the rear wing DRS.

He said Lotus actually calls it the "F-duct".


http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/Lotu ... 46779.html

hate to be that guy...but i told you so

[turbof1]

And amid suggestions the entire concept will be banned by the FIA for 2013, technical boss James Allison believes it is still worth the investment and effort now.

"(Even) If it goes away next year it’s still something we think is worthwhile putting our effort into," he said.

So this is confusing. I know DDRS will be banned for next year, but the lotus system is not handled by the DDRS. Are there talks about a ban on passive systems?

[godlameroso]

No it's just that one team is innovating something because there are no regulations regarding internal aerodynamics, and now everyone(administrative entities) is going to the deep end to invent some way to control that. You know, because they rather spend the money on parties n motor-homes than make the cars go a bit faster, and throw doubt on the bookmakers.

[turbof1]

No it's just that one team is innovating something because there are no regulations regarding internal aerodynamics, and now everyone(administrative entities) is going to the deep end to invent some way to control that. You know, because they rather spend the money on parties n motor-homes than make the cars go a bit faster, and throw doubt on the bookmakers.

The last few years rules where generally added to stop teams going against the spirit of the rules. What we have here is something that is nowhere going against the rules. FIA isn't showing, on a noticable level atleast, any intend to hammer down passive systems. The only exception was the passive ride height suspension of Lotus.

[gato azul]

o.k. as the diagram posted is specifically concerned with aircraft drag, there are some elements which have little bearing for cars, as we are talking about "low" speed (in aircraft terms, meaning well subsonic).

This is maybe a "better" more easy to understand short overview about the different drag components involved.

and this graphic will complement the one from yesterday, and show which components (wave) are aircraft specific, unless we talk about land speed record vehicles.



so coming back to the Lotus wing for a bit, someone said that they (F1 teams) use a V-shaped cut out in the top of the flap
to "reduce drag".
If so, how would that work? And how is it (could it be) perhaps related to the V-shaped zone we see on the back of the Lotus VD wing?
Why we are on it, how do the latest "flapless" UAV's (specifically the DEMON) maneuver? (FLAVIIR project)
and what does it mean for the F1 example we talk about here.

[hardingfv32]

so coming back to the Lotus wing for a bit, someone said that they (F1 teams) use a V-shaped cut out in the top of the flapto "reduce drag".

I wondered if the V's were related to the wing fence. That fact that they extend the fence around the end of the wing. If the end of the wing is up against a boundary set by the rules, a V section would allow a fully extended fence while a majority of the end on the wing stayed on the boundary.

The use of a softer V shape is sometimes found at the front of the wing when using an extended fence.

Brian

[gato azul]

I wondered if the V's were related to the wing fence. That fact that they extend the fence around the end of the wing. If the end of the wing is up against a boundary set by the rules, a V section would allow a fully extended fence while a majority of the end on the wing stayed on the boundary.
Brian

Yes, that is a valid thought & possibility, but I don't think that this applies in this case - so close, but no cigar - Sorry

as you can see, in this picture, the "fence" does not make full use of the height "cut out" by the V section in the flap.
Furthermore, you see, that on the outside, the "hinges" of the DRS flap exceed the max height of the flap and even the endplate, so it seems, that the rules "tolerate" this somewhat.
Also, you would not need to cut such a large V, just to "embed" the "fence", a small slot would do as well. - IMHO



These photos, maybe provides a "different angle/line of thought" for the "fence" argument.
Not everything on an F1 car has aerodynamic reasons.



and as you can see here, they extend the "fence" over the edge of the flap, without cutting the V, so the rules must allow this, and the V is cut for another reason.
Someone said, that it was cut to reduce drag somewhat, let's see if we can find the reason, why this is/could be the case, that will bring us closer to the "final" answer.

[hardingfv32]

Yes, I forgot that the slot gap separator is free of the RW dimension restriction. The incident with Ferrari comes to mind now. I wondered why the Lotus leading edge was not sunken.

The discussion of the V on the second element: Are we trying to find drag reduction without downforce reduction?

Brian

[superdread]

Yes, I forgot that the slot gap separator is free of the RW dimension restriction. The incident with Ferrari comes to mind know. I wondered why the Lotus leading edge was not sunken.

The discussion of the V on the second element: Are we trying to find drag reduction without downforce reduction?

Brian

Are they used continuously? Otherwise they could be some simple form of balancing (at the point where rear wing development is nowadays they need new endplates for different AoAs, or are they "universal" despite their heavy sculpturing).

[PlatinumZealot]

On British broadcaster Sky’s ’F1 Show’, television pundit Ted Kravitz explained that - unlike Mercedes’ pioneering device - the Lotus version is in fact not attached to the rear wing DRS.

He said Lotus actually calls it the "F-duct".


http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/Lotu ... 46779.html

hate to be that guy...but i told you so

I deduced this pages ago as well.

[hardingfv32]

....the V is cut for another reason.
Someone said, that it was cut to reduce drag somewhat, let's see if we can find the reason, why this is/could be the case, that will bring us closer to the "final" answer.

Could the V on the second element be generating a counter rotating vortex to weaken the end plate vortex?

How would the wing fence effect this effort?

Brian

[PlatinumZealot]

THanks Harding +1.

My faith in f1 technicaL has dropped emensly. A TV pundit!

Pity. My faith in F1 Technical is quite strong when I see fact based posts and posts that add value. My faith in individuals however is somewhat waivering. No-one asked you to take the information supplied as gospel. You should question it. Question everything. This is the exact place to do that - an open and vibrant F1 community. It was posted here as it was relevant to the topic, not necessarily as it was 100% accurate. Thats for us to discuss.

Target the information, not the forum where it was posted.

Hello, there. You are new I see. If did what you said, I would get banned for being "disrespectful" like I was before in double diffuser saga back in 2009.
The participation is admirable, and very much encouraged, but most technical threads are now dabbed and splashed about with pages unoriginal re-posts from some journalistic article found online. It is not about who links the most articles or writes the longest sentences. I mean, for example the thread about "Pankl F1 connecting rod" that was just one or two pictures, a few engineering papers, good participation original thoughts (even rubbish original thoughts are nice!) some number crunching, cross checks with other applications etc.. and some trash talking for good measure. It was a pleasure participating in that thread. I was a little wrong in it, but I can say I definitely learned form other members.

I always take time out to read each and every post, but sometimes... the soundbites and unoriginal links to some journalist who draws up something and broad brush explanation of it, he is a journalist so it must be true.. is just making the site boring for me.. I can't even argue against people any more, because it is not their ideas or even their interpretation of an Idea (even if you interpret a journalist idea is not so bad) so it is not as cosntrusctive/productive.

I dunno. It's just me, but with this thread jumping to god nows how many pages, a few good Ideas/ drawings which are very interesting, but a lot of filler in between, it is hard to see if you guys are making any progress with unearthing how the Lotus system works.

[rjsa]

You're really going to mess these guys' heads with boat related stuff like this, the next one related to aircraft suits the case better since you can just disregard the mach 1+ section.

[Cam]

My faith in f1 technicaL has dropped emensly. ... is just making the site boring for me..

Your're not happy. If you're not happy, leave. Don't whinge and complain about it not being what you want. If you want 'your vision', go start your own forum.

• Not everyone knows other sites exist - hence people link to them
• Quoting journo's and news sources is relevant - even if they're wrong
• Like all mining, you must sift the muck to find the gold
• A wrong post can be valuable if people learn from it

F1 Technical is, for intents, the best online free source for F1 technology, science and discussion on all related things. It's not perfect. But it is a very valuable source of information and 'directory' to external resources.

Take the good with the bad and help move it forward. The world wants solutions, not complaints.

*apologies for the off topic, but really, whingers get me revved.

[gato azul]

You're really going to mess these guys' heads with boat related stuff like this, the next one related to aircraft suits the case better since you can just disregard the mach 1+ section.

not sure where you get the idea from, that it was about boats, just because it says wetted area and wake, does not mean
it`s a about an object moving through water.
Wetted area in fluid dynamics just relates to the total area exposed to/flown over by the fluid in question, can be water, can be air.
As you could tell, by the index numbers, they are from the same book, two pages apart.