Diffuser vs. Rear Wing

[ffangio]

Of course not, I just call your explanation of their work total drivel.

Straight from paddy lowe circa December 2008

"You would think that upwash from the rear wing is bad," Lowe said. "The upwash is strong, but a very strong inwash at ground level is also driven by the rear wing. That inwash brings new high-energy air in at ground level. If you took the rear wing off altogether you would lose that effect and the wake would be a lot worse."

If at your next message you don't go on to more polite form..you'll be the first on my ignore list.

Proving what exactly? Paddy Lowe (who isn't an aerodynamicist by the way) is making the point that a rear wing stretches a wake to be a taller and narrower profile. I dispute the word "worse" in that context, it was that kind of argument that introduced the centreline downwash wing concept and that was ridiculous.

Ignore me if you like, it's an alternative to facing up to the fact you are passing yourself off as some kind of expert when you clearly aren't.

[DaveW]

... Paddy Lowe (who isn't an aerodynamicist by the way)

As a matter of interest, what is your definition of an aerodynamicist?

... it was that kind of argument that introduced the centreline downwash wing concept and that was ridiculous.

I'm not sure that idea was "ridiculous", exactly. If I remember correctly, the concept was (at least) mentored by Peter Wright. I'm not sure whether you would call him an aerodynamicist, but he did bring ground effect aerodynamics to F1.

... you are passing yourself off as some kind of expert when you clearly aren't.

...Mmm.

[Ogami musashi]

...

If you dont mind, can I ask a couple more questions about this? This is an interesting topic for me. Was that conclusion solely in the context of wing or diffuser? Or wing plus diffuser, all of the above. Because at first thought I wondered... if the rear of the car was a blunt face it would also be pretty "dirty" air ... how dirty the air would be on a diffuser would be more design dependent no? You can compromise a design toward downforce or for wake fill and if the wing is drawing the primary vortices behind the car upward , wouldn't that still apply with a diffuser? Especially one designed to minimize turbulence in the wake.

The conclusions of the OWG were that diffuser's downforce was well preserved but that the lesser the downforce made by the diffuser the more it was preserved.

They also found out that the diffuser in itself creates a wake that is low energy (due to proximity of the ground layer) and that in the absence on suction from the rear wing the wake was maintained for very long hence why they aimed at a higher rear wing downforce/ Diffuser downforce ratio.