Rear wing and rear wheel interaction

[pressXtoJason]

Hello all,

I have a question regarding the interaction between the rear wing and the rear wheels.

If the rear wing was allowed to be as wide as the full car such that the wing overlaps with the wheels in plan view, would this be desirable? Or would this cause unwanted interactions between the wheels and wing which would reduce the effectiveness of the wing? Presumably, the rotation of the tires would decrease airspeed under the wing. On the other hand, more area is more area, and there'd be an improved aspect ratio.

If rear wings could be as wide as the car, would they be?

[WhiteBlue]

...If rear wings could be as wide as the car, would they be?

When wide wings were allowed they were all wider. So why would they not return immediately?

[pressXtoJason]

...If rear wings could be as wide as the car, would they be?

When wide wings were allowed they were all wider. So why would they not return immediately?

When was the last time in F1 that full width rear wings were permitted?

[KeithYoung]

They had rear wings that spanned the inside of the rear wheels forever. I don't recall a car off the top of my head with an absolute full width rear wing.

[rjsa]

The first unruled wings from 1969 had all shapes, heights and widths. The amount of failures had them banned to be re-introduced the next year with restricting regulation .

1969:


1970:


From 1970 on the wings never exceeded the inner rear wheel face.

[MadMatt]

I posted something regarding this here: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... ng#p355083

I will post here a picture of the same car which that doesn't work on the other thread:

[pressXtoJason]

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... uerand.JPG

Yeeah that's the width I'm talking about.

So is there any concern there that the rear wheels would mess up the flow under the wing?

[WhiteBlue]

I think that F1 simply choose to restrict the legality box to the gap between the rear wheels. LMP1 did not do that. If F1 would be more liberal we would see wider wings, I'm convinced.

[wesley123]

The wheel will probably screw up the wing airflow a little which need to be dealt with. But if the possibility was there to do so, I am sure they would run them full width.

The example given isn't really a good one, since it is more driven by cost than actually having a better solution. It is much cheaper to built a wider version of a wing you already know how it works than get a brand new one.

[wuzak]

I think that F1 simply choose to restrict the legality box to the gap between the rear wheels. LMP1 did not do that. If F1 would be more liberal we would see wider wings, I'm convinced.

LMP1 have bodywork over the wheels that prevent (or at least reduce) the interaction between the wheels and the rear wing.

[WhiteBlue]

I think that F1 simply choose to restrict the legality box to the gap between the rear wheels. LMP1 did not do that. If F1 would be more liberal we would see wider wings, I'm convinced.

LMP1 have bodywork over the wheels that prevent (or at least reduce) the interaction between the wheels and the rear wing.

When has that ever stopped an F1 engineer to get downforce if it is available. The real question in my view is: can I get the downforce some where else where it comes with less drag? And that is a question nobody can answer because we do not know what alternatives the designer would have at that point.

[pressXtoJason]

When has that ever stopped an F1 engineer to get downforce if it is available.

My question is this:
Which provides more downforce:
a) a wing as wide as the inside of the tires with endplates to minimize wheel-wing interaction

or
b) a wing as wide as the overall width of the car, which has a better AR and more area, but potentially more static pressure under the wing due to the wheel interaction?

Which has the better L/D ratio?

My guess is that a wider wing provides more DF but at the cost of a worsened L/D ratio.

[wesley123]

My guess is that the full width wing has a better L/D ratio, but this changes when the wing gets closer to the tire.

[WhiteBlue]

My guess is that the full width wing has a better L/D ratio, but this changes when the wing gets closer to the tire.

The height of the wing over the reference plane is also part of the legality box. If you consider opening up the rules about the width you should also consider that the height would be less restricted. Hence designers could move the wing foils away from the turbulence.

[bigpat]

In the early 80's , F1teams had winglets that protruded over the tyres, but they too had endplates between the extensions to keep the flow tidy. they were also mounted quite high to stay out of the turbulent flow around there.

I would say a bigger wing gives more potential for downforce, but the vortices coming up off the tyres would make it less efficient in that region. I suspect the wing camber would be less aggressive over the tyres. Give the designers an opportunity to take the extra area, and I'm sure they'll make it work!

Remember that end plates have the aerodynamic effect of straightening the flow, and effectively widening the wing, thats why we use them in the first place. They do also segregate the vortex from the tyres away from the wing quite effectively.

If you could condition the flow off the tyres to the full width wing, you may be able to use that higher speed/lower pressure air to 'drive' the wing harder. But then you'd simply end up with a glorified wheel arch, much like a LMP sportscar.....

Pat