Is it possible that while the twin keel concept is good in theory, that it doesn't not translate into realistic gains out on the track? The two most aerodynamically viable teams (Ferrari, Renault) still use the single keel design and show no signs of changing. This isn't like the raised nose concept where everyone saw the advantage within a year or so, teams have fightin with the twin keel concept and from what I understand, most aren't interested. Even Sauber, the pioneer of the twin keel concept (IIRC) has dumped it and gone back to single keel. I know that their choice to run the blue ferrari is based upon their close partnership with Ferrari, but PS is no fool and wouldn't dump a promising aerodynamic concept that could give him a big advantage just to appease some Ferrari ego.
"I'll bring us through this. As always. I'll carry you - kicking and screaming - and in the end you'll thank me. "
You'll find that the twin keel is a relatively small part of the package and whether Williams\Mac had a single or twin set up they would still see similar performance on track.
Sauber and Jordan have reverted to a single set up and havent climbed the grid. Creating a twin keel set up must take alot of design and manufacturing time, plus a small weight penalty. Lower budget teams would opt to save some money and spend it elsewhere.
hm....but that doesn´t explain why Ferrari and Renault stick to the monokeel layout.....money could not be deciding...
I feel the reason is you have to divide the air anyway under the driver so as to flow to the left and right sidepot,so extending the keel forward is not a big disadvantage ,with the exception of the wishbones crossing the area
just before the leading edge of the front floor.As these do not move very much close to their anchoring points and feature aero profile I suspect their influence is not a big issue and can be optimised.
On the radical twin keel layouts of mclaren and Williams one has to ask
about the unfortunate geometries of having a short lower wishbone and a long upper one....even if you get rollcentre movement acceptable somehow you had always more trackvariation with the shorter wishbone,
so one would suspect they restrict travel more and resort on stiffer setups.
Interestingly the Williams had lots of vertical oscillation in their setup as much as I saw.So they would have liked some more (Hs)rebound force?
About the suspension elements crossing the area, I read an interview with Geoff Willis and he said that indeed the removal of these elements is one of the main gains of twin keel but he said also that, in some cases, with an opportune design, to have the wishbone right there could even be an advantage. Anyway he estimated the potential gain in efficiency of the twin keel to be in the order of 1%.
As for the FW26 apparently the main problem is exactly the “pumping” movement, they are working a lot on details to reduce it or at least to reduce the aero sensitivity to that movement.
An interesting detail on the FW26 suspension geometry is the inclination of the upper wishbone, decreasing towards the wheel. Anyone knowing more about suspensions wants to talk about the reasons for that design ? I see the cinematic implications but maybe someone wants to elaborate on the effects.
the rod in between if thats what you mean is simply because its very difficult to be able to have the twinkeel being teo separate structures to be as stiff as the single keel on which both are fixed. thats the reason, to minimise the flexing.
