Hi,
it's an exciting undertaking to model F1 aero. I'm not sure if it's only me, but having read what you're up to (starting with miqi23's idea, I guess), it's not at all clear for me what is being modelled and to what end. I may be oblivious to much what is going on within your exchange (and if you've pm'd each other or something comparable I wouldn't know about it), but in a design process in general it's better to go from whole entities to details and here, I see a lot of details discussed with not many clear references to the bigger picture. If a detail clashes with the entity, the demands of the entity prevail as a rule. Otherwise there's no end to it.
For example, if it is a whole car, it would be best to establish the basics first: the technical regulations are freely available from the FIA website and as far as the shapes of airfoils and bodywork goes, those are pretty simple. As this is, as I gather, mostly about getting familiar with F1 car parameters and different CFD techniques, one would have to accept quite large margins of error and in the first place settle for a proof-of-concept level design. One could/should establish a simple set of conditions, under which the model's validity would be tested (straight, fast corner, slow corner) and a rough set of performance requirements for those conditions. Beyond that it'd quickly involve building physical models etc. If someone then wants to do more detailed work, he/she can pick it up from there.
BMW has boasted that they have the most advanced CFD software and the most powerful workstations etc. at their disposal and are more heavily reliant on virtual modelling than other teams. Their contender, the F1.07, would thus in my humblest of opinions be a prime cadidate for a bit of "reverse CFD engineering". Plus it's sleeker than most designs, making modelling approximations (Where would one get actual meshes? Nowhere) just a bit easier. Of course, a few centimeters here and there can make a world of difference, so I'm not convinced about the merits of making approximations, however close to real measurements. Even more so since the aero is revised for every track on calendar anyway.
Another avenue would be to simulate a team design department and along their ongoing improvement work, they're bound to look into 2008 designs soon enough. So why not model something along 2008 rules already?
If I ventured to do something like this, I'd propably start ground up, quite literally. The tyres are there, obviously, for better and especially for worse aerodynamically speaking. As Bridgestone is now in a monopoly, they could be quite forthcoming about data regarding to levels of grip, conditions under which the tyres remain at optimal operating temperature, the range of camber angles and so on. Understanding the basics of that, again accepting quite a large margin of error, is propably necessary. Then one could deside on a speculative mechanical weight distribution (neutral, biased) and target values for DF distribution's effects in the few representative test conditions that were predetermined earlier i.e. something like 1) minimizing drag in high velocities in a straight line, 2) inducing slight understeer in fast corners, 3) inducing slight oversteer in slow corners by purposefully stalling a part of the rear wing - or whatever qualities one wants to shoot for.
Then it'd be "just"
a case of working one's way up, starting from the underbody and diffuser, looking into adjoining turning vanes, then propably going on to designing the front wing, nose and possibly barge boards, sidepod air management towards the RIS, then moving on to managing the flow over the sidepods and air box towards the rear wing as efficiently as possible and finally looking into the rear wing itself (as it's pretty much fixed).
OK, so I'm pretty much just thinking aloud here, and thus I'm far from advocating this as any kind of "correct" approach. I'm afraid some of it might actually be simplistic and/or just plain stupid. I just felt that perhaps, whatever your reaction to this is, it has a good chance of clarifying what you want to do and how you want to do it - and what you don't want to do. A sort of a catalyst rather than a straightforward suggestion, that is.
