Ground Effect - Bring It Back

[Andres125sx]

Thank you amc

If you wanted a lot of downforce and really low drag from an object in ground effect, the longitudinal cross section would be a streamlined aerofoil profile, to reduce the profile drag (total drag = profile drag + induced drag). It would, in fact, look a little bit like a wing.

Applied to practice, what would this mean? Return to venturi tunnels all along the floor?

Good reasons were brought up a while back about sporting reasons for re-introducing underfloor venturis (driver mistakes, variance in performance due to ride height changes). The aerodynamic reason it would increase overtaking is because, being primarily exit driven, the tunnels suck through all sorts of warm, turbulent, airflow. Unlike putting a current car into the wake of another, it won't totally mess up the carefully engineered flow patterns generated by the front wing and cause the barge boards to stop working (for example, I have no idea if this actually happens), so there won't be a step change in downforce.

So a proper venturi tunnel would be less prone to suffer from dirty air than current design, thanks


What would you do if you can write new aero rules to reduce dirty air or reduce its impact on the car behind? I mean in general, what direction would you choose, continue with wings?, reduce them as much as possible and substitude that downforce with venturi tunnels? Other?

[hollus]

I think this was suggested before in this thread and it through the cracks with all the noise, but it was the thing that made the most sense to me:
Currently, a car in dirty air loses both overall downforce and balance. An advantage of having only underfloor tunnels and having them extend the whole length of the car would be that the downforce created would be centered in the middle of the car. So a car in dirty air would still lose downforce, but it would no longer lose balance. Does that make sense?

[Robbobnob]

With the new larger turning vanes as per the new regulations, will this create a net positive increase in the amount of down force generated at the floors leading edge and or at the tea tray?

If so would this be enough to offset the increase in rearwards downforce shift towards the rear of the floor with the increase in the wing vs beam wing vs floor interaction?

[bhall II]

To everyone, especially Andres and rjsa: I'm sorry I disrupted this conversation and belittled ideas that don't conform to my assessment of the matter. Sometimes my thoughts become a rigid mess, and it creates a sort of tunnel vision that I can't always see beyond.

My notion of the issue is very different from what seems to be accepted, but that's no excuse for treating everything else with contempt.

[djos]

Kudos bhall for your honesty.

[Just_a_fan]

I think this was suggested before in this thread and it through the cracks with all the noise, but it was the thing that made the most sense to me:
Currently, a car in dirty air loses both overall downforce and balance. An advantage of having only underfloor tunnels and having them extend the whole length of the car would be that the downforce created would be centered in the middle of the car. So a car in dirty air would still lose downforce, but it would no longer lose balance. Does that make sense?

Yes, I mentioned that some time ago. As you say, it rather disappeared in the noise...

[Andres125sx]

Thank you bhall

Anycase I must say your participation in this thread have been very much appreciatted even for us who discussed with you, you´ve explained some very useful things even if you disagreed with the concept of the thread and disputed it, I´ve learnt some things here from your posts



@just a fan, it didn´t dissapeared, I took note of that

[rjsa]

To everyone, especially Andres and rjsa: I'm sorry I disrupted this conversation and belittled ideas that don't conform to my assessment of the matter. Sometimes my thoughts become a rigid mess, and it creates a sort of tunnel vision that I can't always see beyond.

My notion of the issue is very different from what seems to be accepted, but that's no excuse for treating everything else with contempt.

Glad to hear that and I'm also sorry for being out of line with you.

Now on a lighter note, that's unexpected. In fact it's a first for me. Not all is lost, it makes me belive.

[FW17]

bhall II was like WB

absolutely nothing wrong in what he said or how he said but no one here wanted to be wrong

thankfully a lot of info was shared led to varied interpretations

good we can move away from the front wing discussion and back to the floor discussion

[FrukostScones]

let's crowdfund an F1 wing car study contest...
then pick a winner and build a 1:1 mock up.
anyone?

[VFC_Cipher]

let's crowdfund an F1 wing car study contest...
then pick a winner and build a 1:1 mock up.
anyone?

I'm not sure we should have to do this, but does this not fall directly to the Technical Working Group? I would think that the FIA and FOM would contribute financially to make 1:6 or 1:5 models of their proposed baseline formula and then put them in a wind tunnel for a couple of days testing out the various scenarios regarding dirty air, wake, etc. that have been so hotly debated here. At least a CFD study of one car in another's wake to vet the aero formula before releasing it on the sport. Maybe I am living in Nirvana with theses thoughts. Applying logic where none exists (FIA and FOM).

[FrukostScones]

if.. it happens all in the dark.. without any fanatasy...
all I got to see was the picture of this double RW car from overtaking wiorking group, like ten years ago...

even if unrealistic designs come up... makes more fun, than waiting for FIA and FOM Strategy Group crap

this could not has to be a starting point:


from
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/19487 ... ont-wings/

[rjsa]

We talked a lot about upwash/downwash, guess this illustrates it nicely.

[djos]

Is that black spec another aircraft?

[rjsa]

Is that black spec another aircraft?

Yep, and the grove in the clouds digged by downwash.