Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

[wesley123]

The More air manipulation from front to back the more sensitive the aero

What about aero elements that are used to improve the sensitivity? For example, the 5-6 plane wings are used to reduce sensitivity in comparison to 3-4 plane wings. Also the round shape on the outer edges are designed to reduce the effect of the wheel behind it, and the same goes for many vortices in that area.

So no, more 'air manipulation' does not mean the car is more aero sensitive.

[bhall II]

The More air manipulation from front to back the more sensitive the aero

What about aero elements that are used to improve the sensitivity? For example, the 5-6 plane wings are used to reduce sensitivity in comparison to 3-4 plane wings. Also the round shape on the outer edges are designed to reduce the effect of the wheel behind it, and the same goes for many vortices in that area.

So no, more 'air manipulation' does not mean the car is more aero sensitive.

He's right, even though he probably could have chosen a better way to say it.

Coupling one aerodynamic element to another element downstream increases sensitivity, because such interactions invariably rely upon high-pressure streams that are vulnerable to disruption by low-pressure turbulence. Example: the various elements that create and then direct Y250 vortices from the front wing to the outside leading edges of the floor. The same can be said for the interaction between the front wing flaps and cascade elements, just on a smaller scale.

[turbof1]

The More air manipulation from front to back the more sensitive the aero

What about aero elements that are used to improve the sensitivity? For example, the 5-6 plane wings are used to reduce sensitivity in comparison to 3-4 plane wings. Also the round shape on the outer edges are designed to reduce the effect of the wheel behind it, and the same goes for many vortices in that area.

So no, more 'air manipulation' does not mean the car is more aero sensitive.

He's right, even though he probably could have chosen a better way to say it.

Coupling one aerodynamic element to another element downstream increases sensitivity, because such interactions invariably rely upon high-pressure streams that are quite vulnerable to low-pressure turbulence. Example: Y250 vortices and the various elements that create them and then direct them to the outside leading edges of the floor. The same can be said for the interaction between the front wing flaps and cascade elements, just on a smaller scale.

Paddy Lowe described some interesting results; for instance rear wing vortices were important to get the airflow back to "laminar" ambient flow; without these even a flat rear wing would be worse.

Also note that teams use 5-6 element wings because they need 5-6 element wings, running in clean air. They already are running in a very sensitive environment with the front tyre wheel wake. So in short any device on the car created to reduce sensitivity, is designed with sensitive hotspots of only the car itself in mind. That's not the same as sensitivity created by a car in front. Mostly in reaction to Wesley, FYI.

[bhall II]

Paddy Lowe described some interesting results...

Yeah, I saw that. It's kinda weird.

If it was me designing the car, I'd do everything I could to disrupt those vortices in order to make life miserable for anyone behind it.

[turbof1]

Paddy Lowe described some interesting results...

Yeah, I saw that. It's kinda weird.

If it was me designing the car, I'd do everything I could to disrupt those vortices in order to make life miserable for anyone behind it.

Probably no one really cares about such tactics since it does not yield any performance benefit [to the car] and probably even impings it. Maybe if cars were to the point they could follow eachother really close and disrupting the vortex would bring relative wise a big disadvantage to the trailling car, but since cars already need to be around 1s-1.5s faster to compensate: why bother?

[PlatinumZealot]

The More air manipulation from front to back the more sensitive the aero

What about aero elements that are used to improve the sensitivity? For example, the 5-6 plane wings are used to reduce sensitivity in comparison to 3-4 plane wings. Also the round shape on the outer edges are designed to reduce the effect of the wheel behind it, and the same goes for many vortices in that area.

So no, more 'air manipulation' does not mean the car is more aero sensitive.

You didn't bother to read my post did you? I didn't say anything about number of planes on the wings. Check Bhall's post. What I was talking about is linking flow structures from front to rear. This sort of of thing is what you need nice clean air to be repeatable over different conditions. I think once in the past not much attention was paid to high yaw conditions, even too much yaw can derail the linking of the flow structures, much less driving in dirty air.

[strad]

[quote="="bhall II"]

Paddy Lowe described some interesting results...

Yeah, I saw that. It's kinda weird.

If it was me designing the car, I'd do everything I could to disrupt those vortices in order to make life miserable for anyone behind it.[/quote]
.
That is in fact what I have said I think they do.
At least wherever they can without hurting themselves too much,, but if the chance arises you better believe they disrupt the following car.
I think they look for any edge they can get.

[bhall II]

I think they look for any edge they can get.

For a while in 2008, I was convinced that was the purpose of the monkey seat "thing" on the back of MP4-23...

So no, more 'air manipulation' does not mean the car is more aero sensitive.

You didn't bother to read my post did you?

To be fair, your comment wasn't without ambiguity.

Naturally, I picked up on it right away, because I know everything, and I'm never wrong about anything ever. But, not everyone is so fortunate.

[Just_a_fan]

Paddy Lowe described some interesting results...

Yeah, I saw that. It's kinda weird.

If it was me designing the car, I'd do everything I could to disrupt those vortices in order to make life miserable for anyone behind it.

Probably no one really cares about such tactics since it does not yield any performance benefit [to the car] and probably even impings it. Maybe if cars were to the point they could follow eachother really close and disrupting the vortex would bring relative wise a big disadvantage to the trailling car, but since cars already need to be around 1s-1.5s faster to compensate: why bother?

They do it unintentionally anyway. The rear wing endplates are designed to reduce the vortices because they're a source of drag. Happily, for the car in front, reducing the vortices to reduce drag also hurts the following car. Win-win then.

Perhaps the FIA should mandate a solid, square endplate with no cut outs, slots or other devices.

[turbof1]

Yeah, I saw that. It's kinda weird.

If it was me designing the car, I'd do everything I could to disrupt those vortices in order to make life miserable for anyone behind it.

Probably no one really cares about such tactics since it does not yield any performance benefit [to the car] and probably even impings it. Maybe if cars were to the point they could follow eachother really close and disrupting the vortex would bring relative wise a big disadvantage to the trailling car, but since cars already need to be around 1s-1.5s faster to compensate: why bother?

The rear wing endplates are designed to reduce the vortices because they're a source of drag.

Oh, you'll soon find out this is not necessarily the case for every vortex on the RWEP. We got an article coming up about that subject.

[PlatinumZealot]

A car with only ground effects. No wings. Just body. How much dirty air this car creates and how sensitive is this type of car to following another? FIA needs to start from here to get the fundamentals down first.

OFF TOPIC: For those interested, I already proposed my solution to increase overtaking. http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22583

[turbof1]

I moved the topic to the "aerodynamics, chassis and tyres" section.

[Just_a_fan]

A car with only ground effects. No wings. Just body. How much dirty air this car creates and how sensitive is this type of car to following another?

Did you read the Paddy Lowe article referenced earlier? He states that this is not good for following cars.

[strad]

An Arrows A2?????

[Vyssion]

A car with only ground effects. No wings. Just body. How much dirty air this car creates and how sensitive is this type of car to following another? FIA needs to start from here to get the fundamentals down first.

Mmmm.... If I were running a team, I would want to create as many high vorticity vortices as I could to make life absolutely miserable for people trying to pass me. Turbulence is inherently generated when air is disturbed... Simply limiting downforce generation to ground effect aerodynamics will still create the shear layers and pressure differentials which are responsible for streamline curvature and thus vorticity and turbulence - just at a lower height from the ground plane..... wheeerrrreeeee the car behind is wanting to be as laminar as possible for its own ground effect aero....

OFF TOPIC: For those interested, I already proposed my solution to increase overtaking. http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22583

Errr......
I think what would achieve what you are proposing here in addition to improving the overtaking regime whilst at the same time reducing the reliance on aerodynamic downforce, would be to increase mechanical grip massively.