Endplate-less Front Wings

[andylaurence]

We don't see them, but then one appeared at Gurston Down Hillclimb. Interested in your opinions.

[mrluke]

Have they used similar in Indycar? I am sure Bhall has referenced them in a post somewhere. Along the lines of F1 only has endplates because the regulations state they must.

Sorry not that helpful!

[bhall II]

Yeah, the current trend in front wing design seems to be one that's wholly focused on increasing the strength of the wing's edge vortices.


The outermost curved section (green) can be considered an end plate

Similar to the vortex lift created by delta wings, chines, etc., at high AoA, edge vortices formed by an inverted wing in ground effect keep air flow attached to the suction surface of the wing at higher AoA than would be possible otherwise. Traditional vertical end plates that extend above and below the wing impede the development of such vortices by limiting the high-pressure component to them, which ultimately necessitates reduced AoA.

You can sorta get the idea here...



Between 2009-10, F1 teams started playing around with designs that remove such impediments by deliberately channeling high-pressure flow to the outside trailing edges of the wing where vortices are shed...



At some point, the rules were amended to essentially require end plates via mandatory bodywork with projected surface area-X along longitudinal cross section-Y. But, that doesn't mean teams have stopped looking for solutions...

[DiogoBrand]

Of course we can't really tell that with certainty. But if Formula One didn't mandate a neutral section for the front wing. Would the wings look like the one from OP?
Edit: Also, how would they implement the cascades if endplates weren't mandated?

[bhall II]

Of course we can't really tell that with certainty.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

- I have no idea how aerodynamacists would approach a front wing design that doesn't require a neutral center section. Given current restrictions on nose height, a return to "spoon" wings could be sensible.

That's a big question for which I don't think there's a correct answer.

- End plates aren't necessary for cascades...

[DiogoBrand]

Of course we can't really tell that with certainty.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

- I have no idea how aerodynamacists would approach a front wing design that doesn't require a neutral center section. Given current restrictions on nose height, a return to "spoon" wings could be sensible.

That's a big question for which I don't think there's a correct answer.

- End plates aren't necessary for cascades...

http://i.imgur.com/TuJe0GM.jpg

I meant that we can't be sure of what the solutions would actually be for the scenarios I mentioned, but I was looking for some speculation anyway.

[FPV GTHO]

Of course we can't really tell that with certainty. But if Formula One didn't mandate a neutral section for the front wing. Would the wings look like the one from OP?
Edit: Also, how would they implement the cascades if endplates weren't mandated?

I think you can be pretty certain the span of the wing would be 80% the same profile across its width like they were on 2004. The spoon wings that followed occurred as the central section was allowed to be much lower and now the neutral section has eliminated that. The biggest difference IMO is the wing angle would be less with a much larger working surface.

[wesley123]

I believe a straight connection has negative effects in it's corner. Changing this to a smooth curve would mitigate these negative effects. It aids outwash as well, I believe.

[wesley123]

Of course we can't really tell that with certainty. But if Formula One didn't mandate a neutral section for the front wing. Would the wings look like the one from OP?
Edit: Also, how would they implement the cascades if endplates weren't mandated?

I think you can be pretty certain the span of the wing would be 80% the same profile across its width like they were on 2004. The spoon wings that followed occurred as the central section was allowed to be much lower and now the neutral section has eliminated that. The biggest difference IMO is the wing angle would be less with a much larger working surface.

I'm not so certain about that, considering the shaping, vortices etc. etc.

In 2004, the cars generally were rear-biased on downforce. But with the reduction of diffuser size, removal of beam wing etc. etc. they have become limited on rear downforce more than on the front.

[OO7]

Would an endplate-less front wing design be advantageous in a single seat category where the maximum span is within the inside width, between the front wheels (non-outwash)?

[turbof1]

Would an endplate-less front wing design be advantageous in a single seat category where the maximum span is within the inside width, between the front wheels (non-outwash)?

Probably. As Ben explained, the 'endplate-less' design is to increase vorticity and vortex strength, which ultimately leads to more downforce from the front wing.

I repeat that since it's important to note the following: the endplate-less design is not really without an endplate. Rather, your typical endplate fence has been fully integrated into the wing itself to maximize the edge vortices. These edge vortices were already there with the traditional endplate fences, but as Ben explained this was not the optimal shape. The integration itself of the endplate into the wing is, with momentary disregard for inwash or outwash, has nothing to do with the relative position of the edge towards the tyre.

What you will have is that the edges are bent inwards when speaking of an inwash design.. There could be a fence there which would easily be confused for an endplate, but in reality would be nothing more then a shield for the wheel wake, and a turning vane.

For the record, in current F1 this:

is technically NOT an endplate anymore. It's a mandatory fence by the rules. It's functionality consists simply out of deflecting airflow towards a point and being structural support for the cascades.

[andylaurence]

Interesting comments. For reference, the car is running in a class with a maximum front wing width of 1500mm. Cars tebd to have an overall width of 1600-1800mm.

[bhall II]

Would an endplate-less front wing design be advantageous in a single seat category where the maximum span is within the inside width, between the front wheels (non-outwash)?

All else being equal, I think ride height and underbody strategy probably play greater roles in determining an appropriate front wing configuration. At higher ride heights, edge vortices will be weaker, regardless of layout. So, it might be impractical in those cases to sacrifice surface area, which is a necessary step if adopting an endplate-less design...


Scientists are still trying to figure out exactly what the --- Nicholas Tombazis was trying to accomplish with F138's front wing

Similarly, a car that makes ample use of underbody downforce with venturi tunnels or a large diffuser will likely be best served by a relatively small front wing that allows more air flow to reach the front of the floor. The inverse is also true: a restricted design that includes a small diffuser will likely benefit from a relatively large front wing that can divert more air flow away from the front of the floor.* In both cases, it's about striking the right balance between the wing and the floor (among many other factors), and endplate-less wings may or may not help.

I guess this is all just a long-winded way of saying, "It depends." (Or, "Beats the hell out of me.")

* Underbody efficiency is dictated by the diffuser. Those that can't handle air flow at the same rate in which it's introduced into the system will create a bottleneck that increases static pressure along the entire length of the floor and beyond - absent mitigating factors, of course.

[trinidefender]

One thing here, and this was stated by turbo, is that none of the wings shown by the OP or others actually have no end plate. There is just what I guess can best be described as a fence or extra end plate.

I have made reference to the word vortex tunnel before. I'm not sure if it confused people but it was referring to the semicircular expanding space underneath near the outside of the front wing. The vertical section on the outside of the "tunnel" is actually the end plate per say that is used to help form the vortex used to keep airflow attached.

Mercedes have an interesting idea where they have a "V" on the inner portion of the tunnel underneath the wing, this seems to separate the wing into inner and outer channels.

Mercedes "V" shown here.


There is also a third part that interests me that isn't talked about much here. The footplate below the fence that is referred to as the end plate. It usually has a tunnel of sorts that forms its own small vortex. McLaren seem to have tried to work this harder and is blending this footplate vortex tunnel with the main tunnel (inside the real aerodynamic end plate) with their latest generations of front wing.




As far as an end plate less wing, it isn't really used, at least not as far as I know.

P.s. Please do not get hung up on the term tunnel. It is just something I use in the hopes that people can distinguish that real end plate from the fence on the outside.

[bhall II]

Mercedes have an interesting idea where they have a "V" on the inner portion of the tunnel underneath the wing, this seems to separate the wing into inner and outer channels.

What do you mean here?