1991 & 1992 F1 Front Wing Regulations

[andylaurence]

Depending on the degree of continuity in the regulations between 91-92 and 1994, this might be the answer...

3.2 Width ahead of the front wheel centre line:

The bodywork ahead of the front wheel centre line is limited to a maximum width of 140cm. Nevertheless, any part of the bodywork ahead of the front wheel centre line exceeding [an] overall width of 110cm must not extend above the height of the front wheel rims with the driver aboard seated normally and irrespective of the fuel load.

Fascinating! That's almost word for word the same as today's regulations for British Hillclimb and Sprint competition. Now I know where the text came from! No coincidence that many of the top cars run mid-90s F1 engines and rather similar aero packages. It's only recently that things have started to change with the superbike engine in Willem Toet's Empire Wraith and other manufacturers exploring similar solutions.

[OO7]

Depending on the degree of continuity in the regulations between 91-92 and 1994, this might be the answer...

3.2 Width ahead of the front wheel centre line:

The bodywork ahead of the front wheel centre line is limited to a maximum width of 140cm. Nevertheless, any part of the bodywork ahead of the front wheel centre line exceeding [an] overall width of 110cm must not extend above the height of the front wheel rims with the driver aboard seated normally and irrespective of the fuel load.

3.3 Width and shape between the front and rear wheels:

The maximum width of the bodywork behind the centre line of the front wheels and in front of the centre line of the rear wheels is 140cm.

Between the rear edge of the complete front wheels and the front edge of the complete rear wheels all sprung parts of the car visible from directly beneath the car must lie on one plane. All these parts must produce a uniform, solid, hard, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surface, under all circumstances. The periphery of the surface formed by these parts may be curved upwards with a maximum radius of 5cm.

[...]

6 Height:

Except for the rollover structures, no part of the car can be higher than 100cm from the ground. However, any part of the rollover structures more than 100cm from the ground must not be shaped to have a significant aerodynamic influence on the performance of the car. Furthermore, any part of the car behind the centre line of the rear wheels must not be more than 95cm from the ground.

All height measurements will be taken with the car in normal racing trim with the driver aboard seated normally.

To be continued...

The 1991 to early 1994 cars all comply with the quoted articles, the only difference is the height of bodywork behind the centreline of the rear wheels. Up to and including 1992 this was set at 1000mm above the ground, but for 1993 and 1994 this was reduced to 950mm above the ground.

[bhall II]

At this point, I'm a bit confused as to the intent of the original question. If the relevant specifications only demanded that the front wing end plates be no higher than the front wheel rims, and that the lowest surface from the trailing edge of the front wheels to the leading edge of the rear wheels had to extend along a single plane, it would seem there were essentially no ride height restrictions for the front wing unless portions of it were behind the front wheels. Is that what you're asking?

Oh, and I mostly agree with your assessment of the so-called "brake ducts" found on today's cars. My only quibble is that I don't think "sealing" vortices work in a manner that's similar to side skirts. From my point of view, it seems more likely that teams use Y250 vortices, any turning vanes under the nose, and the barge boards to create a sort of "bow wave" that "seals" the floor from a distance.

Beyond the visual evidence, current diffusers are too small, and rear-end aero too neutered, to efficiently deal with every bit of mass flow that can potentially find its way under the floor. As such, I think teams try to eliminate as much of it as possible before it has a chance to stagnate and cause a bottleneck.

By sending flow diagonally across the leading edges of the floor, I think teams have effectively created a "mid wing" that generates downforce in its own right, moves the car's center of pressure forward, and "seals" the rear of the floor.






Toro Rosso CFD ca. 2011-12

[OO7]

At this point, I'm a bit confused as to the intent of the original question. If the relevant specifications only demanded that the front wing end plates be no higher than the front wheel rims, and that the lowest surface from the trailing edge of the front wheels to the leading edge of the rear wheels had to extend along a single plane, it would seem there were essentially no ride height restrictions for the front wing unless portions of it were behind the front wheels. Is that what you're asking?

It has become a little convoluted, sorry about that.
From video stills and pictures of 1991 and 1992 F1 cars, it seemed to me that the trailing part of the front wing extensions (approximately from the front wheel centreline to the rear edge of the front wheel (about 330mm)) could be positioned on the reference plane, while body work ahead of the front wheel centreline was regulated to a minimum height above the reference plane of 25mm. The 1991 & 1992 tech regs aren't available, so I was hoping someone with knowledge of this and or with access to the 91-92 tech regs could confirm or deny the validity of my thoughts.

BTW my information on the 25mm minimum height of the front bodywork (wings) for the 91-92 cars comes from the following unofficial sources:
http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/safety.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... egulations

The 1994 tech regs state:

7. Aerodynamic influence:
Any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

- Must comply with the rules relating to its bodywork

- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car
(rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).

- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between
the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all
circumstances.

No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork may
under any circumstances be located below the geometrical plane
generated by the flat surface described in Article 3.3.

No part of the bodywork in front of the rear edge of the complete front
wheels and more than 25cm from the longitudinal centre line of the car
may be closer than 40mm to the geometrical plane referred to in Article
3.3.

The 1988 tech regs state:

7) Any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

- Must comply with the rules relating to coachwork

- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car

Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between
the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all
circumstances.

No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the coachwork may
under any circumstances be located below the geometrical plane
generated by the plane surface provided for Article 3.5

I'm of the opinion that the 1991 & 1992 tech regs probably added something similar to the following at the end of article '7) Aerodynamic Influence':
'No part of the bodywork ahead of the front wheel centreline and more than 25cm from the longitudinal centreline of the car may be closer than 25mm to the geometrical plane....'. This is slightly different to what is stated in the 1994 tech regs.

On a separate note, I wonder why these front wing extensions didn't extend further than the rear edge of the front wheels? The titanium edged vanes certainly could have been extended further back, as they were designed from the outset to sit on the reference plane (I believe). The wheel wake extensions could exploit the +/- 5mm loophole to enable them to sit above the ref plane if positioned further back than the rear edge of the front wheels. Perhaps the designers were concerned about the tolerances?

Oh, and I mostly agree with your assessment of the so-called "brake ducts" found on today's cars. My only quibble is that I don't think "sealing" vortices work in a manner that's similar to side skirts. From my point of view, it seems more likely that teams use Y250 vortices, any turning vanes under the nose, and the barge boards to create a sort of "bow wave" that "seals" the floor from a distance.

Beyond the visual evidence, current diffusers are too small, and rear-end aero too neutered, to efficiently deal with every bit of mass flow that can potentially find its way under the floor. As such, I think teams try to eliminate as much of it as possible before it has a chance to stagnate and cause a bottleneck.

By sending flow diagonally across the leading edges of the floor, I think teams have effectively created a "mid wing" that generates downforce in its own right, moves the car's center of pressure forward, and "seals" the rear of the floor.

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

http://i.imgur.com/ebdPoki.png

http://i.imgur.com/jt9CuJQ.jpg
Toro Rosso CFD ca. 2011-12

I like your bow wave analogy bhall, it seems to make sense and the aero devices under the nose up to the forward part of the side pods do appear to enhance this 'bow wave'.
The vane at the bottom of the front wing extensions on the 91-92 cars may have done something similar, even if the wheel wake extensions themselves primarily served a different purpose. Perhaps the two features are not mutually exclusive i.e wake control and floor sealing:


Have you seen any images similar to the one you posted of the Toro Rosso, but at floor height?

[bhall II]

I'm not sure what to make of it. The photos below, taken at the 1991 British GP, clearly show that FW14 was fitted with elements of some sort under the wing, and they look to extend from the leading edge back. So, the regulations were either different or so ambiguous that it was relatively simple to justify the inclusion of such bodywork.


(Click to enlarge)

The devices don't look the same as the ones found on the '94 car, either. They actually look as though they were meant to address tip vortices rather than wheel wake.

Have you seen any images similar to the one you posted of the Toro Rosso, but at floor height?

The closest I've got are these images from a generic F1 model.




The velocity gradient is rather interesting when superimposed on the bottom of MP4-24, though.



You can see that McLaren had a very peculiar method for dealing with stagnation under the floor.

[OO7]

I'm not sure what to make of it. The photos below, taken at the 1991 British GP, clearly show that FW14 was fitted with elements of some sort under the wing, and they look to extend from the leading edge back. So, the regulations were either different or so ambiguous that it was relatively simple to justify the inclusion of such bodywork.

http://i.imgur.com/su92FtT.jpg
(Click to enlarge)

The devices don't look the same as the ones found on the '94 car. They actually look as though they were meant to address tip vortices rather than wheel wake.

That's a lovely image on the top right, of the Williams about to turn into Copse.

The devices on the 1991 car and on the 1994 car are very similar, but there are three differences:
1) The device on the early 94 car was raised to meet the 40mm minimum height above the reference plane rule. This coupled with the fact that the front wing (the actual wings not including the end-plates) was actually lower on the 94 FW16 car (and perhaps even more so on the 93 FW15C) compared to the FW14/B, tends to give the impression that it was visually a much different design. I think it is a case of it being more hidden by the front wing due to its closer proximity.

2) The vane behind the front wheel centreline at the bottom of the extensions was not present on the 93 and 94 cars, due to the 40mm minimum height above the reference plane rule.

3) The FW15C and FW16 didn't run these extensions to the rear edge of the front wheels unlike the 93 & 94 McLaren MP4-8 and MP4/9 respectively. Instead they stopped short by around 100mm.

TO VIEW THE IMAGES IN FULL, RIGHT CLICK AND SELECT 'OPEN IMAGE IN NEW TAB'.

FW16 in Brazil:


The nose and front wing of the FW16 (not including the end-plates) was raised for Imola, making the end plate extensions easier to see:


The extremely low front wing (not including the end-plates) of the FW15C, coupled with its active suspension system mean the end-plate extensions are all but hidden from sight, except when viewed from very low angles and even then they are difficult to see:



The following image highlights how much lower the front wing on the FW15C was compared to the McLaren MP4/8. Note a portion of that difference is down to the Williams' running a lower ride height, which is why they suffered with a lot of aquaplaning that day.:



A comparison of the FW16 and MP4/8 in profile:


The Williams features shorter extensions.

FW14 and FW14b respectively:


The inward pointing extensions at the bottom of the end-plates appear to be more pronounced (point further inwards) on the FW14 than on the FW14b

FW14b:




The relatively high (compared to the FW15C and FW16) front wing of the FW14b coupled with its very low end-plates and consequently low end-plate extensions, allow these devices to be more visible than on the later cars.

The closest I've got are these images from a generic F1 model.

http://i.imgur.com/0T7A6kN.png
http://i.imgur.com/OaBKQ2w.png

The velocity gradient is rather interesting when superimposed on the bottom of MP4-24, though.

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

You can see that McLaren had a very peculiar method for dealing with stagnation under the floor.

I'm surprised by the relatively low flow velocity around the floor, particularly around the leading edge of the front floor (tea tray) and slightly further downstream.
McLaren threw all they had at the MP4-24, it was a poor car aerodynamically. I guess downside of those cut-outs is that you lose plan area, however the initially design couldn't efficiently use that area.

[bhall II]

Air flow will tend to stagnate around the mid-section of any flat-bottomed car due to viscous losses and expansion (if the car has a positive rake angle). Current F1 machinery is further hamstrung by pitiful diffusers, a lack of beam wings, and rear wing geometry that's probably better suited for adjusting balance than it is for generating big downforce. Since underbody efficiency is almost entirely dictated by outlet efficiency, air flow will just pile up and raise pressure along the entire length of the floor if the diffuser can't handle it as quickly as it's introduced into the system.

As seen in the FloVis streaks, teams have resorted to using the rear brake ducts almost like little beam wings to help extract flow from the diffuser...




One of the reasons why Red Bull's flexible t-tray was so controversial - like the F2007 that preceded it - is because dragging what might as well be considered an "air shovel" over the track makes it a lot easier to manage underbody flow.

At any rate, I wasn't necessarily comparing the positions of the devices used on FW14, 15, 16; more so their construction. On the '94 car, they're little half-pipes that direct air flow way from the floor...

[OO7]

At any rate, I wasn't necessarily comparing the positions of the devices used on FW14, 15, 16; more so their construction. On the '94 car, they're little half-pipes that direct air flow way from the floor...

http://i.imgur.com/dqTjrGR.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/cvbwOEC.jpg

Ah ok, I see what you mean. These were the best images I could find:
TO VIEW THE IMAGES IN FULL, RIGHT CLICK AND SELECT 'OPEN IMAGE IN NEW TAB'.


As you mentioned it could be an entirely different aero philosophy at work (managing vortices) or presumably it may simply be a slightly different design of the same concept. It could also be that managing wheel wake and controlling vortices can fit hand in glove.

The 1991 Ferrari 642 also used these half-pipe extensions:

[OO7]

The following excerpt is from an AMuS article about the recent meeting to discuss the 2017 technical regulations:

"In fact, now come the teams increasingly own concepts on the table. One wants to return to the front wings as 1993. Back then it was allowed to draw the endplates into the region of the front axle. Thus the problem of the air duct to the front wheels would be around much easier to solve than with intentionally generated vortices. One could as the teams take the fear that only Red Bull benefits from Red Bull concept."

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 67985.html

That is exactly the reason I was so interested about finding out as much as possible about the design principles behind the 1991-1992 front wings, as I believe it would not only allow cars to follow more closely, but also reduce costs (i.e the cost to produce a competitive front wing) because such a solution is probably cheaper to develop.

[bigpat]

You'll find those endplate extensions were VERY powerful in managing wheel wake in particular, helping to reduce a lot of drag, and cleaning up the flow ahead of the floor. The barge boards that appeared later were not as effective, as they tried to push the air, rather than harness the energy of the vortices present.

[OO7]

You'll find those endplate extensions were VERY powerful in managing wheel wake in particular, helping to reduce a lot of drag, and cleaning up the flow ahead of the floor. The barge boards that appeared later were not as effective, as they tried to push the air, rather than harness the energy of the vortices present.

Bargeboards first appeared on the 1993 McLaren MP4/8, if I recall correctly. Endplate extensions hadn't been outlawed at that time, so I assumed the bargeboards served a different purpose.

[bigpat]

I believe they were used for the same purpose, of conditioning the flow regime before it went under the car, just further inboard. I still believe they wouldn't be as effective as the end plate extensions. Pushing air to create flows isn't as efficient as trying to 'suck' the air the do the same thing, in my experience....

Back in the day, I designed ( by eye, it must be said) a low height twin bargeboard setup for our Formula 3000's, using spare front wing flaps, and winglets.

To be honest we didn't see any discernible lap time gain, but it did really clean up the airflow into the sidepods, so much so that the engine was over cooled...
As can be imagined , it was also good at keeping debris out of the pods as well.

[OO7]

At this point, I'm a bit confused as to the intent of the original question. If the relevant specifications only demanded that the front wing end plates be no higher than the front wheel rims, and that the lowest surface from the trailing edge of the front wheels to the leading edge of the rear wheels had to extend along a single plane, it would seem there were essentially no ride height restrictions for the front wing unless portions of it were behind the front wheels. Is that what you're asking?

It has become a little convoluted, sorry about that.
From video stills and pictures of 1991 and 1992 F1 cars, it seemed to me that the trailing part of the front wing extensions (approximately from the front wheel centreline to the rear edge of the front wheel (about 330mm)) could be positioned on the reference plane, while body work ahead of the front wheel centreline was regulated to a minimum height above the reference plane of 25mm. The 1991 & 1992 tech regs aren't available, so I was hoping someone with knowledge of this and or with access to the 91-92 tech regs could confirm or deny the validity of my thoughts.

BTW my information on the 25mm minimum height of the front bodywork (wings) for the 91-92 cars comes from the following unofficial sources:
http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/safety.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... egulations

The 1994 tech regs state:

7. Aerodynamic influence:
Any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

- Must comply with the rules relating to its bodywork

- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car
(rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).

- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between
the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all
circumstances.

No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork may
under any circumstances be located below the geometrical plane
generated by the flat surface described in Article 3.3.

No part of the bodywork in front of the rear edge of the complete front
wheels and more than 25cm from the longitudinal centre line of the car
may be closer than 40mm to the geometrical plane referred to in Article
3.3.

The 1988 tech regs state:

7) Any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

- Must comply with the rules relating to coachwork

- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car

Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between
the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all
circumstances.

No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the coachwork may
under any circumstances be located below the geometrical plane
generated by the plane surface provided for Article 3.5

I'm of the opinion that the 1991 & 1992 tech regs probably added something similar to the following at the end of article '7) Aerodynamic Influence':
'No part of the bodywork ahead of the front wheel centreline and more than 25cm from the longitudinal centreline of the car may be closer than 25mm to the geometrical plane....'. This is slightly different to what is stated in the 1994 tech regs.

On a separate note, I wonder why these front wing extensions didn't extend further than the rear edge of the front wheels? The titanium edged vanes certainly could have been extended further back, as they were designed from the outset to sit on the reference plane (I believe). The wheel wake extensions could exploit the +/- 5mm loophole to enable them to sit above the ref plane if positioned further back than the rear edge of the front wheels. Perhaps the designers were concerned about the tolerances?

Oh, and I mostly agree with your assessment of the so-called "brake ducts" found on today's cars. My only quibble is that I don't think "sealing" vortices work in a manner that's similar to side skirts. From my point of view, it seems more likely that teams use Y250 vortices, any turning vanes under the nose, and the barge boards to create a sort of "bow wave" that "seals" the floor from a distance.

Beyond the visual evidence, current diffusers are too small, and rear-end aero too neutered, to efficiently deal with every bit of mass flow that can potentially find its way under the floor. As such, I think teams try to eliminate as much of it as possible before it has a chance to stagnate and cause a bottleneck.

By sending flow diagonally across the leading edges of the floor, I think teams have effectively created a "mid wing" that generates downforce in its own right, moves the car's center of pressure forward, and "seals" the rear of the floor.

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

http://i.imgur.com/ebdPoki.png

http://i.imgur.com/jt9CuJQ.jpg
Toro Rosso CFD ca. 2011-12

I like your bow wave analogy bhall, it seems to make sense and the aero devices under the nose up to the forward part of the side pods do appear to enhance this 'bow wave'.
The vane at the bottom of the front wing extensions on the 91-92 cars may have done something similar, even if the wheel wake extensions themselves primarily served a different purpose. Perhaps the two features are not mutually exclusive i.e wake control and floor sealing:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... fa1d4f.jpg

Have you seen any images similar to the one you posted of the Toro Rosso, but at floor height?

An excerpt from Adrian Newey's book "How to Build a Car", confirms my suspicions about the 1991 front wing regulation changes:-
"The rules also stipulated that behind the rear edge of the front wheel, any bodywork facing the ground had to be flat and lie on a single plane. That left this little loophole area between the centre line of the front wheel and the back edge of the front wheel where you could do what you want, as long as it didn’t go below the bottom of the car.
So what we did was extend the endplate footplate rearwards to the back edge of the front tyre and then attach a little vertical turning vane 25mm deep to the bottom of it. It was very, very effective at stopping that inward squirt, giving us a good chunk of extra downforce."

[MadMatt]

Great thread guys, have just scrolled through it, but that's good reading for tonight!

[mclaren111]

I love the short noses !!

They are far to long for my liking these days !!