Red Bull RB12 TAG-Heuer

[PhillipM]

But as someone already explains, rotating the wing from suspension compression takes it away from it's stall region, not towards it.

[BanMeToo]

Yea that's a silly theory

[Just_a_fan]

Yes, it's a silly hypothesis. I was merely showing SR71 where the article said what he claimed it didn't. He appears to be the only person who believes in squat-stalling rear wings.

[SR71]

Second the squatting of the chassis need not be connected to the rear wing. In fact nowhere in the article is it suggested these two actions are tied together nor have I suggested it.

The article suggests otherwise actually

The rub comes from being able to find a speed threshold whereby you’re effectively switching off the rear wing. This happens when the car's rake is reduced: as the load builds with speed, the car is forced toward the ground, which in-turn rotates the wing and overloads it, stalling flow, both reducing downforce and drag.

Car squats at speed, rotates wing relative to flow.

Personally, I think the change in angle with rear squat is so small as to be lost in the noise. If a half-a-degree change in rake could stall the rear wing, the car would be a nightmare on a bumpy track where rake would be dynamic, in effect.

i'd imagine more than half degree would be necessary for such a system to work and that it would be very fickle and tough to tune. I just wouldnt be surprised to see RB work on these concepts, they have been vocal about how frustrated they are with the restrictions on aero development so I expect them to try things like this.

Let's also be clear not one forum member has presented evidence (you'd need RB's actual wing profiles, which you dont have) that they arent doing this... just a bunch of typical handbag swinging nay-sayers.

If RB have it they nailed it and it works so well we can't tell or they dont have it... even if they dont have it doesnt mean it's impossible to develop.

Now lets continue the who should copy who discussion that seemed so much more relevant on a technical forum...

[SR71]

Yes, it's a silly hypothesis. I was merely showing SR71 where the article said what he claimed it didn't. He appears to be the only person who believes in squat-stalling rear wings.

really? so you're on record saying its impossible to stall a wing by rotating it down? confirm or deny...

[SR71]

But as someone already explains, rotating the wing from suspension compression takes it away from it's stall region, not towards it.

someone explained they understood basic principals of how a wing works...

that same someone forgot to mention that you can achieve many different results outside the "basics" once you start playing with wing profiles and angles...

[bhall II]

Let's also be clear not one forum member has presented evidence (you'd need RB's actual wing profiles, which you dont have) that they arent doing this... just a bunch of typical handbag swinging nay-sayers.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. What is freely asserted is freely deserted.

That means, if you don't cite evidence to support your claim, then your claim can be dismissed without evidence.

To be taken seriously, you're gonna need to come up with one hell of an explanation for how a highly-cambered, multi-element airfoil can be stalled by shifting it toward a more favorable pressure gradient.

And, no, it's not necessary to have access to Red Bull's exact wing profiles. This is AERO 101.

Well?

[SR71]

Let's also be clear not one forum member has presented evidence (you'd need RB's actual wing profiles, which you dont have) that they arent doing this... just a bunch of typical handbag swinging nay-sayers.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. What is freely asserted is freely deserted.

That means, if you don't cite evidence to support your claim, then your claim can be dismissed without evidence.

To be taken seriously, you're gonna need to come up with one hell of an explanation for how a highly-cambered, multi-element airfoil can be stalled by shifting it toward a more favorable pressure gradient.

And, no, it's not necessary to have access to Red Bull's exact wing profiles. This is AERO 101.

Well?

So Ferrari can develop a wing support activated by heat to flex thus bringing the wing into a more "favorable pressure gradient"...

why would ferrari want to have their rear wing produce more downforce and drag on the straights?

the rotation of ferrari's rear wing and a squatting red bull would be similar...

Who ever did the sketch below must not have known that using such a system would be a waste of time because all it's doing is bringing the rear wing into a more favorable pressure gradient.

Total lack of understanding aero 101....

[bhall II]

Now you're conflating two different ideas.

For one thing, Ferrari's purported heat-enabled anisotropic wing is nothing more than a theory put forth to explain performance characteristics that haven't been noted since SF16-H's wing pylon was initially seen bending in Spain. But, if that flexing was deliberate, it wouldn't "stall" the wing; it would just reduce its downforce coefficient.

In general, "stalling" an aerodynamic element in F1 requires that the action be triggered by neither drag force nor downforce independent of the other. A wing that flexes due to drag force (horizontal) won't accomplish a whole lot, and a wing that responds to downforce (vertical) will tend to flutter as the result of a positive feedback loop caused by the wing repeatedly going through cycles of pressure-building and release...



Such would be the problem with any drag-reduction system that essentially replies upon induced drag (downforce): it would defeat itself every time.

If you're proposing a mechanical, thermal, or some other form of a trigger, that's a different ball of wax. But it's also not at all related to the article that prompted this conversation.

[SR71]

Now you're conflating two different ideas.

For one thing, Ferrari's purported heat-enabled anisotropic wing is nothing more than a theory put forth to explain performance characteristics that haven't been noted since SF16-H's wing pylon was initially seen bending in Spain. But, if that flexing was deliberate, it wouldn't "stall" the wing; it would just reduce its downforce coefficient.

In general, "stalling" an aerodynamic element in F1 requires that the action be triggered by neither drag force nor downforce independent of the other. A wing that flexes due to drag force (horizontal) won't accomplish a whole lot, and a wing that responds to downforce (vertical) will tend to flutter as the result of a positive feedback loop caused by the wing repeatedly going through cycles of pressure-building and release...

http://i.imgur.com/lBEhTOf.gif

Such would be the problem with any drag-reduction system that essentially replies upon induced drag (downforce): it would defeat itself every time.

If you're proposing a mechanical, thermal, or some other form of a trigger, that's a different ball of wax. But it's also not at all related to the article that prompted this conversation.

Cool so you agree the article has some points that could be true. If red bull are achieving the reduced rake by means other than reliance on rear wing downforce, the chassis would be the mechanical trigger due to its change in angle.

This could highly reduce the drag imposed by the rear wing and with a correctly tuned profile possible stall it.

I'm glad you also agree that rotating a wing downward can reduce its downforce... Not sure how though since you said this was an action that could only result in a more favorable pressure gradient .

[bhall II]

No, I don't agree with the article at all. It's pure speculation.

There's as much evidence to support the notion that the wing is made from diamonds as there is to support the notion that the wing stalls under load for any reason.

[SR71]

No, I don't agree with the article at all. It's pure speculation.

There's as much evidence to support the notion that the wing is made from diamonds as there is to support the notion that the wing stalls under load for any reason.

EDIT: Every village needs an idiot, and if you think anything I've said conforms to this interpretation...

I'm glad you also agree that rotating a wing downward can reduce its downforce... Not sure how though since you said this was an action that could only result in a more favorable pressure gradient .

...you're it.

But, if that flexing was deliberate, it wouldn't "stall" the wing; it would just reduce its downforce coefficient.

the pylon flexed.. the wing rotated backwards (the rear edge rotating down). this is a more favorable pressure gradient according to you... AND less downforce according to you...

[bhall II]

Again, the Ferrari theory is nothing more than that. There's every possibility that the flexing was unintended and actually harmed performance.

Also, there's a significant difference between a mechanism that stalls an element, which is what the article proposed and what you've mindlessly seized upon with nothing at all to support it, and a mechanism that simply degrades performance. The former would reduce downforce; the latter would effectively cap downforce.

Learn the difference between downforce and downforce (or lift) coefficient.

[rscsr]

No, I don't agree with the article at all. It's pure speculation.

There's as much evidence to support the notion that the wing is made from diamonds as there is to support the notion that the wing stalls under load for any reason.

EDIT: Every village needs an idiot, and if you think anything I've said conforms to this interpretation...

I'm glad you also agree that rotating a wing downward can reduce its downforce... Not sure how though since you said this was an action that could only result in a more favorable pressure gradient .

...you're it.

But, if that flexing was deliberate, it wouldn't "stall" the wing; it would just reduce its downforce coefficient.

the pylon flexed.. the wing rotated backwards (the rear edge rotating down). this is a more favorable pressure gradient according to you... AND less downforce according to you...

There is no contradiction. You have been talking about a stalling rear wing. If you increase the angle of attack you increase the lift until the wing stalls. If you increase the angle of attack further the lift falls.
So he meant with the favourable pressure gradient, that if you decrease the angle of attack, you generally move further away form the region, where stalling would occur. Therefore you can't stall a wing by decreasing the angle of attack.

[SR71]

No, I don't agree with the article at all. It's pure speculation.

There's as much evidence to support the notion that the wing is made from diamonds as there is to support the notion that the wing stalls under load for any reason.

EDIT: Every village needs an idiot, and if you think anything I've said conforms to this interpretation...


...you're it.

But, if that flexing was deliberate, it wouldn't "stall" the wing; it would just reduce its downforce coefficient.

the pylon flexed.. the wing rotated backwards (the rear edge rotating down). this is a more favorable pressure gradient according to you... AND less downforce according to you...

There is no contradiction. You have been talking about a stalling rear wing. If you increase the angle of attack you increase the lift until the wing stalls. If you increase the angle of attack further the lift falls.
So he meant with the favourable pressure gradient, that if you decrease the angle of attack, you generally move further away form the region, where stalling would occur. Therefore you can't stall a wing by decreasing the angle of attack.

Yes you can if the wing profile features a deep camber line and the angle change breaks laminar flow on the top surface.