Yesterday, a friend of mine asked me what do I think about these rumors and I replied that it will be nothing spectacular but just slightly waved wing. Than I read these news stories about "revolutionary" rear wing, so I reckoned "if its revolutionary than it must be radical". That's why I made those drawings, to try to guess radical solution.
manchild wrote:Yesterday, a friend of mine asked me what do I think about these rumors and I replied that it will be nothing spectacular but just slightly waved wing. Than I read these news stories about "revolutionary" rear wing, so I reckoned "if its revolutionary than it must be radical". That's why I made those drawings, to try to guess radical solution.
The rule prohibit bodywork (i.e. wings) from below 600mm down to 375mm above the reference plane, this is effectively the rectangular gap between the upper wing and beam wing. However, there is a 150mm allowance in the middle (and 20mm at the endplates), still I doubt your wing will fit into the T shape allowable.
With such tight constraints on the placement of the wing and the gap between the two elements (15mm max), I cant see how innovation can be applied. I suspect that the rumoured W wings profile is just more abrupt and aggressive, rather than the gently curved wings we’ve seen to date.
There is a lot more scope with the beam wing perhaps it is this area that is being exploited.
2008 regulations I'd say none of the "radical" suggestions falls within them. Certain distances from the rear wheel centre line (plane view) and reference plane (longitudinal section) are required ... the dimensions are quite strict. As said, Honda already ran a sort of a "dubya" wing and similar profiles have appeared regularly during the last few seasons. This leaves me wondering what the "revolutionary" part is ... if the source is not an aerodynamicist, there's also room for misinterpretations.
I guess there's always room for innovation in how the different foils are wedged in relation to each other, in an effort to attach and separate the flow appropriately in relation to the speed. All in all Mr T's notions stand - a very deep W is not going to produce the kind of L/D ratio you'd want.
It is interesting that a lot of innovation is going on just before the aero rules will likely be changed radically. Perhaps some teams have little to lose in experimenting at this point, perhaps designers want to put some ideas to the test before it's too late. Also if winglets are on their way out, some focus will shift to the "proper wings", so teams could also be taking a head start here.
Edit: I see many have pointed out similar facts. Well, it's up to Renault to surprise us, then ...
Going back to the swept wing theory. What if they sort of carried this idea onto the side pods but in a more drastic way? We kind of see this already with pod veins and such but if they created more of an angle they could possible eliminate the use for the chimney's/pod veins.
FSW is a too complex technique applied to main aero surface.
Sukhoi Design bureau droped the formula because two transition points appeared (they created vortex) and they never found how the hell those vortex were there.
It made a lot of pressure variations making the plane rocking everytime.
The interaction of a FSW with Aft swept wings is very complex too.
So far the FSW hasn't exactly given the advantages it proved in low scale wind tunnel and even gave some serious drawbacks.
Could it perhaps be this extreme? I had in mind really deep W that would increase overall wingspan allowing team to run blades at lower angle. That would mean same amount of downforce but much less drag since blades would be at lower angle = greater top speed.
Your literal depiction of a W reminds me of the Parnelli Indy car that ran in the early/mid '70s.
It originally ran with the aggressively angled side mounted wings, but the car was dog slow and soon reverted to more conventional wings.
Ciwai wrote:Your literal depiction of a W reminds me of the Parnelli Indy car that ran in the early/mid '70s ... It originally ran with the aggressively angled side mounted wings, but the car was dog slow and soon reverted to more conventional wings.
Some Googling, and
I'm fairly satisfied that's the 1972 Parnelli "Viceroy Special". Seeing that reminds me of what the current F1 teams are doing with their integrated "pod vane/chimney/Indy fin/mid-wing" designs ... so maybe they were onto something, accidentally or otherwise. Failure or not, I like the lateral thinking on that one. Plus the platypus/duck bill nose is endearing ...
