Airbox wings

[meves]

This could well be a stupid idea but obviously the high wings on the airbox help the airflow over the rear wing and I assume the Mclaren style airbox wings (currently on the BMW and Honda, see below) do the same thing. Why do the teams never run an inverted version of them?

Like the wings below but starting high on the airbox and pointing downwards? I guess it doesn't work but why?

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/photolarge.ph ... catID=3104

[effuno]

i guess, by the term 'inverted' you meant to say the wing be inverted in shape ( rather than the term 'inverted wing' in aeronautical sense).

The horizontal part of the wing does as much (if not more) work on cleaning the flow as the vertical part. If the wing was to be inverted the horizontal part will end up lot higher and the clean flow does not necceserily hit the rear wing as much it would have been had the wing been as it is now.

The air is more disturbed nearer to the surfaces; and thus more disturbed lower down than near the top end of airbox. Any turning-vane-sort-of-element would therefore be a neccessity lower down ( though airbox inlets does produce detrimental vortices , but so does cockpit )

Also,maybe, the stresses put by attaching this wing to a higher point in the airbox(which is hollow) is a bit too much for the engineers' liking.

A possible advantage i can think of the inverted configuration is if the tip(the top most tip) produces any vortex. In such a case the vortex flow would have been directed to the suction side of the wing, whereas as of the current configuration its more likely to end up on the pressure side. But, these airbox wings being purely 'air cleaning'(sorry..couldnt think of a better term. ) devices there might not be enough pressure differences between the inner and outer surfaces to induce any significant vortex.



Between, I cant see this as being a stupid idea . .innovations more often than not starts from the 'basics'....There might be some advantages that i couldn't think of... Would be great to hear more on this.

[checkered]

As much as I'm

trying to find time to read up on aerodynamics, progress is slow. I can only offer less than educated guesses, but will do so anyway, trusting that the aerodynamically better endowed forum members will step in soon enough and sort this dilemma out for us. The "horns" have been discussed before I'm sure, try the forum search function also ... good thing about F1 shaping is that it's striving to be 100% functional (despite some teams' apparent efforts to the contrary ...).

The environment in which the horns operate is very dynamic, not only receiving the upwash directed by the front wing and car body, but affected also by the variable flow towards and past the air intake. Some teams sport horizontal winglets in this area which bear little resemblence to the horns. The basic horn construction seems to follow a pattern of an angled part attaching to the sides of the airbox, followed by vertical elements of roughly the same length.

The horns seem to be situated in an area where the flow experiences a dynamic change as the airbox tapers towards the rear. The velocity-relative current slows down sligthly towards the top of the rear wing and to me it seems that the horns are there to disperse that effect towards the airfoil more evenly, the vertical parts being aligned with the car center line. The vertical parts also resemble wing endplates, elements that are designed to counter wing tip vorticity and thus increase the effective aspect ratio of the airfoil.

Which brings my speculation to the direction of the horns; if the vertical parts do function (in part) as endplates, their direction is typical of an airfoil generating lift. This is perhaps supported by the angle of the elements attaching to the airbox (roughly 45 degrees), something that in a lift scenario would lessen the undesirable vertical force vector of the winglet. So effectively my current best guess is that "inverted" horns would act in a fashion completely contrary to the desired purpose.

I can only speculate that the disadvantage from any possible lift and the increase in the car's cross section is more than compensated by how the different elements of the flow meet the rear wing.

[scarbs]

its the tips of the viking wings that do most of the work, So they need to be high up to send the vortices towards the rear wing.

If you look at williams Airbox wings they feature a downswept shape, creating a tip in the same posiiton as the Viking style wings.

I guess the horizontal part of the viking is also useful for conditioning the flow, Its just williams dont need that help.

[meves]

Thanks very much for your answers it's great to have input from people who are more aero focused than me.

[mini696]

its the tips of the viking wings that do most of the work, So they need to be high up to send the vortices towards the rear wing.

Could they place a series of vertical strakes along the viking wing to create even more vorticies?

[Conceptual]

I think putting the verticle ribs along the bottom of the viking wing to send the air beneath the rear wing might actually be a bit more effective...

Chris