Brawn revisits the adjustable wing issue

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67029

Ross Brawn not only advocates the tyre warmer ban and tyres with clearly deteriorating performance profile but also adjustable front wings.

I have been wondering what these mysterious aero issues are that the teams are still pondering. this issue should have been in the brief of the overtaking working group. now it is fairly late to start making tests. on the other side it could be a crucial step in getting back to close racing. good to know who is positive about such a thing. I don't see disadvantages if the implementation is fail safe with good redundency as in aircraft controls.

[Ogami musashi]

eh? adjustable front wing have been adopted in october 2007.

It will be permitted to do so 2 times per lap.

[WhiteBlue]

eh? adjustable front wing have been adopted in october 2007.

It will be permitted to do so 2 times per lap.

I know that it was one of the FIA proposals but it was not included in the OWG designs. I cannot remember that movable wings were on the list of approved items. where do you got the information that they were decided in 2007?

[Ogami musashi]

Yes it was one OWG.

The technical directors agreed to proposals which are as follows:

- Front wing width increased to 180 instead of 140 cm.

- Front wing height decreased to 7.5 instead of 15 cm.

- The middle section over a width of 40 cm has to be a standard part.

- The driver may adjust the front wing flaps from the cockpit twice a lap by an angle of a maximum 6 degrees.

- Rear wing width 75 instead of 100 cm

- Rear wing height 95 instead of 80 cm.

The diffusor then starts from the centre of the rear axle rather than from the front end of the rear wheels. It may raise to 17.5 instead of 12.5 cm. The bodywork has to be clean. That means no barge boards, no winglets, no chimneys, no flipups.

Windtunnel research has shown that with the new rules the overall downforce loss will be 50 percent compared to the 2006 aero. If you follow another car within half a car length you will only lose 25 instead of 46 percent of the downforce and the balance shift will be 1 percent to the front rather than 4 percent to the back as it is now

[WhiteBlue]

thanks Ogami musashi for copying this document. I must have overlooked the wing adjust item. That is good news and I must say that I like it very much. this will challenge the skills of drivers and will allow for better stability in corners. I wonder why there is a restriction to how often they are allowed to change the wing settings.

I got the impression that they are still debating this point. and surely we havn't seen any testing with prototypes to gage the effectiveness of the change.

[zac510]

They'll all just adjust the wing in the same spot during the lap.
And if they don't, it still won't compensate for an inadequate aero package.

[WhiteBlue]

it appears that there are some unresolved issues there. I believe the original proposal was for an adjustment only when the car senses turbulences. obviously a compromise has been made. if both drivers can make the adjustment it will not be as effective to help passing but from a sporting point it is fairer. good point actually!

[bizadfar]

it appears that there are some unresolved issues there. I believe the original proposal was for an adjustment only when the car senses turbulences. obviously a compromise has been made. if both drivers can make the adjustment it will not be as effective to help passing but from a sporting point it is fairer. good point actually!

Why would the driver infront adjust his when battling with someone behind? If his got the "standard" adjustment with a good aero balance it will only increase drag for him making him possibly more vulnerable to being overtaken.

[Ogami musashi]

No this kind of maneuver is, in theory, unlikely. The reason why the OWG made such a big front wing dimensions rules is to ensure the front wing will contribute a lot to the total downforce, by that they imposed a natural limit to prevent teams from gaining downforce: The balance.

The purpose of the front wing adjusting is not really to increase the downforce (it will do it but this is not the purpose) but to re balance the car.

Thus, the leading car won't certainly increase its front wing while in clear air because it would make the car massively oversteer.

However one thing possible is that drivers will maybe decrease their angle in straight line because understeer is not a problem in those conditions.

[WhiteBlue]

Thanks again Ogami musashi. so the front wing would be designed to produce high downforce at the front where the diffuser cannot suck the car down. that would make some sense. the oversized front wing would produce oversteer for a car in clean air if it would use all downforce available and so they will never use the potential when in front. the following car will profit getting close to optimum downforce with the oversized wing in the turbulent air. also reducing drag on the straight makes a lot of sense in terms of energy saving. but why are they restricted to two wing settings per lap. that doesn't make sense if there are two straights.

[Ogami musashi]

the oversized front wing would produce oversteer for a car in clean air if it would use all downforce available and so they will never use the potential when in front.

You nailed it, that's the goal.

the following car will profit getting close to optimum downforce with the oversized wing in the turbulent air. also reducing drag on the straight makes a lot of sense in terms of energy saving. but why are they restricted to two wing settings per lap. that doesn't make sense if there are two straights.

The "two times" is i suppose to prevent teams to built cars around adaptive aeros.

The "two times" significance is a bit unclear now..is "up then down" considered one time? or either movement as one time...we'll have to wait to see.

[WhiteBlue]

the following car will profit getting close to optimum downforce with the oversized wing in the turbulent air. also reducing drag on the straight makes a lot of sense in terms of energy saving. but why are they restricted to two wing settings per lap. that doesn't make sense if there are two straights.

The "two times" is i suppose to prevent teams to built cars around adaptive aeros.

The "two times" significance is a bit unclear now..is "up then down" considered one time? or either movement as one time...we'll have to wait to see.

hmm, this is a bit muddled methinks!
if they have cut out the electronic closed loop control and put the drivers in control of the triggers how could that be regarded as adaptive aero? it simply becomes another element of driver input such as thottle and brake. great balls of fire!!! I would love it. give the guys something to work with and create more on track battles. imagine having a lever that adjusts the front wing somewhere on the steering wheel or like a third pedal and they would work that to contiunually adjust the front down force!! no more moaning about under and over steer. driver makes his own under/over steer ratio.

[Scotracer]

Are there any rules regarding the depth of the front wing for next year? Currently the front wings are very deep (Mclaren especially) and obviously this wouldn't work if they go to pretty much the full width of the car. Also, the really deep wings look silly in my opinion so any reduction is a step in the right direction!

[Ogami musashi]

Whiteblue: adaptive aero are device you can adapt, so a driver that increases or decrease the front wing's angle of attack is doing adaptive aeros.


Scotracer: Unfortunately i don't know about the width. And since now it is clear the actual regs on the FIA page are completly out of validity we'll have to wait and i hope not too much.

[WhiteBlue]

Whiteblue: adaptive aero are device you can adapt, so a driver that increases or decrease the front wing's angle of attack is doing adaptive aeros. ..

it appears that you are not using adaptive in it's original biological sense.
from Healthline

Adaptation
Behavior that enables an organism to function effectively in its environment.
Adaptation describes the process whereby an organism adapts to, or learns to survive in, its environment. The process is crucial to natural selection, enabling those organisms or species best suited to a particular environment to survive. Ethologists, scientists who study the behavior of animals in their natural habitats from an evolutionary perspective, document adaptive behavior.

we also know adaptive machine control from Britannica

Improvements in CNC machine tools depend on the refinement of adaptive control, which is the automatic monitoring and adjustment of machining conditions in response to variations in operation performance.

the common aspect of both uses of adaptive is that the object of the adaptation changes itself to suit the environmental change.

this led me to asume an electronic element to adaptive aerodynamics. if the driver just changes settings that can be seen as an adjustment but I would not regard that as adaptive aerodynamics. of cause this is just a semantic issue that isn't really relevant. I mention it more to come to mutually agreed definitions. I appreciate your input very much and hope you do not see this as criticism.