- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Continuing our series analysing the biggest changes in the 2019 bodywork regulations changes, we take a look at the new restrictions for the front brake cooling ducts.
If they can prove it's damaging to their brand. I'm not sure even they can argue that though...
I may be wrong, but I thought the double defusers created more disturbed air behind the car causing more problems for following cars?gdogg371 wrote: ↑01 May 2018, 13:54Re the 2019 aero changes, around 1992 and until they were banned post Imola 1994, the front wings had trailing sections that channeled air inside the front wheels and under the floor. Are they likely to make an appearance, or have we not had specific enough guidance yet to be sure?
Another thing that got the chop post Imola 1994 was the massive diffusers everyone was running. To keep on plan with making the cars even faster, yet with more ability to follow in close quarters, could the following not be considered?
1) Simplified front wing, with air channeled inside front wheels (possibly using trailing sections, as described above).
2) Deeper and wider rear wing (i'd also like to see them go back to the 1000mm rear wing heights they ran up to the end of 1992 - purely for aesthetic reasons).
3) A larger and more complex rear diffuser (possibly incorporating the double diffuser concept of the late noughties) , to generate more 'clean' down force.
4) Bring back blown diffusers , to further enhance point number three.
Would that not be a cheaper and less radical alternative than going down a semi ground effect route to produce clean down force?
Keen to hear people's thoughts. I'm no aerodynamicist, just an interested observer.
Those front wing extensions were a really efficient way of channelling the front wing tip and lower tyre vortex system outboard of the car. If I were in charge they would be on the cars again. That said the key rule which made them viable was that the front wing endplates were only 25mm above the reference plane (the bottom of the car as defined by the rules). Mid 1994 that was increase to 50mm - currently it's 75mm.gdogg371 wrote: ↑01 May 2018, 13:54Re the 2019 aero changes, around 1992 and until they were banned post Imola 1994, the front wings had trailing sections that channeled air inside the front wheels and under the floor. Are they likely to make an appearance, or have we not had specific enough guidance yet to be sure?
Another thing that got the chop post Imola 1994 was the massive diffusers everyone was running. To keep on plan with making the cars even faster, yet with more ability to follow in close quarters, could the following not be considered?
1) Simplified front wing, with air channeled inside front wheels (possibly using trailing sections, as described above).
2) Deeper and wider rear wing (i'd also like to see them go back to the 1000mm rear wing heights they ran up to the end of 1992 - purely for aesthetic reasons).
3) A larger and more complex rear diffuser (possibly incorporating the double diffuser concept of the late noughties) , to generate more 'clean' down force.
4) Bring back blown diffusers , to further enhance point number three.
Would that not be a cheaper and less radical alternative than going down a semi ground effect route to produce clean down force?
Keen to hear people's thoughts. I'm no aerodynamicist, just an interested observer.
No need to apologise, was a very informative post. Those wider rear wings have got a very 1986 sort of look about them. I keep thinking of the Mclaren-TAG when I see the new proposed dimensions. So, if blown diffusers are out, but possibly something more akin to what we had in the early 90's is possible, could that when combined with a bigger rear wing and the trailing sections of the front wings be enough to offset the down force that could be lost with a more simplistic front wing?jjn9128 wrote: ↑01 May 2018, 14:44Those front wing extensions were a really efficient way of channelling the front wing tip and lower tyre vortex system outboard of the car. If I were in charge they would be on the cars again. That said the key rule which made them viable was that the front wing endplates were only 25mm above the reference plane (the bottom of the car as defined by the rules). Mid 1994 that was increase to 50mm - currently it's 75mm.gdogg371 wrote: ↑01 May 2018, 13:54Re the 2019 aero changes, around 1992 and until they were banned post Imola 1994, the front wings had trailing sections that channeled air inside the front wheels and under the floor. Are they likely to make an appearance, or have we not had specific enough guidance yet to be sure?
Another thing that got the chop post Imola 1994 was the massive diffusers everyone was running. To keep on plan with making the cars even faster, yet with more ability to follow in close quarters, could the following not be considered?
1) Simplified front wing, with air channeled inside front wheels (possibly using trailing sections, as described above).
2) Deeper and wider rear wing (i'd also like to see them go back to the 1000mm rear wing heights they ran up to the end of 1992 - purely for aesthetic reasons).
3) A larger and more complex rear diffuser (possibly incorporating the double diffuser concept of the late noughties) , to generate more 'clean' down force.
4) Bring back blown diffusers , to further enhance point number three.
Would that not be a cheaper and less radical alternative than going down a semi ground effect route to produce clean down force?
Keen to hear people's thoughts. I'm no aerodynamicist, just an interested observer.
I think the underbody being a "clean" source of downforce is a misunderstanding which is repeated a lot so it's understandable. Diffusers generate tip vortices like a wing, so they produce induced drag more underbody downforce = stronger tip vortices; also the harder you work the floor the more viscous drag you get. So the only real benefit of a big floor and skinny wings is reducing the overall blockage of the car - but you end up with more wake near the ground. Ironically this is worse for another car as the ground reacts the force of the car and cancels up-wash which means the wake hangs around rather than being cleared. See Indycar - they have underbody tunnels but also a massive rear wing - which creates up draft to clear the wake upwards.
If you look at the shape of the 1994 diffusers they're all convex when viewed from below, i.e. they have a continuous curvature upwards. This shape is inherently more efficient than the modern diffusers which inflect along the length in a sort of bell shaped curve. So merging a 1994 and 2018 diffuser shape and rules could be better for following. Blown diffusers and double diffusers are definitely the wrong way to go.
^sorry for another long post. This is me trying to be concise
Wider with less outwash? How does that work? Mandated endplate maybe?
Where those wing endplate extensions had the advantage over a modern endplate solution is that it is a physical barrier which will still work even in disturbed air. Whereas now they're using the air to create these complex vortex flows - to do that requires a static pressure difference (high pressure air travels to low pressure regions) to twist the air into a vortex. The main issue of a wake is dynamic pressure deficit, which squeezes the surface static pressure on the trailing car - a smaller difference of pressure vs suction means a weaker vortex. A modern front wing endplate is generating 10's of vortices each with a specific purpose in clean air - each of these vortices becomes weaker in the wake - hence the issue with the front wings.gdogg371 wrote: ↑01 May 2018, 15:35No need to apologise, was a very informative post. Those wider rear wings have got a very 1986 sort of look about them. I keep thinking of the Mclaren-TAG when I see the new proposed dimensions. So, if blown diffusers are out, but possibly something more akin to what we had in the early 90's is possible, could that when combined with a bigger rear wing and the trailing sections of the front wings be enough to offset the down force that could be lost with a more simplistic front wing?
Eugh that was painful to watch. It's obvious he is neither an aerodynamicist or a journalist.
Aerodynamically the wider wing means outwash endplates are less essential. The endplate, as it were, is mandated as a minimum projected area (looking at the side of the car) between 2 lines a certain distance from the centreline. So if they squeeze those lines together the teams can no longer camber the endplate.
I agree with some of what you are saying gdogg371, but just a note, the rear wing was never 1000mm tall because it was measured from the ground rather than the reference plane back then, so ride height and rake had to be accounted for. You'd think that during the active suspension years they'd exploit this, but I don't think they really did.gdogg371 wrote: ↑01 May 2018, 13:54Re the 2019 aero changes, around 1992 and until they were banned post Imola 1994, the front wings had trailing sections that channeled air inside the front wheels and under the floor. Are they likely to make an appearance, or have we not had specific enough guidance yet to be sure?
Another thing that got the chop post Imola 1994 was the massive diffusers everyone was running. To keep on plan with making the cars even faster, yet with more ability to follow in close quarters, could the following not be considered?
1) Simplified front wing, with air channeled inside front wheels (possibly using trailing sections, as described above).
2) Deeper and wider rear wing (i'd also like to see them go back to the 1000mm rear wing heights they ran up to the end of 1992 - purely for aesthetic reasons).
3) A larger and more complex rear diffuser (possibly incorporating the double diffuser concept of the late noughties) , to generate more 'clean' down force.
4) Bring back blown diffusers , to further enhance point number three.
Would that not be a cheaper and less radical alternative than going down a semi ground effect route to produce clean down force?
Keen to hear people's thoughts. I'm no aerodynamicist, just an interested observer.