Sharkfin Design

[TheChad]

So it's not exactly the same concept, but it's designed to achieve the same thing.

[The FOZ]

Just watching the hockenheim race, and saw a very good camera angle on Webber's car. I could see the fin actually "rippling" as air flowed over it, which is a significant departure from the static, non-flexing aero components in these cars.

This is some sort of wake turbulence-reducing effect.

I recall that with female ski racers, there are aerodynamic advantages to having a ponytail that can flap in the breeze versus a racer with short hair.

Similar effect here?

[gcdugas]

If the sharkfin had any advantage, Ferrari would be using it. If Ferrari does not have it, most likely it doesn't work.

Conversely, if the hole nose worked Mac would be using it.

[gcdugas]

We will know they are a sign of permanent progress when the teams start to sell the extra advertising space!

Any effect is a good effect even if it is only 1/100th of a second.

Any extra funds are beneficial, even if it is 1/100th of a Euro!

[gcdugas]

Are you saying that it is impossible to have the car on a spinning platform in the tunnel?

What you are saying would only be true if the nose of the model is by some mystical force aligned with the tunnel. For some reason tho, I believe that the engineers can vector it at any angle that they choose for their testing purposes.

Chris

Sauber can run two cars in their tunnel and simulate following another car. Most tunnels also routinely run the cars at up to 15 degrees from the longitudinal axis to test losses in down force/stall. The effects of the dorsal can readily be quantified.

[Metar]

If the sharkfin had any advantage, Ferrari would be using it. If Ferrari does not have it, most likely it doesn't work.

Conversely, if the hole nose worked Mac would be using it.

On the other hand, the McLaren nose is so much narrower than Ferrari's, I don't know where they'll fit one. BMW, on the other hand, might find space for it on their extra-wide Monza nose from last year (which they used while testing slicks).

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Sure, it would reduce turbulence (drag) behind the engine area.

Back in 2004 the rules stipulated that the engine cover must be at least a certain size, this was because in 2003 the engine covers were getting progressively smaller in order to remove obstacles from in front of the rear wing, this was because having an object in close proximity to the wing causes turbulance, therefore these sharkfin covers would actually have a detrimental effect on the rear wings overall effciancy as they actually increase drag.

The reason that they are being used on the cars was recently explained by Mike Gascoyne in F1 Racing magazines "Mid-Season Technical Report". He says:

These began as fin-like extensions to the engine cover, but following the same general outline in profile [see the renault R24] Red Bull were the first to run with this more extreme interpretation. The idea is to straighten airflow to the rear wing in yaw [turning around a vertical axis], so the loss you get from the rear wing in yaw [i.e when turning a corner] is reduced. We've seen that effect in CFD and you'll see other cars adopting it, inculding us.

Seeing as its being discussed in the thread also, MG also talks about the Ferrari F2008's nocecone hole:

Obviously they have introduced it to help the middle part of the front wing work better when the flap is set to a steep angle - this is why they've only used it at circuits which require lots of wing. The downside to the slot is that there are some structural implications: to get it to pass the crash test would require quite a lot of work and some expense, so you probably won't see many of the other teams on the grid following this route. We [Force India] certainly won't.

Seems to me like maybe the other teams haven't bothered with the idea because:
A. there is a huge amount of effort and money required to get it to pass crash tests.
B. It might mess up other ideas on you're car (BMW's antler wings lie int he place the slot would go)
C. It might not fit on your car's narrow nose lol (Mclaren)
D. All that effort and mony would be wasted come 2009's new regulations (Anybody without a chance of winning WDC or WCC this year)

[ak21_rao]

HERE is the comparison of the shark fin covers used by the teams.Except BMW and Williams , all the teams have now used this element.Looking at the pics u will notice that mclaren's cover is slightly different.

[ak21_rao]

THE END IS VERY POINTY.Maybe so that it doesn't vibrate at high speeds.

[Ogami musashi]

Back in 2004 the rules stipulated that the engine cover must be at least a certain size, this was because in 2003 the engine covers were getting progressively smaller in order to remove obstacles from in front of the rear wing, this was because having an object in close proximity to the wing causes turbulance, therefore these sharkfin covers would actually have a detrimental effect on the rear wings overall effciancy as they actually increase drag.

It does decrease decrease drag by allowing less turbulence.

Removing the obstacles allowed for turbulence to smooth progressively but thos shark fins allows to decrease the turbulence even further by allowing a smooth gradient pressure recovery.

They do indeed act as stabilizer too.

[Metar]

"If it really was useful, Ferrari would have it" the nay-sayers claimed. Well... They have it now.

[mariof1]

HERE is the comparison of the shark fin covers used by the teams.Except BMW and Williams , all the teams have now used this element.Looking at the pics u will notice that mclaren's cover is slightly different.
[pictures]

Great work! They're all very similar but for McLaren's.

Well, just in case you haven't spotted this:







William's version goes into the rear wing area, that's why it's lower. The winglets in there take advantage from a 15cm central area which doesn't have limitations on number of elements and such. I wonder how long it will take for teams to add bits like that on their sharkfins. Outside the rear wing area it can be up to 60cm wide and 95cm high (viking horns, airbox wings, etc).

I don't know wether this can be called a "sharkfin design", but anyway they surely tried something similar.

This is from Paul Ricard tests (pre Monaco/Montreal).

[Metar]

Williams' reminds me of a Humpback Whale? They didn't use it in the races, though - I guess whales are inferior?

[Gecko]

It does decrease decrease drag by allowing less turbulence.

Removing the obstacles allowed for turbulence to smooth progressively but thos shark fins allows to decrease the turbulence even further by allowing a smooth gradient pressure recovery.

They do indeed act as stabilizer too.

I seriously doubt the extended fin will reduce drag. What you mention would only work if there was significant flow separation happening on the old fin design, which I doubt was the case.

Extending the fin only serves to produce a thicker boundary layer with more turbulence leaving the fin, and the increased surface area will invariably produce more skin friction, although compared to other sources of drag this is probaby minimal.

I believe the new design is indeed only about stability, both in terms of direct lateral force generated, but mostly helping the air hit the rear wing at a more perpendicular angle when the car is in yaw.

[Ogami musashi]

What you say about the surface and skin friction is totally viable, but about the turbulence i believe not.

The shorter the section (especially a thick section like an engine cover) the more the turbulence.

In addition, i'm not talking about the drag of shark fin but the drag downstream of it.

So to sum up, the shark fin itself drags more for sure, but the flow is necessarily and in all condition less turbulent on the rear wing or else it would have no interest at all.