Sharkfin Design

[Gecko]

If there was indeed turbulence generated upstream of the fin (which it may well be), then the presence of the fin will reduce it or at least the longer wavelength parts of it. What I want to argue is that the airbox was designed as streamlined even in the original configuration. The wake, save for the turbulent boundary layer leaving the trailing edge, was likely quite negligible, therefore extending the fin wouldn't help much in terms of turbulence reduction and will probably introduce additional turbulence simply due to the longer turbulent layer flow in the streamwise direcion.

I therefore believe that the rear wing actually has to work in a condition of somewhat increased turbulence, which is all the more accentuated due to the fact that the turbulent wake now has a shorter path on which to relax before hitting the wing. But this is more than offset by the reduced yaw sensitivity of the whole assembly, something which drastically improves driveability of the cars without TC.

[Ogami musashi]

Well, teams mentioned it was used (also) to stability during braking, which means better rear wing flow.

But wait, i'm sure under cornering the primary effect is a counter side wash to the rear wing.

For example, the car turn to the right, so on the left side of the fin you have more pressure, then leaving the fin the air goes to the right which means going straighter to the rear wing.

In those case that may be both case, less turbulence (remember the rear wing is closer to the engine cover since 2005), and stability in corners.

But in any case, the turbulent structure has to be steady or there's no point in doing that.

[gcdugas]

What is that "stick" (about the size of a golf club shaft) that comes from the Williams' engine cover (about where viking horns might be) down to the area near the exhausts? It is there on their non shark fin cars too.

[majicmeow]

gcdugas,

You'll notice that same vane on both the Mclarens and the Toyotas. I'm not sure at this moment who else runs a similar part.

My guess is it takes (some of) the air from the cockpit area and guides it under the rear wing, but that's only a guess. Using that as a reason, I'm guessing the reason it does not contact the engine cover along its whole length has to do with stall... but I could be wrong

Anyone know for sure what these vanes are for?

Thanks

-Aaron

[gcdugas]

gcdugas,

You'll notice that same vane on both the Mclarens and the Toyotas. I'm not sure at this moment who else runs a similar part.

My guess is it takes (some of) the air from the cockpit area and guides it under the rear wing, but that's only a guess. Using that as a reason, I'm guessing the reason it does not contact the engine cover along its whole length has to do with stall... but I could be wrong

Anyone know for sure what these vanes are for?

Thanks

-Aaron

Are sure we are talking about the same part? It isn't a vane, it is a very skinny rod about the diameter of a golf club shaft. In the photo it starts at the top of the "S" in the RBS logo.

[WhiteBlue]

Lets assume that over all the shark fin is performance neutral. Why would I want to have it? Its a great advertise space. It will make tons of money. So I need it to go on the rules next year! You hear me?

[mariof1]

Sure.

2004 rules (minimum dimensions for engine cover and rear endplate) are a clear example of technical rules aimed towards sponsorship.

[majicmeow]

gcdugas,

Yup, we're talking about the same thing Look at the images a few pages back, showing all the teams versions of the shark fin. You'll clearly see that Toyota and McLaren use the same kind of "device".

[flynfrog]

Lets assume that over all the shark fin is performance neutral. Why would I want to have it? Its a great advertise space. It will make tons of money. So I need it to go on the rules next year! You hear me?

That was our joke when we started building E85 race cars

E85 goes in car -----> sponors like E85 racecar ->>>>> sponsors give oney to car ----> car goes faster ---> E85 makes car faster

[HKS]

I got hold of some data from another forum.

http://www.f1passionates.com/index.php/topic,415.0.html

[sebbe]

I got hold of some data from another forum.

http://www.f1passionates.com/index.php/topic,415.0.html

You can clearly see that while Honda and Toyota have copied Red Bull's design (not sure about Renault), McLaren and Ferrari have gone a different path.
Ferrari's engine cover is quite interesting, it gets closer to the rear wind and then adopts the curvy shape of the Red Bull Design.

[Belatti]

I got hold of some data from another forum.

http://www.f1passionates.com/index.php/topic,415.0.html

Where you read "another" it should say "my"
Great job Rachit!

[Hawkeye]

The sharkfin moves the aero centre of pressure rearwards. This means that in a crosswind the car will naturally turn into the direction of the wind, rather than away from it (its called the weathervane effect) This makes the car both more stable and more predictable.

[Conceptual]

I got hold of some data from another forum.

http://www.f1passionates.com/index.php/topic,415.0.html

Where you read "another" it should say "my"
Great job Rachit!

I got that invite as well...

Chris

[bhall]

gcdugas,

You'll notice that same vane on both the Mclarens and the Toyotas. I'm not sure at this moment who else runs a similar part.

My guess is it takes (some of) the air from the cockpit area and guides it under the rear wing, but that's only a guess. Using that as a reason, I'm guessing the reason it does not contact the engine cover along its whole length has to do with stall... but I could be wrong

Anyone know for sure what these vanes are for?

Thanks

-Aaron

Are sure we are talking about the same part? It isn't a vane, it is a very skinny rod about the diameter of a golf club shaft. In the photo it starts at the top of the "S" in the RBS logo.

The engine cover must have certain dimensions to conform to the regulations; it's known as the "toblerone" rule due to the similarities between the FIA-required shape of the airbox and the famous candybar. Teams whose engine cover would not ordinarily meet the requirement use small fins to make the dimensions legal.