2009 spec front wing end plates

[xpensive]

As much as I love straightforward people...

Seriously, it wasn't always that F1 cars were in need of a front wing, with decent ground effects you could actually do without them. Just like Nelson on the pic below:

http://www.f1technical.net/f1db/cars/416

I have read somewhere that the re-introduction of underbody-venturis were discussed as an option in Charlie Whiting's Technical Working Group, but rejected.
Someone with any info on that?

[machin]

Well its interesting to see the McLaren 2009 spec front wing doesn't have these forward facing flat surfaces on the end plates, confirming the rules don't mandate them... will be interesting to see what Ferrari have done tomorrow... but it still begs the question...why did some cars have them in testing? And Why did BMW run horizontal surfaces at the top of the end plates infront of these surfaces? I guess we'll never know.... annoying!!!

[humble sabot]

Well I imagine it was used as a it is a known factor.
The idea being to test what has to change and address a known problem with a known solution. This allows, or at least helps identify the effects of the much changed center section. A test wing in other words, that allows them to test in practice what effect the larger change will have. They can fiddle later with addressing airflow to and around the tyres with new/interesting/other solutions once they know how the lack of spoon etcetera is going to affect them. Control of variables.
it'd be interesting to see if they end up running an endplate like that at Albert Park anyway, who knows, it could end up being the right thing for the job.

[Conceptual]

If the wake/turbulence sensitivity of the front wing is to blame for the lack of overtaking, why didn't the FIA outlaw it completely, should be easy enough to police and certainly reduce the risk of first-lap accidents?

Thinking about it, without the front wing, perhaps you would get more grip the closer you get to the car ahead, as front-wheels typically produces aerodynamic lift, no?

This is exactly what I was talking about here:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5922

And no, I dont think that the simple reason why "not" is because of its "stupidity".

Rather, because it is an idea that is ahead of its time.

[Scotracer]

There are some serious misconceptions going on in this thread.

Namely, the front-wing is less susceptible to loss of efficiency when following a car than the rest of the car. Anecdotal evidence from the drivers would suggest this is happening but the OWG's wind-tunnel results tell a different story. It was realised that:

At the front of the car the front wing was found to be contributing a similar downforce component to that of the diffuser (roughly 37%. But, being less sensitive to wake than the rear end made it contribute more in wake. This is counterintuitive as we often hear of drivers suffering understeer when following another car. This is probably the net loss in downforce they are feeling, rather than specifically frontal downforce.

This shows that it's the rear of the car that is the problem, not the front. Removing the front-wing would also create incredible imbalances in the loading on the car as the front would be subjected to 0N downforce (or even negative downforce...aka lift) whilst the rear would have over 20000N of downforce - making the car near undriveable.

[Conceptual]

There are some serious misconceptions going on in this thread.

Namely, the front-wing is less susceptible to loss of efficiency when following a car than the rest of the car. Anecdotal evidence from the drivers would suggest this is happening but the OWG's wind-tunnel results tell a different story. It was realised that:

At the front of the car the front wing was found to be contributing a similar downforce component to that of the diffuser (roughly 37%. But, being less sensitive to wake than the rear end made it contribute more in wake. This is counterintuitive as we often hear of drivers suffering understeer when following another car. This is probably the net loss in downforce they are feeling, rather than specifically frontal downforce.

This shows that it's the rear of the car that is the problem, not the front. Removing the front-wing would also create incredible imbalances in the loading on the car as the front would be subjected to 0N downforce (or even negative downforce...aka lift) whilst the rear would have over 20000N of downforce - making the car near undriveable.

I dunno. I think if the A arms became solid wings, the splitter could be channeled to produce an incredible amount of cantilevered downforce.

I think it would look better than these wings, and I would maybe allow a front facing cover appendage to the brake ducting to act like a front fender with 35% coverage of the front tyre.

But whatever, it will never happen now. This is like the end of the cold war. All of the passion to be the best is gone in the face of financial crisis, but it is all BS. There will ALWAYS be a market for the BEST. Maybe Bernie and Max should keep that in mind as the endlessly screw with F1, because any series that is NOT the best is very subject to termination by irrelevancy.

The best NEVER has to worry about that bullet.

[Pingguest]

Perhaps because that's a stupid idea?

I don't think that needs an explanation.

Well, I'd like to read your explanation.

[PNSD]

To answer the original question, not sure if it has or not yet been answered. But I believe what is in question is the horizontal plate which runs from end to end on the BMW, across the length.

Then, if the wing tip has an upper flat plate, a high pressure area can be
created on it thanks to the viscous effect due to the rotating wheel if the
horizontal surface carrying the load is sufficiently close to the tyre surface.
Some horizontal surfaces may be designed as close as possible to the tyre
surface (taking account of the fact the wheels have to rotate to permit the car
turning) to create high pressure on their upper surface thanks to the rotating wheels.

An upper flat plate has been added to take advantage of the induced flow from
the rotating wheel.

- From Model 1.

To quote the cranfield thesis on front wing design

So in effect my understanding is that the horizontal plate actually creates downforce. Think of it like because of the wheel's rotation it is causing a high pressure zone on the top surface and naturally a lower pressure on the underside... At least this is my understanding, whether or not it is correct or not I dont know.

[xpensive]

For Scotracer;
One of the ideas with outlawing the front wing altogether, would be to render also the rear wing useless for reasons of balance, which would make the entire car very insensitive to the "wake" from the car in front.

Level of downforce then decided by FIA based on ground-effect rules only (standard floors, sliding shirts or whatever), which to the best of my understanding is not so sensitive to turbulence or wake.

The theory seems to work reasonably at Indianapolis anyway.

[roost89]

I have a question regarding the front wing. Will the team put more angle on the wing if the car's understeering? or will they just use the moveable wing to do that?

Would the wing effectively be reset after a cycle of adding angle and then taking it off, if it were behind a car?

[Conceptual]

I have a question regarding the front wing. Will the team put more angle on the wing if the car's understeering? or will they just use the moveable wing to do that?

Would the wing effectively be reset after a cycle of adding angle and then taking it off, if it were behind a car?

I think the real blind spot is something else...

If these movable wings are indeed electric, and calibrate upon being installed onto the car, if a driver changes a nose in the pits, does the initial calibration movement count towards his 2 moves per lap?

[panchito401]

Sorry, I was going to start new thread and comment this picture, but I figured I would post it here.



So, this it for the BMW? I sure hope not. Jeez... I don't even think they rounded any of the edges.

PS> Does anyone know of any good free english tutorials for CATIA?

-f

[jwielage]

I have read somewhere that the re-introduction of underbody-venturis were discussed as an option in Charlie Whiting's Technical Working Group, but rejected.

Can anyone explain what an underbody-venturi would look like, and what role it performs?

Also, what if anything does Renault's design suggest about the end plate debate ? The reason I ask is that this solution is so wildly different from the others.

Thanks in advance.

[RJC_pt]

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/diffuser.htm

[jwielage]

Thanks for the picture!

So how would a design like this funadmentaly differ from the difusers currently allowed in F1 ?