McLaren MP4/20 and those strange airbox horns

[bernard]

bernard wrote: It's hard for a vertical wing to produce downforce.

I thougt it's clear that I mean the horizontal element bernard.

Yes, it is, but that doesn't look like a downforce element either. Firstly I think it wouldn't be bent upwards (like this / ) and most importantly it's not an aerofoil.

It's not so hard as you think. Downforce does not only depend on the angle of attac of the wing.
It also depends on the wing profile. And I know some airplaine profiles wich produce lift (in this case downforce) at zero angle of attac.
They even produce lift at a negative angle.
For example the Clark Y-profile. It produces lift at an angle of -4°!

But I wasn't talking about the angle of attack, I was talking about the wing's direction being horizontal (like this | ) Pretty hard for it to produce downforce in that position.
Though I agree that It might be a downforce creating element in that it aids the rearwing, thus increasing the downforce. But not a downforce creating wing on it's own.
[/quote]

[ZE.FT]

It's not so hard as you think. Downforce does not only depend on the angle of attac of the wing.
It also depends on the wing profile. And I know some airplaine profiles wich produce lift (in this case downforce) at zero angle of attac.
They even produce lift at a negative angle.
For example the Clark Y-profile. It produces lift at an angle of -4°!

But I wasn't talking about the angle of attack, I was talking about the wing's direction being horizontal (like this | ) Pretty hard for it to produce downforce in that position.
Though I agree that It might be a downforce creating element in that it aids the rearwing, thus increasing the downforce. But not a downforce creating wing on it's own.
[/quote][/quote]

I'm qouting bernards post as everything is there well together.

I was talking about the angle of attack but I also have noticed that these
horizontal foils of the Y seem to me to are very thin...so no thick profile
therefore no downforce.

Here I am with bernard where I think it is a helping element for the rear wing to increase rear wings downforce.
But bernard somehow I did not get this one:"....direction being horizontal (like this I)" ??

Did you mean horizontal (like this ---) ?
Or vertical (like this I) ?

[dumrick]

From what I recall, there wasn't, till now, a conclusion about how the horizontal simple thin winglets (e.g. as seen in Ferrari and BAR last year) influence the rear wing.

Without being sure of the concrete influence and how they do it it's, from my point of view, too much speculation trying to understand this year's McLaren's design development on that part.

[kilcoo316]

Now, if the vertical section were to be producing "lift" towards the car's centreline, the trailing wingtip vortex from the two vertical parts would produce a downwash over the centre section of the rear wing, effectively increasing (decreasing in aeroplane terms) its angle of attack, and resulting in more downforce. Incidentally, the upwash at the "outside" may reduce downforce at the rear wing ends - however, since this is not an efficient region to generate downforce it may not matter so much.

no takers for this theory?

[ZE.FT]

That opinions do not stay as speculations:
Its not good to keep your position without investigating further.

Therefore I have posted a question to the Renault Team yesterday,
asking what the winglets on top of the airbox (Ferrari,B.A.R.,Minardi etc)
do?(Renault has now one short one but at the end of last season they ran with two longer winglets there, totaling to 4 pieces..)
Creating downforce or helping to straigten turbulent air from the cockpit area to increase back wing performance?

When I receive a reply, be assured that I will post it here.

[Guest]

be assured you will not receive a reply

[ZE.FT]

be assured you will not receive a reply

Did this happen to you at Renault Team?

I have positive experiences with B.A.R., Sauber-Petronas and Williams.
Lets wait and see.

[Guest]

I asked Renault F1 if there was any internship available and they gave me a polite response, of all the steps to take and what apprenticeships/guilds to join, so I guess asking them that type of question won't warrant a "--- off" reply

West

P.S. I'm not the previous guest.

[Reca]

As a start I think that the dihedral, the, small, sweep, and the limited span (apparently less than the 50 cm allowed by rules), have more to do with refuelling than with aerodynamics.
Other than that I like kilcoo theory, especially while applied to the car in yaw. Still I’ve a few doubts about it and that’s why, overall, I’m with dumrick. I’m arrogant enough to pretend that in the few years I studied aero at Uni + years at work I’ve learned something about it, but honestly I don’t think I’m in a position to tell for sure what that device does and what kind of influence, if any, it has on other parts of the car. I’ve a few suspects but for each one I’ve one or more counterarguments so, without an even simple study, it’s difficult to tell what they want to achieve and what air actually does (often two very different things...).
And honestly, judging from some of the comments I read on this thread, with all the due respect, I see that some people here have a very strange understanding of aero.

As for the winglets on the airbox I can add this pic, not big help still better than nothing :
http://www.fluent.com/about/news/newsle ... /a12i1.jpg

[DaveKillens]

Of course Reca, I am not trained, and have just a layman's understanding of aero. Not all in this forum are trained in such a discipline.
For myself, I'm just in this forum to exchange ideas, listen to others, exchange opinions, and just gab about F1.
I bow to the experts, and I'm not in here to prove anyone wrong.

I thought a forum was to exchange ideas, and to learn.

[Guest]

And honestly, judging from some of the comments I read on this thread, with all the due respect, I see that some people here have a very strange understanding of aero.

Wich comments do you mean by this?

[Reca]

Of course Reca, I am not trained, and have just a layman's understanding of aero. Not all in this forum are trained in such a discipline.
For myself, I'm just in this forum to exchange ideas, listen to others, exchange opinions, and just gab about F1.
I bow to the experts, and I'm not in here to prove anyone wrong.

I thought a forum was to exchange ideas, and to learn.

First of all I’m sorry for the delay in my answer, your post deserved a rapid response but unfortunately last week, as you can imagine, was a very particular one and I had almost no spare time.
As for you remark, please don’t get me wrong, I’m here to discuss and learn too. What I’m saying is that without having the possibility to look at the device very closely it’s difficult to form a very precise idea, from pics, and given the McLaren paint work you can be easily mistaken.
I’m not here to prove people are wrong, but I try to correct people when I know they are because I believe that in a technical forum the right explanations are more appreciated than imprecise guesses based on physically meaningless concepts or some strange myths heard somewhere. And for the same reason I hope people will correct me in case I am wrong, something that, as I already pointed out elsewhere, is certainly not impossible.

Wich comments do you mean by this?

Comments like “it doesn’t look like a downforce element” or “a device to be called wing needs camber plus endplates on both sides” and similar. I also don’t understand the comments about the “flow conditioner wings”, they modify flow direction but they don’t generate downforce by themselves... how is that possible ?

[DaveKillens]

It's real simple, I don't post, Reca doesnt slam me.

[Guest]

<<Reca wrote:

I also don’t understand the comments about the “flow conditioner wings”, they modify flow direction but they don’t generate downforce by themselves... how is that possible ?>>

Well, I guess I am one of those who thought that that the "flow conditioner wings" direct the airflow towards the main downforce generating element, the rear wing and don't necessarily generate downforce on its own. They are somewhat like turning vanes that guide the airflow.

An example that may at least be discernible if not entirely clear is the shelf wing on the williams. Not only does it not appear to be shaped to generate downforce, it even appears to have a slight upward pitch to it that matches the downward slope of the descending line on the airbox cover. Considered on its own it might even produce some lift.

http://www.f1racing.net/en/photolarge.p ... 7&catID=11

http://www.f1racing.net/en/photolarge.p ... 2&catID=11

http://www.f1racing.net/en/photolarge.p ... 8&catID=11

[walter]

youre wrong, those wings have no incline, they dont produce downforce nor lift, look closely at the first picture you linked.