Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

[bhall II]

Not on the fly, and that´s exactly the intention.

That's neither true nor relevant. (The position of the wheels behind the wing has a far greater impact on efficiency than anything that ever happens in front of the wing, which effectively means efficiency is continually modulated by changes to steering angle.)

There's no reason for a standard wing to be equipped with active components, because elements that will never be developed to the Nth degree can be designed with ample proportions and simple geometries that are naturally more resistant to the effects of wake turbulence...

[Andres125sx]

Not on the fly, and that´s exactly the intention.

That's neither true nor relevant.

What?

It is true, you cannot change DF on the fly with traditional wings, at least that´s what you´ve been stating from the beginning. And you can with a fan as it is as simple as changing fan speed or blades pitch. Also, is relevant as that´s the problem about dirty air, drop in DF, so not sure what do you mean with this, it is true and relevant.

(The position of the wheels behind the wing has a far greater impact on efficiency than anything that ever happens in front of the wing, which effectively means efficiency is continually modulated by changes to steering angle.)

Now that is irrelevant, at least if you don´t know how to get rid of front wheels to solve that problem....

Front wheels are a constant we cannot change, so they´re irrelevant for the discussion, they will be there no matter what we do (propose) for the FW

There's no reason for a standard wing to be equipped with active components, because elements that will never be developed to the Nth degree can be designed with ample proportions and simple geometries that are naturally more resistant to the effects of wake turbulence...

http://i.imgur.com/7lrsC8R.jpg

Did I miss something or now you´re proposing a standarized front wing?

Also, this is not first time you state that sort of wing is more resistant to wake turbulence. How is that posible if a fan car can be slippery with very low drag coeficient when a wing NEED to be draggy to create same DF?

Airfoils make no magic, they can create a lot of DF/lift with a lot of drag, or minimize both, but you cannot create a lot of DF with very little drag. If you can patent it and you´ll be millionaire in no time.

But with a fan car you can, look at the drawing you posted on previous page, no need for any high cambered wing wich in reality is very similar to an airbrake (lots of drag), so if drag is reduced because you don´t need high cambered wings, dirty air is reduced, and the problem is reduced.

That´s posible with a fan, but not with a traditional wing, so please explain to me how that wing can be more resistant to dirty air than a fan when:

1- Any high cambered wing causes a lot more dirty air than a fan wich can be installed on a slippery (low drag) car
2- Any wing is more sensible to dirty air than a fan

So a fan is a less sensible device to dirty air than a wing, and it also reduces dirty air, two reasons in favour of a fan when compared to a wing, so please elaborate what you mean when stating a simple and giant wing is less sensible to dirty air. If you´re only comparing with current wings I´d agree, but not if you compare it with a fan.

[bhall II]

1. You can do your own research into the upstream effects of downstream events. When you do, you'll discover that front wing downforce changes concurrent with steering angle, as blockages that strongly impact efficiency are modulated by steering angle changes, seen in the crosswind simulation below as "released" flows from the end plates that move around the wheels roughly the same way they would if a steering angle change had reoriented the wheels...



2. I'm not proposing a standard front wing. I still think this whole matter should be regarded as the inevitable consequence of racing on Earth, which isn't likely to change anytime soon. But, if I thought the matter deserved attention, I'd suggest standard front wings, because fan concepts don't offer a tangible benefit that justifies the added weight and complexity.

Due to the aforementioned interaction with the wheels, which would be exceptionally easy to optimize with spec components, the front wing isn't an especially egregious contributor of induced drag. Because the wing has no impact on frontal area, it doesn't contribute to form drag. Plus, a standard front wing can be used to greatly minimize the many types of drag associated with exposed, spinning wheels...



Now that I think about it, maybe I am proposing a standard front wing!

Incidentally, you know you've said far too much about a given subject when it's not uncommon for Google image searches to yield an appreciably significant percentage of results that you yourself previously created/posted in reference to that subject. For most aero topics, a Google search is like my very own personal image host.

[rjsa]

Due to the aforementioned interaction with the wheels, which would be exceptionally easy to optimize with spec components, the front wing isn't an especially egregious contributor of induced drag. Because the wing has no impact on frontal area, it doesn't contribute to form drag. Plus, a standard front wing can be used to greatly minimize the many types of drag associated with exposed, spinning wheels...

.

=D>

[miqi23]

Due to the aforementioned interaction with the wheels, which would be exceptionally easy to optimize with spec components, the front wing isn't an especially egregious contributor of induced drag. Because the wing has no impact on frontal area, it doesn't contribute to form drag. Plus, a standard front wing can be used to greatly minimize the many types of drag associated with exposed, spinning wheels...

.

=D>

[bhall II]

Am I missing something?

[rjsa]

Am I missing something?

It's not even wrong. You obviously don't have a clue.

[bhall II]

Run a car without a front wing. Is parasitic drag increased, decreased, or unchanged?

It's increased, because instead of flowing over the relatively streamlined front wing, from which it would have been directed toward beneficial areas downstream and away from areas that might increase interference drag, it catches more of the decidedly un-streamlined front wheels and is allowed to flow unimpeded into areas around the sidepods that are often no more streamlined than a brick.



I've clues to spare, ese.

[rjsa]

Whatever you paste on your scrapbooks dude, it's nonsense.

[bhall II]

If that's your view, why don't you try actually contributing something to the discussion? I can't learn a damn thing from dismissive commentary that offers zero substance.

[rjsa]

[bhall II]

Now tell me how anything I've said contradicts that.

[miqi23]

If that's your view, why don't you try actually contributing something to the discussion? I can't learn a damn thing from dismissive commentary that offers zero substance.

The problem is that you have been shooting in the dark left right and centre. You are way too opinionated - I can smell arrogance. Notch it down a bit, honestly, its embarrassing.

[turbof1]

If that's your view, why don't you try actually contributing something to the discussion? I can't learn a damn thing from dismissive commentary that offers zero substance.

The problem is that you have been shooting in the dark left right and centre. You are way too opinionated - I can smell arrogance. Notch it down a bit, honestly, its embarrassing.

If that's your view, why don't you try actually contributing something to the discussion? I can't learn a damn thing from dismissive commentary that offers zero substance.

It's embarrassing when somebody asks for a good explanation that has substance, only to get answered by something with zero substance.

You smell arrogance? It's dropping like fat from your sentence right there. Either put something contributive to the table where you actually proof he is wrong, or stop acting you know a bit or 2 and stop pretending you have anything contributive to this topic. Either way, you are going to stop offending right now.

[bhall II]

This is just too rich. The guy who derisively compared this discussion to a "high school debate club" has himself offered nothing more than sophomoric jabs, and the guy who casually dismissed the work of technical directors collectively responsible for no fewer than 23 F1 World Championships says I'm arrogant.