- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
With the new regulations in store, front wing design freedom will be very restricted. Indeed, we will see the front wings moving towards pseudo-spec standard (with the exception of the Y250 region). This article will be one last toast to the outgoing front wings as well as a in depth breakdown of the new front wing regulations
I may be wrong but I think the reduction in height of the bargeboards was to improve the legibility of sponsors artwork in that area. In the past Sponsorship was also the driving force behind the engine cover shape and rear wing end plate plainness.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑18 Jan 2019, 17:26The bargeboards and the attached items were always the principle floor sealing devices anyway. The front wing just helped by moving tyre wake away from the edge of the floor which made the bargeboards' job easier. The bargeboards are going to have to do more lateral work to move the tyre wake - which is, I'm sure, why the rules have reduced the height of the bargeboards. Reducing the height reduces the amount of air they can move laterally. Moving them forwards helps a little to offset the loss which is why it's odd that they have done that.
The bargeboard height was actually reduced at the behest of team principals to improve the sponsorship visibility on the side of the chassis. It's the same reason the engine covers and rear wing endplates are such massive sails and that front and rear wings will never disappear from F1 - even if it were proved they were the reason for the terrible wheel-to-wheel action. (EDIT: ^^ Got there before meJust_a_fan wrote: ↑18 Jan 2019, 17:26The bargeboards and the attached items were always the principle floor sealing devices anyway. The front wing just helped by moving tyre wake away from the edge of the floor which made the bargeboards' job easier. The bargeboards are going to have to do more lateral work to move the tyre wake - which is, I'm sure, why the rules have reduced the height of the bargeboards. Reducing the height reduces the amount of air they can move laterally. Moving them forwards helps a little to offset the loss which is why it's odd that they have done that.
)The bargeboards (and the nose turning vanes etc) do create vortices which are directed around the leading edge of the floor/sidepod undercut, and enhanced by devices in that same area it seems to me. Whilst that helps generally move air outboard, I think the interaction of the vortices and the floor slots help to reduce flow migration around the floor's edge aka "sealing the floor". The Y250 vortex will play a part in this too, no doubt.jjn9128 wrote: ↑18 Jan 2019, 18:49I wouldn't say the bargeboards 'seal' the floor as such, they induce outwash to push the front tyre wake outboard and downwash to increase the effective angle of the floor (bigger peak pressures at the front edge). The underfloor sealing as it were is more from the sidepod undercut and floor scrolls (obviously everything is interconnected and the outwash from the bargeboards helps both reduce pressure under the floor and increase outwash in the undercut), which are designed to prevent flow being sucked back under the floor (it's not sealing in the sense of a side skirt).
Why not just make the bargeboard vortices stronger by creating as much downforce as possible with them, use the T-tray extension to induce helicity and preserve the vortex coming off the underside of bargeboard, and then use the strakes on the raised leading edge of the floor to channel that low pressure air to the back of the car as shown in this CFD image. Then you'd have a low pressure section starting from behind the neutral section, guided by the nose and Y250 vortex which is resistant to the turbulent air coming off the front tires and suspension arms. I wonder if double decker barge boards are allowed by the regulations.McMrocks wrote: ↑19 Jan 2019, 11:08Somewhere in this forum was a fancy picture of a CFD analysis of a 2007 Renault which showed strong vortices forming at the bottom of the barge boards. Now that barge boards became wider it could be that those vortices are far enough from the centre line to actually help sealing the floor.
Edit: here it is
http://oi58.tinypic.com/10nexhl.jpg
If you can move these vortices to the edge of the floor they could help a lot in sealing the floor
don't think it runs that waypantherxxx wrote: ↑20 Jan 2019, 01:21Ferrari will have a very good chance to find and exploit a loophole. Because the close cooperation with Alfa Romeo Sauber and Haas. They have triple of the manpower working on the loopholes, because I'm sure they will share any technical information, especially with Simon Resta at Sauber.
You're quite right, collusion between teams is forbidden - how this works when teams can purchase the non-listed parts from competitors becomes a little muddy though. When teams buy a gearbox the mounts for suspension are included - which in turn defines the geometry, wheelbase, etc.Capharol wrote: ↑20 Jan 2019, 02:26don't think it runs that waypantherxxx wrote: ↑20 Jan 2019, 01:21Ferrari will have a very good chance to find and exploit a loophole. Because the close cooperation with Alfa Romeo Sauber and Haas. They have triple of the manpower working on the loopholes, because I'm sure they will share any technical information, especially with Simon Resta at Sauber.
1. Ferrari has way better manpower in Marinello
2. Ferrari has a way bigger budget
3. Sauber only buys the engines, they are not an official junior driver team of Ferrari, so i guess it is still all for themselves.
with point 3 i am not really sure but i guess these counts surely for Haas
You don't really want a massive vortex going under the floor - it works to a point but it increases boundary layer thickness which along with the total pressure loss in the core reduces diffuser performance.godlameroso wrote: ↑19 Jan 2019, 23:10Why not just make the bargeboard vortices stronger by creating as much downforce as possible with them, use the T-tray extension to induce helicity and preserve the vortex coming off the underside of bargeboard, and then use the strakes on the raised leading edge of the floor to channel that low pressure air to the back of the car as shown in this CFD image. Then you'd have a low pressure section starting from behind the neutral section, guided by the nose and Y250 vortex which is resistant to the turbulent air coming off the front tires and suspension arms. I wonder if double decker barge boards are allowed by the regulations.
Defines the rear suspension geometry, but the front can still be different since sauber makes their own chassis. Therefore, wheelbase can be differentjjn9128 wrote: ↑20 Jan 2019, 14:14
You're quite right, collusion between teams is forbidden - how this works when teams can purchase the non-listed parts from competitors becomes a little muddy though. When teams buy a gearbox the mounts for suspension are included - which in turn defines the geometry, wheelbase, etc.
Drifting off topic but AFAIK Sauber don't use the non-listed Ferrari parts, they certainly did not in 2018. Haas do... and coincidentally have the same wheelbase as Ferrari. Force India might be a better example - as they use some Mercedes non-listed parts (to a lesser extent than Haas) and have a completely different philosophy on wheelbase and rake.cramr wrote: ↑23 Jan 2019, 09:09Defines the rear suspension geometry, but the front can still be different since sauber makes their own chassis. Therefore, wheelbase can be differentjjn9128 wrote: ↑20 Jan 2019, 14:14
You're quite right, collusion between teams is forbidden - how this works when teams can purchase the non-listed parts from competitors becomes a little muddy though. When teams buy a gearbox the mounts for suspension are included - which in turn defines the geometry, wheelbase, etc.