Get the leading edge closer to the road and you are going to get positive feedback, for sure. Don't think the deflection tests would pick up that sort of flexibility, either, if you placed your weights at the centre or rotation. It was a good spot by Mchamilton in the comparison thread.marekk wrote:RB7: this year pivoting wing ?
I think the outside will be more, but if you can increase the inside grip and bring it closer to the outside it will help a lot.shelly wrote:@raymondu: I think that the effect of downforce projection along radial direction of the corner is negligible.
I wanted to ask everybody, but especially those who have some knowledge of vehicle dynamics: is it preferrable to have more aerodynamic load on the external or on the internal wheels, during a corner? and why?
Raptor22 wrote:yeah but how much flexiwing?volarchico wrote:And then throw in a bit of flexy-wing and that's the full story!Raptor22 wrote:We're seeing the effect of a car not running rear springs. The rear suspension is much more supple than the fronts so the cars tend to roll on their rear axles, cocking the inside front wheel and the inside front wing span.
Its hard to tell the wing is actually flexing from those pics since we don;t know the speed and how much force is on them at that speed.
Sort of, except the connection of the downforce is through both nose wing mounts and adds downforce to both front wheels....IMHO...bot6 wrote:Basically, the front wing creates downforce more like a diffuser than an airplane wing.
There is two main components in the downforce. The first one is the simple conservation of momentum. The shape of the wing pushes the air up. Action-Reaction: the air pushes the wing down -> downforce. This bit, though is mostly limited by the dimensions of the wing, which are set in the rules. So it's pretty much the same for all of the cars. Hard to gain an advantage here.
The second one is something analog to the Venturi effect. The shape of the underside of the wing works like the rear diffuser. A certain amount of air "has" to exit the back of the underside of the wing to catch up with the surrounding flow of air. But this air has to come from somewhere: under the wing.
So basically, we assume that along the length of the wing, the same volume of air per second has to flow.
Since the wing is lower at the front than at the back, it has much less space to flow. In order to maintain the debit of air under the wing, the flow has to go quicker. Hence, where the wing is lower, the flow goes quicker. And that extra speed causes a loss of pressure known as the Bernoulli effect.
Normal pressure over the wing and less pressure under the wing = downforce!
Now imagine that the wing is lowered. That is even less space for the air to travel under the front of the wing -> more speed of air under the front of the wing -> more loss of pressure -> more downforce.
So if the wing bends and therefore is lower, it creates more downforce.
Now if this happens globally, it can also happen locally.
In a bend, if the wing bends more on the outside of the turn, it will be lower on the outside, and create more downforce there, hence creating more force on the front outside tyre, and therefore more grip on that tyre, leading to a better turn in and higher cornering speed.
Actually, if you put some effort on the outside of the wing, that effort will be mostly transmitted to the outside tyre, and the ground will give you a reaction, again on the outside tyre (to cancel out the roll movement caused by the first effort on the outside of the wing).speedsense wrote: Sort of, except the connection of the downforce is through both nose wing mounts and adds downforce to both front wheels....IMHO...
