Just_a_fan wrote: ↑09 Apr 2019, 18:04
Why do they call Gurney flaps "wickers"?
I read a book saying the English (not that I'd heard the term before reading the book) steadfastly call them 'Nolders'. It's only a Gurney flap because of Dan Gurney, I find it more interesting that that name has spread beyond motorsport.
Just_a_fan wrote: ↑09 Apr 2019, 18:04
Also, interesting that they are required to run the rear wing nose up. So effectively making little / no downforce. Are they just wanting to make the teams run a bit of drag at the rear to help with stability?
Nose up doesn't necessarily mean no downforce, the 0 lift condition will be at a fairly substantial nose up incidence. The small camber and blended tip should mean little drag so it's a comparatively high efficiency wing. It's only job is to balance the front wing - for an aerobalance of ~30-35% front.
Actual numbers 33 to 232 lb from min to max angle. Normally Americans quote pounds at 200mi/hr which gives CzS = -0.216 to -1.474m^2, based on that zero lift is at around 9.7deg nose up.
EDIT: Thinking about it the numbers above seemed wrong I'd expect the rear wing to be a quarter of the car's downforce in road configuration - which is only around CzS = -1.25 to -1.38m^2 (car total is ~5 to -5.5m^2). The measurements are pound-force which gives a CzS = -0.0303 to -0.213m^2, which is much more reasonable. The zero lift point is still -9.7deg. Also why do Americans use such stupid units when the entirety of the world uses S.I.???!?