Most pec...bizarre aerodynamics thread.

[krisfx]

Why was it that they thought in the 60s that the wings must be 10 meters up in the air to be good and work ? Somehow it feels like they lacked rational thinkin back then, i mean air is air wheter its 10meters above the car or 10cm above it...

Because in the 60's not everyone was an armchair aerodynamicist? It's not as though they could stick google on and just search for a good design, it was the early years of aero...

[SectorOne]

In 30 years people will look at the RB9 the same way we look at certain aero solutions that was created 30 years ago.
They will probably laugh at the fact we ran with static wings on the cars whereas they have some super advanced material that changes itself on the fly.

[Holm86]

In 30 years people will look at the RB9 the same way we look at certain aero solutions that was created 30 years ago.
They will probably laugh at the fact we ran with static wings on the cars whereas they have some super advanced material that changes itself on the fly.

Have you heard of the FIA?? But then again in 30 years most of the members will have been changed due to the course of nature. Perhaps some more innovative people will have taken over at that time.

[timbo]

Wings do work better on clean air flow, they just are in the positions they have now because rules say so. Where designers given the choice wings would still me mounted on meter long poles.

Don't think so, interaction with surface may dramatically enhance wing efficiency. Wing is much more effective in ground effect. However this effect (while known) was not studied well back then.

[Holm86]

Wings do work better on clean air flow, they just are in the positions they have now because rules say so. Where designers given the choice wings would still me mounted on meter long poles.

Don't think so, interaction with surface may dramatically enhance wing efficiency. Wing is much more effective in ground effect. However this effect (while known) was not studied well back then.

You can only use this on the front wing. And what does that help when most of the DF is removed when driving in the wake of another car?

[RicerDude]

Renaults 2010 triple deck diffuser. Aerodynamics doesn't get more pornographic than this...

[timbo]

You can only use this on the front wing.

Not quite, look up LMP cars with front and rear diffusers. If the pitch sensitivity is deal I believe it's still best to have a wing car with profile similar to the Arrows A2 presented in this thread. It would be interesting to know its L/D figures.

And what does that help when most of the DF is removed when driving in the wake of another car?

I don't think car behavior in the wake was ever seriously looked at by designers.
It was considered by rulemakers in the OWG and also during CanAm yers for safety reasons. But not by actual teams.

[Holm86]

You can only use this on the front wing.

Not quite, look up LMP cars with front and rear diffusers. If the pitch sensitivity is deal I believe it's still best to have a wing car with profile similar to the Arrows A2 presented in this thread. It would be interesting to know its L/D figures.

And what does that help when most of the DF is removed when driving in the wake of another car?

I don't think car behavior in the wake was ever seriously looked at by designers.
It was considered by rulemakers in the OWG and also during CanAm yers for safety reasons. But not by actual teams.

You were talking about wings. Not diffusers. There is a difference.

[Huntresa]

Why was it that they thought in the 60s that the wings must be 10 meters up in the air to be good and work ? Somehow it feels like they lacked rational thinkin back then, i mean air is air wheter its 10meters above the car or 10cm above it...

Because in the 60's not everyone was an armchair aerodynamicist? It's not as though they could stick google on and just search for a good design, it was the early years of aero...

But wasnt everyone an armchair aerodynamicist in the 60s in this sport since we didnt have any aero pre this in the sport ? And i know they didnt care back then or rather didnt think about certain stuff the way we think about them, in terms of death etc but even back then someone must have thought this looked strange and dangerous, i mean to me it feels weird that they started with this design compared to trying a maybe not safer but atleast saner looking design, cause what these design lack is sane.

[rjsa]

Wings do work better on clean air flow, they just are in the positions they have now because rules say so. Where designers given the choice wings would still me mounted on meter long poles.

Don't think so, interaction with surface may dramatically enhance wing efficiency. Wing is much more effective in ground effect. However this effect (while known) was not studied well back then.

This could be valid for the front wing, I agree with you. But the front wing being close to the ground brings other problems, like excessive sensibility to pitch, which is the reason for the rule mandated high front wings in the early 2000s.

For the back you already have the diffuser doing that part. One could also argue the coupling effect of the rear wing and diffuser in the back benefit from a lower wing.

But none of these will negate the fact that a given wing in clean air will perform better.

[timbo]

You were talking about wings. Not diffusers. There is a difference.

Well, the car with full body profile (not a flat floor) is a wing profile itself.

This could be valid for the front wing, I agree with you. But the front wing being close to the ground brings other problems, like excessive sensibility to pitch, which is the reason for the rule mandated high front wings in the early 2000s.

For the back you already have the diffuser doing that part. One could also argue the coupling effect of the rear wing and diffuser in the back benefit from a lower wing.

Since we were talking 60s I meant cars with the whole body profile.

But none of these will negate the fact that a given wing in clean air will perform better.

Well, in ground effect wing performs better than in free stream (that's why ekranoplans were invented). If talking about mounting wing somewhere closer to cars body where it operates in dirty stream and without ground effect and lifting it, yeah, lifting it would improve wing's efficiency.

Of course, all of that doesn't change that designers operated to the best of their knowledge and were very limited in their tools.

[xpensive]

Hmmm...I feel this threat has lost its thread, the purpose of the high wings was obviously to get clean air;





Without a height-limit, I'm certain we would have them that way even today.

[rjsa]

Well, in ground effect wing performs better than in free stream (that's why ekranoplans were invented). If talking about mounting wing somewhere closer to cars body where it operates in dirty stream and without ground effect and lifting it, yeah, lifting it would improve wing's efficiency.

Of course, all of that doesn't change that designers operated to the best of their knowledge and were very limited in their tools.

We are talking two completelly different things here.

Ekranoplans have a reduction in induced drag while still producing lift, so keeping a high pressure area under the wing. Ground effect in this case relates to the ground reducing the formation of wingtip vortices.

A F1 car in ground effect as we discuss around here is creating a ventury and a low pressure area under the wing. I don't know if a slightly highier mounted downforce producing wing would benefit from the vortex supression ground effect. The reverse nature of the vortex could as well reduce the wing efficiente and increase drag.

[timbo]

I don't know if a slightly highier mounted downforce producing wing would benefit from the vortex supression ground effect. The reverse nature of the vortex could as well reduce the wing efficiente and increase drag.

If that was the case nobody would want to get wing as close to the ground as possible. Also, full bodied ground effect cars had much better L/D figures than cars which relied on wings.

[rjsa]

I don't know if a slightly highier mounted downforce producing wing would benefit from the vortex supression ground effect. The reverse nature of the vortex could as well reduce the wing efficiente and increase drag.

If that was the case nobody would want to get wing as close to the ground as possible. Also, full bodied ground effect cars had much better L/D figures than cars which relied on wings.

But that's really close to the ground, where they stop working as wings and start working as venturis. It's antoher ball game, another theory.

And racing car wings have endplates (or mini skirts), which by themsleves already interfere with the wigntip vortices.