Italian GP 2010 - Monza

[wesley123]

As said the F-Duct wont simply work, to even stall the rear wing you need to blow it very weird, wich in that case adds drag. overall you create some sort of 'handford' device wich was used in Indycars mid nineties. This thing is only benificial for the car running in its wake, which was the goal of this handford device.

[FW17]

A tonne of time can be gained at the two lesmos and parabolica, best to run more aero with f-duct

[wesley123]

A tonne of time can be gained at the two lesmos and parabolica, best to run more aero with f-duct

ow please, read for once.

To make the f-duct effective you have to run at much higher angles, and those angles are way too high for monza, so with the F-Duct and the wing set up for this f-duct you will have less top speed then a standard monza wing. on monza you are running your wing with an AoA of 8 degrees max, an f-Duct adding to that wont actually help in staaling as;
1. The wing is already flat, and stalling causes the flow under the wing to become more flat
2. blowing it under the current angle would just attach its flow to the wing, thus increasing drag
3. To even stall the Monza wing you have to run this under weird angles, creating an Handford device, in turn increasing drag and only reducing downforce/optimizing wake.

Sure, doing that will gain you time on lesmos, but you will lose it x4 minimal on the straights as you just lose alot of top speed.

There are 2 corners where downforce matters, Parabolica and Curva Grande(the one after the first chicane), the others dont require any downforce as the speeds are too low for that. So even if you gian time by adding downforce for those 2 turns(wich i doubt as you lose speed through curva grande), you will just lose it by an huge amount. So please tell me, why would an f-duct be usefull?

[raceman]

With F-duct or without F-duct, Monza is a high-speed thriller of the year! =D>

[FW17]

A tonne of time can be gained at the two lesmos and parabolica, best to run more aero with f-duct

ow please, read for once.

To make the f-duct effective you have to run at much higher angles, and those angles are way too high for monza, so with the F-Duct and the wing set up for this f-duct you will have less top speed then a standard monza wing. on monza you are running your wing with an AoA of 8 degrees max, an f-Duct adding to that wont actually help in staaling as;
1. The wing is already flat, and stalling causes the flow under the wing to become more flat
2. blowing it under the current angle would just attach its flow to the wing, thus increasing drag
3. To even stall the Monza wing you have to run this under weird angles, creating an Handford device, in turn increasing drag and only reducing downforce/optimizing wake.

Sure, doing that will gain you time on lesmos, but you will lose it x4 minimal on the straights as you just lose alot of top speed.

There are 2 corners where downforce matters, Parabolica and Curva Grande(the one after the first chicane), the others dont require any downforce as the speeds are too low for that. So even if you gian time by adding downforce for those 2 turns(wich i doubt as you lose speed through curva grande), you will just lose it by an huge amount. So please tell me, why would an f-duct be usefull?

=D> =D> Glad you read a lot and for your sake i am hoping the none of the teams run an f-duct

Curva Grande is not much of a challange for the cars ever since Variante del Rettifilo was introduced. The 2 lesmos are where drivers will loose the maximum time.

[Gaara]

what's the name of this driver?
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1408/41capture.png

[spinmastermic]

what's the name of this driver?
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1408/41capture.png

Stirling Moss

[marcush.]

ahh Monza is just the track..the atmosphere is just amazing ..

[Phail]

Hardly a McLaren hunting ground....

1999: Hakkinen, spins & stalls his car
2000: Beaten by Michael, nuff' said
2001: Montoya show
2002: Raikkonen, pyrotechnics display
2003: Michelin tyre farce (Ferrari who else?)
2004: Raikkonen, water leak

Only in recent years have McLaren really have anything to show for in Monza, I predict a Red Bull win...

[Poleman]

Hardly a McLaren hunting ground....

1999: Hakkinen, spins & stalls his car
2000: Beaten by Michael, nuff' said
2001: Montoya show
2002: Raikkonen, pyrotechnics display
2003: Michelin tyre farce (Ferrari who else?)
2004: Raikkonen, water leak

Only in recent years have McLaren really have anything to show for in Monza, I predict a Red Bull win...

These are wrong examples from the past which they are not related with the 2010 car's dynamic performance which is what makes people think its a McLaren race.

1999:Driver error/happens
2001:BMW Power is no more/Mercedes is
2002:Reliability issue/no more
2004:Reliability issue (again)/no more

Recent years:

2005:Montoya/McLaren
2007:Alonso/Mclaren
2008:Seb Vettel (Wet)/McLaren was strong #2 Kovi
2009:Barrichello/McLaren strong+Pole with the dog car

[Vasco]

Surely fuel economy would be a vital factor here. They run ~75% full throttle for a whole lap. If it is true that the Renault engine is the most fuel efficient engine on the grid, then there could be strong races for RBR and Renault F1. For qualy I would expect the Mercs and Ferrari engines to do well, but in the race we could see them go into fuel conservation mode a lot earlier than the Renault engines.

Also bear in mind that Mclaren might have to run more wing than say a RBR as they don't have the same fundamental downforce level.

[ell66]

Surely fuel economy would be a vital factor here. They run ~75% full throttle for a whole lap. If it is true that the Renault engine is the most fuel efficient engine on the grid, then there could be strong races for RBR and Renault F1. For qualy I would expect the Mercs and Ferrari engines to do well, but in the race we could see them go into fuel conservation mode a lot earlier than the Renault engines.

Also bear in mind that Mclaren might have to run more wing than say a RBR as they don't have the same fundamental downforce level.

this is the only track where fundamental downforce plays little importance, all the top teams will be running very similar rear wing angles.
I believe even without the f-duct the MP4-25 is a slippery car, coupled with the merc power and the typeof corners at monza i cant see past a hamilton win rght now.

[JotaBass]

Sam Michael thinks everyone will run the f-duct http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86434

[raymondu999]

slight correction. He thinks they *should* run the f-duct. He can't possibly know what the other teams will do

Ferrari/McLaren/Renault will run back to back tests with/without F-ducts.

I don't understand though. How do teams do a back to back, if they know that they have 1 driver slower than the other? Do they compensate for that? Let's say Vitaly runs the f-duct, and Kubica runs no F-duct. Kubica is faster. But this might not necessarily be due to the lack of f-duct. It could be that the f-duct version is a bit quicker, maybe a tenth or 2, but Kubica is 3 tenths quicker than Vitaly. Then? (Note that these are all random numbers and in no way a specific case)

[wesley123]

Hardly a McLaren hunting ground....

1999: Hakkinen, spins & stalls his car
2000: Beaten by Michael, nuff' said
2001: Montoya show
2002: Raikkonen, pyrotechnics display
2003: Michelin tyre farce (Ferrari who else?)
2004: Raikkonen, water leak

Only in recent years have McLaren really have anything to show for in Monza, I predict a Red Bull win...

Yeahj, the Red Bull is great in straight lines and all