Gary Anderson predicts F1's pecking order

[Artur Craft]

Also, I really don't get his comment about generating lift... The air flows under the chassis because of the low pressure there. If there's low pressure there, it's generating DF, not lift.

His claim is like a paradox.

Ferrari's nose is generating lift because it's generating downforce

[basti313]

Seems like a lot of posters think GA is way off and goes to show how much I know as his comments of the cars have made sense to me, oh dear. The Ferrari confuses me too unless the two cameras mounted on the nose somehow have a beneficial interaction with the flow Gary speaks of.

I don't believe the cameras of Ferrari or Merc are in an beneficial position. For me they are just as high as the rules allow in order not to disturb anything.

[Per]

Also, I really don't get his comment about generating lift... The air flows under the chassis because of the low pressure there. If there's low pressure there, it's generating DF, not lift.

His claim is like a paradox.

Ferrari's nose is generating lift because it's generating downforce

Well, to complete the picture: it is generating downforce, BUT the geometry of the nose allows air from the high-pressure zone above the nose to flow to the low-pressure zone below the nose without much disruption. This doesn't mean the nose generates lift, but it does mean that it is very inefficient at generating downforce.

But that's not the point of this nose design anyway. And even if it's not a lot of downforce, it's probably still more than the noses on most other cars.

Bottom line is: it's still a crappy article. Which makes me laugh and cry at the same time (laugh because it's simply funny, cry because many people will read it and actually believe it).

[bhall]

Seems like a lot of posters think GA is way off and goes to show how much I know as his comments of the cars have made sense to me, oh dear. The Ferrari confuses me too unless the two cameras mounted on the nose somehow have a beneficial interaction with the flow Gary speaks of.

I don't believe the cameras of Ferrari or Merc are in an beneficial position. For me they are just as high as the rules allow in order not to disturb anything.

I think they probably do have an aerodynamic purpose. The sharp transition about halfway up the nose to a more adverse pressure gradient suggests that's the place where Ferrari wants air flow to spill over the sides. The camera pods will then help direct that spillage toward the rear of the car.



Interestingly enough, if the team somehow manages to direct more air flow under the camera pods than over them, the pods could create downforce in their own right. It's been done before...

[Per]

I think they do generate a little bit of downforce. Due to the low pressure zone underneath the nose, the airflow in that area will be slightly downward. Since the camera pods are parallel to the reference plane, they have negative angle of attack, meaning they generate downforce. If they do, they will also generate small tip vortices but I don't know if they are beneficial at all, in this location of the car. Apparently they didn't think so in 2008, because they fitted the pods with end plates, seemingly to prevent vortices. I don't know if that's still allowed.

[basti313]

I think they do generate a little bit of downforce.

Of course. But not efficient and not intended. If you would need downforce on the front you would produce it with the front wing, because it is limited by the rear downforce.
It is the same with the downforce of the nose. in relation to the produced drag, this downforce can not be intended.

[PlatinumZealot]

@ bhall, interesting thoughts on the camera pods... very interesting indeed, as you made me immediately notice that there are end-plates on the camera pods. Endplates can only mean that there is a pressure gradient on either side of the camera pod that they are trying to maintain. So yeah good spot!

[basti313]

@ bhall, interesting thoughts on the camera pods... very interesting indeed, as you made me immediately notice that there are end-plates on the camera pods. Endplates can only mean that there is a pressure gradient on either side of the camera pod that they are trying to maintain. So yeah good spot!

This is an very old, narrow front wing. In this time they still had the big rear wing. In this time they may have needed downforce from everything...but today you just do not need these small amounts of downforce, the only reasonable solution would be to guide the air....but I do not believe in that either.

[timbo]

@ bhall, interesting thoughts on the camera pods... very interesting indeed, as you made me immediately notice that there are end-plates on the camera pods. Endplates can only mean that there is a pressure gradient on either side of the camera pod that they are trying to maintain. So yeah good spot!

This is an very old, narrow front wing. In this time they still had the big rear wing. In this time they may have needed downforce from everything...but today you just do not need these small amounts of downforce, the only reasonable solution would be to guide the air....but I do not believe in that either.

They are placed in the zone where the airstream over the nose separates and goes to sides, I bet the position of camera pods is not random or arbitrary, they act as flow conditioners in a critical area.

[bhall]

[...]
In this time they may have needed downforce from everything...but today you just do not need these small amounts of downforce [...]

Why not? Given that camera pods are required by the regulations to have a specific profile and be located in a specific area of the car, doesn't it make sense to try to get some aerodynamic value from these immutable objects that would otherwise just be sources of drag?

Increasing non-wing-derived downforce, if that makes sense, increases overall efficiency, because it allows you to then reduce drag by turning down the wings when balancing the car.

[Per]

Not if the wings are more efficient in terms of L/D than short useless camera pods, which have a very low aspect ratio so relatively high induced drag.

[basti313]

They are placed in the zone where the airstream over the nose separates and goes to sides, I bet the position of camera pods is not random or arbitrary, they act as flow conditioners in a critical area.

Yes, this is a possibility. But I do not see the point, why they should condition the flow there, because it is right in front of the front suspension. For flow conditioning this would be used if flow conditioning is necessary in this position.
For me the cameras are right in front of the front suspension, as high as allowed (525mm) in order not to disturb.

Why not? Given that camera pods are required by the regulations to have a specific profile and be located in a specific area of the car, doesn't it make sense to try to get some aerodynamic value from these immutable objects that would otherwise just be sources of drag?

Increasing non-wing-derived downforce, if that makes sense, increases overall efficiency, because it allows you to then reduce drag by turning down the wings when balancing the car.

For me it is clear that every constructor will mount the cameras in the maximum 1° towards the reference plane to get downforce instead of neutrality and only drag. so we completely accord in this point.
But for me the cameras are also just "wings". But they are not very effecient due to their fat body. So I would not mount them in the flow, but as far away from the flow as possible to produce less drag.

[beelsebob]

Not if the wings are more efficient in terms of L/D than short useless camera pods, which have a very low aspect ratio so relatively high induced drag.

The camera pods are infinitely efficient in terms of L/D, because the drag has to be there anyway, it's mandated to be there, therefore the effective drag that they cause is 0. No wing can ever be more efficient than that.

[bhall]

That's about the gist of it. They have to be there, so you might as well try to get something from them.

[Per]

Not if the wings are more efficient in terms of L/D than short useless camera pods, which have a very low aspect ratio so relatively high induced drag.

The camera pods are infinitely efficient in terms of L/D, because the drag has to be there anyway, it's mandated to be there, therefore the effective drag that they cause is 0. No wing can ever be more efficient than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_drag

I'll help you right to the formula you need to look at:

C_Di = C_L² / ( pi * e * AR )

where AR = b²/S, i.e. a very low number for a tiny stub like a camera pod

As you can see you can keep the induced drag at 0 as long as you keep the lift coefficient at 0 (i.e. put the pod at 0 angle of attack) but as soon as you start using them for downforce, the induced drag is going to ruin your "infinite" L/D ratio.

Edit: left out the rant bits. I'll leave it at "posts like that should not be upvoted".