Question about Aerodynamics i guess,

[Nando]

If we compare the Renault to the BMW for example (2008).
It´s amazing to see just how much more "crap" BMW put on their car.
they had 1000 different wings on that car in all kinds of shapes etc so my question is,

Is there a limit as to how many parts you want to put on a car in terms of overall drag?
Is there a point where engineers say "ok we have so much wings on the car now that any more, no matter the downforce-result will just cause to much drag for the overall package"

[Jersey Tom]

If you were carrying most of the corners flat out, then yes. There's a balance point where adding downforce slows you down. Indy 500 is an example of this.

I don't think F1 is at that point, or even near it, at least for the majority of tracks.

[flyboy2160]

the concept you're looking for is aerodynamic efficiency.

you can't get downforce without creating drag - that's just the way the world works. but you want to minimize the amount of drag created for a given amount of downforce, that is, make the shape as efficient as possible.

for instance, i've read here that the slotted rear wing end supports do just this by reducing the drag creating vortices spilling off the rear wing, but i've never run cfd on such a design.

[Greg Locock]

...There's a balance point where adding downforce slows you down. Indy 500 is an example of this.

I don't think F1 is at that point, or even near it, at least for the majority of tracks.

Yes it is. For instance in 2000 Ferrari ran high medium or low downforce configurations depending on the track. Monza got low, Monaco high.

The reason is that wings have a lift to drag ratio of about 5, which is quite a penalty.

[bhall]

The biggest sources of drag on any F1 car are the wings, specifically the rear, and the tires, specifically the front. That's why teams often have (had, really) as many as four different rear wings throughout the course of a season. F1 cars are drag demons.

The appendages on the F1.08 were mostly in low-pressure areas or areas of relative turbulence. The goal was to better direct that flow to high-pressure areas to create downforce. But, because of their location, the drag penalties were relatively small, especially considering the performance boost they provided. (The F1.08 was a great car. The appendage-less F1.09 was a dog-and-a-half.)

The only time BMW removed appendages was for Monza. However, that's common due to the nature of the circuit.

Normal

(Click to enlarge)

Monza-spec

(Click to enlarge)

Teams are still using using every available regulatory area to place appendages to condition air flow. The required shape of an F1 car demands it for optimum efficiency. It's only in the extreme case of Monza where this is generally not true. But, given time and resources - and fewer restrictions - teams would likely devise Monza-spec devices just as they do for other tracks. That's because the drag on an F1 car is, and always will be, very high. Might as well make the best of it and do something with that drag, even if making the best use of drag slightly increases it.

[N12ck]

Most people will say f1 cars are designed around the principle of Downforce Max, but they are not, they are designed to be as efficient to the track they are on as possible, so they will not bung a massively draggy part on just for a tiny bit of downforce (unless it is monaco) the whole design is a compromise , it is all about downforce to drag ratios, and different tracks have different ratios, and different efficiencies required to have enough top end, and to be fast enough in the corners to make up for any top end lost, or the reverse

[Lycoming]

You always want the highest possible ratios of L/D; its just that on some tracks, you want less drag, and you are willing to sacrifice some amount of downforce to achieve that characteristic. Some tracks are the other way around.

[bhall]

Normal

(Click to enlarge)

Monza-spec

(Click to enlarge)

Actually, the more I look at this, the more I think the parts removed for Monza were removed due to a lack of necessity as much as they were removed to reduce drag.

The nose horns directed upwash from the front wing down and toward the rear of the car. That's unnecessary at Monza, because the front wing produces far less upwash. The elements between the wishbones of the front suspension created a turbulent flow into the sidepods, because turbulent flow is more effective for cooling, which allows for smaller inlets*. The sheer volume of air seen at speed at Monza combined, again, with the lower AoA front wing made these elements redundant. And the reduced AoA of the rear wing made the chimney-to-airbox wing, whatever that was called, unnecessary due to the reduced need to make rear-end downforce.

So, to go back to the original question, I don't necessarily think there is a drag limit to the amount of appendages that can be added to an F1 car, provided the appendages are appropriately designed. The regulations, which require open wheels, and competitive necessity, which demands wings, dictate that the biggest sources of drag on an F1 car are inevitable. So, there's no reason then not to do whatever is possible with the side-effects of those realities to turn them into an asset. That's all those appendages ever did.

* My theory

[Nando]

Great stuff, thanks!

[raymondu999]

There's a balance point where adding downforce slows you down.

I disagree - adding downforce will always make you quicker - it's the inherent drag that slows you down. If you had a way of fundamentally increasing the efficiency of said aero - ie add downforce without drag, then it would make you quicker - up to a certain point when it doesn't matter anymore.

If you were carrying most of the corners flat out, then yes.

I was talking about this in Silverstone last year - I kept on telling people after qualifying that Red Bull had gotten their setup wrong, and had put too much downforce on the car (at the expense of said drag). They were at a point where they could take the Abbey kink, as well as the first left and right of Becketts (basically the old Turn 2 & 3) flat out in 7th top with DRS open on the pole lap.

So in low-downforce DRS position, they had enough downforce to take these corners. If they had reduced wing, they could have the same level of downforce (or similar, at least) with DRS-closed, and still taken those corners flat, but being quicker through the straights.