Rear wing "spacers"

mini696 · Post 23 Jun 2006, 03:58

Looking at Http://www.suttonimages.com/fotoweb/sea ... arch=f5941#

The teams have "similar" supports between the rear wing planes. I have a few questions.

Why have the "spacer" on top, does this allow more flexing?

Ferrari and a couple others have a large hoop shaped design, is this to stop the "spacer" acting like an endplate, and stopping the flow along the wing (horizontal flow)?

Have a look at Honda's wing... Where is this attached (solidly) to the car? it looks like the whole top element will pivot. Do you agree?

Why have honda used two "spacers" (and not one like everyone else)?

Can someone show me the rule enforcing this "spacer"?

sasquatch · Post 23 Jun 2006, 06:57

On top the wing, there is a high pressure while on the underside, there is alow pressure. The airflow is more likely to separate from the low pressure region on a wing sue to adverse pressure gradient. So the teams try to avoid putting body work near the underside surface of the wing to avoid it separating. So that is why the struts are shaped the way they are. The want them to be as far away from the wing as possible to make sure it doesn't detact the flow (and affect preformace), while keeping them as small as possible so they don't have high drag, high weight and most importantly, don't affect the flow when the wing is in yaw.

why have two spacers instead of one?...Maybe this is because the the central part of the wing is more likely to separate and more sensitive to the flow. So moving the spacers away from the centre is a safer option. The increase in performance on the central part of the wing out weighs the decrease in performance on the edge regions.

rsfocus · Post 23 Jun 2006, 08:15

is it just me? or am i the only one who always thought a "spacer" went between something? now none of those go between the wing elements, so how can they be a "spacer"?

sasquatch · Post 23 Jun 2006, 09:04

They still maintain the space between the wing elements at a fixed distance.

NickT · Post 23 Jun 2006, 18:15

another example of not following things in the spirit inwhich they were intended

He he he those wings are still a flexin'

Interesting to compare the various profiles, angles of attack, the presence or otherwise of gurney flaps and the different ways in which the end plates are used to generate or manage the vortexes. The thing that strikes me is the shear divercity on show

Guest · Post 23 Jun 2006, 22:27

I think the large hoop is to keep more space between the trailing edge of the main element and the rear portion of the spacer. Doing this would allow for a more laminar and open flow through the gap thus causing less affect on the rear second element downforce when in yaw.

i70q7m7ghw · Post 24 Jun 2006, 15:50

erm.... I am the only one to notice that these elements aren't at all new to F1 rear wings?? They have been around a while now, just everyone has then now....

Monstrobolaxa · Post 24 Jun 2006, 16:48

Diesel wrote:erm.... I am the only one to notice that these elements aren't at all new to F1 rear wings?? They have been around a while now, just everyone has then now....

Yeh you're right they've been around for a long time now....the diference is that everyone has them now!

Str8up · Post 05 Jul 2006, 04:46

If you want to see flex, have a look at the on borad footage of the Toro Rosso's additional element on the front wing. There are some good shots with Liuzzi v's DC.

RH1300S · Post 05 Jul 2006, 09:32

I think it's a case of the FIA missing a chance here. Once you specify spacers, you may as well say where they are going to go. The spacer should be BETWEEN the upper and lower elements that way you can only close the gap by crushing the spacer.

These things, I can easily imagine that they could be designed to add very little or no stiffness - all it would take would be some flex at the front mounting point and the gap can close again.

NUTS!

BTW - why is Honda the only team that seems to have a spacer designed by a 5 year old. Even the Midland effort looks like they tried to keep the airflow clean.

i70q7m7ghw · Post 05 Jul 2006, 11:04

Maybe because Honda's is one of the only ones that actually follows the spirit of the rules and does it's job.

RH1300S · Post 05 Jul 2006, 11:17

I agree - but if I was Honda as soon as I saw the other separators I would have got them changed pronto.

Even so, can anyone explain why the Honda version might need such a chunky mount and why it needs to extend above the gap too?

i70q7m7ghw · Post 05 Jul 2006, 14:59

I think their are needed to support that upper element. The wing they ran at Montreal and Indy was a new design with the upper element having almost seperate endplates of their own which joined to the main endplates with a small pivot for AoA ajustment. I believe the spacers were needed to maintain the slot gap and also maintain the AoA of the upper element. The more standard Honda wing has the normal hoop seperators that everyone else has and actually has had them for quite a while...

zac510 · Post 05 Jul 2006, 15:10

Remember a few years ago (maybe 02/03) when the FIA had to inplement a new rule to limit the size of vertical fins along the wing element?

Now the teams don't want them at all.

Now the FIA are forcing them to fit them back on (albeit for a different purpose).