The wierdest Wings I've seen yet (you never know what comes next)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fousto

does the wing represent the speed of the car?? Like in elephant

---

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:


It's definitely getting harder to take them seriously - what next? helmets with wings for Jenson and Rubens? Oh no... that'd be movable aero :rolleyes:

Just wait till they add the trunk, and paint the car grey..................

That's a bad bad look. :mark:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomski

Just wait till they add the trunk, and paint the car grey..................

---

They decided to paint it pink instead

spy pic :p
http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/9...hantum2.th.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dchen

Your last couple of sentences pretty much answered your question. The primary aerodynamic characteristic engineers seek for airplane is high lift and low drag. The goal is to take almost all the drag out, while maximizing the lift. If I remember correctly, most of the drag from gliders and commercial jets come from viscous drag, which is the drag due to the boundary layer, created by the viscousity of fluid (air in this case) interacting with a no-slip boundary. The form drag by the cross section of the planes is very minimal compare to overall drag value. It's reason why airplane look so "clean".

A F1's goal is to achieve the best handling, not necessary the car with least amount of drag. To do this, you can use many of these small aero devices to control flow, either to divert flow over the tires, or to control the flows to the rear wing. These devices changes the flow characteristics, but they also introduce drag. The goal is to maximize the downforce while maintaining the correct center of pressure so the car will work correctly. That's very far from the aerodynamic goal of airplane, which is to achieve the highest L/D along with keeping the center of pressure near the center of gravity.

Bottom line is, airplane is looking for the most efficient aerodynamic design, and F1 is looking for the best handling design, efficient or not.

---

You basically summed up my understanding as well, which is why I believe that if we want to get rid of the winglets the FIA needs to put more emphasis on improving efficiency.

If the teams have to strive to meet a fuel consumption target, then the wind tunnel work will be aimed more at aerodynamic efficiency than outright downforce. The FIA could gradually wind up the efficiency targets year on year, forcing the teams to gradually reduce all the winglets as outright cornering speed is sacrificed just so they can finish the race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvracin

You basically summed up my understanding as well, which is why I believe that if we want to get rid of the winglets the FIA needs to put more emphasis on improving efficiency.

If the teams have to strive to meet a fuel consumption target, then the wind tunnel work will be aimed more at aerodynamic efficiency than outright downforce. The FIA could gradually wind up the efficiency targets year on year, forcing the teams to gradually reduce all the winglets as outright cornering speed is sacrificed just so they can finish the race.

---

I think another thing FIA can do is get rid of chicanes. The less tight corners you have, the less likely you are going to need high downforce setup. If more courses are like Monza without the chicanes, then you can very well have a "cleaner" car.

I don't think fuel economy will do much for them, because they can just make the engine for efficient and decide to make up the time in the corner by going even faster. Who knows what kind of ugly animal we would get if that's the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvracin

You basically summed up my understanding as well, which is why I believe that if we want to get rid of the winglets the FIA needs to put more emphasis on improving efficiency.

If the teams have to strive to meet a fuel consumption target, then the wind tunnel work will be aimed more at aerodynamic efficiency than outright downforce. The FIA could gradually wind up the efficiency targets year on year, forcing the teams to gradually reduce all the winglets as outright cornering speed is sacrificed just so they can finish the race.

---

As Valve already mentioned briefly, aren't many of the winglets put in place to minimise the damage tyres and other structures have on efficiency.

You could have mandatory FIA wind tunnel tests where cars would have to pass some regulation airflows. It would be very hard to police but could help with overtaking if certain amount of laminar airflowshould exist behind the car.

that's not ugly looking, that's a pathetic looking!

but that's clearly some innovation, a bit like in the 70's :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

The problem is that all these aero parts might well add performance, but they are damaging the racing. If the 'pinnacle of motorsports' is to be a procession, the order of which is determined by who has the best wind-tunnel then the FIA have got things wrong.

---

To expand on this:

If the racing becomes dull and uncompeditive due to technology, is it still a sport or just a fancy parade with lots of protocol?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Brockman

So, here's the question. Why don't aircraft have all these stupid winglets and flipups all over them? :crazy:

---

As a former aerodynamicist, the answer is that aircraft design is not regulated, whereas the flat-bottom regulation of an F1 car means that the only surface an aerodynamicist has to play with is the top half of the car. In effect, this means that the top surface has to do twice the work, hence the appendages and aero-tricks.

If aircraft were restricted to only having aerodynamic work on the top surface in this way......they wouldn't fly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

As a former aerodynamicist, the answer is that aircraft design is not regulated, whereas the flat-bottom regulation of an F1 car means that the only surface an aerodynamicist has to play with is the top half of the car. In effect, this means that the top surface has to do twice the work, hence the appendages and aero-tricks.

If aircraft were restricted to only having aerodynamic work on the top surface in this way......they wouldn't fly.

---

So knock off the winglets and bring back ground effects. It might help with the passing as well. :)

I can't imagine how FIA could write a rule book that would outlaw these abominations by defining how the top surface of an F1 car could look in regards to being uninterrupted by sprouting aero aids. FIA does step in when they think it's getting too silly by simply outlawing the area in which a wing can be placed (remember when everyone was adding rear wing extensions a few years back) but I think this sort of nitpicking is unfair and hardly in the spirit of competition. I guess FIA doesn't think see it as getting out of hand yet.

I can't imagine what a modern day F1 car would look like if such rules existed. Mighty nice, I would hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marbles

So knock off the winglets and bring back ground effects. It might help with the passing as well. :)

I can't imagine how FIA could write a rule book that would outlaw these abominations by defining how the top surface of an F1 car could look in regards to being uninterrupted by sprouting aero aids.

---

Basically and bluntly, it is not the fault of aerodynamicists....it is purely the fault of the regulations.

Were there to be ground effect, for example, then the top half of the car would, by definition, be relatively clean (look at IndyCars and Prototypes).

There would be no need to define 'clean' areas of bodywork because ground-effect creates grip, which is currently the job of the winglets....with ground-effects, all a winglet would achieve is extra drag, which is not very useful.

The problem is that ground-effect cars would corner at ultra high speeds....the very reason why they were out-lawed in the first place.

So, whilst it's the fault of the regulations, it's also the fault of ground-effect.

Catch 22.

Stuck in the middle is the aerodynamicist, who is just doing his best to make his teams car as competitive as possible. These poor creatures, through no fault of their own, are vilified and despised by spectators.






But, with your kind donations, we can stop this suffering and abuse. Please send a blank cheque or postal order made payable to the Charity for Aerodynamicist's Safe Houses (CASH for short) to Tamburello, Aerodynamicists-In-Need, PO BOX 1832.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

...But, with your kind donations, we can stop this suffering and abuse. Please send a blank cheque or postal order made payable to the Charity for Aerodynamicist's Safe Houses (CASH for short) to Tamburello, Aerodynamicists-In-Need, PO BOX 1832.

---

:p :

15 years ago we had 1200 hp cars. 15 years of development in aerodinamics, tyres and every single aspect of the cars and racing tracks,but the power is 2/3 Put them 2000hp under the pedal and we'll have racing back. Oh but that's too dangerous and we can't go that way.
Honestly I think there no easy solution to the problem.

BTW the "dumbo" wings look kind of cool, but Honda are still in the hole.

Cheers
David

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OTA

15 years ago we had 1200 hp cars. 15 years of development in aerodinamics, tyres and every single aspect of the cars and racing tracks,but the power is 2/3 Put them 2000hp under the pedal and we'll have racing back. Oh but that's too dangerous and we can't go that way.
Honestly I think there no easy solution to the problem.

BTW the "dumbo" wings look kind of cool, but Honda are still in the hole.

Cheers
David

---

Remember Obi wan Kanubi in Star Wars? He had ears like that. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marbles

I can't imagine what a modern day F1 car would look like if such rules existed. Mighty nice, I would hope.

---

I've prepared a rough estimate.

http://static.blogo.it/motorsportblog/888767.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by call_me_andrew

I've prepared a rough estimate.

http://static.blogo.it/motorsportblog/888767.jpg

---

'Rough' being the operative word.

Whatever a Formula 1 car looked like, it wouldn't have the shabby build-quality of a Panoz DP01.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Brockman

Urgh! :s



They're designed to be as quick as possible while at the same time generating the maximum lift in as efficient manner as possible.

---

Wrong. That is so 1970s. Right now the main obejective in aeroplane design is to keep the noise down, and decrease fuel usage. Top speed is probably one of the laso priorites in an aeroplane designer's mind right now. (hint: Look at Concord).

Aeroplanes have movable objects which are banned in F1. Aeroplanes also have all sorts of aero winglets, not all of them visible to me and you.

Unlike what the F1 marketing guys want us to believe, aeroplanes and F1 cars are two completely different beasts, with very very little in common.

Back to the subject of Honda's additional winglets......

As an former aerodynamicist, I'd be very surprised if one 'tweak' introduction of winglets would have that much of a significant effect on what appears to be a fundamental handling problem.

Winglets are fine-tuning additions, not a wonder cure. Honda's handling problems seem much deeper than just air-flow related.

Without seeing the wind-tunnel results, it's not possible to say for sure what the intention is with these 'Dumbo Ear' appendages, but it does initially point to there being a major problem with the front end not doing what front-ends should.......

.......although, with Honda's wind-tunnel said to have been wrongly calibrated when it was brought on-stream it might not be any use to see the results anyway!

I'd be surprised, therefore, if there wasn't an RA107B before the end of the year.....with wind-tunnel work done at Tochigi and not Brackley.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

The problem is that ground-effect cars would corner at ultra high speeds....the very reason why they were out-lawed in the first place.

---

I never quite understood why it is so bad to have a car safely corner at high speed? Yes, the G force would go up, but designers would have to limit that based on what the human body could stand. Why is there such a big need for regulations that let the cars go very fast in a straight line, but very slow when cornering?

Because when a car looses control at high speeds in corners, crash will most likely be worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

I never quite understood why it is so bad to have a car safely corner at high speed? Yes, the G force would go up, but designers would have to limit that based on what the human body could stand. Why is there such a big need for regulations that let the cars go very fast in a straight line, but very slow when cornering?

---

Because Max passed himself off as an emininent Engineer, and he worked it out that for every 10 kph increase in velocity, the damage to a vehicle in any accident is doubled.

PLease don't ask me for a link, because this discussion took place more than three years ago.

OK, after careful re-thinking, it was 10% and not 10 kph. But that meant that if the speed around any corner was doubled, the the damage was quadroupled. And Max came out with some mathematical formulae to prove his point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

OK, after careful re-thinking, it was 10% and not 10 kph. But that meant that if the speed around any corner was doubled, the the damage was quadroupled. And Max came out with some mathematical formulae to prove his point.

---

What I meant to say wass that if the cornering speed was increased by 20%, then the forces which cause damage would be quadrupled. That's what Max claimed.

As for the wierd wings on the Honda, they are Yoda wings. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

Yoda wings. :D

---

Go faster they will, the force will be strong in these wings, but stupid they will look :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

As a former aerodynamicist, the answer is that aircraft design is not regulated, whereas the flat-bottom regulation of an F1 car means that the only surface an aerodynamicist has to play with is the top half of the car. In effect, this means that the top surface has to do twice the work, hence the appendages and aero-tricks.

If aircraft were restricted to only having aerodynamic work on the top surface in this way......they wouldn't fly.

---

I don't agree entirely with your analysis here, tamburello. I believe that even if there were no flat-bottom regulation in F1, the cars would still have winglets and flips. As I see it, the differences between F1 cars and aeroplanes which account for the latter being more streamlined than the former are these:

F1 cars have massive bits sticking out which interfere with the flow over the wings. Aeroplanes don't. The only bits sticking out on an airliner, in clean configuration (i.e., gear up, flaps up, ailerons and elevator neutral), are the engine nascelles. These are deliberately placed out of the airflow going to the wings, so as not to interfere with the wings' efficiency. Of course, you have the fuselage as well, and that renders the inboard section of the wings less effective, but you overcome that, on an aeroplane, by making the wings longer than they would otherwise be.

On an F1 car, by contrast, you have the radiator intakes, the engine air intake, the driver's head, and, of huge importance, the four wheels, all interfering with the airflow to the wings. You can't move these objects away from the wings' airflow, as you can with aircraft engine nascelles, and you can't make the wings longer, to take the wings away from the interfering objects, as you can with an aeroplane. So you are left with winglets, and flips, and other rather ineffective devices designed to "condition" the airflow, to smooth it out after it hits the interfering objects, so that by the time it reaches the wings, it is a unidirectional non-turbulent flow of air. Others of the winglets and flips are designed to produce downforce themselves, rather than for conditioning the airflow, but this too is only necessary because the air acting on the winglet or flip is disrupted by the interfering objects, and has to be used to create downforce immediately after disruption, before it becomes chaotically turbulent.

If you could have an F1 car with a wingspan of about fifty feet, or you could have the wings moved up about fifteen feet out of the dirty air behind the wheels and chassis, you would find no benefit from, or need for winglets or flips. I rather doubt, however, that the car would be very fast round corners, and I am certain it would not be legal!

Grounds effect isn't entirely fool-proof, is it?

It doesn't like bumps and undulations.

If the car has bad aero, the car can go airborne. Peter Dumbreck flipped 360 degrees in the air in his Merc CLK GTR and a similar thing happened to Mario Andretti when he tested at Indy.

the winglets on F1 cars are there to help guide the air around the car's rough shape, and guide the air over the wings.

airplanes don't need winglets because they have a pure shape already - no wheels, driver's heads, engine covers, radiaters, size-goverened wings, brake ducts, etc etc etc.

the airplanes shape is more effecient.

that's why only open wheel cars have all the winglets - closed wheel/cockpit cars are much more effeciant and don't need all the winglets either.

As I have already posted above, the velocity of those huge wheels at the top of travel are twice the speed of the moving car. This creates a huge aerodynamic problem to solve, and winglets are part of this measure.

However, if we ban all winglets, then all cars would be equally affected by those wheels.

Valve, I think you're over-estimating the aerodynamic effect of the movement of the tyres. The cross-section of the tyres is huge, and this large cross-section is the overwhelming cause of the turbulence the tyres cause. Far less disruption is caused by the skin-friction between the rubber and the air, and even less than that is the result of the forward motion of the tyres' top side, relative to the air. Of course, there is SOME effect on the behaviour of the air from the fact that the tyre surface is moving, and that is partly why teams have invested the considerable amount of money that is needed to build "rolling road" systems into their wind-tunnels. But all I'm saying is that it is not quite as significant a factor as you are suggesting, and CERTAINLY not the main reason that aerodynamicists find themselves designing winglets and flips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Brockman

Urgh! :s

Here's a question for you.

Formula One cars are the product of a multi-million pound design budget, with some of the sharpest minds in the business working on them, right?

They're designed to be as quick as possible while at the same time generating the maximum downforce in as efficient manner as possible. The airflow over the whole car needs to be efficient to avoid wasting engine power and fuel. The tiniest change could find or lose fractions of a second, which could be the difference between winning a race or staring ruefully up at the podium.

So far so good.

Right.

Commercial airliners are the product of a multi-billion pound design budget, with some of the sharpest minds in the business working on them, right?

They're designed to be as quick as possible while at the same time generating the maximum lift in as efficient manner as possible. The airflow over the whole 'plane needs to be efficient to avoid wasting engine power and fuel. The tiniest change could have a massive impact on the craft's efficiency and running costs, which could be the difference between offering cheap fares and being regarded as envionmentally friendly, or ruefully watching your rival airline steal your passengers.

So, here's the question. Why don't aircraft have all these stupid winglets and flipups all over them? :crazy:

---

Aircraft operate in clean air, away from the ground away from the influences of the ground and they are designed to primarily operate in one direction, forward with little change in direction laterally and the turning devices ate at the rear of the airstream. Cars operate in contact with the ground, are turned by front wheels directly in the airstream that totally disturbs the airflow aft of the wheels in a very inconsistent manner. Cars turn primarilly mechanically. Aircraft turn totally aerodynamically by mechanically actuating aerodynamic surfaces. Many of the appendages on the cars are to streamline flow around items that cannot be moved or changed due to the regulations, and not necessarily for downforce. Apples and oranges aerodynamically.

Really? how so? You don't see that many flip ups on Le Mans type sports cars which have their wheels and tyres enclosed at the top. And for record breaking cars on the Salt Flats, I don't see any. As I said before, the top of the tyre is moving at twice the velocity of the car. So if the car is moving at, say 150MPH, then the top of the tyres are moving at 300 MPH. Surely, that wide pice of rubber travelling at 300 MPH would have more than minimal effect!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

Aircraft operate in clean air, away from the ground away from the influences of the ground and they are designed to primarily operate in one direction, forward with little change in direction laterally and the turning devices ate at the rear of the airstream. Cars operate in contact with the ground, are turned by front wheels directly in the airstream that totally disturbs the airflow aft of the wheels in a very inconsistent manner. Cars turn primarilly mechanically. Aircraft turn totally aerodynamically by mechanically actuating aerodynamic surfaces. Many of the appendages on the cars are to streamline flow around items that cannot be moved or changed due to the regulations, and not necessarily for downforce. Apples and oranges aerodynamically.

---

Agreed. If one looks at any modern airliner, the shape is very streamlined once the flaps and wheels are retracted. By comparison, an F1 car is ten times worse than a brick outhouse in its streamline shape.

Apples and oranges!!

http://www.grandprix.com/jpeg/phc/pm...tappen2-lg.jpg

http://www.verstappen.nl/picture/tyr...ce/argm007.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

Really? how so? You don't see that many flip ups on Le Mans type sports cars which have their wheels and tyres enclosed at the top.

---

There are a number of reasons.

The suspension wishbones and wheels on an F1 (and single seaters) creates incredible amounts of drag. Sportscars run grounds effect and they can streamline the shape, reduce drag and maximise the efficiency of the rear wing.

BTW, whilst we're on the subject, does anyone know why the Peugeot 908 runs a high front nose cone? I'm assuming it's it make efficient use of the front splitter? Sorry a bit off topic, I never got answer on the GT forum.

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/lms...al-xp-0002.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

What I meant to say wass that if the cornering speed was increased by 20%, then the forces which cause damage would be quadrupled. That's what Max claimed.

As for the wierd wings on the Honda, they are Yoda wings. :D

---

The foreces that cause damage might not necessarily be quadrupled but the damage caused might be if measured in components broken or monetary cost. Then again the exact answers are available to all the teams through sensors and data logging.

Not only that the faster a car goes round a corner, the less able gravel and tarmac can prevent it hitting something and the less time the drive has to react.

For example say a car leaves the road at 50m/s (180kph) and another at 60m/s (216kph) and a gravel trap slows the car at 2g and maybe the faster one at 2.2g due to higher drag at higher speeds over 100m before hitting a wall. The 50m/s car will slow to 23m/s while the 60m/s will slow to 38m/s.

The kinetic energy the first car has when it hits the wall will therefore be 2.73 times as great. With different (more accurate) numbers this ratio will obviously be different but the point is a 20% difference in speed makes a massive difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

OK, after careful re-thinking, it was 10% and not 10 kph. But that meant that if the speed around any corner was doubled, the the damage was quadroupled. And Max came out with some mathematical formulae to prove his point.

---

Well, perhaps some light could be shed by the work of a slightly more esteemed Englishman, Sir Isaac Newton. If I remember secondary school physics correctly, E=1/2 M V*2 (sorry, I can't do a superscript, so read that as "V-squared"), where E is enerby, M is mass, and V is velocity.

So the 10% increase in velocity increases energy by 21% (1.1*2) and doubling velocity does indeed quadruple energy (2*2). Now, calculating damage is a different problem, because the relation between energy of a crash and damage is probably not linear - once you hit component failure stresses damage spikes catastrophically.

ClarkFan

P.S. I blame any errors in this formulation on the education system, as produtive learning (secondary school physics) was followed by unproductive (college economics). :p

Clarkfan you are assuming the car does not slow due to friction + drag when it leaves the track. That is where the massive difference in energy comes from as a faster car is travelling faster and has less time to slow down over the same distance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeall

Clarkfan you are assuming the car does not slow due to friction + drag when it leaves the track. That is where the massive difference in energy comes from as a faster car is travelling faster and has less time to slow down over the same distance.

---

Sorry to butt in here, but we are actually talking about certain physics formulae Max used to calculate the damage to cars in an accident. Naturally this does not take into account runoff areas, as we can see that some cars can actually come to a stop without hitting anything in a runoff area.

But getting back to the Yoda wings, I think they are cute and look a bit like my chihuahua's ears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

Sorry to butt in here, but we are actually talking about certain physics formulae Max used to calculate the damage to cars in an accident. Naturally this does not take into account runoff areas, as we can see that some cars can actually come to a stop without hitting anything in a runoff area.

But getting back to the Yoda wings, I think they are cute and look a bit like my chihuahua's ears.

---

Fair enough if there was one supplied, but runoff is fundamentally critical to deciding when cars are cornering too quickly and ignoring it would be ridiculous for the FIA and its public face. As far as I can see from my engineers point of view (simplifying everything until it makes sense) the factors affecting damage to a car are the speed it is going, the amount of run off there is, and how much the car is slowed down. At the moment I'm not quite sure about the exact relationship between kinetic energy, work done on a component of the car and damage to the component. However I have an exam on fracture mechanics in the next few days so hopefully I will understand it more soon...