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

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?