And they hope to identify the root of their problems while going this way:
http://www.autosport.com/images/upload/1178191166.jpg
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/58478
They even took their time to paint that awful livery on it.
And they hope to identify the root of their problems while going this way:
http://www.autosport.com/images/upload/1178191166.jpg
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/58478
They even took their time to paint that awful livery on it.
'Dumbo Wings' :laugh: :laugh:
The number of different aero appendages appearing on all the cars is really a joke.
I always thought that a sound aero design of the body can achieve the same effect as all these itsy-bitsy tiny thingies we see all over the cars.
Can't they design an efficient car without this sh!t all over it?!
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:
That wing sort of reminds me of what Arrows tried to use at Monaco in 2001
They must be pretty off-putting for the driver. Maybe a couple of countries got annoyed about not being visible on the livery so Honda decided to give them their own space!
Because of the constant acceleration and deceleration and constant change of direction, I should think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
You might have forgotten one thing, airplanes aren't meant to handle 4G turnng forces on the tarmac. :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
And an airplane is full of small winglets and flipups, just that the dimensions are rather different, plus, they area allowed to have moveable aero. :D
..............and maybe because airplanes don't have those relatively huge wide wheels which have a forward velocity at the highest points of twice the speed of the car.
Just the same, I think those wings are kinda cute. I also think the relatively large ears of my chihuahua (when compared with his body) are kinda cute. His name is Benny. :)
yea the arrows sprung to my mind when i saw the pic, if it work it works but we'll see.
Good gawd, that is honestly enough to turn me off formula 1 :s
I simply couldn't see myself waking up at stupid-o-clock in the morning, donning my bath robe and fluffy-bunny slippers, plodding over to the the telly, half asleep with coffe cup in hand and actually watching those things for 90 minutes :s
Those are not only ugly ,but also useless:
<<Seventh quickest Christian Klien caused a few raised eyebrows in the morning when he tried out extra nose wings, nicknamed 'Dumbo Wings', on his Honda Racing RA107.
The extra devices did not prove a success, however, with team sources suggesting that the idea was scrapped when it became clear very quickly it did not provide any benefit to the problems the team are suffering.>>
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/58486
you would be put off f1 because of some odd looking wings on 1 car?Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
have you not looked at most of the other cars on the grid then?
im pretty sure every team has far too many odd winglets on them
:D :up: Total radicalism - Honda's only way to get out of the hole, where they currently are. :p :
But wierd or not - IMO it's nice to see teams being innovative and trying to think out new and interesting solutions to get the car better. :)
Yes I would. Like you said, I already find the cars embarrassingly ugly to look at and I would have a hard time supporting a series that relies on "dumbo" wings to be competitive :sQuote:
Originally Posted by zoostation
F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsports and this is what it's reduced to? :s
your statements contradictQuote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
If want F1 to be the pinnacle of motorsports then you should accept any part that adds to the performance of the car regardless of how ugly it looks
if you want to have cars without all these winglets on them (looking like the cars of the 90s for example) then it means F1 cars wont be at the pinnacle of motorsports
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisS
Couldn't sink any lower, can it?
Those Honda guys are funny. :up: To me, the car with its mostly blue livery looked like a dolphin or something, now it's got fins too. What next, fishtail shaped rear wing? Now that would be something...
does the wing represent the speed of the car?? Like in elephant
Commercial airlines are designed not for maximum speed. It is designed to minimize cost per seat, and maximize lift/drag ratio. Commercial airplanes also have alot of control surfaces to allow it to fly at different speed and for the maneuvers they perform. You have got the ailerons, elevator, rudder, trim-tabs, spoilers/airbrake, and flaps. If you notice lately, alot of airplanes now have huge winglets, especially the Boeing 737s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
Race car aerodynamics are very different than airplanes, because they have different aerodynamic purpose. Airplanes are designed to fly at an optimal speed and altitude, or dynamic pressure. Race cars are always in transient state, unless you are racing on ovals. Cars also don't need to worry about fuel mileage that much, so it can afford to carry the extra drag penalties from the small aero devices the cars are carrying. Even if you have a L/D of 0.5, it may still achieve the performance criteria of the race car engineers, because they may have a more powerful engine to overcome that extra drag.
One thing though, those Honda wings are some of the weirdest, yet funniest thing I have ever seen.
I think A1GP have already got that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erki
Its boggoling to think that Honda are trying these flow conditioners, which only give a minimul gain, when there car has an inherent handaling problem that will require something far more drastic to be done.
I'm beginning to think that Hondas engineering department is so leaderless that they're running around like headless chickens.
They developed these things. They tried them. They supposedly don't do a d--m thing. Houston our wind tunnel still is all screwed up!
of course you are right, good racing should be the first concern of the FIAQuote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
and yes I do think FIA got things wrong
- same grooved tyres for all teams so a team cant get an advantage by using a better griping tyre[/*:m:phjls26a]
- Rev limited engines and engine specification freeze, at 19000rpm all engines are relatively close so teams cant get an advantage from their engines.[/*:m:phjls26a]
- rear wing elements limited and closely monitored so teams cant get an aerodynamic advantage from their standard wings[/*:m:phjls26a]
- coming next year standard ECUs so teams cant get an advantage with better electronics[/*:m:phjls26a]
So what does that leave, all these winglets that the teams can freely use to get an advantage
That still doesn't explain it, to me. Instead of Dave's example of airliners, you could take competition gliders. In the standard class, for example, the only movable parts they have are the control surfaces, which are only used to change direction/pitch/etc., but have no performance effect. The glider has to be able to circle at slow speeds in thermals with minimum descent, and then glide as fast as possible with the smallest possible glide slope. And still, gliders are really really sleek, no "gadgets" besides winglets.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".Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
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.
What I dont get though is wouldnt they have run these extra winglets on a computer simulator or maybe a scale model.
I'd have thought they'd have known they were going to be pants and give no advantage before they got to actually trying them on the track.
I think you can stick a fork in Honda, they're done. If the best they can think of to make the car better is to stick elephant ears on the nose then they have no hope.
This looks like a deperate reach by a design team who have no idea what is wrong with their car.
Button should go down and see if Super Aguri need a Friday driver and Barrichello should be looking at Retirement Villages in Brazil becuase Honda are going nowhere fast.
TMorel, wind-tunnels have a very important limitation, which is that they cannot tell you how a design will behave while accelerating. They are wonderful for analysing aerodynamic performance in a steady state, but almost useless if you want to understand the car's reaction to abrupt change. Honda's problem is instability under braking, and you can't reproduce that kind of problem in a wind-tunnel.Quote:
Originally Posted by TMorel
Long live DUMBO!!!! The quickest flying elephant!!!!
Is Honda the new flying elephant?
isn't that the point of circuit racing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkmoon
You race as fast as you can and then 2 hours later you finish at the same point you started ;) :p
So FIA made BMW get rid of their rabbit ears last year and Honda thinks FIA will allow them to use these elephant ears this year? I'm surprised Mclaren are still alowed to use those flying nun wings.
ah, yes, but would banning winglets make them any less the pinacle that they are already? They certainly are the the absolute pinacle of possibility, simply the most technical of what's around.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisS
would not having Launch Control, Variable Valve Timing, movable areo devices, super/turbochargers, etc make them that much more the pinnacle? It certainly would entail more technology and research.
Banning winglets of this nature would not dethrone them from this title.
You spoke too quickly...
Nah, I don't want to see car on the grid with dust-bin look alike aerodynamic device, although it could deliver sort of pinnacle...
Indeed....Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
What an awful sight! That livery is hideous as well.
perhaps like thisQuote:
Originally Posted by leopardsleeping
http://autorestorations.co.nz/images...ti_type_59.jpg
Aircraft need to be more fuel efficient than an F1 car. In addition, an F1 car is all about downforce, whereas an aeroplane is all about lift, I would think. You're trying to compare apples with oranges. :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
McLaren have been testing a new wing set up this weekQuote:
Originally Posted by Marbles
An extra small wing goes from end plate to end plate over the top of the drooping nosecone.
You've got to admire the guy who came up with the suggestion of fitting these "Dumbo" wings. Imagine walking into a meeting and putting this foreward as a suggestion for resolving your teams problems...............
That guy is probably fired now :p :