Skip to content

Where has the simplicity of the front wing gone?

By on

One of the aims of last year's aerodynamic regulation changes was to reduce the interest in aerodynamic developing by limiting the possible development areas, including the front wing. The problem with F1 designers and their teams is that they live for every single tenth, and hence rather then stepping back, a regulation change empowers them to look for other solutions.

Red Bull's RB6 front wing for instance is a development of the RB5 front wing. While Newey traditionally designed cars with simple front wing endplates, they team have taken it so far that the endplates now feature curves and double venting holes.

The wing itself now features 2 slot gaps, the lower one certainly inspired by McLaren's front wing of 2008. The stacked element still consist of 2 combined small wings, providing a better solution for this car than the curvaceous designs that Renault or McLaren have come up with.

One wonders how a front wing can become even more exotic...

Comments

By BreezyRacer on 19-03-2010 at 16:25

What did they expect? When they limit the areas of development they have to expect the areas they left open to get more scrutinized than ever. It's tough to write rules that push for more uniform vehicles while at the same time keeping enough room for innovation and competition. IMO this is one of the key challenges of F1 in this age. I believe we're too standardized at the moment, and when the 2011 rules hit, with exclusions of the DD diffuser the cars will even be more alike. It's really not a good place to be. This same strategy is killing all kinds of series the same way .. NASCAR, indycar, etc.

By jharr11 on 23-03-2010 at 05:58

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Budget caps and less restrictive regulations is the key, for plenty of reasons. There's no better way to attract sponsors/investors and to draw fans toward new teams than to 'level out the playing field'(and I do use that phrase loosely). Obviously the established teams would be able to extract more out of the limited resources than others, but isn't that part of the legacy of F1? True engineering, not just endless refinement. For example, think about certain engine displacement, rev limit, cylinder number and engine material regulations being 'scrapped' for fuel delivery/consumption restrictions...a fascinating engineering challenge and also environmentally relevant. For those who say teams' budgets cannot be policed, that's tough to say. Clearly it would take years to iron out but the FIA has definitely pulled off crazier sh*t.

By jharr11 on 23-03-2010 at 06:06

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Budget caps and less restrictive regulations is the key, for plenty of reasons. There's no better way to attract sponsors/investors and to draw fans toward new teams than to 'level out the playing field'(and I do use that phrase loosely). Obviously the established teams would be able to extract more out of the limited resources than others, but isn't that part of the legacy of F1? True engineering, not just endless refinement. For example, think about certain engine displacement, rev limit, cylinder number and engine material regulations being 'scrapped' for fuel delivery/consumption restrictions...a fascinating engineering challenge and also environmentally relevant. For those who say teams' budgets cannot be policed, that's tough to say. Clearly it would take years to iron out but the FIA has definitely pulled off crazier sh*t.

By toto1041 on 25-03-2010 at 20:29

And they complain following another car closely creates problems! A bird would cause enough turbulence to disrupt the aerodynamic devices attached to front wings now.

Add comment

Please register or log in with your account to comment on this article