## Enforcing DF limit - possible?

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
0
PNSD wrote:Big wings produce big wake, ie slipstream.

And produce big drag and big turbulence... indycars with underbody downforce still make slipstreams but without all that turbulence, making the cars much less nervous.
ISLAMATRON
0

Joined: 1 Oct 2008

0
ISLAMATRON wrote:
PNSD wrote:Big wings produce big wake, ie slipstream.

And produce big drag and big turbulence... indycars with underbody downforce still make slipstreams but without all that turbulence, making the cars much less nervous.

Big wings don't necessitate big drag. A single plane element wing of say 1 metre width with wing-tip structures will produce far less drag than a current F1 wing. F1 wings produce so much drag and turbulence because they are running at over 70° angle of attack (the upper element). If they used a single plane with a wider span to produce the same downforce the drag and turbulence would be far less - almost negligible.

'10-'11 Head of Powertrain - Glasgow University Formula Student
Scotracer
0

Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

0
Scotracer wrote:Big wings don't necessitate big drag. A single plane element wing of say 1 metre width with wing-tip structures will produce far less drag than a current F1 wing. F1 wings produce so much drag and turbulence because they are running at over 70° angle of attack (the upper element). If they used a single plane with a wider span to produce the same downforce the drag and turbulence would be far less - almost negligible.

The front wings are already almost as wide as the car, how much wider do they need to be? I did like the older wider rear wings.

Single plane wings would be much more efficient but would not create nearly as much downforce. they'd have to make up the rest with underbody DF to maintain the same cornering speeds.

Edit: oh you mean width by leading edge to trailing edge...
ISLAMATRON
0

Joined: 1 Oct 2008

0
ISLAMATRON wrote:Quite the opposite... GP2, like Indy car rely much more on underbody down force and ground effects,

Is that so?

ISLAMATRON wrote:Please watch the Indy 500 this weekend and watch how they can dice at high speed(200+ mph)

Apples to oranges. Indianapolis is a multi-line circuit, F1 typically does not run on such circuits.
kilcoo316
28

Joined: 9 Mar 2005
Location: Kilcoo, Ireland

0
kilcoo316 wrote:
ISLAMATRON wrote:Quite the opposite... GP2, like Indy car rely much more on underbody down force and ground effects,

Is that so?

ISLAMATRON wrote:Please watch the Indy 500 this weekend and watch how they can dice at high speed(200+ mph)

Apples to oranges. Indianapolis is a multi-line circuit, F1 typically does not run on such circuits.

I will explain your pic with 2 of my own

see the big venturi tunnels(much like INDYCAR)? I'm not saying diffusers are the (only)key to close racing, but underbody/ground effects downforce as a whole.

and regarding your apples to oranges to comment, I wouldnt really call it a multi-line circuit maybe 1.5 cars wide line but my point is INDYCARS race much closer there than F1 cars ever did in turn 13 of the USGP (turn 1 on the Indy track)... when did we ever see F1 cars there(turn 13) side by side even though they were going much slower.
ISLAMATRON
0

Joined: 1 Oct 2008

0
ISLAMATRON wrote:see the big venturi tunnels(much like INDYCAR)? I'm not saying diffusers are the (only)key to close racing, but underbody/ground effects downforce as a whole.

See the shallow ramp angle?

Know what that infers for the wake?

Know what it infers for downforce levels?
kilcoo316
28

Joined: 9 Mar 2005
Location: Kilcoo, Ireland

0
kilcoo316 wrote:
ISLAMATRON wrote:see the big venturi tunnels(much like INDYCAR)? I'm not saying diffusers are the (only)key to close racing, but underbody/ground effects downforce as a whole.

See the shallow ramp angle?

Know what that infers for the wake?

Know what it infers for downforce levels?

ISLAMATRON
0

Joined: 1 Oct 2008

0

A shallow ramp angle means:

1. Less vertical velocity in the wake.

2. Less downforce for a given floor throat:exit area ratio.

So, you ask less from the floor, you have less wake effects for the car behind to deal with.

Ask nothing from the floor, and you minimise* the wake effects for the car behind to deal with.

*obviously the wake cannot be reduced to nothing due to the presence of the wheels etc.
kilcoo316
28

Joined: 9 Mar 2005
Location: Kilcoo, Ireland

0
ISLAMATRON wrote:and regarding your apples to oranges to comment, I wouldnt really call it a multi-line circuit maybe 1.5 cars wide line but my point is INDYCARS race much closer there than F1 cars ever did in turn 13 of the USGP (turn 1 on the Indy track)... when did we ever see F1 cars there(turn 13) side by side even though they were going much slower.

Down to the track again. The F1 layout had a high-speed grip-limited corner just before joining the oval bit - and there wasn't much of a chance to follow there, not with the old aero rules. The F1 cars drove on less than half the oval, and watching the footage there, the drafting cars always seemed to catch up on those leading them, but it was too short, considering they started "chasing" far behind due to that corner.
Metar
0

Joined: 23 Jan 2008

Previous