- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
It was done mainly to reduce the wake signature (but it would help the water spray).mach11 wrote:was this wing design ever mounted on an F1 car because... i heard that it was mainly used to reduce water spray behind the car during a wet race....
if there was a actual design where can i get the specs ( dimensions) and wind tunnel test data?????????
It was brought about because it was known that the wake off the rear wing and diffuser of a modern F1 car cause low pressure areas for the car following (see ESP's CFD image). This reduces the downforce potential of the following car and as a result, they can get to the car ahead but don't have the grip to pass. So, to resolve this they thought about this "downwash generating wing", which, obviously, creates a downwash instead of upwash. This improves the pressure gradient of the wake.tok-tokkie wrote:I had never heard of it. What was the history behind it & what got in its way? It looks so appropriate for what the Overtaking Working Group (or whatever they were called) were wanting to achieve.
On the other hand I don't follow how deflecting the airstream downwards was able to generate downforce - don't momentum vectors apply here?
Hence why we now have higher narrower wings. Try and get the downwash thrugh the wing centre zone and with that reduce the efficency of the wing as it is now more narrow. But many cars so far this year have now changed that with the rear crash structure with both the lower elements of the rear wing and their DDDs. Also the flow conditioner that is the shark fin also has something to do with downwash.Scotracer wrote:It was brought about because it was known that the wake off the rear wing and diffuser of a modern F1 car cause low pressure areas for the car following (see ESP's CFD image). This reduces the downforce potential of the following car and as a result, they can get to the car ahead but don't have the grip to pass. So, to resolve this they thought about this "downwash generating wing", which, obviously, creates a downwash instead of upwash. This improves the pressure gradient of the wake.tok-tokkie wrote:I had never heard of it. What was the history behind it & what got in its way? It looks so appropriate for what the Overtaking Working Group (or whatever they were called) were wanting to achieve.
On the other hand I don't follow how deflecting the airstream downwards was able to generate downforce - don't momentum vectors apply here?
However
It was found that the two wings behind the rear wheels were extremely sensitive to the wake of the rear wheels and as a result, were not efficient enough to work. The idea was then scrapped.
It was not to increase downforce of the car using the wing, but improve the grip of the car following.
That's not why the wings are now higher and narrower. They are higher to get the low pressure areas above the ground - so not affecting the front wing and diffuser of the car following. They made it narrower to reduce the wake and reduce downforce (which was still a bit deal back then).ESPImperium wrote:Hence why we now have higher narrower wings. Try and get the downwash thrugh the wing centre zone and with that reduce the efficency of the wing as it is now more narrow. But many cars so far this year have now changed that with the rear crash structure with both the lower elements of the rear wing and their DDDs. Also the flow conditioner that is the shark fin also has something to do with downwash.Scotracer wrote:It was brought about because it was known that the wake off the rear wing and diffuser of a modern F1 car cause low pressure areas for the car following (see ESP's CFD image). This reduces the downforce potential of the following car and as a result, they can get to the car ahead but don't have the grip to pass. So, to resolve this they thought about this "downwash generating wing", which, obviously, creates a downwash instead of upwash. This improves the pressure gradient of the wake.tok-tokkie wrote:I had never heard of it. What was the history behind it & what got in its way? It looks so appropriate for what the Overtaking Working Group (or whatever they were called) were wanting to achieve.
On the other hand I don't follow how deflecting the airstream downwards was able to generate downforce - don't momentum vectors apply here?
However
It was found that the two wings behind the rear wheels were extremely sensitive to the wake of the rear wheels and as a result, were not efficient enough to work. The idea was then scrapped.
It was not to increase downforce of the car using the wing, but improve the grip of the car following.
In 2005 FIA President Max Mosley commissioned his former partner Nick Wirth, a designer who had worked with the Simtek and Renault F1 teams, to come up with an idea of how to lower aerodynamic turbulence behind the cars and by doing so create more overtaking. Wirth worked with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) programmes to come up with what he called the Centreline Downwash Generating (CDG) wing. The FIA announced that it would introduce the CDG wing in 2008.
At the time the Technical Working Group, working with the Grand Prix Manufacturers' Association (GPMA) used the Italian Fondtech wind tunnel, run by former Ferrari and Tyrrell aerodynamicist Jean-Claude Migeot, to see if the CDG wing would work. Migeot and his team concluded that the idea was flawed. By the autumn of 2006 no-one had much confidence in the CDG wing and Mosley agreed that its introduction could be delayed and that the Technical Working Group should come up with a better idea for 2009.
http://www.f1technical.net/search/index ... earch#1093
