FIA - Centreline Downwash Generating (CDG) Wing

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.

Post Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:25 am

An interesting proposal from the FIA for 2008. A rear wing that creates a tow and improves the downforce of the following car.

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Re ... 05-01.html

http://www.fia.com/resources/images/178 ... raphic.jpg

I suppose the obvious "problem" to watch for - if the wing is too good at doing it's job, making overtaking too easy - then I can see all sorts of other problems arising, perhaps more desperate defending.

A careful balancing act required.

I don't quite get how it creates a tow as the wake will be quite smooth.........hmmmm :wink:

EDIT: I just read the whole article - a shameless and pointless plug at the end by an AMD execcutive - really they should be above that sort of thing :roll:
RH1300S
 
Joined: 6 Jun 2005

Post Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:57 am

The survey showed that what they've been doing for past decade and more is something fans dislike but FIA doesn’t care and goes into designing of car which is stupidity.

Here on October 24, 2005 I say that FIA designed rear wing won't increase overtaking just as FIA cost cutting politics didn’t prevent extinction of small teams (it was increased).

GPMA, GPMA, GPMA, GPMA, GPMA...!

FIA is just a bunch of hypocrites
manchild
 
Joined: 3 Jun 2005

Post Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:03 pm

if u remeber how good racing was in mid 90s.. they should try to go back to that designs. no need to try all this radical designs
jaslfc
 
Joined: 19 Nov 2004

Post Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:13 pm

I'm not (yet) going to get into a debate about the FIA :wink: I'll keep it on topic for a little bit.........

Clearly the two side wings will create a turbulent wake of some sort. Does anyone know the answer to this question:

Can anyone visualise what the turbulence created by the wings will do? Clearly they will interact with the car underbody VERY differently to now (cunning move to slash downforce too? :twisted: ). The "downwash" (don't like that term) between the wings will be at a higher pressure than the area behind the wings, so does that suggest that the smooth wake will widen at some distance behind the car as the higher pressure air tries to fill the low pressure area?

I can see that the wings will be pretty inefficient as they are being fed by very dirty air from the rear tyres - a pretty messy solution from that point of view. Maybe they hardly work at all - does anyone know?

What I am getting at is that it looks like an effective way to look at the F1 aero problem. A bit of lateral thinking.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, just looking for some technical response to this.
RH1300S
 
Joined: 6 Jun 2005

Post Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:32 pm

RH1300S: I think that slipstream will be killed by flow going very wide generating vacuum behind the car which will cause huge drag.

jaslfc: Good racing in the mid-‘90s?!

That was only because Williams and Benetton had same engines and competed among themselves while the others were struggling. Renault had won all constructor championships from 1992 to 1997 and if it wasn’t for that tragic 1994 all drivers would won driving Renault powered cars too.

Last good racing was before Williams applied active suspension and that was in 1992. After that soon all teams developed reliable sequential gearboxes and the racing and overtaking started dying.

What I think that they should do (when it matters switching to former reg.) would be switch on downforce reg. prior to plank and stepped floor including 2m wide cars, wide slicks and manual gearboxes and foot operated clutch . The rest of the passive safety related regulations should remain unchanged.
manchild
 
Joined: 3 Jun 2005

Post Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:38 pm

RH1300S wrote:...What I am getting at is that it looks like an effective way to look at the F1 aero problem. A bit of lateral thinking.


Lateral thinking by FIA?! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Current regulations say that max bodywork width can be 1400mm and the wings they suggested are wide as much as rear wheels.
manchild
 
Joined: 3 Jun 2005

Post Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:59 pm

i dont know why its becoming a hobby of yours to disagree with me. :D but i think during that time there was alot of overtaking and exiciting racing. thats my opinion!!
jaslfc
 
Joined: 19 Nov 2004

Post Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:00 pm

Manchild, I'm sure you sit there with a big stick and decide who you are going to prod today :wink:

Back to topic - will it achieve the stated aim?

BTW - 1400mm rule is an FIA one, so they can change it :D

I agree entirely with your comments about gearboxes - it is a DRIVERS championship after all and changing gear well is a art that can separate the average from the great. Not to mention the chances of a missed shift. The saving our engines arguments to keep semi-auto boxes put up by the constructors is pure bunk!
RH1300S
 
Joined: 6 Jun 2005

Post Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:25 pm

Here's a sketch of the proposed new setup
http://www.fia.com/resources/images/1782256506__CDG_graphic.jpg
I do like bringing back wide slicks, however. IMO, the best way to bring back overtaking is to eliminate aero dependant cars. No wings, just mechanical grip.
DaveKillens
 
Joined: 20 Jan 2005

Post Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:29 pm

jaslfc wrote:i dont know why its becoming a hobby of yours to disagree with me. :D but i think during that time there was alot of overtaking and exiciting racing. thats my opinion!!


I agreed with you yesterday saying that I'd like to see one hour open qualifying session too :wink:
manchild
 
Joined: 3 Jun 2005

Post Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:38 pm

RH1300S wrote:Manchild, I'm sure you sit there with a big stick and decide who you are going to prod today :wink:

No, I have a little black book with a hit-list :wink:

Lack of overtaking is 99% due to sequential gearboxes, we've agreed about that one - just imagine how many chance for mistake would there be if 20 drivers would have to shift down 1000 times per race (pressing clutch, moving lever)!

That would be 20.000 downshifts per race with every single downshifting being a possible overtaking opportunity in case of mistake. Don't forget that left foot would have an additional job including one arm.

It would be mistake/overtake opportunity wonderland! :D
manchild
 
Joined: 3 Jun 2005

Post Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:09 pm

Blaming the lack of overtaking on the gearboxes of today is just stupid. do you seriously think that even if they did go back to the orignal manual transmission that there would be mistakes left and right?
Guest
 

Post Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:37 pm

Anonymous wrote:Blaming the lack of overtaking on the gearboxes of today is just stupid. do you seriously think that even if they did go back to the orignal manual transmission that there would be mistakes left and right?

I'm absolutely certain. Just think about it - 20.000 engaging and releasing of clutch and 20.000 downshifting per race done by drivers instead of computers! Left foots used for two functions 20.000 times - all of the mentioned per race!

Perhaps 20.000 isn’t exact number because on different track there is different number of shifting but regardless if we're talking about 10.000 or 30.000 the number is huge.

Nowadays computer prevents driver from downshifting to low, takes care of rpm, throttle, clutch, diff, traction… Don’t tell me that any driver would be able to achieve anything with similar accuracy.

There were so many a mistakes made by drivers, and not just mistakes but difference in skills that caused more overtaking before all major teams switched to sequential gearbox in the early '90s.

BTW, why don't you explain your views instead of just saying "stupid"? What are your arguments?

*I forgot to mention lifting right foot of the accelerator for shifting purpose as huge factor since sequential gearboxes allow drivers to shift up without taking foot of the accelerator.
Last edited by manchild on Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
manchild
 
Joined: 3 Jun 2005

Post Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:25 pm

I have to agree with guest that going back to manual gearboxes is stupid!

The difference will not be in the number of misstakes made but the kind of misstake will change.

Formula one has always been about extracting maximum performance from the car. Wheter or not that car has a computer onboard doesnt really matter.

Schumacher was fearsomely fast in the beggining of the 1990 and he is still rather fast.

The modern semi-automatic F1 style gearbox is aparently faster than a manual gearbox. That is why I prefer the semi.

The lack of overtaking has nothing to do with the gearbox, the basic problem is that the car following another car looses overall grip and is thus penalised. What needs to happen is that the cars are designed so that a car following another car doesnt get penalised. Before that happens overtaking will be just as difficult regardless of the gearbox.

Im sorry Manchild but I cant see that manual gearboxes would improve overtaking. There is no logic in your argument. Why would the better drivers that the current F1 format favours make more misstakes than the lesser drivers behind them ?

In my opinion the aeroproblem is the biggest problem in regard to overtaking.

/ Fx



/ Fx
Guest
 

Post Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:02 pm

Aero reg. have changed so frequently since sequential gearboxes appeared and still nothing brought back overtaking. In the early ‘90s the were cars with sequential gearboxes and with almost identical aero regulations as they were several years before but possibility of following car on short distance didn’t maintained number of overtaking that could be seen with manual gearboxes.

Check the regulations from the early ‘90s and compare them with previous several seasons of constant aero changes which have lead nowhere. To be able to catch up car in front (and get in trouble because of aero reg. as you say) first you have to be faster than the driver in front. If sequential computerized gearboxes enables him not to make mistakes and maintain the lead that you’d never catch him because your own computerized gearboxes does the same thing.

I’m still saying that 19 races X 20 drivers X 1000-2000 gearshifts per race with dual use of left foot, dual use of right foot, additional use of one arm = 400.000 actions per season from all drivers which don’t occur at all nowadays because sequential computerized gearboxes do all that instead of driver and with perfection.

To me that is a fertile ground for mistakes, presentations of true talents and skills etc.

Check out that Villeneuve – Arnoux clip I posted and tell me that the overtaking occurred because of different aero regulations! Please, it was only due skills of both drivers – gear shifting and braking.
manchild
 
Joined: 3 Jun 2005

Next

Return to Aerodynamics, chassis and tyres

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Godius and 6 guests