Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Andres125sx wrote:IMHO you look like obsessed trying to convice people that current cars use ground effects more than wings, like if wings are there only to aid GE.
Simply put, an inverted airfoil in ground effect creates downforce as a result of vortices that form along the end plates at the wing's point of peak suction. The low pressure literally sucks the wing to the ground.
I know, agree and never denied it.
But even so it´s a wing with a top side causing high pressure zones (no high pressure zone in venturi tunnels), a lot more drag than venturi tunnels, and a lot more turbulence and dirty air than venturi tunnels.
As I said, even if they´re designed to work as venturi tunnels, even if they work as venturi tunnels, that does not mean they are venturi tunnels. They are wings, with a bottom side working as a venturi tunnel, but also with a top side creating more DF, more drag, and more dirty air.
Tim.Wright wrote:I think millions is quite an exaggeration. And they certainly don't replace all the parts multiple times each weekend. I think you are just making stuff up now...
I like the idea of active suspension, but you're dreaming if you think you can develop an active system cheaper than the current passive systems.
Tbh I think you'd be surprised how much top team's spend on these items.
Happy to be wrong tho, if I can get some reputable info I'll post it here.
WilliamsF1 wrote:All things are pointing up so that the pressure difference behind the car is reduced to make the diffuser more efficient
In the 2000's the rear wing (low) and beam wing did the job of up wash to increase the diffuser
Now it is all the appendages that you have pointed out
Without the upwash it will only make the back wash (the reversal of diffuser air flow back into the low pressure zone) are more of an issue and lowers the efficiency of the diffuser
The tunnel is a different story as the air is already in an up wash trajectory increasing the upwash further behind the car will not increase the efficiency of the tunnel.
The teams spend a lot of time getting air to flow between the rear wheels and over the top of the diffuser. There is no "back wash" because to flow backwards would require the air flowing over the top of the diffuser to stop/reverse its flow. The rear of the bodywork has a lot of air flowing through it from the radiators - almost all of the entering the front of the sidepods (and intercooler flow in to the roll hoop inlet) will be discharged through the cooling exits between the rear wheels. And then there's the engine exhaust too.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
SectorOne wrote:No that would be the slipstream. The number 1 cause for overtakes in lower formulas.
My point was more about the big picture. Spec-series cars don't have a locked-in performance advantage, which is untrue of cars in a developmental series. That means overtaking in a developmental series is always going to be more difficult, regardless of any and all elements that form the basis of performance differentiation, simply because advantages gained through technological development are vastly more consistent than even the very best drivers.
Combined with a qualifying format that arranges the structurally fast cars ahead of the structurally slow cars, you don't exactly have an ideal recipe for wheel-to-wheel racing, yanno?
The takeaway of that is this: unless the fundamental nature of F1 is altered, it will never consistently produce idyllic on-track battles. As such, I think it's best to manage expectations accordingly.
Andres125sx wrote:IMHO you look like obsessed trying to convice people that current cars use ground effects more than wings, like if wings are there only to aid GE.
Simply put, an inverted airfoil in ground effect creates downforce as a result of vortices that form along the end plates at the wing's point of peak suction. The low pressure literally sucks the wing to the ground.
Andres125sx wrote:But even so it´s a wing with a top side causing high pressure zones (no high pressure zone in venturi tunnels), a lot more drag than venturi tunnels, and a lot more turbulence and dirty air than venturi tunnels.
As I said, even if they´re designed to work as venturi tunnels, even if they work as venturi tunnels, that does not mean they are venturi tunnels. They are wings, with a bottom side working as a venturi tunnel, but also with a top side creating more DF, more drag, and more dirty air.
I don't understand the rationale behind your claims. Will you please explain it to me?
I don't understand what you mean. Please elaborate.
For anyone: when a car is unable to follow another through a turn, must it be attributed to "dirty air" or could it be a byproduct of something else altogether?
Honda R&D Technical Review 2009 wrote:4.1.3 Analysis of flow when front tire is deformed by side force. The measured front tire shape was analyzed using CFD. This analysis showed that, in comparison to a tire with no side force acting on it, approximately 5% of the vehicle’s downforce was lost when a side force of 9000 N acted on the tire. Figure 17 shows the total pressure distribution close to the road surface with and without a side force acting on the tire. The results show that the position of the separation point on the outboard-side wall of the tire moves back significantly when a side force acts on the tire.
bhall II wrote: Result of a 20mm change
Or might it even be an unusual side effect of pitch-sensitivity?
McCabism wrote:When an inverted wing equipped with an endplate is placed in front of such a rotating wheel, van den Berg identified three further primary flow features: a vortex from the upper edge of the endplate (A); a vortex from the junction between the trailing edge of the flap and the endplate (B); and a vortex from the lower edge of the endplate (C).
With a 50% scale 580mm front wing-span (relevant to pre-2009 F1 regulations), van den Berg identified that the top edge front-wing vortex passes over the crown of the wheel at high ride-heights (Figure 1), but passes inside the wheel at low ride-heights (Figure 2). At high ride-heights this vortex over the crown keeps the flow attached for longer, increasing the lift of the wheel, and creating a zone of re-circulation (G) behind the wheel, which increases the wheel drag.
Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe simply being forced to drive a bit slower is the problem? Downforce squares with speed, which means it can quickly come and go for reasons unrelated to "dirty air."
SectorOne wrote:No that would be the slipstream. The number 1 cause for overtakes in lower formulas.
My point was more about the big picture. Spec-series cars don't have a locked-in performance advantage, which is untrue of cars in a developmental series. That means overtaking in a developmental series is always going to be more difficult, regardless of any and all elements that form the basis of performance differentiation, simply because advantages gained through technological development are vastly more consistent than even the very best drivers.
Combined with a qualifying format that arranges the structurally fast cars ahead of the structurally slow cars, you don't exactly have an ideal recipe for wheel-to-wheel racing, yanno?
The takeaway of that is this: unless the fundamental nature of F1 is altered, it will never consistently produce idyllic on-track battles. As such, I think it's best to manage expectations accordingly.
Andres125sx wrote:IMHO you look like obsessed trying to convice people that current cars use ground effects more than wings, like if wings are there only to aid GE.
Simply put, an inverted airfoil in ground effect creates downforce as a result of vortices that form along the end plates at the wing's point of peak suction. The low pressure literally sucks the wing to the ground.
Vortices are generally a bad thing on airplanes, except at high alpha where they can be used to maintain lift.
On the front wing of a F1 car, vortices are directed below the wing because a vortex is a tight low pressure region. Stick a low pressure region below a wing and you generate downforce. The big loops at the end of current F1 front wings are "vortex entrainment cones". They use the voretx created at the leading edge of the endplate footplate and create downforce. The vortex is directed outside of the tyre so that clean air can make its way to the leading edge of the sidepods/floor.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Andres125sx wrote:But even so it´s a wing with a top side causing high pressure zones (no high pressure zone in venturi tunnels), a lot more drag than venturi tunnels, and a lot more turbulence and dirty air than venturi tunnels.
As I said, even if they´re designed to work as venturi tunnels, even if they work as venturi tunnels, that does not mean they are venturi tunnels. They are wings, with a bottom side working as a venturi tunnel, but also with a top side creating more DF, more drag, and more dirty air.
I don't understand the rationale behind your claims. Will you please explain it to me?
It is very simple but it´s difficult to explain this things in english for me. Please excuse the lack of proper technical words, try to get the idea.
You´ve stated current wings already work as venturi tunnels, so it doesn´t matter if you trade downforce from wings with DF from GE because current cars already use GE so it will be the same.
And I´ve said even if they work as venturi tunnels they still are wings with a top side what means they create more drag due to the higher frontal area, drag causes more turbulence, and also the high pressure zones at the top side combined with the low pressure zones at the bottom produce vortices. Those are problems of wings wich a proper venturi tunnel does not have. Wings produce more dirty air than venturi tunnels.
You´ve just posted an explanation about vortices created by front wings and some other aerodynamic problems caused by front tyres. Interesting, they´re irrelevant to the discussion about how to improve overtaking reducing dirty air because that´s not dirty air caused by the car in front wich prevent you to get close. That´s dirty air caused by your own car (front wing/tyre), so it affects everyone the same way (depending on each design obviously), it doesn´t matter if there are a car ahead or not. An interesting explanation wich shows how difficult to understand are aerodynamics but irrelevant to the thread.
Anycase it shows a big problem of wings, vortices. That´s a problem of wings, or more specifically, a problem wich appear when different pressure zones are mixed, a high pressure zone at the top side and a low pressure zone in the bottom side (for F1, inverted for planes). Venturi tunnels only create low pressure zones, no high pressure zones, so they don´t cause vortices and all the problems related. Your post about vortices show how difficult to understand are vortices from front wing. That should be enough proof about how much dirty air wings produce. They study those in detail because the whole car will pass through them so they need to understand vortices created by the front wing so the rest of the car work aerdynamically as it was designed to work. That´s ok because the car is just behind the front wing at a constant distance, so they can cope with that and even use those vortices. But that´s different when we look at the rear wing, vortices caused by this wing can´t be used by the car behind for obvious reasons, they´re just dirty air the car at the back will have to cope with....
Basically what I´m trying to say is a real venturi tunnel does not produce as much dirty air as two wings, even if they both work as a venturi tunnel. Dirty air will always exist, but without wings it would be much reduced, so overtaking would be easier. How much easier is difficult to say, but it will be easier for sure.
Wings are not necessary today, aerodynamics have evolved enough to create enough DF without wings. Wings create a lot of downforce but also a lot of dirty air, too much IMO, there are better options to produce DF.
Andres125sx wrote:Basically what I´m trying to say is a proper venturi tunnel will cause less dirty air than two wings working as a venturi tunnel. Dirty air will always exist, but much reduced, so overtaking would be easier with proper venturi tunnels and reduced or removed wings. How much easier is difficult to say, but it will be easier for sure.
Wings are not necessary today, aerodynamics have evolved enough to create enough DF without wings. Wings create a lot of downforce but also a lot of dirty air, too much IMO, there are better options to produce DF.
Yes, I understand what you're trying to say; I just don't understand why you're trying to say it.
(Click to enlarge)
They are functionally identical, as current front wings are not freestream airfoils. Any similarities between them are 99.9% cosmetic.
The main plane and flap function as the inlet, or convergent. They are slotted to prevent turbulent flow separation that would otherwise occur due to the adverse pressure gradient that exists between the underside of the wing and the front of the spinning wheel behind it. The end plate is the throat, where camber and any outward deflection accelerates the air flow before spitting it out of the back, along the end plate, in the form of vortical flow identical to that which would be expelled by a "proper" venturi tunnel/diffuser...
If replaced with a pair of venturi tunnels, it would have zero impact on frontal area, because that's defined by the tires and the chassis. Further, it would have either no effect on the cars' ability to create "dirty air" or it would actually increase that ability since you'd be removing the downstream blockage to upwash provided by the wheels, which, incidentally, would still create "dirty air" all on their own...
Based upon the limited rationale you've provided, I can somewhat understand why you might want to get rid of the rear wing, because it comes closest to behaving like a classic freestream airfoil. But, it's chief function is now what it's always been: to provide aerodynamic balance. That's why even the ground effect cars of the '80s still had them.
Plus, they've been minimized to such a degree since 2008 that the cars are now severely rear-limited. Getting rid of them at this point would do little more than neutralize DRS, which is fine by me, and make slipstreaming more difficult, which is counterintuitive if the desire is for more overtaking.
(I wasn't able to organize my thoughts too well over the last couple of days. But, I'm back to firing on all cylinders. )
Honestly Bhall, it seems to me that you are still conflating Wing vortices and incidental GE with a pure Venturi GE under-body design and it's consequences - im no aero guy but this seems to be broadly accepted by everyone except yourself ???
djos wrote:...this seems to be broadly accepted by everyone except yourself ???
(Click to enlarge)
EDIT: Sometimes I'm not able to clearly express my thoughts. So, I fully understand why people sometimes don't understand what I've said. But, I never just make --- up.
Bhall, no one is disputing what you have posted above, it's still not talking about pure ground effects underbody designs tho, you are still banging on about front wings, last I checked the topic is about GE underbody's and reduced front / rear wing sizes. We already know F1 front wings are creating vortices to seal the sides of the underbody - it they didn't do this they couldnt run the extreme rake they currently do. This is still not a "proper" GE design, it's a workaround to claw back DF lost to various aero rule changes over the years.
Look back to CART at it's peak and you can see they relied much less on wing generated downforce and much more on the underbody, imo the racing produced back then was far more likely to be entertaining than F1 was at the time (I watched both).
djos wrote:We already know F1 front wings are creating vortices to seal the sides of the underbody...
The vortices are the downforce.
Bernoulli: where dynamic pressure is highest, static pressure is lowest.
A vortex is a highly energized helical flow structure that reduces static pressure along every surface it touches. So, when you have an entrained vortex that flows along the underside of a wing in ground effect, the resultant low pressure creates suction. That's the downforce, and everything else is irrelevant.
Front wing
Diffuser
The difference between this...
...and this...
...is superficial.
Does it make sense now? (I had no idea this was the point of contention.)
djos wrote:We already know F1 front wings are creating vortices to seal the sides of the underbody...
The vortices are the downforce.
Bernoulli: where dynamic pressure is highest, static pressure is lowest.
A vortex is a highly energized helical flow structure that reduces static pressure along every surface it touches. So, when you have an entrained vortex that flows along the underside of a wing in ground effect, the resultant low pressure creates suction. That's the downforce, and everything else is meaningless.
The vortex in F1 is a seal
It can be removed if there is a sliding skirt on the end plate
The entire front diffuser (with exception of the neutral section) produces a downward force. The maximum happens at the edges as it is the part closest to the ground, and F1 engineers would like the maximum at the ends so that the same can be multiplied by cantilever action to the center supports.
)
