F1 Front wing - Mandated section (Y250) question

[TryHard]

So, I've taken on a little project for the easter break, and decided to CAD up a 2014 version of an F1 wing... something to relieve the boredom.

Anyway, trying to do it properly, and to all the prescribed dimensions for 2014, I've coming across an interesting anonmaly... basically, when plotting out the prescribed 500mm centre section in section (as per drawing 7, p77 of the 2014 regs), it results in an aerofoil that is nose up in incidence... and not parallel to the reference plane as expected.

I've checked it vs the 2013 regs, and its the same section... so my question is this, to those more knowledgeable on this.. is this section meant to be nose up? I wonder if it's something to do with trying to create a neutral section to the airflow when actually fitted and running on the car, taking rake and pitch into account?

Additionally, I tried rotating the the section to be parallel to the reference plane, but this just then results in the section being below the lowest bondary when the TE reference corner is in postion, or the TE reference corner being well out of location when the section is above the 75mm boundary... so I'm not sure thats the solution!

Anyway, a picture to help describe...
Red lines are the front wing bodywork zones
Green lines are for the section reference point on the TE bottom rear corner
Blue lines are the section is as per the described section
Purple lines are the section is rotated parallel to the reference plane... which as mentioned above, then falls outside the bodywork zones (red lines)



Thoughts anyone?

And I'll post up the finished article when done in the projects area

[astracrazy]

its meant to be like your purple shape.

have to got it the right height above the reference plane? Because blue is the wrong shape, it wouldn't be neutral but purple is correct.

[Blanchimont]

I also noticed this "problem" when i looked through the 2014 regs after they were published.
To clear things up, the blue shape is the correct one when plotting the coordinates from the regulations without the given tolerances. These tolerances are +-2mm for the trailing edge coordinate and +-1mm for all other coordinates, as mentioned in the regs.

My conclusion:
The profile is considered aero neutral, as it is symmetrical to the wing chord, but at the same time the whole profile produces lift, as the chord points slightly upwards (edit: the angle is 4,09 degrees). If the teams now look at the tolerances, they can exploit them and try to find a shape that produces less lift than the shape according to the given coordinates without the tolerances. And if then the whole car is run with a little rake this profile could really be neutral, which means not to produce lift.

Other thoughts on this?

[rjsa]

I'm going from memory only, but I'd say yes, mid section is supposed to generate lift. When following another car it's the area more affected by the disturbed flow and will lose lift fast, increasing the net downforce for the wing.

[gixxer_drew]

Ground effect.

[TryHard]

its meant to be like your purple shape.

have to got it the right height above the reference plane? Because blue is the wrong shape, it wouldn't be neutral but purple is correct.

Thing is, the section is very clearly defined in the FIA regs, and from what I can tell, they haven't changed since the introduction of the mandatory centre section (circa 2009). The section has a long list of points that plot it out to define where it is, and the blue shape is exactly as that defined plot is, which leads me to agree with...

I also noticed this "problem" when i looked through the 2014 regs after they were published.
To clear things up, the blue shape is the correct one when plotting the coordinates from the regulations without the given tolerances. These tolerances are +-2mm for the trailing edge coordinate and +-1mm for all other coordinates, as mentioned in the regs.

My conclusion:
The profile is considered aero neutral, as it is symmetrical to the wing chord, but at the same time the whole profile produces lift, as the chord points slightly upwards (edit: the angle is 4,09 degrees). If the teams now look at the tolerances, they can exploit them and try to find a shape that produces less lift than the shape according to the given coordinates without the tolerances. And if then the whole car is run with a little rake this profile could really be neutral, which means not to produce lift.

Other thoughts on this?

I'm leaning towards the same conclusion, and agree that there maybe some advantage in exploiting the tolerances to reduce the lift making effect... but at a guess, when mounted on the car, with the rake angles the teams run, the section is most likely already to be very close to a neutral (maybe even positive) angle to the airflow... as all the dimensions here are relative to the reference plane.

[patryksok]

Hi,

I'm looking for coordinates from Drawing 7 in Technical Regulations in *.txt format, maybe someone could help me? Or maybe anyone know what airfoil is used in that section reffering to Technical Regulations?

@TryHard, maybe you can help me?

[krisfx]

Sorry to dig up an old(ish) thread.

Does anyone have these co ordinates in a file that I can dump into Solidworks?

[Blanchimont]

My suggestion would be to take 10 from the given points and create a sketch with them. Then create a spline through these points, that should come pretty close to the given profile.

Or take 10 or 20 points to Excel, create a XY plot and insert a trendline to get a formula you can use.

[krisfx]

Ah smart move yeah, am I right in saying TE is trailing edge and LE is leading edge?

To be honest, I'm more confused by how they have laid out those co ordinates, which I know makes me sound a bit of a clot aha.