Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
rjsa
51
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 03:01

Re: Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

Post

bhall II wrote:This is just too rich. The guy who derisively compared this discussion to a "high school debate club" has himself offered nothing more than superficial jabs, and the guy who casually dismissed the work of technical directors collectively responsible for no fewer than 23 F1 World Championships says I'm arrogant.

http://i.imgur.com/y1dEUMV.jpg

:lol:
Ok.

The OWG:

I didn't dismiss the their theoretical work. Reality just knocked it to the ground. They dissed something that other categories have always successfully used. What they came up with, the adjustable front wings, failed miserably. Now they overshot it with the DRS.

If someone takes a minute to look at the people there, one will find Pat Simmonds. The guy who sent his driver hitting a wall to steal a race win. A lying cheater. I just can't believe the results of the OWG were not bent into shape to meet the agenda of the highly intelligent and ambitious people gathered there.

Wings without drag:

Image

I don't even know where to start. Like I wrote before, it isn't even wrong. For what you propose to be true you'd need the wings to create a stable cone of stagnant air behind it. A huge shadow where air follows the car at it's approximate speed hence not impeding the car's advance where the wing crossed it. And better yet, this shadow cone needs to be shaped strictly within the projected front area of the car to make use of 100% of the effect without waste.

Deflectors on top of truck cabs do that. The end bulges of the F-E car's wing you posted could do that and indeed have a net negative effect on drag. But extrapolating that into the downforce generating part of the wing is just silly.

High school debate club:

The fact that you bore most people into submission doesn't mean you're right. That's usually the case with me: I just look and shut up to avoid being dragged into the mess. Sometimes it's just too wrong and can't be left alone. People come here for knowledge. You can't just make things up as you go and spread disinformation like that. Front wings have a very big contribution in total drag of a F1 car. Convincing people otherwise is wrong.

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

Post

Wings without drag:
Common rjsa, this is not lego where you take one part away while expecting nothing else changes on the structure. Taking the front wing away will lead to much more drag from the tire. You know that, I know that, Bhall knows that, everybody with some bit of brains knows that. I'm glad you underline it yourself, but It's misleading to quote that image since that image would look way different when you'd take out the front wing.
I don't even know where to start. Like I wrote before, it isn't even wrong. For what you propose to be true you'd need the wings to create a stable cone of stagnant air behind it. A huge shadow where air follows the car at it's approximate speed hence not impeding the car's advance where the wing crossed it. And better yet, this shadow cone needs to be shaped strictly within the projected front area of the car to make use of 100% of the effect without waste.

Deflectors on top of truck cabs do that. The end bulges of the F-E car's wing you posted could do that and indeed have a net negative effect on drag. But extrapolating that into the downforce generating part of the wing is just silly.
That's more reasonable, although do note current wings like Mercedes:
Image
Have a very large chunk of their front wing dedicated to combat the wheel wake, which has ever more increased throughout the years. You are right to state that extrapolating this line of thought into purely downforce generating parts, is silly. However, that lurge chunk is a big compromise on downforce. For instance a large part of restriction free area on the front outboard section, is left empty to create a an outswept shape in the overall wing, just to combat tyre wake and obviously has nothing to do with generating front wing downforce. And that's the current trend! Even Red Bull, masters at aero, did not realize this at first in the current era of rules. It's why they moved from this 2014 version:
Image
to this 2015 current version:
Image

My take is is you probably both have a case for your arguments (aside hugely childish arguments like "notes from scrapbook""not having a clue" etc.). I think the truth lies inbetween it: you see a front wing too much as downforce producing device, and bhall might see it too much as an airflow deflecting device. It's a compromise inbetween.
Front wings have a very big contribution in total drag of a F1 car. Convincing people otherwise is wrong.
I don't think he denied it has a big contribution. The question you 2 have to figure out for yourself is how much drag will be addeds on all other parts of the car when you take away the front wing. Will that remain equal, less or more. Bhall might have been optimistic to state it does not add to form drag, but it does not make his reasoning wrong.
Sometimes it's just too wrong and can't be left alone.
How did you intend to fix that by throwing out "Whatever you paste on your scrapbooks dude, it's nonsense."? Or the even more ambigious "It's not even wrong. You obviously don't have a clue." Surely you do realize you did not achieve a correction on 'the being wrong' and merely kicked someone to the heels? You have every right to step in if you feel something's wrong, but if you do step in, make sure you have something constructive and convincing to tell them they are wrong. Bhall is not going to eat you; it's entirely possible you'll convince him if your arguments are solid, logical and reasonable.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: 13 Aug 2013, 10:15
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

Post

bhall II wrote:1. You can do your own research into the upstream effects of downstream events. When you do, you'll discover that front wing downforce changes concurrent with steering angle, as blockages that strongly impact efficiency are modulated by steering angle changes, seen in the crosswind simulation below as "released" flows from the end plates that move around the wheels roughly the same way they would if a steering angle change had reoriented the wheels...

http://i.imgur.com/8AN8Z1H.jpg

[...]

Due to the aforementioned interaction with the wheels, which would be exceptionally easy to optimize with spec components, the front wing isn't an especially egregious contributor of induced drag. Because the wing has no impact on frontal area, it doesn't contribute to form drag.
Even a simple construction engineer like myself knows drag is not exclusively dependant on frontal area, or that´s what I learnt at the university to know how to stiffen buildings to resist high winds, so I´m not sure about the reason you state this, either you know a lot less than I thought, or you simply are too opinionated and just want to bring the idea down
bhall II wrote: Plus, a standard front wing can be used to greatly minimize the many types of drag associated with exposed, spinning wheels...
As a fan FW might do. Nobody said a word about restricting FW to stop this contribution
bhall II wrote:I'd suggest standard front wings, because fan concepts don't offer a tangible benefit that justifies the added weight and complexity.
So when fan cars where used they simply went the wrong way, as the concept does not offer any tangible benefit

Stupid Gordon Murray then, dreaming with an ideal F1 car with fans...

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

Post

Andres wrote:So when fan cars where used they simply went the wrong way, as the concept does not offer any tangible benefit [towards car performance]
Bhall wrote:I'd suggest standard front wings, because fan concepts don't offer a tangible benefit [towards overtaking] that justifies the added weight and complexity.
Maybe we should perhaps try to get everyone back on the same page?
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: 13 Aug 2013, 10:15
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

Post

turbof1 wrote: Taking the front wing away...
Again, who said a word about taking the FW away?

The idea is substituding DF generated by traditional FW with a wing, box or whatever you call it with a fan, that´s all
turbof1 wrote:For instance a large part of restriction free area on the front outboard section, is left empty to create a an outswept shape in the overall wing, just to combat tyre wake and obviously has nothing to do with generating front wing downforce. And that's the current trend!
And since the idea only pretend to substitude DF generated by wings with DF generated by a fan, all those components inteded to combat tire wake could be kept, and even improved since they would not need to cope with different airflow deflections intended to create DF, any airflow deflection might be studied to reduce tyre wake and drag without any other consideration

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: 13 Aug 2013, 10:15
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

Post

turbof1 wrote:
Andres wrote:So when fan cars where used they simply went the wrong way, as the concept does not offer any tangible benefit [towards car performance]
Bhall wrote:I'd suggest standard front wings, because fan concepts don't offer a tangible benefit [towards overtaking] that justifies the added weight and complexity.
Maybe we should perhaps try to get everyone back on the same page?
So you think a fan and a wing are equally sensible to dirty air?

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

Post

Andres125sx wrote:
turbof1 wrote:
Andres wrote:So when fan cars where used they simply went the wrong way, as the concept does not offer any tangible benefit [towards car performance]
Bhall wrote:I'd suggest standard front wings, because fan concepts don't offer a tangible benefit [towards overtaking] that justifies the added weight and complexity.
Maybe we should perhaps try to get everyone back on the same page?
So you think a fan and a wing are equally sensible to dirty air?
I have made no comments on that in the quoted piece (I might have a few pages back; I don't really recall now). I am simply doing my job as a moderator at the moment: getting the discussion back on track constructively. I think I am right to interpret you were talking from the context of car performance, and he from the context of close racing/overtaking. You both need to be clear on the context you are discussing, else you'll get nowhere.
#AeroFrodo

bhall II
473
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 20:15

Re: Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

Post

turbof1 wrote:Maybe we should perhaps try to get everyone back on the same page?
None for me, please.
rjsa wrote:[...]
That's a neat graphic.

Your opinion of the individuals who comprised the OWG is irrelevant to their findings. In fact, the failure of the solutions proposed by the OWG is also irrelevant to their findings. From my perspective, it just highlights the reality that the problem isn't one of aerodynamics and can't be solved easily, if at all (which has been my point the whole time).

And where did I say anything about wings without drag? If I rephrase the portion of my comments you found so amusing, would it help?
Me wrote:...the front wing isn't an especially egregious contributor of induced drag. Because the wing has no impact on frontal area, it doesn't add to form drag.
That's the idea I intended to convey, and it doesn't mean I think a front wing is somehow drag-free.

Andres gets on my damn nerves sometimes, because he's hard-headed, and he knows it. (And it's no secret that I am, too.) But, I very much respect the fact that he'll ask for clarification instead of quickly assigning labels or assuming that something I've said is wrong simply because it didn't immediately register in his mind - his latest posts notwithstanding. :lol:

And for what it's worth, the appearance of my demeanor isn't lost on me, nor is my penchant for making statements that lack clarity or focus. I'm working on it, because no one is more tired of those arguments than I am.

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: 13 Aug 2013, 10:15
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

Post

turbof1 wrote:
Andres125sx wrote:
turbof1 wrote:

Maybe we should perhaps try to get everyone back on the same page?
So you think a fan and a wing are equally sensible to dirty air?
I have made no comments on that in the quoted piece (I might have a few pages back; I don't really recall now). I am simply doing my job as a moderator at the moment: getting the discussion back on track constructively. I think I am right to interpret you were talking from the context of car performance, and he from the context of close racing/overtaking. You both need to be clear on the context you are discussing, else you'll get nowhere.
I´m afraid you´re not, as I´ve only talked/asked about how to improve close racing/overtaking

rjsa
51
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 03:01

Re: Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

Post

bhall II wrote:
Me wrote:...the front wing isn't an especially egregious contributor of induced drag. Because the wing has no impact on frontal area, it doesn't add to form drag.
That's the idea I intended to convey, and it doesn't mean I think a front wing is somehow drag-free.
And it's still as wrong. According to the graph that you used it's the second device in drag creation.

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: 13 Aug 2013, 10:15
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

Post

bhall II wrote:Andres gets on my damn nerves sometimes, because he's hard-headed, and he knows it. (And it's no secret that I am, too.) But, I very much respect the fact that he'll ask for clarification instead of quickly assigning labels or assuming that something I've said is wrong simply because it didn't immediately register in his mind - his latest posts notwithstanding. :lol:
You know I always do, or at leat try to, except when I know something is wrong for sure like it was the case.

If you know FWs are not drag free, then please explain to me the reason you said a different FW would not reduce drag. If you eliminate a high cambered 3-4 element wing and substitude it with a box wich do not need any stepped angle with an abrupt cut (trailing edge of each flap), airflow over the wing might be deflected on a much more efficient way, reducing turbulence and drag.

Similar to the reason this sort of canpies...
Image

Where substituded by these
Image

Frontal area was not reduced, probably even increased, but drag was reduced

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

Post

rjsa wrote:
bhall II wrote:
Me wrote:...the front wing isn't an especially egregious contributor of induced drag. Because the wing has no impact on frontal area, it doesn't add to form drag.
That's the idea I intended to convey, and it doesn't mean I think a front wing is somehow drag-free.
And it's still as wrong.
And your answer is still as ambigious, with the exception of one post. If anything, you could atleast referred to that one post.
Andres wrote:I´m afraid you´re not, as I´ve only talked/asked about how to improve close racing/overtaking
My apologies then. It really came across as a case of contextual misinterpretation, but I guess I misinterpreted that myself :oops: .

Andres, to a go a bit more into the content (as a member and not into a moderator): it's more complicated then a plane since a plane does not have a rotating wheel behind it's wing. I wouldn't state that it does not make a difference in form/profile drag as Bhall does, but he has a point.
#AeroFrodo

rjsa
51
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 03:01

Re: Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

Post

turbof1 wrote: And your answer is still as ambigious, with the exception of one post. If anything, you could atleast referred to that one post.
I've fixed it before you posted this.

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

Post

rjsa wrote:
turbof1 wrote: And your answer is still as ambigious, with the exception of one post. If anything, you could atleast referred to that one post.
I've fixed it before you posted this.
Ah crap. My apologies to you too then, although my hands where tied in this case.

I would appreciate a bit more contentual discussion though. Maybe from Bhall as well since he did not answer on a large part of your post.
#AeroFrodo

bhall II
473
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 20:15

Re: Dirty air sensitivity and regulations

Post

Andres125sx wrote:If you know FWs are not drag free, then please explain to me the reason you said a different FW would not reduce drag.
I didn't say that.
Me wrote:...I'd suggest standard front wings, because fan concepts don't offer a tangible benefit that justifies the added weight and complexity.
That just means I don't think it's worthwhile, because...
rjsa wrote:And it's still as wrong. According to the graph that you used it's the second device in drag creation.
Willem Toet [creator of the graphic in question], Oct 28, 2015 wrote:This [2009] force distribution is for a car that is still young in terms of aerodynamic development – later, better designs allowed a further increase in the percentage of downforce created by the floor.
...despite being the second-greatest contributor of drag, it's still not unreasonable to downplay the impact when 80+% of the car's drag is the result of other things.