2017 F1 T Wing

[hardingfv32]

What is the purpose of the T wing.... simple downforce generation or some kind of flow control for rear wing?

Brian

[Holm86]

My guess is it creates vortices at the tips, which spins the opposite way of the vortices created by the rear wing. Reducing drag on the straights ..

[PhillipM]

I think they spin the same way but are inboard and interfere

[bhall II]

Blended winglets are usually employed to reduce tip vortices...





I propose that it just adds a touch of upwash to air flow before it gets to the rear wing. If so, AoA can be that much higher without increasing the risk of early separation.

[roon]

If the airflow approaching the RW has any rotation to it, perhaps this T-wing cuts through it, helping to straighten it, or reduce the rotation. Given its high aspect-ratio, it seems less about vortex generation, although this will occur regardlessly.

I motion to call it the pantograph.

[trinidefender]

Blended winglets are usually employed to reduce tip vortices...

http://i.imgur.com/fbmJW4F.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/bVVaSSH.png

I propose that it just adds a touch of upwash to air flow before it gets to the rear wing. If so, AoA can be that much higher without increasing the risk of early separation.

Agree for the most part. This wing will add a small amount of downforce (more than the monkeyseat probably). Due to it not being affected by wing rules they can easily design it to flex and reduce downforce and associated drag at high speed.

Wouldn't be surprised if we see it missing for tracks like Monza and most beneficial for tracks like Canada, both high speeds and slow corners.

The T wing has a very high aspect ratio and winglets, both of these features decrease vortex strength. Combining this with the fact that the T wing is significantly higher than the rear wing I think the very minute and weak vortices from it would simply go over the rear wing.

[godlameroso]

I personally think it's a waste of time. There's areas that are much juicier low hanging fruit than some tiny winglet that probably adds more drag than anything else. Optimizing the rear diffuser, and floor is worth a good second by itself, as there's plenty of front downforce to balance the already plentiful rear downforce. If the T-wing is good for anything it's maybe as a way to keep the rear wing energized when following another car. Sometimes adding bits for the sake of it is counter productive, because you can get lost in trying to balance out too many aero surfaces to work together. When a more "simple" but more well thought out design can be just as good, and probably a better baseline as there's fewer variables to confound you. Which also makes development more structured and easier to validate.

[PhillipM]

A very simple piece of low hanging fruit isn't a waste of time. Wait until you see the stacked ones for Monaco.

[roon]

[Vyssion]

Ferrari also employ a T-wing, however, they also utilize the shark fin with it.


It is kind of an loophole in the technical regulations at the moment. The rules state that the rear "shark fin" needs to be of a minimum length and the rear bodywork must be of a certain width. But there’s a 50mm gap between the fin and rear wing that the teams are free to do what they want in - such as stick a T-wing in there.

If I had to guess, I would say that its job is to influence the wingtip vortices generated behind the rear wing. Given that it is also a fair bit higher than the rear wing is, I wonder whether this tiny piece of carbon is capable of creating any sort of "virtual barrier" above the main lifting surface to provide a small relative increase in localized pressure......? Probably not to be honest....

Having said that, this image here shows the inner radius of the camber facing "upwards" .... Which kind of makes those sharlet/wingtips kind of like a 1 sided endplate which only extends below... Maybe a bit of upwash would be generated similar to what Bhall said which would delay rear wing stall a little... Ferrari's one has a tiny little kink at the edges of what looks like an almost symmetrical profile from the images I have seen... I guess watch this space!!

[Holm86]

The way I see it, is still that the winglets are angled, to produce vortices at the tip of the winglet. In this picture, the tip would produce a clockwise vortex, and in that side the rear wing will produce a counter clockwise vortex. My idea is still that they'll meet after the rearwing, and neutralise eachother, to reduce drag.

The chordlength is way too tiny to produce any significant amount of downforce.

[Vyssion]

The way I see it, is still that the winglets are angled, to produce vortices at the tip of the winglet. In this picture, the tip would produce a clockwise vortex...

That picture shows the camber line curving upwards along the chord length - its shaped like a downforce producing wing and so the vortex would create an anti-clockwise vortex - not clockwise (higher pressure on the top surface would curl down and around the winglet bit to the low pressure side). That would then hit the also anti-clockwise main rear wing one.

[oetger]

Foud this in the Haas Topic.

[PhillipM]

Looks like Williams are starting the stacking fun already

[bhall II]

Now that I've seen the Williams version, I submit that T-wings reduce downforce coefficient at high speeds.

At low speeds, they'll do next to nothing, simply because they're too small. But, at higher speeds, their wake will be sufficient to redirect air flow away from the rear wing, reducing its efficiency.



It's not the same thing as reducing downforce. Downforce will still increase with speed; it'll just happen at a slower rate above a certain airspeed threshold. Moreover, such an effect would be particularly useful now that the aero coupling of the rear wing to the diffuser is much stronger.

EDIT: better image