Brawn revisits the adjustable wing issue

[Ogami musashi]

adapative aerodynamics is used as a term for everything that allows to change, leading edge and/or trailing edge sweep, surface, camber, thickness or angle of attack.

As such a variable geometry wing (like on the F-14 and F-111) is considered as adaptive aerodynamics.


Because it actually changes the fluids physics around the wing.

Same for an angle of attack change.

[bazanaius]

Is not the debate about Moveable Aerodynamic Devices, and not adaptive?

i.e. any moveable aero device is classed as illegal (until next year) - this is why there are deflection tests on wings.

B

[WhiteBlue]

adapative aerodynamics is used as a term for everything that allows to change, leading edge and/or trailing edge sweep, surface, camber, thickness or angle of attack.

As such a variable geometry wing (like on the F-14 and F-111) is considered as adaptive aerodynamics.


Because it actually changes the fluids physics around the wing.

Same for an angle of attack change.

I can understand that flexible shape changing aerodynamic devices are considered adaptive. that makes a lot of sense. I thought that the technology that is allowed for next year would not include such features. I understand that the whole wing element will be swiveled in a joint by a motor to change the angle of attack to increase downforce or reduce drag as they do it manually in a pit stop today. I thought that flexible wings would still be banned?

[Neophiliac]

the oversized front wing would produce oversteer for a car in clean air if it would use all downforce available and so they will never use the potential when in front.

You nailed it, that's the goal.

the following car will profit getting close to optimum downforce with the oversized wing in the turbulent air. also reducing drag on the straight makes a lot of sense in terms of energy saving. but why are they restricted to two wing settings per lap. that doesn't make sense if there are two straights.

The "two times" is i suppose to prevent teams to built cars around adaptive aeros.

The "two times" significance is a bit unclear now..is "up then down" considered one time? or either movement as one time...we'll have to wait to see.

No expert, but it would seem that the second version is the most logical. The rules are designed to encourage overtaking - and for that you only need one up-then-down movement (or two movements, as you count the "up" and the "down" separately). So a driver behind would pick an overtaking spot, increase the angle of attack before the overtake, and, once out of the slipstream or on the straight, reduce it back to normal. Succeed or not, you're done for the lap.

The guy in front or any car in clear air will probably do down-then-up adjustment of the wing on the longest straight, to reduce drag, once each lap (I wonder how many laps an average-joe driver will simply forget to do this ).

What I wonder is this. Suppose the corner after the main straigh is your best place to overtake and the one you pick. So you increase downforce in the last corner and stick to the gearbox of the car in front of you as you exit it. Once the car is straightened, you reduce the angle back to normal and wait for your moment to pop out of the slipstream and make your move... BUT: the guy in front has just reduced his wing angle for the main straight - so will the fact that you are in his slipsteam be enough of an advantage to overcome his lower drag in clear air?

[WhiteBlue]

Neophiliac , I guess they will have a wing setting at low angle of attack that is more like a compromise. It will probably not be a flat setting for a straight. on the other end it will be a completely over the top oversteer setting to work in the turbulence. so it wouldn't help to do the wing each lap for the straight.

[checkered]

The guy in front or any car in clear air will probably do down-then-up adjustment of the wing on the longest straight, to reduce drag, once each lap (I wonder how many laps an average-joe driver will simply forget to do this).

I think you have

just made a very good case why the "two adjustments, two settings" adjustable aero won't do anything to significantly alter overtaking or "entertainment" in the races. Simulations will reveal beforehand what the optimal clean air use of that limited function over a lap in any given circuit will be, should there be one. The leader of the race will continue to enjoy an advantage in having the most "optimal aero combination time" in the race - potentially more so than currently, but not likely less.

Also, defending can become easier since everyone will know that there are sections on the track where it is of no use getting close and using the higher wing setting since the overall cost in time over a lap is going to be too great. While overtaking capacity might increase, overtaking opportunities could decrease. I suspect the "no free lunches" anecdote applies here as well. In this regard too, strategy and the underlying logic of the race will become even more intractable for the viewer as it is removed from the action itself into the realm of pre-race projections.

Besides, by changing the driving line the defending driver can pretty much ruin the advantage of the chasing driver, exposing him to clean air as soon as the higher wing setting comes into effect. I'm sure this will be just the beginning of what is to become a whole new unnecessary field of trickery.

Together with the push to pass button there's a very real threat that only the "secondary race event" permutations (related to mistakes, technical failures and other events of predominantly random nature) will ever more substitute "primary events" i.e. straight fights between driver/team intent, will and skill. It is a truly convoluted proposition to engineer overtaking and this approach, I'm increasingly fearful, could be way off base.

Formula One can increase the interest in itself by guaranteeing close racing: The two recognised avenues to strive for this are either seeking performance equality or introducing random elements. There remains much that is unexplored in the relationship between the two and many lessons thereof remain unlearned. But perhaps those pesky fans who want to understand the sport they're viewing must be removed from the ranks, they're asking troublesome questions. Like where all the money is going and who's benefitting from what.

No, I remain far from convinced this (twice per lap adjustable wing) will yield much in terms of real value. I'd much rather see autonomous adaptive aero or rigid wings than this. Neither of those will take anything essential away from the driver's capability to intuitively judge the level of grip at his disposal. The method of control stays relatable to the feedback loops of a relatively normal driving experience. But normal motorists can't "order" grip at will.

[Ogami musashi]

slipstream acceleration gain is done BEFORE you go side by side with the leading car, therefore, it is gained at the exit of the corner where the leading car will not lower its wing since it will understeer then.

When side by side you already enjoy an acceleration gain, that can be magnified by KERS, then on a straight line if the lead car lower its wing, then it will maybe or not be able to re gain its speed...that will make battles and so i think that's good for the race and show.

but all of this is supposition, we don't even know the sporting regulations..it may be found that the leading car has no right to adjust his wing when not in traffic..

We'll see.

[meves]

China should be interesting with its 2 long straights with a tight turn in the middle. To see who goes for the low downforce all the way through and who goes for higher downforce and the the extra traction from the additional downforce for breaking, accelerating and the corner..

[Neophiliac]

China should be interesting with its 2 long straights with a tight turn in the middle. To see who goes for the low downforce all the way through and who goes for higher downforce and the the extra traction from the additional downforce for breaking, accelerating and the corner..

Well, given the posts above, I would vote for the straight as the most obvious solutions. When you adjust the wing on the straight, there are no balance issues whatsoever and you get the benefit of the lower drag. Assuming neutral 'baseline' balance, giving yourself more downforce in the twisties (unless you are following someone) is only going to lead to oversteer.

[Shaddock]

Wouldn't this be of benefit to the following driver in the medium-fast corners before the straights. This way they can stay close to the car in front without understeering wide due to loss of front end aero grip, and then pick up the slipstream at the start of the straight.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

I was reading through my latest copy of F1 Racing magazine today whilst on my lunch @ work and found an interesting little passage:

2009's cars will feature a new manually operated front wing flap. The purpose is to angle the flap (by six degrees) to give drivers more downforce when following another car mid-corner in 'dirty air'

The quote there is ALL of the information provided. I was wondering if anybody else had heard much more about this. Also I was wondering if this would actually work...

You see I do understand the idea, floowing a car mid-corner, increase the flap angle to get from front end grip, thus negating the 'dirty air' factor. BUT...if you are the car in front, surely you might as well just raise you're own car's flap angle to get more grip though the corner, in turn negating any benifit to the guy behind?

That being said another part of my brain is saying "Rasing the flap angle in dirty air just gives you back your 'lost downforce' (downforce lost because you're following another car) whereas rasing the front flap angle in clean air (if you're the car in front) will just unbalance the car.

Sounds like a pretty cool idea, also seems to add a new development area, and also lots of possibilites for a driver (think Kimi @ Turkey, damaged front end plate? No problem we can minimize the deficiet by rasing the flap angle, without pitting.

It all just seems quite intrieging...much like the KERS system. What you you guys think?

[Ogami musashi]

That being said another part of my brain is saying "Rasing the flap angle in dirty air just gives you back your 'lost downforce' (downforce lost because you're following another car) whereas rasing the front flap angle in clean air (if you're the car in front) will just unbalance the car.

You just have nicked the natural limitation of that.

It stays the possibility of lowering the wing's flap in straight line were understeer is not a problem.

However one information not given in you magazine is that it will allowed only 2 times per lap.


Also front wings being now 7,5cm above the ground (one of the lowest front wing in the history of F1) i bet they'll not be at a too high AOA so they won't drag that much. The benefit would be marginal i think.

It is still unclear what is the "two times" for the moment.

We hope to have the final regs by june or july.

[slimjim8201]

That being said another part of my brain is saying "Rasing the flap angle in dirty air just gives you back your 'lost downforce' (downforce lost because you're following another car) whereas rasing the front flap angle in clean air (if you're the car in front) will just unbalance the car.

You just have nicked the natural limitation of that.

It stays the possibility of lowering the wing's flap in straight line were understeer is not a problem.

However one information not given in you magazine is that it will allowed only 2 times per lap.


Also front wings being now 7,5cm above the ground (one of the lowest front wing in the history of F1) i bet they'll not be at a too high AOA so they won't drag that much. The benefit would be marginal i think.

It is still unclear what is the "two times" for the moment.

We hope to have the final regs by june or july.

If they are going to introduce movable aero, giving the driver another way to make their car faster, passing more achievable, they should not impose limits on the functioning of the device. In theory, if the moveable aero does significantly improve the chances of passing, they shouldn't put many restrictions on it.

Personally, I think the new regs/tires will facilitate passing to a great extent next year. Moveable aero seems arcadish to me. I think I'd rather see no aero than movable aero.

[Conceptual]

That being said another part of my brain is saying "Rasing the flap angle in dirty air just gives you back your 'lost downforce' (downforce lost because you're following another car) whereas rasing the front flap angle in clean air (if you're the car in front) will just unbalance the car.

You just have nicked the natural limitation of that.

It stays the possibility of lowering the wing's flap in straight line were understeer is not a problem.

However one information not given in you magazine is that it will allowed only 2 times per lap.


Also front wings being now 7,5cm above the ground (one of the lowest front wing in the history of F1) i bet they'll not be at a too high AOA so they won't drag that much. The benefit would be marginal i think.

It is still unclear what is the "two times" for the moment.

We hope to have the final regs by june or july.

If they are going to introduce movable aero, giving the driver another way to make their car faster, passing more achievable, they should not impose limits on the functioning of the device. In theory, if the moveable aero does significantly improve the chances of passing, they shouldn't put many restrictions on it.

Personally, I think the new regs/tires will facilitate passing to a great extent next year. Moveable aero seems arcadish to me. I think I'd rather see no aero than movable aero.

That coming from a CFD man really raised my eyebrow!!! LOL

Chris

[Ogami musashi]

If everybody wants to cut downforce, then moveable aeros would be great as we could control the grip curve.

we could add the downforce necessary for high speed cornering while lowering it for slower speeds or in the idea that we should stop cars going fast doing right the opposite, tough and F1 that corners slow is something i have a lot of difficulty to imagine..