Hondas new front wing

[deluge]

To you aero experts and aero internet surfer experts, "development" takes place in a world of fixed scientific control. However, "experimentation" takes place in a world absent of scientific control.

The nose aero appendages, refered to as dumbo, are not the result of reasoned development down a path of continuous improvement. But, they are one attempt to experiment with gadgets in order to get a "what if" assesment of any appendage that will have any affect, whether good or bad, on the performance of the car. Data is Data.

By their own testimony, the drivers have said the car won't brake. The wing is probably stalling under heavy braking and causing a momentary loss of downforce (negative lift) when they need it the most.

This is only a guess. I don't have CFD on anything newer than a 5 year old airplane.

[kilcoo316]

By their own testimony, the drivers have said the car won't brake. The wing is probably stalling under heavy braking and causing a momentary loss of downforce (negative lift) when they need it the most.

Erm, surely you've got that the wrong way round.

The front wing will be generating more downforce as it moves closer to the ground, and the rear wing/diffuser cannot compensate. Thus the aero centre of the car moves forward and it loses stability under braking.


Besides, you should also know that a wing stalling does not equal a total loss of downforce (or lift in the case of an aircraft).

[3KGT]

Does anyone have a picture of the "X-Wing Mclaren" that they could post, I have never seen it. Was it really banned because of it's asthetics?

[Sawtooth-spike]

Does anyone have a picture of the "X-Wing Mclaren" that they could post, I have never seen it. Was it really banned because of it's asthetics?

Was not the mclarens, I think it was Tyrell, Ferrari and some other teams, It think it was banned becasue they could hit the air hoses on rigs that swing out above the pit box.

[bizadfar]

Does anyone have a picture of the "X-Wing Mclaren" that they could post, I have never seen it. Was it really banned because of it's asthetics?

Was not the mclarens, I think it was Tyrell, Ferrari and some other teams, It think it was banned becasue they could hit the air hoses on rigs that swing out above the pit box.

Yes correct, a Sauber hit a hose in 98, and it snapped. FIA banned it shortly after for safety reasons.

Alot of teams had them, the only i clearly remember never having them was the Mclaren.

[DaveKillens]

Does anyone have a picture of the "X-Wing Mclaren" that they could post, I have never seen it. Was it really banned because of it's asthetics?

I believe you are referring to the 1995 McLaren MP4-10B, which definitely goes down in history as one of the fugliest cars ever. It had an additional wing behind the airbox, high, wide, and ugly.

http://www.f1technical.net/f1db/cars/772

[manchild]

Nope, he's thinking about this

[Tom]

Look at the nose, a single pillar, I haven't seen one of those before, was it just the Tyrell, and wasn't Tyrell the first to switch to twin pillars (from a wing built into the nose) because the airflow between the pillars had a ground effect which produced more downforce under the floor.

Also is the rear left hand plane of that wing broken? Looks like Monaco so it might have been ripped off on the curbs.

[joseff]

Around the same time, Benetton also used single wing support. Tyrell's first experiment with a raised nose IIRC was much earlier, in 1992 or 1993. In this case the area under the nose had no wing, ie the wing was split into left & right sections, each with its own half-wing.

[manchild]

Big one



Footwork Porsche FA 12 from 1991 was the first car with single pillar

[Tom]

The x-wing with an adoring mechanic.


The Tyrrell 019 with the nose I mentioned earlier.


and the same 1990 car piloted by Jean Alesi, the cockpit here looks very IRL.


[Sorry for repeatedly re-editing this]
the site I got them all from with alot of Tyrrell information, particularely about the nose.

[ginsu]

Look at the nose, a single pillar, I haven't seen one of those before, was it just the Tyrell, and wasn't Tyrell the first to switch to twin pillars (from a wing built into the nose) because the airflow between the pillars had a ground effect which produced more downforce under the floor.

Also is the rear left hand plane of that wing broken? Looks like Monaco so it might have been ripped off on the curbs.

I think this is intentional because there is no endplate on the wing without the second element. I've heard of them doing this on oval track cars like Indy, but not in F1....anyway, it's supposed to help with turn in because one side has more grip than the other.

[3KGT]

Thanks for your input. What an interesting design. What is the designation of that Tyrell chassis? What year(s) did they run that X-Wing style bodywork? From what I can tell, and please correct me if I am wrong, all the modern cars have symmetrical wings and body work. The only exception I have seen is last years Ferrari which had a higher mirror on one side. I believe that was done to enable the drivers to keep an eye on rear tire wear. Is it still legal to run asymmetrical wings or bodywork?

[mini696]

It is perfectly legal to run asymetrical bodywork. Some drivers will run aysemetrical setups, run a few turns more (or less) on one side of the front wing to enable better turn-in on some corners, by loading up the outside front of the car.

Its rare that such a major difference will ever be seen.

Exhaust outlets (chimineys etc) cooling requirements etc are often run asymetrically too.

[Tom]

Thankfully Honda didn't run those ugly Dumbo wings on the car this weekend, I think even if they were aerodynamically sound some major people in Honda would have seen to it that they were removed before the TV cameras arrived.