F1technical.net

McMika98 wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 17:04

Cant see the alfa romeo wing taking off although it looks disruptive. Probably half of downforce from last year and the outwash effect on a huge hole isnt same as when using guide vanes. Car looked ok cornering based on shakedown video, this week will be very interesting.

Agreed.

I think most teams will opt for the midway solution like the Ferrari and Renault wings. I suspect the Merc wing was a launch spec and/or a high downforce track wing and not representative of what will be running most weekends.

It may well be that with all the developments in bargeboard and splitter design that the laptime increase due to increased aero upset due to front wheel wake is much less than losing the downforce on the front wing.

However, the Alpha's wing may not be complete and they were only testing for down force and a more ornate end section of wing is coming to generate the outwash, maybe a U section wing I.e the mirror image of what used to be in that section last year.

There's a reason why the Merc has the end-plate turned inwards, maybe they're going to channel some high speed air onto the corner of the end plate and spin off a vortex to aid outwash?

I do not understand why many people are stating that the new regulations will reduce the down force generated by the front wing. I am of the opinion the opposite is true, more downforce could be generated if required, the new regulations were introduced to limit the outwash not the overall dowenforce. The losses teams would have had to recover would surely be from the disturbed air from the front wheel wake causing difficulties further along the car or in sealing the floor and so reducing the efficiency of the diffuser. (also the reason for the larger rear wing so the teams could still balance the cars).

nevill3 wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 18:18

I do not understand why many people are stating that the new regulations will reduce the down force generated by the front wing. I am of the opinion the opposite is true, more downforce could be generated if required, the new regulations were introduced to limit the outwash not the overall dowenforce. The losses teams would have had to recover would surely be from the disturbed air from the front wheel wake causing difficulties further along the car or in sealing the floor and so reducing the efficiency of the diffuser. (also the reason for the larger rear wing so the teams could still balance the cars).

Downforce is reduced as they are only allowed five elements. Mercedes reaped a lot in the last few years and everyone followed suit. Top teams will be affected more which is why we are seeing two contrasting philosophies so far one chasing downforce other outwash.

Downforce is only lost under certain conditions. Peak numbers are maningless, its consistency that counts. The teams have never been short on front end downforce, its always the rear that needs taming. Always at any speed, getting the rear end planted = more lap time gains.

Front wing iterations by B teams are for gathering data I suspect.

Morteza wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2019, 14:03

F1T wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 19:14

f1rules wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 19:52

ScrewCaptain27 wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2019, 12:48

jamesalexw wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2019, 16:21

McMika98 wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 19:23

nevill3 wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 18:18

I do not understand why many people are stating that the new regulations will reduce the down force generated by the front wing. I am of the opinion the opposite is true, more downforce could be generated if required, the new regulations were introduced to limit the outwash not the overall dowenforce. The losses teams would have had to recover would surely be from the disturbed air from the front wheel wake causing difficulties further along the car or in sealing the floor and so reducing the efficiency of the diffuser. (also the reason for the larger rear wing so the teams could still balance the cars).

Downforce is reduced as they are only allowed five elements. Mercedes reaped a lot in the last few years and everyone followed suit. Top teams will be affected more which is why we are seeing two contrasting philosophies so far one chasing downforce other outwash.

Downforce isn't lost because there are fewer elements on the front wing...

The front and rear wing planform areas are bigger as well as their potential camber, so they are both capable of generating more absolute force. Where the teams may have lost out is that in losing the cascades and upper flaps the front tyre wake will be impacting more on the bargeboards and underbody, so they have to use some of that potential force to recreate the outwashing which is more beneficial to the total car downforce. It also has to be balanced out.

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 21:27

Downforce isn't lost because there are fewer elements on the front wing...

The front and rear wing planform areas are bigger as well as their potential camber, so they are both capable of generating more absolute force. Where the teams may have lost out is that in losing the cascades and upper flaps the front tyre wake will be impacting more on the bargeboards and underbody, so they have to use some of that potential force to recreate the outwashing which is more beneficial to the total car downforce. It also has to be balanced out.

Having an element place horizontally has little contribution to lift even thought it might have 10 times the surface area. The multi element wing stack that mercedes pioneered were at very high angle of attack generating tremendous downforce. As the pictures shows the first two elements in current cars probably produce less than 20% of the downforce even thought it might be 80% of net surface area. Outwash effect is another matter but clearly team now have to compromise between the two unlike last year.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 17:39

PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 16:12

godlameroso wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2019, 05:14

https://images2.imgbox.com/7a/2b/bMpntFuv_o.jpg

Any wild guesses as to what happens to the airflow corraled by the boomerang and the top surface of the bargeboards, vs the airflow going underneath and helped along by all those little slots? Slow outwashing airflow on top vs a speedy guided vortex aided by ground effect underneath?

That McLaren barge board is so overhung it has to bend!
But other than that i suppose it moves the source of the vortices forward a bit closer to the front wheels giving a similar effect as what the outwash used to do.

Right, but what about the boomerang's interaction with airflow going over the bargeboards? Since the boomerang is a downwash device, and the bargeboards produce both out and upwash, wouldn't the boomerang increase the mass flow and boundary layer over the BBs?

The boomerang is the as was on Mercedes, RedBull and Williams last year just bigger and more forward.
I think the purose is a vortex generator at its tips. i suspect the main arm of it is there to roll the vortex up bigger and for structural support. That vortex is to pretect the air going to the coke bottle from front wheel wake.

The little "toes" under it at the leading edge are for ground effects on a totally different mechanism. More like multiple small vortices rolling into a big one to help the other big floor vortex at the front splitter.

nevill3 wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 18:18

I do not understand why many people are stating that the new regulations will reduce the down force generated by the front wing. I am of the opinion the opposite is true, more downforce could be generated if required, the new regulations were introduced to limit the outwash not the overall dowenforce. The losses teams would have had to recover would surely be from the disturbed air from the front wheel wake causing difficulties further along the car or in sealing the floor and so reducing the efficiency of the diffuser. (also the reason for the larger rear wing so the teams could still balance the cars).

Agreed. It is said that front wing downforce had reached it peak efficiency since like 2011. There is no benefit to having more of it. The front wing developments since then were for setting up the air downstream and stuff like stability under braking etc.

roon wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 21:05

Morteza wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2019, 14:03

https://cdn-7.motorsport.com/images/amp ... down-1.jpg

F1T wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 19:14

//f1tcdn.net/images/news/2019/str14-shakedown-albon.jpg

f1rules wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 19:52

https://i.imgur.com/elZnY5M.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dzi5VRmX4AARv9B.png:large

ScrewCaptain27 wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2019, 12:48

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201902 ... 8f4a84.jpg

jamesalexw wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2019, 16:21

https://i.imgur.com/yvGWOAO.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/MgFS9Uq.jpg

Interesting photos.

redBull is doing its own thing apart from everyone else. It has barn door sized flaps at endplates. Everyone else slims down the flaps there.

Another interesting aspect is how flat the main plane is. Saubers is basically horizontal. Mercedes one is curved very highly upward at the endplate as if to let under more air to squirt it out. Torro Rosso seems to blend of mercedes main plane and Saubers flaps.

On the Sauber, the Torro Rosso and the McLaren at least some elements appear to have a negative angle of attack (lift generating) near the end plates

McMrocks wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2019, 10:31

On the Sauber, the Torro Rosso and the McLaren at least some elements appear to have a negative angle of attack (lift generating) near the end plates

Have you considered front rotating wheel downwash?

PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 16:12

godlameroso wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2019, 05:14

https://images2.imgbox.com/7a/2b/bMpntFuv_o.jpg

Any wild guesses as to what happens to the airflow corraled by the boomerang and the top surface of the bargeboards, vs the airflow going underneath and helped along by all those little slots? Slow outwashing airflow on top vs a speedy guided vortex aided by ground effect underneath?

That McLaren barge board is so overhung it has to bend!
But other than that i suppose it moves the source of the vortices forward a bit closer to the front wheels giving a similar effect as what the outwash used to do.

Maybe that's the thing that will be more efficient than the DD... Not even close at anything mate... It's not even overhung...

Do you know what overhung means?

PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2019, 23:36

Do you know what overhung means?

Nah... What can a civil engineer know about overhanging thingies that could potentially bend...

Anyway this piece of carbon fiber is rigidly supported on two sides and will not bend because a)its carbon fiber b) it won't bear loads.