F1technical.net

kfrantzios wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2019, 02:02

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.

It's a big ole cantilever to me.
Yes it is stiff but look at the size of it. I wont be surprise if you see a lot of bending. I think only the front splitter must pass a deflection test i doubt the bargeboards are regulated for deflection. So we will see what happens.

You do realise it's attached inboard as well as outboard, right?

McMika98 wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2019, 00:05

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.

There is obviously a debate going on on 2 lanes: one where downforce is measured against potential, and one where it is measured against what teams generally are running.

Yes, the outboard rear elements will not generate as much as downforce (although I have to be careful with stating because the wing still acts in ground effect). But, that doesn't mean they couldn't add more downforce. Of course they could have, and of course did the front wings of last year ran more downforce, but only because there was more rear downforce. This year there is less rear downforce, therefore they have to remove frontal downforce as well. Frontal downforce production is not directly limited because of the regulations changes, but indirectly because the front wing can be less used to help the rear generate downforce, therefore the front wing has to be trimmed down. As jjn9128 stated, the box for the front wing has increase in volume and surface, so the wing elements can be bigger.

As I suspected the Alpha wing was incomplete in the 'leaked' images.

https://twitter.com/JamesGallowayF1/sta ... 69824?s=20

Shakeman wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2019, 10:46

As I suspected the Alpha wing was incomplete in the 'leaked' images.

https://twitter.com/JamesGallowayF1/sta ... 69824?s=20

Really? I can't see any differences

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2019, 10:47

Shakeman wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2019, 10:46

As I suspected the Alpha wing was incomplete in the 'leaked' images.

https://twitter.com/JamesGallowayF1/sta ... 69824?s=20

Really? I can't see any differences

Are you trolling me? If so hahaha !

Looks identical to me.

Should've gone to Specsavers...

It's called perspective, it just looks like it is different because you are looking from above. It is the same wing just with some more black on it.

My favorite part of these cars.

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2019, 10:58

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dzq864uXQAEUrsv.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/hfsHjTo.jpg
Looks identical to me.

Its the same, in the leaked one it tougher to see them against the black of the tyre.

Overall aero philosophy of cars has barely changed, other than the front wing. Rakes are still there etc. FIA knee-jerk reaction again?

Vanja #66 wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2019, 09:24

Overall aero philosophy of cars has barely changed, other than the front wing. Rakes are still there etc. FIA knee-jerk reaction again?

Wondering if they will sit down now, see that their rule change (and the associated costs) didn't really do anything and make another rushed decision for 2020? Or is it possible that Ross Brawn and the team learn something from this? That F1 cannot change the rules on a yearly basis but needs to have greater overhaul in one go? It could still be that these 2019 regs work the way intended, but still I wouldn't call it a success.

Could be that Brawn expected there to be not much difference, no change in racing etc. and want to use the current change to say "look, we need something more radical and all-encompassing to improve things". He then gets to bring in some big changes as outlined in his presentations last year.

It's a game of cat and mouse with the teams who still hold the whip hand. When the current "concord agreements" run out in 2020, the FIA will have leverage to bring in some wholesale aero philosophy changes.

There's a video in the Liberty 2021 thread of an interview with Pat Symonds from the autosport show, they made these changes expecting racing to get better - or worst case be equivalent to last year. They think if they hadn't intervened the racing would get worse.

Certainly the word coming out is that balance is about the same but the rear wing is like a parachute compared to last year. This means the DRS effect will certainly be stronger - so there will be more overtaking at least even if it is DRS flyby's