F1technical.net

Agreed. I suppose they are considered an effective but crude measure to increase downforce + efficiency but that f1 engineers will have many other methods of achieving a similar result if they were banned.

I am sorry if I was not clear enough anout the 'cheat' comment. It was made simply because of the recent attention there has been on flexible surfaces which, to me, highlights the difficulty in enforcing aerodynamic rules. A ban on gurney flaps is easy to enforce as they are detectable to the eye!

Yeah that's OK, I just hate the constant 'banning' of stuff. Soon we'll have banned so much stuff, there will be nothing left to adjust.

The thing about enforcing flexible wings is that the FIA are happy with their test procedure and all cars have passed, so as far as they are concerned there isn't really a problem. Only the other teams have a problem but they're not exactly banging down the door with new scrutineering test suggestions.

Plus I think there would be a grey area between what is a gurney flap and what is the wing element. They could mould the gurney flap into the element and just say it is the intended wing profile.

Don't poo poo something just because it appears simple and crude. It's highly effective and efficient. In endurance racing, they have a system to change the Gurney flaps, within seconds. That way, they can tune the rear end downforce with a simple change.

dcdabest wrote:A ban on gurney flaps is easy to enforce as they are detectable to the eye!

Actually, it would prove near impossible to word it.

How do you define the end of the wing and the beginning of the gurney flap?


The teams could waste money by building seperate rear wings with built in gurney flaps of different sizes, rather than one generic wing that gurney flaps can be attached to.


It would be a bad ruling IMO.

I think that the Mclaren front wing looks very similar to the BMW front wing. I also think that the problem/s with their this year is/are the engine power output and their suspension.

Mclaren reverted to the oringinal front wing on the latest picture I found about Mclaren.

I believe on the last day they switched the Paul Ricard layout to test for the Canadian GP.

Indeeed, the last two days of testing at the Paul Ricard were made in a new configuration, to replicate the characteristics of Montreal.
Watch how the rear wing also has a low downforce shape, with a lot less camber than the wings used at GP's until now this season and is not spoon shaped anymore.

Yes, they've change it

From this...

...to this

Look at this pic of Paffett car :
http://www.f1racing.net/en/photolarge.p ... catID=2025
Do you notice that thing near the chimney ? It looks like another chimney, apparently it starts on the sidepods were usually there are gills. Or maybe it’s simply a cover for some testing equipment.

As for the new front wing, it’s still a 3 elements wing, just the central element has now bigger chord, pretty much equal to that of the first element if not even longer.
http://f1.racing-live.com/f1/en/photos/ ... _166.shtml

At the end, for the gurney flap, per se isn’t banned, still, AFAIK, you can’t add/remove it during the pitstop as it was possible years ago. It’s possible that that’s what mini696 wanted to say.

Reca,
McLarens test report suggests
"Work for the week will include a focus on the cooling and bodywork package for the Monaco Grand Prix, Mercedes-Benz V8 engine work, aerodynamic testing for Canada and Michelin tyre selection for Monaco and Montreal."

It looks to me like a new exhaust fairing, as the car was in low downforce trim when it was run, may be its for the fast Canadian race, perhaps with no chimneys being run?

Scarbs

I was actually refering to "removeable" gurney flaps.

Anyone know why Vortex Generators are not used much in F1, especially for high downforce circuits like Monaco & Hungry??

Here is a link that explain VG for anyone who is unaware of them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_generator

I would assume that if the F1 guys aren't using them then they are either; illegal, impractical, the effect they produce is too minimal or they are already using them somehow. I certainly haven't seen them though. Nice idea though.

F1 designers do use vortices but it depends on the situation. In some areas they try to minimise them, other areas they try to induce them.

However their application is usually a bit more subtle than a piece of angle steel stuck on the leading edge of an aeroplane wing.

To compare it to the aeroplane wing, leading edge vortex generators are only designed to work at certain angles of attack where they make the wing work where it would not. F1 wings don't operate through the wide range of angle (or pitch) that aeroplane wings do, therefore the aerodynamicists can use a wing profile that produces maximum lift for minimum drag without requiring vortices to control it.

You have to understand that vortices produce drag so their lift benefit has to be weighed up against the increased drag. I don't know what level F1 aerodynamicists are really at but they may still say vortices are fragile and hard to control too.

A huge subject I've been trying to learn for a long time