F1technical.net

marcush: but then the cross-section would still count TWO wing elements not one.

reca: No, passive. It's a cross-drilling just like brake cooling holes, but on a wing. I think it's less about boundary layer and more about the golf-ball-dimples effect.

Actually the dimples on the golf ball works exactly on the boundary layer forcing the transition from laminar to turbulent (that would naturally happen also on a smooth sphere but at a velocity higher than the typical range of speed of a golf ball) hence delaying the separation and reducing the pressure drag.
You said that the design was aimed to “lower the stall speed” (hence increasing the CL max), the usual way to do it is to increase the momentum of the “weak” and thick decelerating boundary layer close to the trailing edge on the low pressure side allowing the flow to accept an higher curvature of the camberline or an higher AoA without separation. Maybe the idea behind the holes was to use in this way the flow from the high pressure side, one of the concepts included in the slotted flap design but that’s just a guess.

marcush. wrote: ok i see the point .If the rule states cross section then my idea is clearly illegal,but so was the BAR idea...

With the BAR design, at least, in the way I’ve interpreted it (the fins are hidden by the upper element so I can’t be sure) on each longitudinal section you have two airfoils (upper element and lower element or flap) connected with an horizontal rod (which vertical position obviously varies along the span), that rod is simply the section of the inclined fin => the assembly of 2 airfoils and rod constitutes only 1 closed section.
I don’t know if the wing on Scarbs’ “spy pic” was featuring three elements or was just a biplane (though the curvature of the low element would be maybe excessive for a single one), but the distance between the trailing edges is apparently larger than 15 mm so also with just two elements something has to be made to complain with the rule and from what I see the most likely and simple way is with inclined fins.

Today, during the gp coverage, Giorgio Piola said that he spent a bit of time with Geoff Willis looking at the car (and at the carbon gearbox in particular), he also said that BAR is preparing a very interesting aero design for the next few races, was Piola talking about this wing ? Maybe Willis said to him something like “I’ve a surprise for FIA”...

I Really hope so, I would love.. to see other teams faces if the new Aero design could bring BAR more podiums & who knows, maybe a maiden win !!

I thought the BARs were pretty unique and creative aerodynamically in Malaysia, particularly the sidepods. The promise of more to come is very encouraging. Willis has really got his ducks in a row.

Considering their performance and budget in recent years, whatever they are paying him, it is not enough.

always the old story:
You might be able to copy someones idea,but unless you did fully understand the implications you are always vulnerable to effects you are not aware of...so maybe that explains why some cars that look exactly like others sometimes work and sometimes do not work at all .
If you have been creative developing your own ideas ,and fighted for them in long discussions you surely know WHY they work and you know what to do when parameters are changing,as you know why you did what you did in the first place.
BAR has chosen a quite different route to others ,wheras Toyota still seems to try to figure out how to make that 2002 Ferrari work...(oh ,oh ,i should not have said that... I´d love to see Panis having success)

Update : According to Piola FIA said no to that solution for the rear wing.

I read a qoute on Atlas where Geoff Willis denies having had any contact with the FIA about this wing.

I read it too and sincerely hope Piola opinion proves to be the wrong one. Although he’s mostly very precise it wouldn’t be the first time he’s wrong (The scoop of the F2002 having twin keel is well-known). Unfortunately I think that FIA will actually do something to change the rule, if not right now, surely for next year. They decided to reduce the number of wing elements and probably wouldn’t accept all the cars to still use three elements just thanks to a clever interpretation.

I do have a feeling this wing will cause controversy; not being within the spirit of the rule. We shall see!

Reca wrote:I read it too and sincerely hope Piola opinion proves to be the wrong one. Although he’s mostly very precise it wouldn’t be the first time he’s wrong (The scoop of the F2002 having twin keel is well-known). Unfortunately I think that FIA will actually do something to change the rule, if not right now, surely for next year. They decided to reduce the number of wing elements and probably wouldn’t accept all the cars to still use three elements just thanks to a clever interpretation.

sorry to go off topic, what was that about the F2002 having twin keel???

Late in the year Piola traditionally does a piece on Autosprint where he announces the design of the forthcoming Ferrari. He announced that the F2002 would have twin keels, and that they would lead forward to form the front wing drop plates. I spoke to him at the launch and he shrugged his shoulders and suggested everyone gets it wrong. I presume that he guessed the design rather than based it on any sort of accurate info.

Simply he published few days before the launch of the F2002 an article (with drawing) claiming that the new car had the twin keel and a revolutionary nosecone. Then the launch, just a couple of days later, and... you know, it happens, as I said most of times he’s right, sometimes he’s wrong, just like everyone else.

Edit : simultaneous post, sorry.

so the current williams is what the ferrari would have looked like if ms Terzi would have styed in Italy.......
Honestly I am a little disappointed about the uncreative approach of most teams in that area,they all seem to turnup with the same ideas and go round reinventing the same ideas again and again.