F1technical.net

Just_a_fan wrote:I think they'll go for an "in-wash" design with horizontally extended endplate footplates on which will be placed a number of aero devices. ...I'm thinking that the wing will be something like this but in a more evolved and extreme form:
http://www.grandprix.com/jpeg/misc/mcla ... ch1-lg.jpg

Could be a possible solution but the other possibility exists as well. We will know in the fullness of time and can revisit this thread to see who was right.

Does the wing have to be max width? I'm just wondering if a team might opt for a slightly smaller wing so that they can employ a stronger inwash design, at the cost of some Front wing surface area. Is it possible that the gain from better air management around the tire could make up for the loss of the skinnier wing?

If this isn't allowed then my point is moot and I'll shut up hah

Absolutelee wrote:Does the wing have to be max width? I'm just wondering if a team might opt for a slightly smaller wing so that they can employ a stronger inwash design, at the cost of some Front wing surface area. Is it possible that the gain from better air management around the tire could make up for the loss of the skinnier wing?

If this isn't allowed then my point is moot and I'll shut up hah

The picture i've made earlier shows the 2014 regulations on the front wing visualised. There is a small mistake in the text description of article 3.7.5, which demands a projected area of NO LESS than 95000mm², not max 95000mm² as written in the pic. This article makes it mandatory to implement an endplate between 685 and 775mm from the car center line and 3.7.6/3.7.7 demand bodywork at more than 775mm from the center line. So, yes, teams have to build front wings which are at least 775mm wide.

But i can image that in the area between 400 and 685 there will be a second endplate at the inner level of the tyre as this area is very unrestricted. What do you think?

Blanchimont wrote:

Absolutelee wrote:Does the wing have to be max width? I'm just wondering if a team might opt for a slightly smaller wing so that they can employ a stronger inwash design, at the cost of some Front wing surface area. Is it possible that the gain from better air management around the tire could make up for the loss of the skinnier wing?

If this isn't allowed then my point is moot and I'll shut up hah

The picture i've made earlier shows the 2014 regulations on the front wing visualised. There is a small mistake in the text description of article 3.7.5, which demands a projected area of NO LESS than 95000mm², not max 95000mm² as written in the pic. This article makes it mandatory to implement an endplate between 685 and 775mm from the car center line and 3.7.6/3.7.7 demand bodywork at more than 775mm from the center line. So, yes, teams have to build front wings which are at least 775mm wide.

But i can image that in the area between 400 and 685 there will be a second endplate at the inner level of the tyre as this area is very unrestricted. What do you think?

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/8017 ... twing2.jpg

Doesnt that mean you can do what nclaren did on the car posted on the previous page, endplate going inwards, starting further out and actual bodywork ends beyond the endplate.

I don't think a version like that on the McLaren is possible in 2014 as it would require an endplate that starts between 685 and 775mm away from the car center line and then bend inwards to approximately 580mm away from the car center line (~ inner surface of the front tyre). But at the same time the endplate is required to have at least 95000mm² in side view between 685 and 775mm from the center line.

As the endplate can only be 550mm long and 200mm high, which gives an area of 110000mm², the bend from the area between 685 and 775mm to the inner surface of the tyre can only happen at the last 75mm ( = 550mm - 95000mm²/200mm )in longitudinal direction. That angle seems to be to large for me.

I would go for an endplate at 775mm completely in longitudinal direction and maybe a second on from ~630mm to the inner tyre surface. But these are just my thoughts, maybe it's completely wrong. I hope someone remembers this thread in 2014 and we come back and compare the real front wings with our ideas!

Blanchimont wrote:I don't think a version like that on the McLaren is possible in 2014 as it would require an endplate that starts between 685 and 775mm away from the car center line and then bend inwards to approximately 580mm away from the car center line (~ inner surface of the front tyre). But at the same time the endplate is required to have at least 95000mm² in side view between 685 and 775mm from the center line.

As the endplate can only be 550mm long and 200mm high, which gives an area of 110000mm², the bend from the area between 685 and 775mm to the inner surface of the tyre can only happen at the last 75mm ( = 550mm - 95000mm²/200mm )in longitudinal direction. That angle seems to be to large for me.

I would go for an endplate at 775mm completely in longitudinal direction and maybe a second on from ~630mm to the inner tyre surface. But these are just my thoughts, maybe it's completely wrong. I hope someone remembers this thread in 2014 and we come back and compare the real front wings with our ideas!

Wait so the image above with all the numbers isnt representative when it comes to its tyres? I mean from the image above i thought the inner tyre sidewall was between 685 and 775, am i wrong in seeing that?

Huntresa wrote:I mean from the image above i thought the inner tyre sidewall was between 685 and 775, am i wrong in seeing that?

Look carefully and you'll see that you're wrong!

Another way to estimate the coordinates of the inner tyre surface:
Maximum car width (§ 3.3) - width of the complete wheel (§ 12.4.1)
->
900mm - (305+355)/2 = ~570mm from the car center line

WhiteBlue wrote:

Just_a_fan wrote:I think they'll go for an "in-wash" design with horizontally extended endplate footplates on which will be placed a number of aero devices. ...I'm thinking that the wing will be something like this but in a more evolved and extreme form:
http://www.grandprix.com/jpeg/misc/mcla ... ch1-lg.jpg

Could be a possible solution but the other possibility exists as well. We will know in the fullness of time and can revisit this thread to see who was right.

I think we'll find out looooooooooooooooong before the universe stops.

Fullness = state of being full = cannot contain more. Fullness of time = no additional time = "frozen" universe.

Like "robust," you've beaten the hell out of those words. I think what you meant to say here is, "With the passage of time, we can revisit this thread to see just how wrong I was."



Moving on...

I think endplates next year might look something like this, only a bit thinner to conform to the allowed dimensions:



Blanchimont's split-endplate idea, a la Mercedes, makes a lot of sense, too.

Blanchimont wrote:

Huntresa wrote:I mean from the image above i thought the inner tyre sidewall was between 685 and 775, am i wrong in seeing that?

Look carefully and you'll see that you're wrong!

Another way to estimate the coordinates of the inner tyre surface:
Maximum car width (§ 3.3) - width of the complete wheel (§ 12.4.1)
->
900mm - (305+355)/2 = ~570mm from the car center line

I still cant see it on the pic but since there are numbers where you can calculate it i guess the pic just doesnt represent when it comes to the tyres.

What im seeing on the pic is that the Endplate should be in the section between 685 and 775, in the middle and big section of green, and on the pic it stretches beyond the inside sidewall, but its not accurate i assume then.

Huntresa wrote:

Blanchimont wrote:

Huntresa wrote:I mean from the image above i thought the inner tyre sidewall was between 685 and 775, am i wrong in seeing that?

Look carefully and you'll see that you're wrong!

Another way to estimate the coordinates of the inner tyre surface:
Maximum car width (§ 3.3) - width of the complete wheel (§ 12.4.1)
->
900mm - (305+355)/2 = ~570mm from the car center line

I still cant see it on the pic but since there are numbers where you can calculate it i guess the pic just doesnt represent when it comes to the tyres.

What im seeing on the pic is that the Endplate should be in the section between 685 and 775, in the middle and big section of green, and on the pic it stretches beyond the inside sidewall, but its not accurate i assume then.

I think you are falling in the same trap I fell in for a few seconds. The 400 mm line is the top line (400mm above it) the 685mm line is the line below 685. I have a feeling it has to do with the way your brain operates. It sees the line first since the end point is right there assumes it is the 685 line. At least that is what I think happened with me.

I think you are falling in the same trap I fell in for a few seconds. The 400 mm line is the top line (400mm above it) the 685mm line is the line below 685. I have a feeling it has to do with the way your brain operates. It sees the line first since the end point is right there assumes it is the 685 line. At least that is what I think happened with me.

Aha! Yes, thank you, --- brain working in mysterious ways!

Would it be possible to have 2 end plates forming an open ended triangle? More importantly would that provide any advantage or would it hinder FW df production?

What I mean is start the outer end plate at 685mm at the front and bend it out to 775mm at the rear.

The inner end plate could be started at 685mm and bend inward to the inner face of the front wheel (just like in the McLaren image)

Unlikely. It would have to be open on the top (if I'm reading the regs right) and the result would be a very strong low pressure zone between the 2 endplates you're suggesting and this would create a strong lift in addition to the massive drag and hence be extremely detrimental on an elementary level to the l/d ration of the wing. The only caveat is that the drag from the wheel might easily be equivalent to the drag created by the double endplate, but it would leave a massive amount of downforce to be recuperated elsewhere on the wing.
In a more open series, I think that something like this could be used with the modification that the top would be sealed and the bottom open, creating a sort of diffuser-like structure.
In fact, thinking about it now, I think the regs specifically stipulate a single endplate rendering this triangle illegal, but I cant remember off the top.

bhallg2k wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:

Just_a_fan wrote:I think they'll go for an "in-wash" design with horizontally extended endplate footplates on which will be placed a number of aero devices. ...I'm thinking that the wing will be something like this but in a more evolved and extreme form:
http://www.grandprix.com/jpeg/misc/mcla ... ch1-lg.jpg

Could be a possible solution but the other possibility exists as well. We will know in the fullness of time and can revisit this thread to see who was right.

I think we'll find out looooooooooooooooong before the universe stops.

Fullness = state of being full = cannot contain more. Fullness of time = no additional time = "frozen" universe.

Like "robust," you've beaten the hell out of those words. I think what you meant to say here is, "With the passage of time, we can revisit this thread to see just how wrong I was."

If you are going to be "brusque" with someone about their use of language, be sure you are correct when trying to correct them.

Oxford dictionaries wrote: oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fullness?q=the+fullness+of+time#fullness__12
in the fullness of time
after a due length of time has elapsed; eventually

Similarly, all WhiteBlue said he did not know, was exactly where all the limiting boxes are off the top of his head rather than your rude statement that he had admitted to not knowing what he was talking about. In addition to which, unlike WhiteBlue's posts, none of your posts so far on this topic have contained anything approaching aerodynamic reasonings for why you think one solution will prove the more effective; just pictures, a dead link and some ranting. One might even say they could be read as "because I said so".

So while you might be correct, so far in this thread it's WhiteBlue who has put forth the better case. I will now return to just reading because I do not know anything about aerodynamics. I know about baseless pedantry though.

[edit] Forgot about your last post on page 2. Apologies. Still, hardly conclusive evidence that 1) you are right and 2) you are any better educated in aerodynamics. Quite the contrary on the second point in fact.

Drewd11 wrote:Unlikely. It would have to be open on the top (if I'm reading the regs right) and the result would be a very strong low pressure zone between the 2 endplates you're suggesting and this would create a strong lift in addition to the massive drag and hence be extremely detrimental on an elementary level to the l/d ration of the wing. The only caveat is that the drag from the wheel might easily be equivalent to the drag created by the double endplate, but it would leave a massive amount of downforce to be recuperated elsewhere on the wing.
In a more open series, I think that something like this could be used with the modification that the top would be sealed and the bottom open, creating a sort of diffuser-like structure.
In fact, thinking about it now, I think the regs specifically stipulate a single endplate rendering this triangle illegal, but I cant remember off the top.

I think you are right about the low pressure area it would generate. I hadn't thought of that. I guess they could try and use a much smaller vane toward the back of the wing with a steeper angle (assuming it wasn't part of the end plate) but again, not sure how much FIA want to limit development of front wing.

The diffuser idea in front of the wheel is an interesting one. I realize it is illegal here, but as a concept would seem to have promise. Any idea if something like that has been done in the past? I may have to start searching some old F1 pic archives.