F1technical.net

Mr.G wrote:It was meant for the topic name.

In that case I agree. Topic title changed.

How about monkey bars? To go with the seat.

bhall II wrote:Now that I've seen the Williams version, I submit that T-wings reduce downforce coefficient at high speeds.

At low speeds, they'll do next to nothing, simply because they're too small. But, at higher speeds, their wake will be sufficient to redirect air flow away from the rear wing, reducing its efficiency.

http://i.imgur.com/FnxZ15y.jpg

It's not the same thing as reducing downforce. Downforce will still increase with speed; it'll just happen at a slower rate above a certain airspeed threshold. Moreover, such an effect would be particularly useful now that the aero coupling of the rear wing to the diffuser is much stronger.

EDIT: better image

Question for those more versed with the rules than me. What is the height, length and width of the apparent free zone that the T wing fits in? If I can get these numbers I may be able to work out some free stream downforce numbers at various speeds.

What are the deflection rules and tests concerning the T-wing? Anything at all or just the sort of general rule that says bodywork shall not deflect?

You mentioned that if you affect one streamline then you affect all the this also means that the upper T wing will be essentially decreasing the wings apparent angle of attack, the lower T wing shown will be increasing it. The lower wing creates downwash which causes the airflow above it to have a greater downward angle. This is the cause of the increase in apparent angle of attack by the rear wing.

While the upper T wing (or plural in the case of Merc) might reduce the apparent angle of attack at high speed and maybe reduce drag from the rear wing, the T wing itself will also create more downforce than people give it credit for. I'll put money on it being far more than what is created by monkey seats and people seemed to be giving them a lot of attention.

trinidefender wrote:

bhall II wrote:Now that I've seen the Williams version, I submit that T-wings reduce downforce coefficient at high speeds.

At low speeds, they'll do next to nothing, simply because they're too small. But, at higher speeds, their wake will be sufficient to redirect air flow away from the rear wing, reducing its efficiency.

http://i.imgur.com/FnxZ15y.jpg

It's not the same thing as reducing downforce. Downforce will still increase with speed; it'll just happen at a slower rate above a certain airspeed threshold. Moreover, such an effect would be particularly useful now that the aero coupling of the rear wing to the diffuser is much stronger.

EDIT: better image

Question for those more versed with the rules than me. What is the height, length and width of the apparent free zone that the T wing fits in? If I can get these numbers I may be able to work out some free stream downforce numbers at various speeds.

What are the deflection rules and tests concerning the T-wing? Anything at all or just the sort of general rule that says bodywork shall not deflect?

According to my calculations, the maximum height is 40 cm, maximum length 5 cm and maximum width 75 cm.
There are no deflection tests made in that area, only the general rule of "fixed" aerodynamic surfaces.

Maybe it's a Wifi-antenna so Lewis can tweet during the race

No race selfies over 60kmh.

I'm reminded of the baby-beam-wings present on some of the pre-2009 cars. Perhaps they served a similar purpose.

I feel the bottom 'T-Wing', 'Monkey bars', or whatever the lower one will get called is still just a flow conditioner for the rear wing to help rear wing efficiency and increase downforce. Its the T-wing that seems to be the mindboggler .

I havent forgot about running that CFD representation to help us get a better idea. Just swamped with school. But next week is spring break. And I don't have a beach calling my name so might as well be productive .

Bhall, Vyssion, or anyone else ok with just a RW, shark fin and t-wing? I know its simplified but not overly wanting to model a full 2017 car to just get a general idea of whats going on.

APvortex723 wrote:Bhall, Vyssion, or anyone else ok with just a RW, shark fin and t-wing? I know its simplified but not overly wanting to model a full 2017 car to just get a general idea of whats going on.

I have a copy of the Perrin F1 car here in SW format which I could use as a baseline... I do need to fix up quite a few CAD errors in it as the conversion over from the internet CAD package which I got it from wasnt the best But if I could find some spare time over the next week or two, I could probably whack it into a StarCCM simulation and mock up some cheap CAD of a T-wing and simulate it... I think I might even have one of my old uni project F1 StarCCM setups floating around somewhere I could use the setup from....

I am really busy at the moment though so it would be a couple of weeks possibly before I could devote enough time to it to guarantee a certain level of fidelity though

Personally I feel a full car model is a bit overkill for a small device as the T-wing. Just to get a general And if youre worried about time want to just shoot me the CAD file? Ill probably lower the RW to 2017 specs, then just add the sharkfin and t-wing. I use Star-ccm+ as well and will just surface wrap the car to deal with the geometry issues. We aren't exactly worried about overall car performance right now. Just how the t-wing affects the flow field so I can make the wrap a bit coarse and also focus the mesh refinement near the rear of the car. This should help on computational time.

Without having an accurate model of a current car or how the suspension moves under certain load we wont know exactly how they are working on each car itself. Just able to understand what the teams are generally trying to do.

Lower part of T-wing on Williams is in a much more similar position to the one shown on pre-2009 cars in roon's post. I don't think the top one is doing anything spectacular, it's high enough above the rear wing to not have enough effect on airflow bending behind it and all of them feature either winglets or literal endplates to minimize the effect of tip vortices. They seem rigid enough not to twist excessively in high speed (at least not in root, maybe more near the tips) to provide some change in geometry - and therefore to help stall the main rear wing etc.

They have a bigger aspect ratio than any airliner and probably bigger than most gliders, so they are very efficient in terms of Cl/Cd. My opinion is that they are used to create some amount of downforce big enough to reduce rear wing AoA just enough to reduce its drag even more. If rules have opened up, why not use it, right?

Vanja #66 wrote:Lower part of T-wing on Williams is in a much more similar position to the one shown on pre-2009 cars in roon's post. I don't think the top one is doing anything spectacular, it's high enough above the rear wing to not have enough effect on airflow bending behind it and all of them feature either winglets or literal endplates to minimize the effect of tip vortices. They seem rigid enough not to twist excessively in high speed (at least not in root, maybe more near the tips) to provide some change in geometry - and therefore to help stall the main rear wing etc.

They have a bigger aspect ratio than any airliner and probably bigger than most gliders, so they are very efficient in terms of Cl/Cd. My opinion is that they are used to create some amount of downforce big enough to reduce rear wing AoA just enough to reduce its drag even more. If rules have opened up, why not use it, right?

They do have an incredible aspect ratio. There is no doubt about that.

Closest thing to the T-wing imo.

Vyssion wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2017, 17:49

APvortex723 wrote:Bhall, Vyssion, or anyone else ok with just a RW, shark fin and t-wing? I know its simplified but not overly wanting to model a full 2017 car to just get a general idea of whats going on.

I have a copy of the Perrin F1 car here in SW format which I could use as a baseline... I do need to fix up quite a few CAD errors in it as the conversion over from the internet CAD package which I got it from wasnt the best But if I could find some spare time over the next week or two, I could probably whack it into a StarCCM simulation and mock up some cheap CAD of a T-wing and simulate it... I think I might even have one of my old uni project F1 StarCCM setups floating around somewhere I could use the setup from....

I am really busy at the moment though so it would be a couple of weeks possibly before I could devote enough time to it to guarantee a certain level of fidelity though

http://i.imgur.com/TlFiapt.png

Is this you?



https://youtu.be/SzZmAD75cRA

PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑

20 Mar 2017, 03:23

Vyssion wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2017, 17:49

APvortex723 wrote:Bhall, Vyssion, or anyone else ok with just a RW, shark fin and t-wing? I know its simplified but not overly wanting to model a full 2017 car to just get a general idea of whats going on.

I have a copy of the Perrin F1 car here in SW format which I could use as a baseline... I do need to fix up quite a few CAD errors in it as the conversion over from the internet CAD package which I got it from wasnt the best But if I could find some spare time over the next week or two, I could probably whack it into a StarCCM simulation and mock up some cheap CAD of a T-wing and simulate it... I think I might even have one of my old uni project F1 StarCCM setups floating around somewhere I could use the setup from....

I am really busy at the moment though so it would be a couple of weeks possibly before I could devote enough time to it to guarantee a certain level of fidelity though

http://i.imgur.com/TlFiapt.png

Is this you?



https://youtu.be/SzZmAD75cRA

Nope But knowing about another fellow Aussie aerodynamicist is never a bad thing!!