F1technical.net

So it does just act to counter oversteer using the downforce to "pull" the rear inwards.

The bizarre aero isn't even the car on itself; This car ran negative rake to cut drag at Le Mans

Just_a_fan wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2018, 23:45

So it does just act to counter oversteer using the downforce to "pull" the rear inwards.

By that mantra, ALL downforce is there just to counter either over or understeer??

It seems rather silly really, trying to counter the yaw directly with the wing, when if you're on track tyres and racing slicks your friction levels are going to be >1.0 between the tyre and road anyway, so the downforce would be better acting directly on the tyres, you'd get more grip that way, and you don't have to compromise the wing for all the odd AoA's and transitions it's got to deal and cope with.

Just_a_fan wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2018, 23:45

So it does just act to counter oversteer using the downforce to "pull" the rear inwards.

It counteracts centrifugal force first, over/understeer second. If you have another active force giving the car radial acceleration (besides steering), you can go faster trough a corner since you can increase centrifugal force that one bit.

Koenigsegg One:1 rear wing

wesley123 wrote: ↑

18 Jul 2018, 11:12

http://www.all-free-photos.com/images/l ... 108-hr.jpg

The bizarre aero isn't even the car on itself; This car ran negative rake to cut drag at Le Mans

That is interesting.

The first little bit of a wing is converging to ground plane. But a total effect can be desirable.

Many reasons could exist for this, and I have seen it done before. I am curious though was it at a negative rake when static? Or settling under aero load?

wesley123 wrote: ↑

18 Jul 2018, 11:12

http://www.all-free-photos.com/images/l ... 108-hr.jpg

The bizarre aero isn't even the car on itself; This car ran negative rake to cut drag at Le Mans

Williams did that with their active suspension in the 90's, they had it as a push to pass button on the steering wheel. Basically an early form of DRS.

gixxer_drew wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2018, 10:42

wesley123 wrote: ↑

18 Jul 2018, 11:12

http://www.all-free-photos.com/images/l ... 108-hr.jpg

The bizarre aero isn't even the car on itself; This car ran negative rake to cut drag at Le Mans

That is interesting.

The first little bit of a wing is converging to ground plane. But a total effect can be desirable.

Many reasons could exist for this, and I have seen it done before. I am curious though was it at a negative rake when static? Or settling under aero load?

Those cars had front diffusers so they could get away with a lot of things.

gixxer_drew wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2018, 10:42

wesley123 wrote: ↑

18 Jul 2018, 11:12

http://www.all-free-photos.com/images/l ... 108-hr.jpg

The bizarre aero isn't even the car on itself; This car ran negative rake to cut drag at Le Mans

That is interesting.

The first little bit of a wing is converging to ground plane. But a total effect can be desirable.

Many reasons could exist for this, and I have seen it done before. I am curious though was it at a negative rake when static? Or settling under aero load?

I'm not sure if it was negative rake static or only under load.

The issue that Audi had was that they designed a car more suited for IMSA. However, for Le Mans they found it very difficult to shed enough drag. Apparently the through the car aero gave it lots of downforce, but made it difficult to shed the drag they required. Thus, negative rake was applied

roon wrote: ↑

06 Jul 2019, 04:26

https://farm8.static.flickr.com/7907/32 ... 0c9a_b.jpg

If that's supposed to produce downforce it's not working very well

I like the big Aircon unit mounted on the roof.

NathanE wrote: ↑

06 Jul 2019, 08:09

roon wrote: ↑

06 Jul 2019, 04:26

https://farm8.static.flickr.com/7907/32 ... 0c9a_b.jpg

If that's supposed to produce downforce it's not working very well

I like the big Aircon unit mounted on the roof.

That's not a wing, it's an air brake!