F1technical.net

F1 still uses ground effect!

Just_a_fan wrote:F1 still uses ground effect!

Not as the main downforce element. If you look at the Ferrari 126 c2 it doesn't even have a front wing http://yorozuya-f1and-etc.cocolog-nifty ... 4/vg55.jpg

All because of where the downforce is beinig created

The front wing is in ground effect. The floor is in ground effect. The rear wing isn't but then it wasn't back in the day either. A modern F1 car is a ground effect device it's just that the regulations limit how the designers achieve the result compared to thirty years ago.

Isn't one consideration with the design of the rear wing its effect on performance of the underbody?

I remember the very low and aft position of the rear wings used on IMSA GTP cars, which greatly improved the aero performance of the car's underwing.

toraabe wrote:

Just_a_fan wrote:F1 still uses ground effect!

Not as the main downforce element. If you look at the Ferrari 126 c2 it doesn't even have a front wing http://yorozuya-f1and-etc.cocolog-nifty ... 4/vg55.jpg

All because of where the downforce is beinig created

The lotus 125 with its massive underfloor tunnels creates 60% more downforce through its tunnels than the current flat floor in f1.

riff_raff wrote:Isn't one consideration with the design of the rear wing its effect on performance of the underbody?

I remember the very low and aft position of the rear wings used on IMSA GTP cars, which greatly improved the aero performance of the car's underwing.

http://vpstestbringatrailercom.c.pressc ... Rear_1.jpg

Because Imsa and group c were true ground effect cars. The venturi on these were massive and created massive downforce.

toraabe wrote:

toraabe wrote:

Just_a_fan wrote:F1 still uses ground effect!

Not as the main downforce element. If you look at the Ferrari 126 c2 it doesn't even have a front wing http://yorozuya-f1and-etc.cocolog-nifty ... 4/vg55.jpg

All because of where the downforce is beinig created

The lotus 125 with its massive underfloor tunnels creates 60% more downforce through its tunnels than the current flat floor in f1.

Have a source for this information? Not that I don't believe you I just like to see backed up numbers.

toraabe wrote:

toraabe wrote:

Just_a_fan wrote:F1 still uses ground effect!

Not as the main downforce element. If you look at the Ferrari 126 c2 it doesn't even have a front wing http://yorozuya-f1and-etc.cocolog-nifty ... 4/vg55.jpg

All because of where the downforce is beinig created

The lotus 125 with its massive underfloor tunnels creates 60% more downforce through its tunnels than the current flat floor in f1.

You got numbers?

toraabe wrote:Because Imsa and group c were true ground effect cars. The venturi on these were massive and created massive downforce.

does anyone know how AoA on the front wing could affect downforce in a trailing situation? Eg. could the lost downforce be recovered by running a steeper AoA during the trailing situation, reverting to an optimal AoA once the pass was complete?

They tried that in 2010, allowing the driver to increase front wing angle with the hopes of allowing a car to follow closer. Didn't work too well.