F1technical.net

That is exactly what the Y250 and the snow plows and bat-wings have been doing.

It is said that the loop hole is more of how the teams regain the full strength floor sealing effect. Force India gave us a clue that if you cant gain it back fully it would be seconds of laptime deficit.

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2019, 11:33

Just_a_fan wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2019, 10:17

I'm not sure that's a wing as in a device generating lift. I think it's a device to tidy up and direct flow.

This is correct. As I've said a lot in this thread bargeboards are downwash (lift) generators. That "cat fish whisker" wing may still be used in 2019 but will be less effective as the height is reduced. It could also start to interfere with the footplate aerodynamics as the pressure fields interact more strongly.

They do generate lift, negative lift. The air being displaced over the bargeboards is MUCH slower than air travelling underneath. It's close enough to the road that it's in ground effect at all times as well. More than the front wing in fact.

Even with the end plates being so tightly prescribed I find it hard to believe that could really hinder teams from getting outwash off them given how far out they are now. Surely it would have been wiser to make the wings narrower so the tire would completely interfere with any outwash attempts? Especially given they can still put VGs on the endplates, wouldn't be too hard to have them work together to push voteces outboard. Will be interesting to see what these alleged loopholes lead to.

Would it be reasonable or suicidal to try to... reduce the floor's width in order to move it away from the wheels turbulences a bit? (or atleast to try that solution in CFD - to try to find the best compromise width-length for the best DF/clearance)

Maritimer wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2019, 06:51

Even with the end plates being so tightly prescribed I find it hard to believe that could really hinder teams from getting outwash off them given how far out they are now. Surely it would have been wiser to make the wings narrower so the tire would completely interfere with any outwash attempts? Especially given they can still put VGs on the endplates, wouldn't be too hard to have them work together to push voteces outboard. Will be interesting to see what these alleged loopholes lead to.

They can get some outwash - because the trailing edge can aim outwards at 15° from the car centreline. They can also angle the flaps into the endplate at <12° from horizontal (in the plane of the wing sweep). It's difficult to see where a VG could go as the wing has to be at least 10mm thick with a 5mm radius applied. The rear portion of the endplate can only be 12mm thick - which leaves 2mm... I mean you can generate a vortex with that but how beneficial it would be...


I agree that a narrower front wing would have made this whole outwash malarkey undesirable anyway and IMO would look better.

Blackout wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2019, 11:02

Would it be reasonable or suicidal to try to... reduce the floor's width in order to move it away from the wheels turbulences a bit? (or atleast to try that solution in CFD - to try to find the best compromise width-length for the best DF/clearance)

Not suicidal... I think lengthening the chassis is a better way to remove those interactions without compromising total downforce. With the placement of aerodynamic surfaces so limited I think it's preferable to maximize the usable space.

Brawn said that with the 2019 regs cars will be able to get up to 0.8 secs (IIRC) behind another car without losing grip. I am wondering what about 2009-2013 when cars (notably front wings) were really simple, how close was a car able to get to another car without losing grip???
I think the best example of these regs was 2011-2012 when DRS, Pirelli and KERS were introduced and from what i remember cars where really good at following each other! From 2012 onwards front wings started getting more and more complex with more and more elements!! That's why i believe that a 3 element FW is the right solution than a 5 element FW they are going to use in 2019!

Why dont the FIA simply put skirts on each side of the floor, skirts like the ones RBR and Ferrari used for the 2016-2017 Pirelli tests to simulate higher DF levels for 2017, to stop this non-sense and seal the floor physically once and for all, in place of air (a very costly air since the teams spend fortunes trying to protect floor and diffuser with black magic and, sometimes, untameable vortexes)
Then they could put better looking front wings.

Better yet, just say "bargeboards are allowed to be one piece, no cuts, no sticking out bits etc.". Sticking a skirt on the car will lead to clever attempts to seal the floor further.

AMG.Tzan wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2019, 17:32

Brawn said that with the 2019 regs cars will be able to get up to 0.8 secs (IIRC) behind another car without losing grip. I am wondering what about 2009-2013 when cars (notably front wings) were really simple, how close was a car able to get to another car without losing grip???
I think the best example of these regs was 2011-2012 when DRS, Pirelli and KERS were introduced and from what i remember cars where really good at following each other! From 2012 onwards front wings started getting more and more complex with more and more elements!! That's why i believe that a 3 element FW is the right solution than a 5 element FW they are going to use in 2019!

1) 2009 and 2010 had double diffusers which expanded turbulent wake from the diffuser.
2) 2011-2013 did already have significant outwash designs plus crazy blown/coanda diffusers.

Cars generally were able to follow closer, but already had large wholesale difficulties to get within 1.5s.

A lower element front wing will not necessarily translate into less turbulent wake. If teams can still agressively tackle the flow with 3 elements, you aren't any better off. There are several things you can do better instead, like increasing the bodywork around the wheels so teams don't go so agressive with turning flow away from the wheel.

Until F1 learns from Indy Car and the likes of Formula E with fan boost attack modes there will never be 'close' racing.

As long as the formula is dominated by aero rules that are so upset by turbulent air. I think it's quite telling that when ever an F1 team produces a Future F1 concept car (Red Bull and McLaren 2050 immediately spring to mind) it's got skinny wings or covered wheels and not covered with ugly vortex generators and finned bargeboards!

It's almost like the teams are trying to say something!

Shakeman wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2019, 13:38

Until F1 learns from Indy Car and the likes of Formula E with fan boost attack modes there will never be 'close' racing.

As long as the formula is dominated by aero rules that are so upset by turbulent air. I think it's quite telling that when ever an F1 team produces a Future F1 concept car (Red Bull and McLaren 2050 immediately spring to mind) it's got skinny wings or covered wheels and not covered with ugly vortex generators and finned bargeboards!

It's almost like the teams are trying to say something!

I'd agree with some points, not on others there... skinny wings aren't necessarily great for following, but covered wheels (certainly rear wheels) would be hugely beneficial. IMO if they really wanted to 'fix' overtaking they'd ban strakes in the diffusers, it would lead to less dynamic pressure loss, fewer vortices in the immediate wake, and lower turbulence in the far field wake - this is what really impacts the front surfaces of a following car, not the rear wing.

F1 doesn't need attack mode and other such "gimmickry" if they can fix the aerodynamic problems, the tracks are certainly wide enough for drivers to be able to make moves.

turbof1 wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2019, 01:14

1) 2009 and 2010 had double diffusers which expanded turbulent wake from the diffuser.
2) 2011-2013 did already have significant outwash designs plus crazy blown/coanda diffusers.

Cars generally were able to follow closer, but already had large wholesale difficulties to get within 1.5s.

A lower element front wing will not necessarily translate into less turbulent wake. If teams can still agressively tackle the flow with 3 elements, you aren't any better off. There are several things you can do better instead, like increasing the bodywork around the wheels so teams don't go so agressive with turning flow away from the wheel.

IIRC the number quoted to be capable to overtake in 2009 was a 1.5s pace advantage. Whereas before it was more like 2s. I think the OWG said 0.5s for 2009... but then double diffusers and by the end of they year they had more DF than 2008.

Edit

Andy Greene too said the FIA schould have narrowed the front wing, instead of making it wider... But Tomazis said FIA wanted a powerful FW...

This thread has helped me understand a lot but there is still something I don't understand.
Yes the following car finds a lot of disturbed air as it comes up behind another. But why can't it push thru that disturbed air and enter a calm space close behind the leading car.
Like drafting in other series.

strad wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2019, 21:04

This thread has helped me understand a lot but there is still something I don't understand.
Yes the following car finds a lot of disturbed air as it comes up behind another. But why can't it push thru that disturbed air and enter a calm space close behind the leading car.
Like drafting in other series.

Drafting/stipstreaming happens in F1, the same process that robs the cars of downforce also reduces drag. The balance of straight line advantage and cornering disadvantage changes race-to-race. It's just that they can't get into the slipstream because they're so disadvantaged in the preceding corner.

Oval events like NASCAR or Indycar require very different aero. In the case of Indycar as a more direct comparison to F1 about 75% of the downforce is stripped out to reduce drag - and because it's not required to the same extent. The aero balance is also shifted back 10-15% to make the car more predictable at 240mi/hr. So the wake is smaller from less downforce and drag disturbing the air, but also the car behind has less aero on it to feel an affect. The delta loss is reduced.

With NASCAR the process is slightly different, the wake is very different to an F1 car, and how they produce (a comparatively minimal quantity of) downforce is different as it comes from a front air dam and a rear spoiler. So the wake effect is primarily static pressure not total pressure, i.e. the low pressure bubble behind the car reduces drag on the high pressure bubble on the front of the following car - which in turn reduces drag on the leading car, because the car behind fills in the low pressure behind the lead car.