Apologies for jumping in…Zynerji wrote: ↑31 Jan 2022, 20:03On an odd side-question, jjn,
Is there any scenario where a team could use the main plane on the front wing for normal, ground effect downfrce generation, but use the full upper flaps as to create downwash onto the tunnels (like scoops instead of flaps) ? Like almost give up the front wing df production to gain a net advantage in the tunnels?
The wing element profiles are pretty restrictive, the general shape of the wing is baked into the regulations. You can play with the details, and the only thing I can see that can channel airflow into the tunnels is the inner wing fillet radius, nosecone, and camera housing.Stu wrote: ↑31 Jan 2022, 21:04Apologies for jumping in…Zynerji wrote: ↑31 Jan 2022, 20:03On an odd side-question, jjn,
Is there any scenario where a team could use the main plane on the front wing for normal, ground effect downfrce generation, but use the full upper flaps as to create downwash onto the tunnels (like scoops instead of flaps) ? Like almost give up the front wing df production to gain a net advantage in the tunnels?
As I interpret it, the FOM people have thought of this.
There is a minimum and maximum slot gap for the front wing and the lower half of each element must terminate in an upward slope over the last 40mm of its depth (in effect also creating a minimum depth for each element).
I found this when looking for legality of my own ‘clever’ solution, which was to operate the first element with a very aggressive down wash to provide an amplified ground effect from the front wing with a much reduced AoA for the whole thing.
Surely the reason the faster vortex has a lower pressure is because it's spinning faster. Faster air has lower pressure. C.f Bernoulli.godlameroso wrote: ↑31 Jan 2022, 23:17
The faster a vortex spins, the lower the pressure at the core. This is because the rotation of the vortex creates a centrifugal force that pushes air outward lowering the pressure at the core.
They created lots of co-rotating vortices. These are additive and thus strengthen the original vortex.If you look at last year's cars, you could see that the slots on the bargeboard footplate were energizing the Y250 because the upwash created by the bargeboard footplate was adding angular momentum to the y250.
What an interesting article, brings me back to my materials science/engineering studiesZynerji wrote: ↑01 Feb 2022, 17:47I've been talking about this for a while, and haven't gotten much agreement over the years. I think Merc started this early (2013ish)
Here's some news on the subject.
https://techxplore.com/news/2022-01-tea ... rithm.html
Partly yes, lower pressure also because there's less air mass at the core. Spinning air spins outward and butts against the higher pressure static air defining the wall of the vortex. Because the tendency of spinning air is to move outward, the core has lower air pressure by simply having a smaller proportion of air molecules than at the vortex wall.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑01 Feb 2022, 02:05Surely the reason the faster vortex has a lower pressure is because it's spinning faster. Faster air has lower pressure. C.f Bernoulli.godlameroso wrote: ↑31 Jan 2022, 23:17
The faster a vortex spins, the lower the pressure at the core. This is because the rotation of the vortex creates a centrifugal force that pushes air outward lowering the pressure at the core.
They created lots of co-rotating vortices. These are additive and thus strengthen the original vortex.If you look at last year's cars, you could see that the slots on the bargeboard footplate were energizing the Y250 because the upwash created by the bargeboard footplate was adding angular momentum to the y250.
Looking from the front, the Y250 on the left of the car was rotating clockwise. Each little flick on the barge board footplate on the that side also created a clockwise rotating vortex. They merge and maintain/ add to the original.
The elements of the front wing have to have camber for downforce. I.e there cannot be convex curvature on the undersideZynerji wrote: ↑31 Jan 2022, 20:03On an odd side-question, jjn,
Is there any scenario where a team could use the main plane on the front wing for normal, ground effect downfrce generation, but use the full upper flaps as to create downwash onto the tunnels (like scoops instead of flaps) ? Like almost give up the front wing df production to gain a net advantage in the tunnels?
Ty!jjn9128 wrote: ↑01 Feb 2022, 20:54The elements of the front wing have to have camber for downforce. I.e there cannot be convex curvature on the undersideZynerji wrote: ↑31 Jan 2022, 20:03On an odd side-question, jjn,
Is there any scenario where a team could use the main plane on the front wing for normal, ground effect downfrce generation, but use the full upper flaps as to create downwash onto the tunnels (like scoops instead of flaps) ? Like almost give up the front wing df production to gain a net advantage in the tunnels?
It doesn't, it always goes from high to low. You create higher than atmospheric pressure by moving through the air. The air fills the space you leave as you displace the air via turbulence, as that is the quickest way to return to atmospheric equilibrium.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑01 Feb 2022, 20:23Why would the air move from a region of low pressure to a region of high pressure?