BMW Vertical Wings
#1
Posted 11 July 2006 - 13:25
Any ideas? Thanks folks for your input.
#3
Posted 11 July 2006 - 23:40
Cleans up the airflow my.....
They wouldn't try and convince customers they clean up the airflow
with these on a 7 series would they ?
#4
Posted 12 July 2006 - 09:34
#5
Posted 12 July 2006 - 21:40
#6
Posted 13 July 2006 - 01:03
Would I be far off?
#7
Posted 13 July 2006 - 08:34
Originally posted by Stian1979
I would guess they split the airflow ao less densety air will hit the driver and engine cover and cleaner and higher densety air will hit the rear wing.
Would I be far off?
I don't think they'd want to do that. Mostly they'd be taking air away from the engine intake which wouldn't be a good idea for top-end power. Also, I don't see there's anything behind the cockpit to direct airflow back to the rear wing, and most importantly, directing air away from something doesn't reduce drag overall because at least as much drag is made by the deflecting device.
No, I think those fins on the nose are all about centering airflow. It's possible that the vortex that comes off the tips is designed to interact with the engine intake. If we see them at Monza then that's a fair bet. If they're removed for Monza then we can cancel that theory. Another more obvious theory is that they straighten up airflow to the rear wing during cornering (where the car is necessarilly in yaw to some degree). The effect would be pretty miniscule though I'd think.
#8
Posted 13 July 2006 - 15:04
I would exspect the drag to drop if the air is carefully splited in advance then hitting the helmet and the front off the enginecover with full force. Will be interesting to see the tecnical analysis on formula1.com when race weekend starts.
#9
Posted 13 July 2006 - 17:30
#10
Posted 13 July 2006 - 19:35
Yes they are. See :-Originally posted by Stian1979
The wings are not tall enough to devert the air stream to the engine intake.
http://www.autosport...to.php/id/53004
Originally posted by Stian1979
I would exspect the drag to drop if the air is carefully splited in advance then hitting the helmet and the front off the enginecover with full force.
"With full force"? From a drag point of view, all that matters is turbulence caused by flow seperation and in the cockpit area the worst of that comes from the back of the driver's helmet. All the other parts... the air has to flow around them, but there's nothing you can do about that. How much crap do you see hanging off the front of an airliner to reduce drag? Nothing of course - the airliner's fuselage has a certain cross-sectional area that is set by the requirements of the aircraft. It has a fairly bluff front (instead of the pointed front most people imagine is best for "cutting through the air") because that is all that's required to displace the air around the fuselage without causing seperation. I don't want to say you should read a book on aerodynamics because I'm not exactly an expert myself, but there are a few basic principles you should be aware of.
#11
Posted 13 July 2006 - 20:54
#12
Posted 13 July 2006 - 21:28
Originally posted by angst
Aren't these very similar to something Derek Gardner tried out on an early seventies Tyrrell-Ford?
And Matra too !
#13
Posted 13 July 2006 - 22:05
Originally posted by WHITE
And Matra too !
Yes, I remmebr the Matra versions, alot shorter, but doing the same job? But the ones on the Tyrrell were also quite tall, but in more of a 'v', as I remember. I don't think they ever ran it during a race weekend - if ever. I wish I could remember where I saw the article. I think it might have been on these very forums.
#14
Posted 14 July 2006 - 03:05
What do the static pressure variances in a trailing vortex typically look like?
#15
Posted 14 July 2006 - 09:21
#16
Posted 14 July 2006 - 09:40
Originally posted by angst
Yes, I remmebr the Matra versions, alot shorter, but doing the same job? But the ones on the Tyrrell were also quite tall, but in more of a 'v', as I remember. I don't think they ever ran it during a race weekend - if ever. I wish I could remember where I saw the article. I think it might have been on these very forums.
Angst, here it is : [img] http://forums.autosp...er raced275.gif [img]
However, those wings/fins looked like a dihedral wing so I suppose they were intended to increase car stability, which seems not to be BMW's purpose now.
#17
Posted 14 July 2006 - 09:43
Originally posted by angst
Yes, I remmebr the Matra versions, alot shorter, but doing the same job? But the ones on the Tyrrell were also quite tall, but in more of a 'v', as I remember. I don't think they ever ran it during a race weekend - if ever. I wish I could remember where I saw the article. I think it might have been on these very forums.
Angst, here it is : [img] http://forums.autosp...ell never raced [img]
However, those wings/fins looked like a dihedral wing so I suppose they were intended to increase car stability, which seems not to be BMW's purpose now.
* Edit : the thread title was - The Tyrrell car that never raced
#18
Posted 14 July 2006 - 18:57
Either that, or this: http://images.pictur...68/22626857.jpg
#19
Posted 15 July 2006 - 06:57
formula1.com
This radical-looking aero solution was used in the last test at Jerez and then adopted for France. The two vertical fins on the nose, around 40 cm high, give the car an unconventional look, but fall within regulations regarding bodywork height. Their purpose is to improve stability and efficiently direct airflow towards the central and rear sections of the car. The concept is similar to that of the 'ears' on the Renault nose, but BMW Sauber have taken it to the extreme to increase its effect.
Then that is sorted out.
Advertisement
#20
Posted 15 July 2006 - 10:12
Originally posted by Stian1979
Then that is sorted out.
I guess it is if you regard foruma1.com as the definitive source of technical information about Formula 1. If that were the case I'd have to wonder why Scarbs bothers writing his columns for Autosport.com. If the author of that page has spoken to someone at BMW about the nose fins then fair enough. If they haven't it's just a guess like all the theories here. You'll notice if you've read the formula1.com "analysis" for a while that everything is extremely vague. It'll all be "blah blah... reduces drag" or "blah blah... helps condition flow to the rear wing". That doesn't really tell you anything does it? Anyone could have written that, in fact I think some people here did. The fact that the explanations are apparently published anonymously doesn't add much confidence either. The pictures are nice though
#21
Posted 15 July 2006 - 17:56
#22
Posted 15 July 2006 - 23:31
#23
Posted 16 July 2006 - 02:02
#24
Posted 25 July 2006 - 12:35
#25
Posted 25 July 2006 - 13:41
#26
Posted 25 July 2006 - 15:30
#27
Posted 25 July 2006 - 15:33
Originally posted by rhm
I guess it is if you regard foruma1.com as the definitive source of technical information about Formula 1. If that were the case I'd have to wonder why Scarbs bothers writing his columns for Autosport.com. If the author of that page has spoken to someone at BMW about the nose fins then fair enough. If they haven't it's just a guess like all the theories here. You'll notice if you've read the formula1.com "analysis" for a while that everything is extremely vague. It'll all be "blah blah... reduces drag" or "blah blah... helps condition flow to the rear wing". That doesn't really tell you anything does it? Anyone could have written that, in fact I think some people here did. The fact that the explanations are apparently published anonymously doesn't add much confidence either. The pictures are nice though
Vague technical sounding commentary constitutes the bulk of reporting on F1.
#28
Posted 26 July 2006 - 17:03
Originally posted by kNt
Maybee they make the car more stable under sidewinds, since now the area of attack is more the same on the front and the back.
You might be on to something.