Full Version: How the McLaren rear wing works (merged)
I've updated the first post to be a fairer summary of both explanations. If you think I should add anything let me know.
QUOTE (dren @ Mar 10 2010, 13:18) 
The idea, which makes the most sense to me for a stalling blown wing would be that the wing needs the blown air to keep flow from separating, but at high speeds it 'chokes' due to the air duct not being large enough to keep up with the increased flow velocity on the back side of the wing, thus stalling it.
That sounds convincing. I think the whole snorkel-story has drawn some attention of 'switching' the blow on and of without a snorkel, fluidics or the driver's knee (which will probably enter historybooks as the most ridiculous speculation ever!).
But would the intake in the airbox not create drag if it 'choked' as you say? How much would this be in relation to the drag reduction gained by stalling the wing?
If you look at the second pic in Guizotia's original post: You see some flow viz there. I'll put the image here as well so that you don't have to swith back and forth between the pages (I'm talking about the pic in the middle):
On the very bottom of the wing, it's 'medium'.
There's barely anything in the section between the allowed and real slot and the alleged blown slot.
Then we have the upper section, which is everything above the blown slot we're talking about so much.
The lower half of this last section is practically covered with flow viz, and there is considerably less flow viz in the upper half.
You see as well some flow viz on the inside of the rear wing endplates. I don't see any disturbed flow there.
What does that tell us? What is going on there with the airflow? Can anybody here 'read' flow viz patterns? Is there high pressure or low pressure when there's little flow viz (that is, does high pressure airflow 'take' the flow viz with it?)?
Anyway, I don't see any indication for a disturbed airflow. For me it seems that the air from the slow is blown rather in accordance with the 'natural' flow.
On the very bottom of the wing, it's 'medium'.
There's barely anything in the section between the allowed and real slot and the alleged blown slot.
Then we have the upper section, which is everything above the blown slot we're talking about so much.
The lower half of this last section is practically covered with flow viz, and there is considerably less flow viz in the upper half.
You see as well some flow viz on the inside of the rear wing endplates. I don't see any disturbed flow there.
What does that tell us? What is going on there with the airflow? Can anybody here 'read' flow viz patterns? Is there high pressure or low pressure when there's little flow viz (that is, does high pressure airflow 'take' the flow viz with it?)?
Anyway, I don't see any indication for a disturbed airflow. For me it seems that the air from the slow is blown rather in accordance with the 'natural' flow.
QUOTE (anbeck @ Mar 10 2010, 07:26)
That sounds convincing. I think the whole snorkel-story has drawn some attention of 'switching' the blow on and of without a snorkel, fluidics or the driver's knee (which will probably enter historybooks as the most ridiculous speculation ever!).
But would the intake in the airbox not create drag if it 'choked' as you say? How much would this be in relation to the drag reduction gained by stalling the wing?
But would the intake in the airbox not create drag if it 'choked' as you say? How much would this be in relation to the drag reduction gained by stalling the wing?
I don't know the answer to that, but I would think the intake would create more drag if it was choking. How much drag, I don't know. The intake for the blown wing doesn't look that large, just the little triangle piece on top of the engine intake.
I do think the snorkel idea tied into the driver's leg moving is a bit rediculous too.
QUOTE (anbeck @ Mar 10 2010, 07:36)
If you look at the second pic in Guizotia's original post: You see some flow viz there. I'll put the image here as well so that you don't have to swith back and forth between the pages (I'm talking about the pic in the middle):
On the very bottom of the wing, it's 'medium'.
There's barely anything in the section between the allowed and real slot and the alleged blown slot.
Then we have the upper section, which is everything above the blown slot we're talking about so much.
The lower half of this last section is practically covered with flow viz, and there is considerably less flow viz in the upper half.
You see as well some flow viz on the inside of the rear wing endplates. I don't see any disturbed flow there.
What does that tell us? What is going on there with the airflow? Can anybody here 'read' flow viz patterns? Is there high pressure or low pressure when there's little flow viz (that is, does high pressure airflow 'take' the flow viz with it?)?
Anyway, I don't see any indication for a disturbed airflow. For me it seems that the air from the slow is blown rather in accordance with the 'natural' flow.
On the very bottom of the wing, it's 'medium'.
There's barely anything in the section between the allowed and real slot and the alleged blown slot.
Then we have the upper section, which is everything above the blown slot we're talking about so much.
The lower half of this last section is practically covered with flow viz, and there is considerably less flow viz in the upper half.
You see as well some flow viz on the inside of the rear wing endplates. I don't see any disturbed flow there.
What does that tell us? What is going on there with the airflow? Can anybody here 'read' flow viz patterns? Is there high pressure or low pressure when there's little flow viz (that is, does high pressure airflow 'take' the flow viz with it?)?
Anyway, I don't see any indication for a disturbed airflow. For me it seems that the air from the slow is blown rather in accordance with the 'natural' flow.
I wish I could read the flow vis. They may have put more flow vis into the blown part so that could explain why there is more coming out of the slot.
QUOTE (anbeck @ Mar 10 2010, 13:36)
I am not sure i I am making sense, but...
In the image with the flow vis, exactly where the letter 'e' of line is written I recognize the dark strip coming from the underside of the ear wing meting up with the slit. The rear wing end plates have this form that cast this air flow as well. Is this how the rear wing gets dull profile?
Where would flow viz be applied in the first place? I guess they wouldn't place it inside of the apparatus, as that would create a great mess to clean afterwards. Or would it be worth the effort in order to be sure that the thing is well calibrated?
QUOTE (Guizotia @ Mar 10 2010, 03:07)
From your Scarbs quote:
"This could be possible in several ways;
one could be having the slot orientated differently to the airflow over the wing, if it were at nearer right angles to the flow it could blow hard enough to disrupt the airflow enough to stall the wing.
Another solution might be that the slot blows at lower speed maintaining a clean airflow over the wing, then at higher speed the slot chokes with the greater airflow trying to pass through it, the slot no longer blowing stalls the wing."
The problem with the second idea is that you have to blow the air very fast to get the effect. That's why aircraft only do it during landing when they have the spare engine revs. That rules it out for an F1 car. That only leaves the first solution.
"This could be possible in several ways;
one could be having the slot orientated differently to the airflow over the wing, if it were at nearer right angles to the flow it could blow hard enough to disrupt the airflow enough to stall the wing.
Another solution might be that the slot blows at lower speed maintaining a clean airflow over the wing, then at higher speed the slot chokes with the greater airflow trying to pass through it, the slot no longer blowing stalls the wing."
The problem with the second idea is that you have to blow the air very fast to get the effect. That's why aircraft only do it during landing when they have the spare engine revs. That rules it out for an F1 car. That only leaves the first solution.
I think Scarbs' wording on this may be bit confusing, which is causing some misunderstanding by everyone. Also, it's a misconception that the airflow needs to be all that great - it really doesn't, though it does have to be proportional to the speed of the car/plane; i.e., higher speed needs a higher flow rate. As I posted before on the 25 thread, this is easily understandable when you reconsider that a split-element wing is essentially a type of blown wing; and if one needed a higher rate of flow, then there'd be no point in having split element wings!
Scarbs' first point, the idea of the air blowing against the stream was proposed by someone on F1tech a while back, but the problem is that there's no precedent to back that up. I don't discount it entirely, but I think the laws of physics are working against a solution like that.
On the second point, I think what Scarbs means to say is that while the slot may be large enough to blow a sufficient quantity of air to keep the boundary layer attached at low speeds, it could be too small to allow enough air to do so at higher speeds. This has been my preferred theory since the beginning, due to it's simplicity. The problem though is that it doesn't explain all the other odd outlets, which is why I'm open to the whole fluidics theory. I'd also argue the the 'choke' wouldn't be the slot itself, but rather an internal restrictor plate, which could be interchanged, allowing them to 'tune' the wing to various tracks.
Regardless, you're interpreting Scrabs', I think, as saying that the airflow is causing the flow to detach, when in fact it does quite the opposite. The basic theory is that the wing works to provide greater downforce for 90% of the track, just like the flaps, or blown flaps, or blown wings on an airplane provide greater lift; with the twist being that the McLaren wing might 'malfunction' on the straight (or it might not - we may never know!), reducing downforce and drag. On an airplane, this would mean certain death, which is why the concept isn't explored in textbooks. But in an F1 car, in theory at least it's quite useful.
Sounds good. But essentially such a passive system would rule out the system's use for tracks that have not only high speed straights, but high speed corners as well.
I have no figures for Blanchimont, but I think you would assume that McLaren would prefer to err on the safer side. Wikipedia says that Burti left the track at Blanchimont in 2001 at 298 km/h, so that's pretty close to top speed. The FIA website[1] even says 317 km/hTo be safe at Blanchimont McLaren would add another 10 km/h to the device that controls the stalling of the wing. At Spa the weather is known to change quickly, could changing weather impact on air pressure and thus the calibration of McLaren's device? If so, add another 5 km/h to be sure. That leaves very little space between topspeed and stall-inducing-speed.
It would work for tracks such as Monza (though even there the Curva Grande is quite fast, though probably wide enough that the car shouldn't depend on downforce as much as Blanchimont) or Montreal, where the straights are not connected by fast corners, but by slow to medium-fast chicanes. Barcelona should get well with the wing stalling at 280 or something. Montreal probably even much less.
I see how such a passive system could work in theory and practice, but I fail to see how a passive system could tell whether it's at Blanchimont. If it's not capable of doing it, such a system would not be helpful at tracks like Spa, where it could really make a difference down the straights.
[1] http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/championshi...es/circuit.aspx
I have no figures for Blanchimont, but I think you would assume that McLaren would prefer to err on the safer side. Wikipedia says that Burti left the track at Blanchimont in 2001 at 298 km/h, so that's pretty close to top speed. The FIA website[1] even says 317 km/hTo be safe at Blanchimont McLaren would add another 10 km/h to the device that controls the stalling of the wing. At Spa the weather is known to change quickly, could changing weather impact on air pressure and thus the calibration of McLaren's device? If so, add another 5 km/h to be sure. That leaves very little space between topspeed and stall-inducing-speed.
It would work for tracks such as Monza (though even there the Curva Grande is quite fast, though probably wide enough that the car shouldn't depend on downforce as much as Blanchimont) or Montreal, where the straights are not connected by fast corners, but by slow to medium-fast chicanes. Barcelona should get well with the wing stalling at 280 or something. Montreal probably even much less.
I see how such a passive system could work in theory and practice, but I fail to see how a passive system could tell whether it's at Blanchimont. If it's not capable of doing it, such a system would not be helpful at tracks like Spa, where it could really make a difference down the straights.
[1] http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/championshi...es/circuit.aspx
True. We can't really know how precisely they could tune this setup, but they'd probably want to keep a decent safety margin. More reason to keep an open mind about driver control.
People have their preferences, but we're no clearer to a definite answer as to which explanation is correct... very frustrating!
McLaren are doing a good job of keeping a lid on this, maybe only a few employees know how it works, and they obviously aren't telling anyone, even other people inside the MTC.
McLaren are doing a good job of keeping a lid on this, maybe only a few employees know how it works, and they obviously aren't telling anyone, even other people inside the MTC.
When I started this thread I was 99% convinced it was a "blown slot" not a "blown flap", but now I'm 50/50.
QUOTE (Guizotia @ Mar 10 2010, 18:33)
People have their preferences, but we're no clearer to a definite answer as to which explanation is correct... very frustrating!
McLaren are doing a good job of keeping a lid on this, maybe only a few employees know how it works, and they obviously aren't telling anyone, even other people inside the MTC.
McLaren are doing a good job of keeping a lid on this, maybe only a few employees know how it works, and they obviously aren't telling anyone, even other people inside the MTC.
Do you expect anything different? F1 has always been like that and forever will be. Advantages are hard won and easily lost.
It will come out in a book one day
The rear wing is declared legal:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y...=auto&tl=en
But what is more interesting, is that AMuS makes the point that any automatic system of changing the aerodynamics is not allowed, so the effect must be controlled by driver input (i.e. the snorkel!):
That would mean:
snorkel -> driver's knee -> fluidics switch controlling air from air box -> rear wing
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y...=auto&tl=en
But what is more interesting, is that AMuS makes the point that any automatic system of changing the aerodynamics is not allowed, so the effect must be controlled by driver input (i.e. the snorkel!):
QUOTE (AMuS)
Against a disturbance of the flow on the wing is in principle no objection. The main discussion was about how the car knows whether it is located on a straight line or in a curve. Each automatism that has changed any part of the car to make aerodynamic influence, not allowed. For example, a contaminated pressure valve. . It is thus clear: The command can only come from the driver.
Now it is left to the imagination of the other teams, using what the body part Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button to open or close the air channel that starts in front of the cockpit with a little snorkeling, and extends from there to the end of the airbox, that the upper wing element is connected. Most people think: It's the knee. From rows of Commissioners only so much is heard: "A simple but brilliant trick.
Now it is left to the imagination of the other teams, using what the body part Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button to open or close the air channel that starts in front of the cockpit with a little snorkeling, and extends from there to the end of the airbox, that the upper wing element is connected. Most people think: It's the knee. From rows of Commissioners only so much is heard: "A simple but brilliant trick.
That would mean:
snorkel -> driver's knee -> fluidics switch controlling air from air box -> rear wing
QUOTE (Guizotia @ Mar 11 2010, 09:51)
The rear wing is declared legal:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y...=auto&tl=en
But what is more interesting, is that AMuS makes the point that any automatic system of changing the aerodynamics is not allowed, so the effect must be controlled by driver input (i.e. the snorkel!):
That would mean:
snorkel -> driver's knee -> fluidics switch controlling air from air box -> rear wing
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y...=auto&tl=en
But what is more interesting, is that AMuS makes the point that any automatic system of changing the aerodynamics is not allowed, so the effect must be controlled by driver input (i.e. the snorkel!):
That would mean:
snorkel -> driver's knee -> fluidics switch controlling air from air box -> rear wing
What about a rest pedal?
This is all speculation by AMuS! The only thing we know is that it is legal. There's no talk of a switch of any kind, the only thing the FIA folks have said: "A simple but brilliant trick"
IMHO that excludes all fluidics, etc., but it could still be passive, such as a choking intake or whatever.
IMHO that excludes all fluidics, etc., but it could still be passive, such as a choking intake or whatever.
QUOTE (Guizotia @ Mar 11 2010, 12:51)
The rear wing is declared legal:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y...=auto&tl=en
But what is more interesting, is that AMuS makes the point that any automatic system of changing the aerodynamics is not allowed, so the effect must be controlled by driver input (i.e. the snorkel!):
That would mean:
snorkel -> driver's knee -> fluidics switch controlling air from air box -> rear wing
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y...=auto&tl=en
But what is more interesting, is that AMuS makes the point that any automatic system of changing the aerodynamics is not allowed, so the effect must be controlled by driver input (i.e. the snorkel!):
That would mean:
snorkel -> driver's knee -> fluidics switch controlling air from air box -> rear wing
How the hell can a driver control this with his knee?????!!!
Please explain
QUOTE (anbeck @ Mar 11 2010, 13:06)
This is all speculation by AMuS! The only thing we know is that it is legal. There's no talk of a switch of any kind, the only thing the FIA folks have said: "A simple but brilliant trick"
IMHO that excludes all fluidics, etc., but it could still be passive, such as a choking intake or whatever.
IMHO that excludes all fluidics, etc., but it could still be passive, such as a choking intake or whatever.
Not if an automatically controlled device would fall foul of the rules...
That's the interesting point that AMuS is making, any non-driver control would be illegal, so it must be driver operated.
QUOTE (David1976 @ Mar 11 2010, 13:15)
How the hell can a driver control this with his knee?????!!!
Please explain
Please explain
E.g. pressing knee against rubber tube through which air flows to block off air flow.
QUOTE (Guizotia @ Mar 11 2010, 13:19)
E.g. pressing knee against rubber tube through which air flows to block off air flow.
Nice. Like it.
I wonder how long that will take others to replicate. Clever.
I wonder how this opens up the doors to having multiple slots on the rear wings, slots bleeding air onto sidepod surfaces, routing air under the floor in certain circumstances etc?
I thought the only driver controlled aero change that was allowed was the front wing.
I don't see how the driver moving his knee to control a switch would be any different than the driver pushing a button.
The snorkel idea is really reaching.
I don't see how the driver moving his knee to control a switch would be any different than the driver pushing a button.
The snorkel idea is really reaching.
QUOTE (dren @ Mar 11 2010, 15:09)
I thought the only driver controlled aero change that was allowed was the front wing.
I don't see how the driver moving his knee to control a switch would be any different than the driver pushing a button.
The snorkel idea is really reaching.
I don't see how the driver moving his knee to control a switch would be any different than the driver pushing a button.
The snorkel idea is really reaching.
I agree with what you say there. Even without a physical switch and simply having the driver's actions affect airflow it seems a step too far. If brake steer was banned, I would have thought that (hypothetical) system would be too.
QUOTE (dren @ Mar 11 2010, 19:09)
I thought the only driver controlled aero change that was allowed was the front wing.
that was for the year 2009 only.previous year they claimed they would allow adjustable front and rear wings and also increase the change of angle allowed from 5 to 10%.the rear wing flap was supposed to be be manually operated IIRC.
the whole idea was then scrapped when they introduced the official regulation later meaning that they werent going to allow any adj. front or rear wings..
im not a fan of the the snorkel theory.that would be against the regulations.
QUOTE (Snap Matt @ Mar 11 2010, 16:09)
I agree with what you say there. Even without a physical switch and simply having the driver's actions affect airflow it seems a step too far. If brake steer was banned, I would have thought that (hypothetical) system would be too.
The same logic would apply when a driver leans his head one side, in order to get as much air flowing into the air box above his head. Anyway all this is guess work and nobody to date apart from Mclaren know what is going on. All we know it is legal.
QUOTE (The Ragged Edge @ Mar 11 2010, 17:15)
The same logic would apply when a driver leans his head one side, in order to get as much air flowing into the air box above his head. Anyway all this is guess work and nobody to date apart from Mclaren know what is going on. All we know it is legal.
Driver head movements have been classified as "secondary movements" and are allowed. I don't think the knee-idea would be legal in the universe where the TMD wasn't.
QUOTE (The Ragged Edge @ Mar 11 2010, 16:15)
The same logic would apply when a driver leans his head one side, in order to get as much air flowing into the air box above his head. Anyway all this is guess work and nobody to date apart from Mclaren know what is going on. All we know it is legal.
I think there would be a distinction to be made there, about the purpose of the airflow (if air can have a purpose!) and how it is being affected. It just makes me think that the idea of knee control is a red herring.
Presumably we don't truly know it's going to be legal until other teams have abandoned any chance of protesting the wing too?
QUOTE (anbeck @ Mar 11 2010, 17:17)
Driver head movements have been classified as "secondary movements" and are allowed. I don't think the knee-idea would be legal in the universe where the TMD wasn't.
TMD was banned because it was potentially deadly movable balast.
It was banned BY declaring it movable aero however, because apparently that was the easiest way to go about it.
Apparently.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport...one/8558279.stm
QUOTE
Red Bull had sought clarification on a slot on the wing which reduces drag and increases straight-line speed.
But FIA technical chief Charlie Whiting told BBC Sport: "I've seen it and I'm entirely happy with it."
But FIA technical chief Charlie Whiting told BBC Sport: "I've seen it and I'm entirely happy with it."
QUOTE (anbeck @ Mar 11 2010, 16:17)
Driver head movements have been classified as "secondary movements" and are allowed. I don't think the knee-idea would be legal in the universe where the TMD wasn't.
I've just checked the technical regulations, and interestingly they don't list what a driver CAN adjust and say everything else is banned (which is what I would have expected).
(I might have missed something in the regs, but I don't think so).
In terms of driver adjustment of bodywork, the regulations simply define the allowable adjustment of the front wing, and that's it. Everything else is not allowed to move, so there is no need I guess to specifically state that the driver is not allowed to control it's movement. The McLaren rear wing, having no moving parts, is able potentially to take advantage of this 'oversight' of the regulations.
So what is there that might apply to our driver-operated rear wing control aka snorkel? The following section would apply I assume:
QUOTE (FIA Technical Regulations)
3.15 Aerodynamic influence
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane), the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;
- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances. No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane), the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;
- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances. No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.
So a driver operated control could be conceived, but it would have to be above the reference plane and rigidly secured, and remain immobile. So you could not have a rubber tube that is compressed by the driver... but you could have some mechanism where the driver simply inserts his knee into a correctly shaped gap or over the end of a pipe allowing a flow of air to be blocked or unblocked.
For example, imagine this:
snorkel ---> T junction ---> ...
the bottom of the T junction is open normally, weakening the air flow from the snorkel, but when the driver blocks the bottom of the T junction the air flows with greater intensity through the pipe...
I'm suggesting that as a mechanism, just as a plausible example that proves that something could be though up that circumvents the specifics of the regulations.
New post from JA:
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/03/bahr...e-could-return/
PS Most people have focused on the speed increase aspect of the wing... but it should also save a bit of fuel too.
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/03/bahr...e-could-return/
QUOTE
It is emerging that the cleverest thing about this wing is actually something very simple; the airflow from an opening in the cockpit to the slot in the back of the rear wing, is carried down a pipe in the sharkfin engine cover, but it needs to be “switched on” on the straights. To have any kind of mechanical device would be illegal. The solution? It is controlled by the driver’s body. When he moves his left leg in a certain way, it allows air flow through, which shoots into the slot on the back of the wing and separates the airflow underneath the wing, causing it to shed drag, so the car goes faster down the straight. It’s a bit like the brake steer third pedal McLaren had in 1997, but even more simple.
I will post more on this tomorrow.
I will post more on this tomorrow.
PS Most people have focused on the speed increase aspect of the wing... but it should also save a bit of fuel too.
If anyone wants to know how the wing works, buy Autosport mag this week. Check page 11, all the secrets are there (sadly).
QUOTE (Owen @ Mar 11 2010, 20:05)
If anyone wants to know how the wing works, buy Autosport mag this week. Check page 11, all the secrets are there (sadly).
Frankly this is disgusting.
It sounds like FIA officials have leaked what should have stayed private.
QUOTE (ZooL @ Mar 11 2010, 20:13)
Frankly this is disgusting.
It sounds like FIA officials have leaked what should have stayed private.
It sounds like FIA officials have leaked what should have stayed private.
Not sure how it got leaked. But as a fan, it is disappointing.
It looks like Whitmarsh has told everyone now. Is on Autosport front page.
How bizarre
How bizarre
QUOTE (Guizotia @ Mar 11 2010, 17:09)
So a driver operated control could be conceived, but it would have to be above the reference plane and rigidly secured, and remain immobile. So you could not have a rubber tube that is compressed by the driver... but you could have some mechanism where the driver simply inserts his knee into a correctly shaped gap or over the end of a pipe allowing a flow of air to be blocked or unblocked.
For example, imagine this:
snorkel ---> T junction ---> ...
the bottom of the T junction is open normally, weakening the air flow from the snorkel, but when the driver blocks the bottom of the T junction the air flows with greater intensity through the pipe...
I'm suggesting that as a mechanism, just as a plausible example that proves that something could be though up that circumvents the specifics of the regulations.
For example, imagine this:
snorkel ---> T junction ---> ...
the bottom of the T junction is open normally, weakening the air flow from the snorkel, but when the driver blocks the bottom of the T junction the air flows with greater intensity through the pipe...
I'm suggesting that as a mechanism, just as a plausible example that proves that something could be though up that circumvents the specifics of the regulations.
Seems my interpretation of the regulations and how you would need to get round them for the driver control is on the money. It's amazing what you can figure out from just reading the regulations and imagining how to work around them.
QUOTE (Autosport)
The air tunnel is believed, however, to have a hole in it that the drivers are able to block on the straights - using either their knees or elbows. When this hole is covered, the air pressure inside the vent is changed – and this helps stall the rear wing.
QUOTE (ZooL @ Mar 11 2010, 20:24)
It looks like Whitmarsh has told everyone now. Is on Autosport front page.
How bizarre
How bizarre
I think he thinks it will be difficult to develop under the present rules.
What does Autosport say about how the rear wing works, do they plump for one explanation and if so which is it, blown slot (normally closed) or blown flap (normally open).
QUOTE (ZooL @ Mar 11 2010, 20:24)
It looks like Whitmarsh has told everyone now. Is on Autosport front page.
How bizarre
How bizarre
It does seem strange that everything has been leaked since an FIA inspection but at the same time trying to keep anything a secret once a party of people in the paddock find out about such an amazing inovation must be near impossible.
P.s
Mclaren
Wow, that's very cool.
QUOTE (Owen @ Mar 11 2010, 21:17)
Not sure how it got leaked. But as a fan, it is disappointing.
Are there any info there that are not in the publci domain already?
Basically how did they write it works?
QUOTE (femi @ Mar 11 2010, 20:58)
Are there any info there that are not in the publci domain already?
Basically how did they write it works?
Basically how did they write it works?
There is a 'flip up' above the diffuser structure at the rear in the centre. Air comes through a visible low gap behind the shark fin and gets pushed up to decrease (somehow) the drag of the rear wing but they said the effect only works at high speed. There was no mention of driver involvement, if memory serves me right (but I'm not ruling that out especially after MW's comments). Sorry can't be sure as I didn't buy the mag, just skim read it, so you'll have to buy it or get the digi version.
QUOTE (Owen @ Mar 11 2010, 21:27)
There is a 'flip up' above the diffuser structure at the rear in the centre. Air comes through a visible low gap behind the shark fin and gets pushed up to decrease (somehow) the drag of the rear wing but they said the effect only works at high speed. There was no mention of driver involvement, if memory serves me right (but I'm not ruling that out especially after MW's comments). Sorry can't be sure as I didn't buy the mag, just skim read it, so you'll have to buy it or get the digi version.
So that's the same explanation as Formula1.com had for weeks, where they don't even mention a slot in the rear wing or air channelled to it?
Fail!
i dont understand, if the scope in front of the driver feeds the rearwing slot, why does the car feature a doubble channel airbox inlet then,
QUOTE (f1rules @ Mar 11 2010, 21:45)
i dont understand, if the scope in front of the driver feeds the rearwing slot, why does the car feature a doubble channel airbox inlet then,
The air flow through the small duct will possibly switch on or off the main air flow through the airbox inlet, using some kind of fluidics switch... see page 120 on this link:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jSEDAAA...air&f=false
That's based on the assumption that the air flow through the duct is not sufficient to stall the win.
That's really the last remaining question, is there a fluidics switch, or is the snorkel air flow enough. From basic (possibly inapplicable) simulations on F1technical it would seem a lot of air flow is needed to stall the wing.
How do you send air to the wing to stall it? Should be the reverse.
All these sounds to me that none outside Mclaren seems to really understand how the system actually works. MW is right.
I think Mclaren are throwing things out there to add to the confusion.
I mean there seems to be different versions of how it works!
I think Mclaren are throwing things out there to add to the confusion.
I mean there seems to be different versions of how it works!
QUOTE (femi @ Mar 11 2010, 22:54)
All these sounds to me that none outside Mclaren seems to really understand how the system actually works. MW is right.
I think Mclaren are throwing things out there to add to the confusion.
I mean there seems to be different versions of how it works!
I think Mclaren are throwing things out there to add to the confusion.
I mean there seems to be different versions of how it works!
yes i think youre right
QUOTE (femi @ Mar 11 2010, 21:54)
All these sounds to me that none outside Mclaren seems to really understand how the system actually works. MW is right.
I think Mclaren are throwing things out there to add to the confusion.
I mean there seems to be different versions of how it works!
I think Mclaren are throwing things out there to add to the confusion.
I mean there seems to be different versions of how it works!
In terms of turning the device on in the straights, there are no possibilities other than driver control. Anything else would fall foul of the regulations. No car part that has aerodynamic influence is allowed to move.
That's why everyone from Autosport to AMuS to James Allen to your nan is now taking the driver-interactive snorkel (or F-vent as McLaren apparently call it) seriously.
QUOTE (primer @ Mar 11 2010, 21:52)
How do you send air to the wing to stall it? Should be the reverse.
Did you read the first post in this thread. There is also a long thread on F1technical discussing the possibilities, even to the point of trying to simulate the amount of air flow required to detach the boundary layer.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.