Hi to all forum members I'm new here.

If i'm not mistaken, through 2007 f1 season we have seen two ways for transferring downforce loads from rear wing to the tyres: toyota and bmw have used rear wing endplates and all other teams have used mounting pylons. According to Matchett: bad side of mounting pylons is that they disturb airflow below rear wing and pylons must be protected by additional materials because of hot air that is coming from exhaust and bad side of the solution that we could find on tf107 and f1.07 was that they must have stronger rear wing endplates. Which solutions is generally better? Can we ask "which solutions is generally better" or that's down to implementation of each team with their aerodynamic packets?

Today, downforce transfer goes through rear wing -> rear crash structure -> rear suspension -> tyres. Which part of this process is the most critical when designing f1 car and why?

I was just reading how first wings were used in f1 to generate additional grip and it says "the first wings were precariously mounted on stilts, which in turn were mounted directly on car's suspension uprights". Can somebody explain me those "stilts" - was that only additonal device that holded wing on the suspension or there's more?

Using rear-wing pylons mean that you can be more creative with your lower rear wing, as it only has to transfer load from itself... it doesn't have to support the entire weight/load of the rear wing.

The first wings that appeared in F1 were bolted directly onto the suspension uprights.. ie onto the unsprung mass. This is of course more desirable, as the load is transmitted directly onto the wheels/tyres... it doesn't pass via the springs/dampers/suspension travel.

The main example would be the Lotus 49B in 1968, here seen driven by Graham Hill at Nürburgring.

http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/images/lotus49l.jpg

Note the tall struts that were fixed to the uprights. The downforce therefore acted directly on the wheel assembly and didn't affect the suspension or ride height.

This approach was forbidden after heavy crashes in 1969 when the wings and wing struts collapsed under the loads and left the car without downforce. See e.g. the link

http://atlasf1.autosport.com/evolution/1960s.html

with the picture of Jack Brabham in 1969 with a very typical wing failure (where you also see very cleary how the rear wing struts are attached to the uprights). More (in)famous is Jochen Rindt's terrifying crash with a Lotus 49B at Montjuich in 1969, when the wing collapsed and the car got airborne:

http://physik.kfunigraz.ac.at/%7Ewap/jr_spain_69.jpg

After this initial impact the following contacts with the guard rails totally demolished the car. Rindt survived with a broken nose. At the next race in Monaco, the tall wings had been banned.

The current fashion is to take the wings load through the strut and not through the endplates. As has been said this has the effect of allows the teams to reshape the not lower beam wing, but also the endplate which a very three dimensional part nowadays.

Not only that, but also this approach takes a lot of weight out of the rear end. I have physically picked up quite a few F1 parts over the years and have become blasé about their lightness. But still lifting a beam wing for the first time amazed me how heavy it was. This item is quite high up and far behind the car, thus has a negative effect of weight distribution. For this year the demand to move weight forward made the heavy beam wing a liability.

I would say that the negative effect of the small strut would be minimal, perhaps even a positive as many teams have created twin struts to support the wing which may help re-attach the flow passing either side of the engine cover. Making the strut cope with the heat is not such a great issue, teams are used to keeping the carbon down with reflective coatings and different materials.

There definitely seemed to have been a trend over the last 10 years where all teams just mounted their rear wings to the beam. The beam scarbs refers to in some designs was in some cases a big piece of tube (aluminium I expect) running between the end plates. Can you imagine seeing that on modern F1 car!? It seems like the design evolved from mounting the elements only to the end plate where it was easy to adjust them and other instances where the beam may have had also had other compenents attached to it. But it was a while until somebody (Honda) revisited the mounting. It probably makes more sense now for several reasons as they can feed the force straight into the gearbox/rear crash structure which is these days also taking the force of suspension, etc and that (I am told) the teams don't change the rear wing angle of attack or incidence much once at the track. There is also the cynic's view that attaching the pylons to the leading edge of the forward element allows the rear element to flex backwards.
I can't find a good picture at the moment

.....the teams manager have been badly inform to you on the real functions of the wind tunnels: the track is all an other thing;

Ya..You are right..