22 replies to this topic

[Yelnats]

F1 makes extensive use of horizontal wing elements to force the vehicle down to the track and increase tire traction. But no use is made of vertical wing elements to generate horizontal forces directly. Is this because the technology is banned or have attempts to harness this aid proved ineffective.

A fast cornering car developes a tail-out attitude to allow the tire to generate cornering forces. This angle could be utilised by verticle wing elements to provide a inward reaction and assist the cornering speed. Some cars in the seventies used large endplates that may have assisted in this manner but I have no record of this effect being utilised deliberatly.

Does anyone have more information on this aspect of F1 aereodynamics?

[desmo]

Now if it wasn't for the "movable aerodynamic devices" rule I could see a rudder back there helping turn-in. I suspect the downside would pretty well cancel out the upside of any fixed device. And the tech regs don't exactly encourage this sort of innovation. If it worked how long would it take for Max to ban it without consultation as a "safety issue"?

[Ray Bell]

Perpetually morose, aren't you!
End plates make good advertising hoardings, too. That might be as much a reason for using them as aerodynamic effects. Interesting proposition to use moveable ones for assistance at turn in.... wish it had been tried before movable devices were banned...

[desmo]

Actually, I guess you'd want to mount the turning rudder nearer the front of the car as turn-in occurs on an axis near the rear wheels and a rear-mounted rudder wouldn't have alot of leverage to apply a turning torque around that axis.

[Nathan]

How about what CART cars have? I belive they did, or still do use boards on the engine cowling to help steer air into the rear wing. Also so teams do so to better air flow around the rear wheel area. Is that what you are talking about?

[Yelnats]

Actually I wasn't thinking of making these devices movable but letting the natural slip angles of the tires do the job of turning these devices to a usable angle of attack on the corners.

Have any of you ever watched a film or video of a race car run backwards? If you have you'll see what I mean. The cars look most peculiar because the slip angles become immediatly obvious when the film (in my case) was reversed. I would estimate the angle to be in the order of 7-10 degrees which should provide a usable inward thrust if the plate is made large enough.

A big advantage of these devices would be that as the cars slip angles increase and the car goes into an incipient spin condition the inward thrust would increase instead of decreasing other aereodynamic aids do. Another advantage is a zero angle of attack on the straight an a virtually dragless mode when speed is required.

These gagets seem so obvious that I can only assume there are some big problems with these devices or a chap like Chapman would have used them long ago. I just can't see the downside myself and would be interested in finding examples of tests or failed designs in somebodies archives.

[Yelnats]

Desmo, I was thinking of placing these devices as huge endplates on the rear wing assembly. They would do nothing for turn in back there but when the driver hangs the tail out on the corner exit on higher speed corners, they would generate large inward forces allowing the rear tires to generate thrust instead of useing all their traction generating centripital forces.

I first thought of this effect when watching the cars of the late seventies hanging tails out in a way never seen since. I assumed this was because of the huge slicks but also some of these cars featured huge endplates on the rear wings which made me wonder about their contribution to cornering forces.

[Yelnats]

Nathan, I hope my previous reply was clearer about the configuration I was thinking of. These devices would have to be as large as the current barg boards on an F1 car and couldn't be missed as they would be none to subtle when plastered with adverts as Ray Bell mentioned earlier.

[IndyIan]

Yelnats,
I think you have a good idea. The only reason I can think of why the teams do use it is that the cars don't generate large enough slip angles at high speeds. I think having vertical elements would work if the wings had some angle of attack when the car was going straight (like toe-in for tires) but maybe the extra drag would be too much.

Also the advantage of using horizontal wings is that the downforce generated can be used for braking and acceleration as well as cornering. I think this is the main reason.

[gunner]

The vertical wing steering device was used about 40 years ago by Smokey Yunika on a front engine Indy car. An airfoil of about 3x3 ft. was mounted vertically between the inside wheels and the angle of attack increased as the cars steering turned the car into the turns. It worked great but they used the excuse that it blocked the drivers vision to keep this shade tree mechanic from making a fool of everyone.

Gunner[p][Edited by gunner on 07-04-2000]

[Ray Bell]

Did anybody hear something?

Any photos of that, Art? 3' x 3' sounds pretty big, damned well should help turn-in!

[gunner]

No pictures and the size may be wrong but it was a big wing. I don't know if Smokey used his wing before Jim Hall but it was around that era. Smokey was an American version of Colin Chapman. The wing was used to hold the car to the inside of the track rather than steering.

Gunner[p][Edited by gunner on 07-04-2000]

[gunner]

If it were legal a pare of short steerable vertical wings could be mounted on the top of the side pods at the center of balance and get the same effect turning left or right. Would it work??

Gunner[p][Edited by gunner on 07-04-2000]

[PDA]

Unfortnately, the dimension rules would make the placement of large vertical "wings" beyond the current wing end plates almost impossible. The endplates BTW serve a very important function. In accordance with principles discovered and patented by Lanchester about 90 years ago, the end plates prevent air from spilling from the high pressure to the low pressure side of the aerofoil, effectively extending the length of the foil by the extension of the endplate from the foil.

[Ray Bell]

Good old Fred, wonder what he does with the royalties these days...
I think Art is saying "what if" on the assumption that the rules could be changed to allow these devices.

[Nathan]

All in favour of a AtlasF1 wind tunnel say I

[Ray Bell]

Aye! I'll volunteer to have it in my backyard, that might wake up the pests of neighbours who complain about the unfinished carport!

[gilles27]

There would be two problems with vertical wings. First, the added drag would far outweigh any controlling benefits. Remember that drag coefficients increase exponentially as speed increases. Second, they would completely change the movement of air over the surface of the car which in turn would decrease the efficiency of the horizontal wings. The way I look at it, anything currently not on the cars has probably been tried and nixed. The engineers definitely have their s**t together.

[desmo]

The bodywork regulations would preclude the use of those I'm fairly certain. It appears that the current technical regs may deny us the next quamtum leap in tech advance. I see the cars becoming more and more alike each year. This is natural when restrictive regs remain relatively stable for a period of time. There may not be any dramatic advance possible in the aero performance of F1 cars. The designs are becoming more inbred and less technically relevant as they are forced into a developmental cul de sac. If the regulations remained stable I'd expect F1 cars to look about the same 10 years from now.

[Ray Bell]

...by which time we'll be grateful for different sponsors.
Frankly, I think they're too much alike now. Being alike wasn't so bad in 1965 (Ferrari & Lotus & Cooper & BRM & even Brabham), when they were at least good looking. But now, we look for tiny differences, the chimneys... barge boards... if only they weren't so fast we could forget them and watch CART or IRL or Touring Cars and not know how badly off we really are.
Maybe my Historic bent is rooted in there somewhere.

[gunner]

Your right Desmo and Ray there turning them into cookie cutter machines. Whats next add weight to the fast cars so they have parity? When it gets to that point I will forget about F1. I don't apreciate it now as I think F1 died with Colin Chapman.

Gunner

[Yelnats]

We have to look to the "World of Outlaws" for an example of vertical wing elements. These outrageous machines manage to make use of both vertical and horizontal wing elemnts at the relativly low speeds involved there. Of course at the higher speeds involved in F1 both the horizontal and verical dimensions and the angles of attack would be considerably reduced.

Considering how little grip is available with grooved tires, any help in cornering speeds would be appreciated, but as a few posters have mentioned, I suppose the restrictive regulations would prevent enlargement of both horizontal and vertical wing elements.

[Yelnats]

The largest vertical wings that I have managed to find on a F1 car were on the 1979 Wolf driven by a rather dispirited James Hunt. The combination of James pulling a terror stricken Peterson from his death vehicle and the unreliable nature of the Wolf car reduced James's passion for racing and he retired after that season.

The 79 Wolf was designed by Harvey Postlethweite who knew a thing or two about designing race cars and apparently thought the vertical wings had some potential.

Think outside the box.