22 replies to this topic

[mightyv10]

One of my colleagues at work came up with what I think is a great idea. The idea is to have a trip device on the leading edge of the front wing of Formula 1 cars.

An extreme variant of this would be a small flat plate at 90deg to the ground plane. I can envisage a flap on the leading edge maybe with some rake angle, maybe with some slits in it. But the basic idea and intent is to trip the air flow into turbulence. The advantages that I can come up with are

1. The aero balance of the car would be “out of whack”. The rear wing would need major work to make the car drivable. The cars would be MUCH slower.
2. The bodywork of the car would now produce much lower downforce. All the protrusions would hopefully disappear.
3. The CFD/computing advantage of the top teams would be reduced. Its not a laminar flow problem anymore. (Look at the number of front wings produced by the top teams this year) True/False
4. Cost of implementation is very low. Easy to enforce. Easy to adjust.
5. Cars can follow each other easily.
6. Front wings still exist for sponsor space.
7. Since this device is only at the leading edge and is not that big, the cars do not look similar.

I would like to hear thoughts and opinions from more learned minds than me…hopefully in terms of

1. The affect on F1 cars as we know them now from a race car engineering perspective (i.e this device is stuck (for lack of a better term) on your front wing on the morning of the race, what are you going to do to setup the car?)

2. How are you going to approach the design of a new car with this rule in mind?

[imaginesix]

I agree with the concept, and your list of benefits that would be derived from it. I think the benefits would not be as significant as you make them out to be, but they would be benefits nonetheless.

[Cxxx]

The main problem with this concept is that I highly doubt the flow on the front wing is laminar anyway, so it's unlikely to have the effect you're after.

With regard to the CFD point, there are reasonably accurate techniques for modelling turbulent boundary layers, especially given the relatively clean airflow over a front wing, so even if any wings were currently laminar, tripping to turbulence is unlikely to affect CFD work on this area much.

[mightyv10]

imaginesix : You are correct. I might have gotten carried away with the idea. I started to think later about the realistic dimensions of the device and its effect. I cannot see the F1 cars pushing a wall, so the flap might need to be small which means they are less effective.

Cxxx: I was basing my theory off the comments of a F1 Technical Director, who said that they could anlayze a Front Wing in CFD with confidence, however as one moves further along towards the rear of the car, The CFD analysis is less accurate. This was around a year ago I think. ( I cannot trace the article or remember who exactly it was.) But it seems logical.

So my thinking was that a high drag front wing causing seperation would help teams without CFD capability (Minardi and newer teams).

[Christiaan]

I am having truoble wisualising it

[mightyv10]

Originally posted by Christiaan
I am having truoble wisualising it

Something like the hanford device used in CHAMP cars, except here it would on/close to the leading edge of the front wing.

[angst]

I think this idea is a far better idea than the very flawed split rear wing that Max is pushing.

[zac510]

Originally posted by angst
I think this idea is a far better idea than the very flawed split rear wing that Max is pushing.

How would this device improve the air conditions for the trailing vehicle, considering that the trailing vehicle will have this device too?

[angst]

Originally posted by zac510


How would this device improve the air conditions for the trailing vehicle, considering that the trailing vehicle will have this device too?

Because it is predominantly the front wing that is adversely affected by the turbulence caused by the car ahead. If the efficiency of the front wing is already greatly compromised then the difference that turbulence makes is reduced.

A front wing that operates efficiently in 'clean' air will clearly be affected by 'dirty' air far more than a front wing that is already operating inefficiently in 'clean' air.

[zac510]

I was always under the impression that an inefficient wing was more sensitive to turbulent air than an efficient one. And a wing with this device is simply an inefficient wing.

Anyway I'm almost out of my depth here!

[angst]

Originally posted by zac510
I was always under the impression that an inefficient wing was more sensitive to turbulent air than an efficient one. And a wing with this device is simply an inefficient wing.

Anyway I'm almost out of my depth here!

A wing that is efficient in clean air will create good, stable downforce. Once it reaches dirty air it's efficiency is reduced - creating a shortfall in downforce and stability. Result - the car is slowed as it relies on that downforce/stability for it's speed.

A wing that operates inefficiently is already creating little downforce, so the difference that the effect of dirty air will have is lessened.

[zac510]

I see what you mean now - it assumes the trailing wing has little (or none) to lose.

[Paolo]

The idea has some merit.
It would force a more backward weight distribution and more reliance on the rear wing, wich seems to be less affected by wakes.
It would also diminish downforce without posing artificial shape limits, fighting today's tendency to clone cars.
I like it.

[Cxxx]

Can we clarify what we mean by turbulence and 'tripping'? I'm also having trouble visualing the device and the scales we're talking about.

It's perfectly possible to have a turbulent boundary layer on a completely attached wing, and I imagine most F1 front wings operate in this condition already. 'Tripping' normally refers to a small disturbance that causes a laminar boundary layer to transition into turbulent flow, and this doesn't necessarily cause separation, in fact in some cases it causes more attached flow. Your reference to laminar flow implies this is what you're refering to, and if so, then the device is unlikely to have that much of an effect on the front wing behaviour.

If on the other hand you're refering to larger scale turbulence i.e. separation, unsteady flow, vortex generators etc. then that's a different prospect, and certainly the CFD point's more valid, as are the other points probably, but I think you'd need a pretty big and ugly device to get that effect. CFD is certainly more difficult on unsteady large scale turbulence, but the boundary layer turbulence I mention above is relatively easily dealt with in a lot of situations.

[mightyv10]

Originally posted by Cxxx
Can we clarify what we mean by turbulence and 'tripping'? I'm also having trouble visualing the device and the scales we're talking about.

My hotch potch knowledge of Fluid Dynamics is probably to blame for the confusion...

Based on your explanation... I am thinking of a device at the front of the car which would cause large scale turbulence.

does it need to be a big and ugly device to have an effect? I have no idea... maybe someone can quantify this.

[Greg Locock]

mmm, how about a propeller? Or is that too franklin' ridiculous?

[mightyv10]

Originally posted by Greg Locock
mmm, how about a propeller? Or is that too franklin' ridiculous?

mount a propeller and a paint-ball gun, that should bring the excitement back....

[imaginesix]

Should the paintball gun be mounted to a turret, or should the driver drift the car to aim the gun?

[Calorus]

Originally posted by mightyv10


My hotch potch knowledge of Fluid Dynamics is probably to blame for the confusion...

Based on your explanation... I am thinking of a device at the front of the car which would cause large scale turbulence.

does it need to be a big and ugly device to have an effect? I have no idea... maybe someone can quantify this.

The main prblem you'd have is that to compensate for the effect of the two rotating rear wheel of another formula one car, and the large inefficient rear wing with a messy flow, it would have to be something akin to a solid barrier about 6 feet in front of the car, at a guess.

We were playing with pressure variations on a symmetrical wing with a rotating cylinder and it was horrible. You had to cover more than half the mouth of the little tunnel to really cause any effect by getting in the way. With an asymeteric wing the problem should be more pronunced.

[mightyv10]

Originally posted by Calorus


The main prblem you'd have is that to compensate for the effect of the two rotating rear wheel of another formula one car, and the large inefficient rear wing with a messy flow, it would have to be something akin to a solid barrier about 6 feet in front of the car, at a guess.

We were playing with pressure variations on a symmetrical wing with a rotating cylinder and it was horrible. You had to cover more than half the mouth of the little tunnel to really cause any effect by getting in the way. With an asymeteric wing the problem should be more pronunced.

Thanks for the insight.....

[bern@rd]

I don't think it would work. Why, you ask? Because mclaren voluntarily used a device exactly like this a couple of years ago. In the front wing, to be more specific. It had slits on the edge, though, like a saw or something.
Apparently it brought them some aero advantages. I never understood the reasoning behind it myself, and nobody came up with a decent explanation as to what exactly it did for them.
The car was mp4-17/mp4-17d if I'm not mistaken.

[desmo]

http://forums.atlasf...&threadid=23084

[dosco]

Originally posted by Greg Locock
mmm, how about a propeller? Or is that too franklin' ridiculous?

What you clearly need is a BEAM AXLE.