NoDivergence wrote: ↑24 Feb 2022, 17:05
You realize that the diffuser and beam wing performance affect the rear wing, right? And that the flow and design fo the both of those parts are dependent on what is upstream? Ferrari's latest flow vis shows separation on the second element. They're running the wing quite hard.
First of all, there is absolutely no separation on Ferrari rear wing whatsoever. I don't get what you are going at with those other questions, to be honest.
NoDivergence wrote: ↑24 Feb 2022, 17:05
I can make wings that have less frontal area or even less AOA that are draggy just by changing the airfoil and positioning of the slot gaps
In general, yes you can. In motorsport, with high-camber foils for rear wings and using the full top-view surface allowed, you can't. Tried it bunch of times, all high-camber foils have very similar coefficients and slight geometry changes lead to slight coeff. changes. If you keep the chord and reduce AoA, you consequentially reduce both the C_D and frontal area of the rear wing and this is what's going on with all rear wings.
NoDivergence wrote: ↑24 Feb 2022, 17:05
You haven't responded why your unoptimized flowstreams validate that a small sidepod MUST have that rear wheel flowfield. And if you admit that it doesn't, then what is the effect of varying that? You should do a sensitivity study, but either way, it isn't gonna be what W13 is doing, because there is just about 0 chance that you get the vorticity exactly right.
You are right, I haven't responded to you. I responded to mantikos and all of a sudden it felt like it was 3 against one. That's hardly fair play now, isn't it?
Now that the mods seem to have deleted his intriguing reply to my last post to him, they indicate that discussion is over. So I'll get back to all your questions later this evening.