General aero discussions

[Vanja #66]

Sorry I misread the original post. I guess I’m on Melbourne time…

Still I just find it a bit unfulfilling when the paddock and media seem flabbergasted by RB’s DRS gain if it were to be so trivial as to just changing the flap angle and camber. I don’t know the explanation, but if it was really this simple, why are the other teams surprised? Why wouldn’t they imitate this design?

I don't think other teams are surprised. For example, Ferrari is happy with their drag values now. Hamilton had that "fastest car ever" comment, but that's just him and we know he likes to make a fuss of anything - especially about RB since '21... In my view, Mercedes missed the trick for whatever reason, but that's the least of their problems now.

[MIKEY_!]

Would something like this work? It seems to satisfy the 2 section rule - I'm not sure what other rules are in play though. It allows you to have an undercut and all that lovely outwash, and keep the big vortex generating wing - and the wing is lower than on the W14 so presumably it'd be easier to get the vortex down to the floor edge. The upper side impact structure would have to sit in its 'normal' place in the upper leading edge of the sidepod inlet, not in the wing obviously.



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1czNVB5 ... sp=sharing

Sorry, the [img] code isn't working for this one so you just get a url.

[Farnborough]

I can't see why they're stuck on a mid wing concept (well not against very obvious outperformance from other type) it is tne roadblock. Aesthetics don't win, technical achievement and competence does.

Just can't see how anyone thinks they haven't got net lift there from that wing. It may generate vortices, which look uncontrolled vertically from the various representation appearing on here, that also makes the rear wing messy.

The notion that its somehow good, the mid wing, is clearly displayed as wrong and confirmed by their struggle to even balance the chassis performance.

It'll not surprise me if that is removed in their update iteration, whatever they end up with.

The need to understand why the lead performing design is so different should be a comprehensive part of analysis. That one, RB, looks like the top of sidepods gives negative lift, it then follows that they just don't need so much in other downforce generating strategy that they are free to then reduce drag so effectively. The two are miles apart, there's not room in the rules to fully resolve such variables on concept.

MB drivers are now being pragmatic in their appraisal of RB in side by side competition, that's the realistic start point, that plain simple statement right there. LH absolutely knows how to adjust/specify a car, be interesting to see what the major shift brings in design.

[cplchanb]

I can't see why they're stuck on a mid wing concept (well not against very obvious outperformance from other type) it is tne roadblock. Aesthetics don't win, technical achievement and competence does.

Just can't see how anyone thinks they haven't got net lift there from that wing. It may generate vortices, which look uncontrolled vertically from the various representation appearing on here, that also makes the rear wing messy.

The notion that its somehow good, the mid wing, is clearly displayed as wrong and confirmed by their struggle to even balance the chassis performance.

It'll not surprise me if that is removed in their update iteration, whatever they end up with.

The need to understand why the lead performing design is so different should be a comprehensive part of analysis. That one, RB, looks like the top of sidepods gives negative lift, it then follows that they just don't need so much in other downforce generating strategy that they are free to then reduce drag so effectively. The two are miles apart, there's not room in the rules to fully resolve such variables on concept.

MB drivers are now being pragmatic in their appraisal of RB in side by side competition, that's the realistic start point, that plain simple statement right there. LH absolutely knows how to adjust/specify a car, be interesting to see what the major shift brings in design.

Any official sources or technical data to back up your allegations?

[PhillipM]

Just can't see how anyone thinks they haven't got net lift there from that wing. It may generate vortices, which look uncontrolled vertically from the various representation appearing on here, that also makes the rear wing messy.

Those waterslides on the aston generate lift in isolation too. You can't look at an F1 part in isolation.

[AR3-GP]

Just can't see how anyone thinks they haven't got net lift there from that wing. It may generate vortices, which look uncontrolled vertically from the various representation appearing on here, that also makes the rear wing messy.

Those waterslides on the aston generate lift in isolation too. You can't look at an F1 part in isolation.

True but the mid-wing is quite a loop hole. There entire sidepod layout was defined by it. The car has not anywhere near the performance one would expect from taking such a dramatic compromise in order to use it.

[Ozan]

https://f1addictions.com/products/lewis ... 4-bodywork

I think Merc doesn't need to look too far, they already have the solution in their garage.

[AR3-GP]

https://f1tcdn.net/gallery/var/resizes/ ... 3oc105.jpg
https://f1addictions.com/products/lewis ... 4-bodywork

I think Merc doesn't need to look too far, they already have the solution in their garage.

A blown exhaust?

[Farnborough]

Just can't see how anyone thinks they haven't got net lift there from that wing. It may generate vortices, which look uncontrolled vertically from the various representation appearing on here, that also makes the rear wing messy.

Those waterslides on the aston generate lift in isolation too. You can't look at an F1 part in isolation.

The Aston config doesn't (that's why the balance is superior across the chassis ) it generates low pressure yes, but that's largely enacted on vertical walls, well substantially it is, which won't lift anything. Brings lowered pressures to area infront of wheels and pulls in outlying stream to fill that volume to then go over the beam wing area. Draggy, yes, I'd agree with that, but flow not resolved until it exits over top of diffuser.

The difference of mid wing is that it's fully resolved as a wing in free air, and orientated to give lift (get any aerodynamicist to say otherwise) which has to be compensated by other wings (they alway have to run big wings) to get anywhere near the downforce overall they expect.

I can quite see the desire for "downwash" flowing over a sidepod, but this wing isn't that. It gives that direction but at significant penalty of lift which has to come out of the equation somehow.
That somehow is thorough loading other parts until it gives that force, but with very obvious drag. Just look at tgat speed difference when MV passed LH

They should try it with a great big gurney flap on trailing top rear edge of that mid wing to see if it shifts anything. That would give them something to measure.

[PhillipM]

The Aston config doesn't (that's why the balance is superior across the chassis ) it generates low pressure yes, but that's largely enacted on vertical walls, well substantially it is, which won't lift anything. Brings lowered pressures to area infront of wheels and pulls in outlying stream to fill that volume to then go over the beam wing area. Draggy, yes, I'd agree with that, but flow not resolved until it exits over top of diffuser.

The difference of mid wing is that it's fully resolved as a wing in free air, and orientated to give lift (get any aerodynamicist to say otherwise) which has to be compensated by other wings (they alway have to run big wings) to get anywhere near the downforce overall they expect.

The aston concept does, across the whole upper surface of the sidepods that it accelerates air over, that's always been the case with downwashing sidepods.
You say I can't look at sidepods in isolation and then do exactly that with the mid wing

It's not in free air unaffected by anything and no aero guy will say anything but otherwise, in fact they'd probably fall off their chair for you saying it? Where do you think that downwashed air from the wing is hitting? The upper sidepod and floor surface, where it raises the pressure as it gets deflected and drives other structures exactly the same way as the aston waterslides are doing further rearwards.

For a car with 'superior balance' it seemed to get beaten by a Mercedes last week just fine.

[Farnborough]

"You say I can't look at sidepods in isolation and then do exactly that with the mid wing "

I've said no such thing, and not here to tell anyone else what to think.

I do think valid discussion does bring interesting thoughts into public though.

The mid wing has an upper and lower surface that exist in isolation (thats one unit of a complete wing form) that's in contrast to all the other competitors. It does resolve it's flow as a wing giving lift, no matter what you say about it.

They can't, or haven't yet, given any public airing of changing that so far, they still haven't solved their stated problem of not enough downforce with the iteration they've brought to the races this year.

[PhillipM]

The mid wing has an upper and lower surface that exist in isolation (thats one unit of a complete wing form)

So does literally any other point on the car.

[vorticism]

Just can't see how anyone thinks they haven't got net lift there from that wing. It may generate vortices, which look uncontrolled vertically from the various representation appearing on here, that also makes the rear wing messy.

Good point about the stability of whatever vortex is forming off that wing. Worth considering given its location.

I'll maintain it might also be worth considering that it's relatively aero neutral. It's not a particularly aggressive shape (camber). If they did not have to place a SIPS there, would they have anything at all? The main aspect of their concept may simply be: eliminate sidepods. In so doing, eliminating sidepod lift (perhaps gaining some back with mid wing), at the consequence of abandoning a lot of known features of contemporary open wheeler design; and all the compromises that brings.

https://f1tcdn.net/gallery/var/resizes/ ... 3oc105.jpg
https://f1addictions.com/products/lewis ... 4-bodywork

I think Merc doesn't need to look too far, they already have the solution in their garage.

Sidepod shape? It's almost like the current Ferrari there.

[AR3-GP]

I'll maintain it might also be worth considering that it's relatively aero neutral.

If it was aero neutral, it wouldn't shed a vortex. Or rather, a pretty inconsequential one which is the opposite of what Merc had in mind. That thing is clearly downwashing air. You can't say it's neutral.

[Ozan]

Sidepod shape? It's almost like the current Ferrari there.

yes, they may combine the current downwashing midwing with sloped sidepods like W04/current Ferrari car.