Effects of the movable wings?

[xpensive]

Even if there was another theard opened on a related subject, I thought this should be rewarded its own?

As I expressed elsewhere on this great forum, the movable wing tickles my brain senseless. Remember, when wings became common in racing they were often movable, when I remember Jacky Ickx' Ferrari 312 had an electrically-controlled rear-wing in 1968. There was also this American-built sportscar, don't seem to remember the name though.

Anyway, just to get an idea of what we are talking about here, I cracked some draft numbers just for starters.
Imagine a "1.0 Cv" cross-section of 1.0 meter by 0.2 meter, to simulate the rear wing air-resistance:
- At 145 km/h, it would cost 10 Hp in drag penalty.
- At 216 km/h, 35 Hp.
- At 290 km/h, 84 Hp.
- At 324 km/h, 119 Hp.

However, if the "1.0 Cv" can be reduced to a "0.2 Cv" at 324 km/h, you would save almost 100 Hp at that speed.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[WhiteBlue]

Which confirms the old knowledge that wings suck a lot of gas when you don't need them. There is really no argument but the safety concern. If you pay 15 ct per gallon of fuel the safety concern is probably overwhelming. If fuel is so rare you start using food stock to produce it you may find some more intelligent solutions for the safety concerns.

[Chaparral]

X the 2E and 2F featured a high movable wing above the cockpit chassis. To control the wing, the driver pushed a pedal with his left foot to hold the wing in a flat low-drag position when accelerating on high-speed straight sections. When cornering, the driver released the pedal, which moved the front of the wing to a downward angle. The angle wing provided added down force in the corners. It also increased drag when needed to help balance down force on the front of the car and airflow in a tunnel at the front of the 2F was controlled both by air pressure and the wing control panel - they were also both flat bottomed cars so it was all aero and no ground effects involved. A bit different to the moveable front wings on this years F1 cars controlled electronically/hydraulically from the steering wheel.

From what I know the 2010 regs will allow movable front and rear wings - I can only imagine that they will both move concurrently in tandem with each other otherwise you would have a real balance problem with the car - Im not a tech head so cannot really speak in that area just from a laymans point of view. I love the idea always have as its a form of downforce when you need it, balance for the car when you need it and an 'air brake' when you need it - which was the original idea with Mercedes at Le Mans in the 50s.........

[xpensive]

I guess Mike Spence had his left foot available when the those cars were automatic?

Anyway, I would like to see some sort of electrically- or pneumatically manouvered jalousie wings, controlled by the brakes, steering-angle and speed of the car, that sort of thing?

[Chaparral]

You mean like a multiple wing/slats thing tied into the steering,brakes and speed - thats pretty radical X - I prefer single wing structure front and rear not tied via computation to any other part of the car/speed etc leave something for the driver to do - otherwise we head back to the driver being more a pilot than driver.....

Spence drove the 2F (and well) and yes it was technically a 3 speed auto torsion driven system

[xpensive]

Right, it would be a driver aid indeed, I give you that. But how about using that left foot again for straits only?

Didn't Mike Spence win at Brands hatch in 1967?

[Chaparral]

X I dont know have to think about that one..........

Yes Spence and Phil Hill won the BOAC 500 at Brands in 67 - they ran pretty well at Sebring/Nurburgring in the same year - pity Spence was killed the next year at Indy substituting for Clark - Spence was a very good peddler of a car

[xpensive]

With rules freely executed, based on drag, I would expect an increase in top speed from a typical 300 to 310, or 3.5%.
Not much really, is it?

This is from estimating power-savings at 300 km/h with a flat wing to be some 80 Hp or 11% of total power.
The cubic relation between power-loss and speed, results in an increase in speed of a factor of (1.11)^0.333 = 1.035.

Did I go wrong somewhere, kilcoo?

[DaveKillens]

I was considering another possible benefit from allowing adjustable wings. Tire wear. One enemy of tires is uncontrolled slipping and sliding. This leads to overheating and accelerated tire wear. I believe it is possible to control this undesirable effect by cranking in more wing when it becomes an issue during the heat of battle.

I am also a great fan of Jim Hall and his amazing innovations.



Coincidently I was watching an article on TV and Jim Hall himself went over some of the features of his design. He stated that on the front end there was a radiator duct (I am assuming it was an oil cooler), and it had a flap that was connected to the rear wing mechanism, and it opened and closed in order to maintain balance.

[xpensive]

Sounds most likely DK, I know there was something adjustable at the front anyway, Chaparrall should know all about that.

When looking closer at that image, it becomes obvious where the Brawn designers got their inspiration, no?

[Fil]

Brawn on Barrichello's Bahrain quali issues..

In the last race, in Bahrain, the front wing adjustor failed during his qualifying lap and the front wing flap dropped down as he was in the middle of his qualifying lap.

imagine that happening on the 2010 rear wing thru some of the quicker corners in F1..

[Ogami musashi]

According to Patrick head the benefit of the sole rear wing variable incidence is worth 1,5-2 seconds a lap.

[xpensive]

Let's see, if my calculated 3.5% increase in top speed above, is a little carelessly applied on 40 seconds spent in a straight line, that's 1.4 seconds a lap. Close enough?