Coming up with or developing a package that is competitive is not all about downforce at any cost; it is really about the characteristics of that downforce. You need a car that has good rear-end stability under braking, and when steering lock is applied the downforce moves forward gradually to counteract any under-steer. When the steering lock is reduced the downforce moves rearward to help with traction and, if you get this correct, then the car will give confidence to the driver and allow him to push to the limit. If the car doesn’t do this then the driver will stay away from the limit or end up in the gravel trap.
Now, how to make the downforce do that when the wheels are turned? That's a very interesting question.
3 comments:
Huh. Maybe *that* explains some of those wacky appendages which previously festooned the sides of the keel and fuselage forward of the side pods. Perhaps they were successful in changing fire/aft pressure balance with air guided from turned wheels. If so, that's a CRACKING idea. :-)
Interesting thought on the function of all those growths and protuberances... I've run across forums where the users seemed to be well acquainted with the name and function of "chimneys," "turning vanes," "barge boards," "shark fins," "elephant ears," etc. I've also read through lots of commentary on aero developments here and here. And I hadn't seen that idea raised.
Explanations are always along the lines of "improving the quality of the airflow directed to the car's rear end and to its sidepod inlets," the very thing I alluded to in the other posting with the Toyota guy talking about not having "an explicit understanding of what happens, you just experiment and see what works."
An interesting thing about Gary Anderson is that he was pretty successful with some of the last teams that might have relied more on seat-of-the-pants engineering and naked-eyeball analysis more than full-scale wind tunnels, CFD, and seven-post shaker rigs. It makes me believe that he might have spotted something in the Ferrari's behavior that not many others would catch. (Not that I have anything against wind tunnels, CFD, etc.)
Also interesting that, prior to driver-operated front flaps this season, the front wheels were the only moveable aerodynamic devices on a car. Turning them would undoubtedly affect the function of the front wing and the sidepads one way or another.
Apart from steering there's also a question of how well different parts of the aero package work when the car takes on some yaw attitude. We knew that ground-effect tunnels stalled when a car got too sideways and that this was usually a very bad thing to have happen. But even for small angles I guess you'd want the front giving up more quickly than the back in order for drifts to be catchable. I never thought of that before.
Speaking of "cracking!," I caught a couple more episodes of those British shows last night, including Edd making over a CRACKING Lancia Delta HF Integrale, and a segment with a Porsche 924 where a professional saddler resticked the leather steering wheel which was surprisingly satisfying to watch.
Re: "Wheeler Dealers" and "Auto Trader"
Loved the Integrale, and marveled at being able to *call* your local saddler to come and re-stitch your steering wheel cover for £50.
Something that always strikes me about Edd working on their projects (always with the sole intention of "shifting" the car) is that he does no more work than necessary, including cleaning of parts. It was kind of refreshing to see him re-using the old, greasy hose clamp on the Integrale's replacement radiator.
Re: F1 Aero
I don't follow F1 outside Speed coverage. I would, but I'm often a week or two behind watching, and don't want to accidentally run across results. I appreciate how much news that Varsha, Hobbs, Matchett and Windsor manage to present during coverage.
I find it pretty interesting that the FIA has restricted both wind tunnel and *track testing* work. Again, they try to "reduce the cost" of running F1 teams. Perhaps that's working, since they've also mentioned two future U.S.-based teams joining the fray. But I wonder if the developmental burden is now being further put into virtual environments, or what?
Also curious about the "straight line" aero testing, where the teams are apparently allowed a limited number of hours of track testing, but without turning. Damned odd rules to have created.
As we've commented before, if the goal was to make the outcome of any F1 race uncertain, that's absolutely happened. The aero changes for '09 do appear to help create overtaking opportunities compared to previous seasons (though that may change when everyone finally gets their rear diffusers sorted). But I fear the FIA's trend toward making F1 an identical-car formula. I love the part where the the formula defines physical parameters, every team creates 100% custom pieces in secret, and everyone is within 2 seconds a lap (well, not quite everyone). Sure, there might be a place for racing series where the only difference is the "nut behind the wheel," but I follow F1 for the parallel Battle of the Engineers.
Post a Comment