Thread: Rules Future Rule Changes
View Single Post
Old 29 Aug 2019, 15:16 (Ref:3924687)   #3641
crmalcolm
Subscriber
Veteran
 
crmalcolm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Nepal
Exactly where I need to be.
Posts: 12,351
crmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillibowl View Post
just going by memory but thinking about those narrow but high wings (almost at level or higher than the air intake/airbox)....was this idea of kicking the wake up higher tried before or is this new approach significantly different?
I think the approaches are different for the following reasons:

The 2009 'high/narrow' rear wing was introduced in an attempt to separate the flows from the diffuse and the wing. The overall aim at this time was to reduce the amount of down-force being generated.
Whilst the rear wing wake may have been higher, the wake from the diffuser remained and was relatively dirty.

This proposal has the wing working to draw the wake from the diffuser higher, giving a cleaner air immediately behind the car.

I have included a (very crude) illustration of how I interpret this. yellow is the 2009 airflow intent, and green is the new proposal.
Attached Thumbnails
87ferrarif602009f1.jpg  
crmalcolm is offline  
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me."
Quote