How much downforce is lost with 2009 wing?

[davehenrie]

I know the size of the 2009 rear wing had decreased the downforce the wing produces, but what is the target or ballpark figure of that reduction? Is it 10%? 17.5%? (lol) or some smaller figure?

Thanks
dh

[MulsanneMike]

I don't know that the ACO had a target figure. How much has been lost? Good question. A lot of it has been regained, whatever the amount. A lot of development has been poured into rear wing and rear chassis aero design this year. My best guess would be that perhaps 10-15% has been lost. That's not an across the board figure either as clearly (obviously) some have done a better job than others.

[davehenrie]

Great, thanks, and you are right, I'll consider the various manufactures as well.
dh

[bjwedgemtu]

I wouldn't be surprised if by next year the manufactures have gained back all of the downforce that they lost

[Félix]

They must have been hoping for a loss of efficiency. If someone has done it already this year (and has the knowledge to compare), I'm sure they're running more aggressive angles, and wing profiles. The overall downforce generated at the back must be close (not more than 10% off) and the whole cars have been blaanced around that.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Félix

They must have been hoping for a loss of efficiency. If someone has done it already this year (and has the knowledge to compare), I'm sure they're running more aggressive angles, and wing profiles. The overall downforce generated at the back must be close (not more than 10% off) and the whole cars have been blaanced around that.

Well we know they're running more aggressive profiles and angle of attack as that's what led to the swan neck rear wing pillars.

[bjwedgemtu]

The swan-neck wing pillars help alot. Even at low speeds. I did some research into it and they help a lot. I'm supprised no one did it before.

[Tim the Grey]

If they are that good, howcome they never appeared in F1? I'm sure the aero guys there would have clued into this if it worked?

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

If they are that good, howcome they never appeared in F1? I'm sure the aero guys there would have clued into this if it worked?

Different flow field, wing chord, wing width, regulations. Apples to oranges.

[Tim the Grey]

Mike, I don't argue with experts... But it strikes me that if this is a fundamental advantage, as some have implied, then F1 Aero boys would surely have explored it, regardless of fundamental regulatory differences?

I have a vague idea of something similar in the early 80s?

[byronb]

Well, BMW have something simulair, not exactly the swan-neck, but it's almost the same idea:

http://img151.imageshack.us/i/1255821i.jpg/

Also I've seen the design on both Audi and Mercedes DTM cars for this year.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

Mike, I don't argue with experts... But it strikes me that if this is a fundamental advantage, as some have implied, then F1 Aero boys would surely have explored it, regardless of fundamental regulatory differences?

I have a vague idea of something similar in the early 80s?

F1 Aero guys probably have investigated if the Swan Necks would work (if they are allowed in the same form as on the LMP's) and found that they wasn't working...
But as Mike says, different flows might make them useless on a F1!

[davehenrie]

Originally Posted by byronb

Well, BMW have something simulair, not exactly the swan-neck, but it's almost the same idea:

http://img151.imageshack.us/i/1255821i.jpg/

Also I've seen the design on both Audi and Mercedes DTM cars for this year.

I'm sure many teams try various aero bits, at least in closed test sessions or wind tunnel testing. But I cannot think of another team that brought more of these bits to the track than BMW. (well, the BMW of the mid 00 decade. They seem to have settled down in the past two seasons.)

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by byronb

not exactly the swan-neck

http://img151.imageshack.us/i/1255821i.jpg/

How about a goose neck then ?

Looks like its bonded on the top upper structure as opposed to being bolted on .

[InTTruder]

Generally in materials, tension loads are better tolerated than compression loads. WHile I'm no aerodynamicist, the swan neck allows more aggresssive download ont he pylons than might have been possible with any similarly-sized compression pylon. For whatever forces Audi, et al, wished to achieve, the graceful neck is actually a fit. It may alos allow lowering the lift surfaces down into more relevant airflow.

Remember the Chapparals with the ridiculously high wing pylons!

I see this latest development as getting down where they can manage boundary layering much more effectively, and take advantage of some venturii effect as the wing and body get closer together. For example, on a big boing going 165 mph on landing approach, the affected airflow profile is easily visible 4-6 feet above the wing. Cloing the distance between the wing and the bodywork of a sports car increases the velocity of the air flowing between the two. It would be interesting to see the flow patterns and mach numbers there.

[davehenrie]

Originally Posted by InTTruder

Remember the Chapparals with the ridiculously high wing pylons!

Ridiculous? The High Winged Chapparals? NEVER!
(remember where all that downforce was applied, right to the wheel hubs, not the body)

Maybe Dan Gurneys double winged McLeagle was ridiculous, but never the 2d/2e Chappys.