Ferrari test with 'mid wing'.

[Glen]

The Ferrari one is only slightly wider - the abscence of end plates and adjustment, and the very mild profile, lead me strongly to believe that the downforce would only be a slight secondary product. It does have a wing shape, but it's not pronounced enough to do a great deal on its own - it must have some interaction with the rest of the aerodynamics.

[darcym]

Its a possiblity this is a data gathering device.

Arrows ran with something similar in 98/99 I think in straight line tests on an air field, Jordan ran similar things in 2002 (I think) these wings are sometimes connected to dataloggers or contain dataloggers getting airspeed at the highest point of the car so people can work out how to redirect it and its effects.

I know there where pictures of the jordan with this and I have seen one picture of the arrows (I think stoddart drove the test actually)

I'll dig around.

From looking at the picture and from what graves said I think this is more likley a data collector of some sort.

[Try Hard]

Ive been digging around myself, and have a little list dating from '95
1995: Mclaren ran a mid wing
1996: Mclaren, Jordan, and Minardi all ran a mid wing occasionally, mounted on a central strut coming out of the engine cover (Mclaren and Jordan), or moutned on struts connected to the rear wng (minardi)
1997: Tyrell ran X-Wings, after mid wings (in their original guise)were banned
1998: Jordan, Sauber, Tyrell, Prost and Ferrari all ran X-Wings, until banned after Imola, no mid wings though.
1999: Jordan occasionaly ran a wing mounted on the top of the engine cover (Monaco and hungary i belive).
2000: Williams ran a similar device to the '99 Jordan. Also Arrows ran dive planes on the front of the nose at Hungary.
2001: Arrows and Jordan experimented with forward mounted wings at Monaco (so not strictly mid wings), but were immediatly banned on the grounds they impinged the drivers vision. BAR and Williams both ran mid wings, a'la Jordan '99
2002: Williams, Toyota and Jordan ran mid wings occasionally.
2003: No-one ran one, as far as i can recall...

Thats pretty much a quick history lesson on Mid-wings, mos tof the research was done on F1-live.com, although it only goes back to '98, the rest done from memory, or googling...
Ed

[Jukebox]

with such placements...anythin to do with it's center of gravity? since engine covers are regulated to not be so narrow anymore?

[darcym]

I'm convinced its not a wing.

You have a pretty good list of teams that ran the mid wing, but look for data logging devices, and I think I can only remember Jordan in 2000/2001 (I think) using a mid wing as an areo data logger (I remember news storys as Jordans secret areo package - and it turned out to just be a data logger) and I remember watching a program documenting arrows testing in 2000/2001 (again I think) where Paul Stoddart as a sponsor of the team carried out some straight line tests and they had a fake camera and an strange wing like data logger on top of it.

Search for those and see if it ties in with what ferrari are doing

[Jukebox]

Would a team like Ferrari jeapordize milliseconds per lap for other than if there's advantage gained in terms of actual on road performance? for collectin datas....nah

[Glen]

In testing the milliseconds are not valuable, but the data would be. If it is indeed some sort of instrument I very much doubt that it would be on the car in race trim. I have to say I find that explanation at least as plausible as the wing theory, simply because it isn't beefy enough to do very much as a wing.

[Jukebox]

Then what have teams been using to collect the datas before?
HERE ..take a look, the ECU units are already there

ah well..it's only my opinion

[Try Hard]

look at this pic
ferreari wing
I doubt very much that with a profile like that it is a data logger...
I'm beginning to lean towards more airlfow management than actual wing, mainly due to its size. I don't doubt that it does create some downforce (especially with its profile, and gurney), but it is probably the interaction with airflow coming off the sidepods and front wing that has the most benificial effect, smoothing the airflow to the rear wing.

[Glen]

Can't get through to your link, Jukes - I don't dispute that there are already good designs for data collection - I'm just saying that the explanation here is as good in my view as any other put forward. Just because data is gathered in a certain way now, there's no reason at all that somebody might come up with something new.

It would be a good place to put such instruments - the high location would be a good place to measure roll and pitch and it wouldn't intereact with any of the critical areo areas. BTW, mid wings of the non-wing type are usually much lower and closer to the rear wing.

[Try Hard]

Originally posted by Glen
Can't get through to your link, Jukes - I don't dispute that there are already good designs for data collection - I'm just saying that the explanation here is as good in my view as any other put forward. Just because data is gathered in a certain way now, there's no reason at all that somebody might come up with something new.
It would be a good place to put such instruments - the high location would be a good place to measure roll and pitch and it wouldn't intereact with any of the critical areo areas.

Glen, i don't dispute your point about data logging, but if your going to measure roll and pitch, why stick it out on limb like that? you could just as accuratly measure thoose values with out sticking any equipment into the airflow (like in the dummy camera). However if you wanted to measure what the pressure, and air speed are like in that area, then maybe, but I'm still not convinced. It just doesnt seem a particularly logical option, especially as it is mounted on the engine cover, and not the roll hoop, as you would expect with a data logger (think about connecting equipment up etc)
And I think your slightly mistaken if you think thats a non critical area of a cars aero, anything which presents frontal area to airflow is most certainly critical, as you suddenly have an increase in drag.

Originally posted by Glen
BTW, mid wings of the non-wing type are usually much lower and closer to the rear wing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, as the postion of the mid wings is forced upon by the box rule governing the amount of bodywork allowed above the engine cover (ie none ). Otherwise we would still be seeing wings like thoose from '96, which were more effective, as they didn't have the aribox disrupting the leading edge of the wing.

[Glen]

Try Hard

Firstly, I don't know what it measures, if anything at all. All I now is that if it's a wing it won't do very much in the way of producing downforce. So - it could very well be a measuring device... sometimes you see devices behind the front wing but these are in a pretty critical spot so this might be a better location?

Secondly, it isn't particularly big & draggy - even if it is it wouldn't matter much for testing proovided you can separate out the effect, which you could because it is far away from anything else (such as barge boards, sidepods flips etc).

The mid wings I refer to are the slim kind that are sometimes located between the rear wheel flips - these are very similar to this Ferrari one, in that they have very little shape and their function supposed to be to oganise the air flow to the rear wing.

[Knowlesy]

Originally posted by Try Hard

2003: No-one ran one, as far as i can recall...

Renault at Monaco?

[Adam43]

I have nothing to add particularly, except I am think along the lines of both downforce and controlling the air flow to the rear (which is the priority I don't know). I'm not sure about measuring device.

It doesn't have as much 'shape' as some of the side winglets, but it is wider (~30cm), so I reckon it might produce a similar amount of downforce as the side winglets (on there own, obviously it is all part and parcel of the entire concept). Those side winglets clearly are duel purpose too. Helping shape flow over the rear tyres and give a little downforce.

Still lots of good ideas flying around here...

I can't find any hints from Ferrari about it and here is the best picture I've found from http://www.autosport.com/newsitem.asp?id=26095&s=5

[Adam43]

oh and as an aside I see IRL are going to do the hole in the back of the air box thing...

[grumpy1]

Adam quickk aero lesson. If the air traveling under a wing is faster then that above you create lift (ie airoplane).Looking at your latest image it would appear that this winglett is for downforce due to its shape but the affect on the car would be minimal due to its location high on the air box.The other option is that it is to create what is known as swirl effect thus disturbing the air approching the rear wing and deflecting it over creating less force over the rear wing.This would decrease the drag over the rear wing thus allowing greater top end speed.Its only down side would be less down force over the back end.The could also explain why all of a sudden they have found a second lap

The Grumpy1

[Adam43]

Originally posted by grumpy1
Adam quickk aero lesson. If the air traveling under a wing is faster then that above you create lift (ie airoplane).

Thanks, although it is many years since I did that. Sorry if it is going faster around the bottom of the wing then surely that produces a force down as the pressure is less below the wing?

An example. Take two pieces of paper (A4 size-ish works OK) hold them parallel just a few cms apart and blow between them - they move together because of the quick flowing air between them.

http://travel.howstuffworks.com/airplane2.htm (even has an interesting bit that puts the full use of Bernoulli's equation in this situation into context).

Originally posted by grumpy1
Looking at your latest image it would appear that this winglett is for downforce due to its shape but the affect on the car would be minimal due to its location high on the air box.

In many ways being high is the ideal place for the wing (remember those tall wings of the late 60s. Near the front and rear is nice for tuning the centre of the pressure.

Originally posted by grumpy1
The other option is that it is to create what is known as swirl effect thus disturbing the air approching the rear wing and deflecting it over creating less force over the rear wing.This would decrease the drag over the rear wing thus allowing greater top end speed.Its only down side would be less down force over the back end.

Deflecting is one thing, but producing swirls and vortices onto the rear wing sounds like it'll just reduce the efficiency rather than the drag. It would, also, be quite uncontrollable and the precise dynamics of the interaction between the two wings would be very dependent on cross winds and indeed rotation of the car as it cornered.

And if you want to reduce drag of the rear wing (and sacrifice downforce) why not just reduce the angle of the rear wing?

Originally posted by grumpy1
The could also explain why all of a sudden they have found a second lap

One thing I am sure of is that, while that wing must do something good, I don't think it has found them 1s a lap!

[Redblurr]

just look at the Toyota of Salo or ??? Monaco 02
http://f1.racing-live.com/en/index.h...ews/news.shtml

[Adam43]

That link doesn't work, try http://f1.racing-live.com/en/photos/..._monaco3.shtml and more specifically http://f1.racing-live.com/photos/200.../diapo_359.jpg

It does look to be of a similar design as the current Ferrari wing.

[Try Hard]

Originally posted by knowlesy
Renault at Monaco?

thought i might have missed one..

The benifits for this position (for a downforce creating device) are pretty obvious, nice clean (well relativly anyway) airflow, meaning that for a given angle and chord, it will produce more downforce, than say a sidepod winglet.
Wings operate at their best (as far as i know) when they have undisturbed airflow. Introduce a little disturbance, and the efficiency drops. Running a wing in less disturbed air is pretty much the goal of modern F1 design, especially towards the rear of the cars (hence the swoppy sidepod theme recently)

[Smokey 6 litre]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
if it is going faster around the bottom of the wing then surely that produces a force down as the pressure is less below the wing?

thats right, or else i've seriously screwed up my A-level tech project.

[Smokey 6 litre]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
Deflecting is one thing, but producing swirls and vortices onto the rear wing sounds like it'll just reduce the efficiency rather than the drag.

Creating vortices, like little tornados, on and around the underside of the wing can help to dramatically increase the speed of the air and therefore the down force, many fighter planes use a similar technique, meaning much more downforce with less drag.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Smokey 6 litre
Creating vortices, like little tornados, on and around the underside of the wing can help to dramatically increase the speed of the air and therefore the down force, many fighter planes use a similar technique, meaning much more downforce with less drag.

Oh yes, definetly. My point was that I feel it is unlikely that they are using the wing on the air box to achieve this effect on the underside of the rear wing. I reckon it might be too unpredictable and be dependendent on the speed of the car, the cornering and cross winds, so wouldn't be that reliable. However the general effect of vortices can produce wonders, even if I don't understand the details myself.

[Armco Bender]

Maybe they just had 2 spare little wings and said "lets put these on the airbox for a laugh and see what stupid ideas all the train spotters at 10/10ths come up with"...



On a serious note you'd have to go with they are there to smooth the airflow thats breaking of the top of the airbox so it hits the rear wing in a smooth flow and not as a swirling vortex or too smooth the airflow back together after passes around the airbox to stop it producing a big vortex behind the car(a la the winglets on a Boeing 747 wing tip).
No point in trying to produce down force on top of the airbox in the center of the car,it would only be robbing downforce off the rear wing and upset the balance of the car would it not.(I failed physics at school miserably as well if I'm wrong))

[Smokey 6 litre]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
I reckon it might be too unpredictable and be dependendent on the speed of the car, the cornering and cross winds, so wouldn't be that reliable.

i agree, it would be hard to ensure that the levels of downforce produced are constant, its likely that as the wing changes so does the downforce, creating problems.