Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

HandyNZL

Vettels Wobbly Wing

Recommended Posts

what i am wondering, is how does the 100 Kgs used in the static test compare to the reality of the amount of downforce that would be generated once the car goes over 100 kmph. with all the downforce they seem to be able to generate at speed, could it be that the wing generates the equivalent of several hundred Kgs once the car goes faster than say 100 kmph?

That's something I wondered too, so I just thought about it some more now. I found a few funny links that seem to prove you right.

Firstly, mathspigs (do check it out!) suggests that F1 cars generate enough downforce to drive upside down on the ceiling once they get up to about 130kph. It's a rough estimate but it shows that the cars generate a lot of downforce, even at low speed.

The weight of an F1 car and driver is over 600kg. According to various people, the front wing generates about 25% of the total downforce. Downforce squares with speed and turn 8 in Turkey is taken at about 260kph.

So in a medium speed corner at 130kph the front wing generates about 150kg of downforce* (25% of the car's weight, which is equal to the total downforce at this speed), and in a high speed corner it would generate about 600kg of downforce (4 times as much because downforce goes as speed squared)!

I think this is a rough estimate of the load on the front wing at various speeds. It depends on that 25% estimate only including the aerofoil action of the front wing - if some of that 25% comes from the front wing shaping the airflow around other parts of the car, that would reduce the load on the wing. Still, it seems that the maximum load is quite a bit greater than in those static load tests.

It doesn't necessarily matter because it will still flex a bit under 100kg. But as you say, the difference between the static load test and the real loads create possibilities to bend the wing and the rules. For example, the FIA might assume that deflection is proportional to load and thus have a maximum deflection allowed at 100kg, thinking that they know what the deflection will be at a greater load. But by using fancy materials or design, RBR could possibly have a front wing that hardly flexes at 100kg and suddenly deflects a lot at greater loads, and hence fool the FIA.

*Just for anyone who cares, obviously you don't really measure downforce in kilograms, so I mean a force equal to the weight of the mass given above in kilograms. :P

The RBR wing is clearly flexing, but the suspicion is and has been for a long time that it is something to do with the way it is mounted to the floor of the car. Hard to say for certain, but it is clear they have a flexing front wing. RBR appear to have taken the Ferrari mantle of innovatively finding gaps in the rules.

Yep. That's another way they could get round the test, depending on how the car is clamped in these static load tests. It's fun to think about but it doesn't seem very useful innovation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's something I wondered too, so I just thought about it some more now. I found a few funny links that seem to prove you right.

Firstly, mathspigs (do check it out!) suggests that F1 cars generate enough downforce to drive upside down on the ceiling once they get up to about 130kph. It's a rough estimate but it shows that the cars generate a lot of downforce, even at low speed.

The weight of an F1 car and driver is over 600kg. According to various people, the front wing generates about 25% of the total downforce. Downforce squares with speed and turn 8 in Turkey is taken at about 260kph.

So in a medium speed corner at 130kph the front wing generates about 150kg of downforce* (25% of the car's weight, which is equal to the total downforce at this speed), and in a high speed corner it would generate about 600kg of downforce (4 times as much because downforce goes as speed squared)!

I think this is a rough estimate of the load on the front wing at various speeds. It depends on that 25% estimate only including the aerofoil action of the front wing - if some of that 25% comes from the front wing shaping the airflow around other parts of the car, that would reduce the load on the wing. Still, it seems that the maximum load is quite a bit greater than in those static load tests.

It doesn't necessarily matter because it will still flex a bit under 100kg. But as you say, the difference between the static load test and the real loads create possibilities to bend the wing and the rules. For example, the FIA might assume that deflection is proportional to load and thus have a maximum deflection allowed at 100kg, thinking that they know what the deflection will be at a greater load. But by using fancy materials or design, RBR could possibly have a front wing that hardly flexes at 100kg and suddenly deflects a lot at greater loads, and hence fool the FIA.

*Just for anyone who cares, obviously you don't really measure downforce in kilograms, so I mean a force equal to the weight of the mass given above in kilograms. :P

Yep. That's another way they could get round the test, depending on how the car is clamped in these static load tests. It's fun to think about but it doesn't seem very useful innovation.

Are you sure the 130kph is right Muzza?? I thought the general accepted notion was that aerodynamics don't really kick in until about 60mph. Presumably, this is the sort of speed that the aerodynamics start making a real difference as there will be reduced effects before then. It seems a relatively small increase in speed from 100kph to 130kph for an F1 car to start generating at least it's own weight in downforce.

It wasn't 130MPH by any chance??? :whistling::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly, mathspigs (do check it out!) suggests that F1 cars generate enough downforce to drive upside down on the ceiling once they get up to about 130kph. It's a rough estimate but it shows that the cars generate a lot of downforce, even at low speed.

Yep - but this is one of those slightly misthought myths. Once the car is up to 130k/h, the downforce is theoretically enough to keep it on the ceiling ye. However the lack of downforce greater than that needed to pin the car up there means there's not enough downforce (or upforce at this point) to give the tyres the grip necessary to maintain the vehical's speed of 130k/h. Speed would then drop followed shortly after by downforce and then by car.

Anyone who tried driving an F1 car along a ceiling (even if they got up to 130k/h first) would be rethinking their plan as they hit the ground.:P

*Just for anyone who cares, obviously you don't really measure downforce in kilograms, so I mean a force equal to the weight of the mass given above in kilograms. :P

F=ma

Downforce = 100kg*9.8m/s^2 (ish)

= 980 newtons.

no?

Double :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - but this is one of those slightly misthought myths. Once the car is up to 130k/h, the downforce is theoretically enough to keep it on the ceiling ye. However the lack of downforce greater than that needed to pin the car up there means there's not enough downforce (or upforce at this point) to give the tyres the grip necessary to maintain the vehical's speed of 130k/h. Speed would then drop followed shortly after by downforce and then by car.

Anyone who tried driving an F1 car along a ceiling (even if they got up to 130k/h first) would be rethinking their plan as they hit the ground.:P

F=ma

Downforce = 100kg*9.8m/s^2 (ish)

= 980 newtons.

no?

Double :P

I guess they could do it if they put the car in wheel tracks for the first part of it's journey although obviously getting it back down would be an interesting conundrum :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...