Page 2 of 4
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:08 pm
by cmlean
It looks to me that they are trying to generate the same amount of downforce by retaining the same wing area but with the advantage of less turbulance immediately behind the car. This should in theory allow a car following to get close enough through a turn to make a pass without losing front end grip. It does look radically different but I can see their intention. As for being fragile, each rear wing section is carrying only half the load so I doubt that they will collapse.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:35 am
by adz_619
Im not sure all the teams will agree on the CDG wing, and if they do they may have to strenthen the under - nose of the car. Well it works both ways the original wing makes it hard to overtake as their is turbulent air behind the other driver and the CDG wing produces too much pressure under the nose which will also affect overtaking.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:17 pm
by cmlean
Why is there more pressure under the nose? What else I can see is that instead of one large area of turbulance at the rear of the car, there will now be two smaller low pressure areas. These will affect the rear wings of the trailing car as its wings will be operating in disturbed airflow where the front will be not affected to the same degree. For this to occur, the trailing car has to be immediately behind the front one.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:27 pm
by JayVee
cmlean wrote:It looks to me that they are trying to generate the same amount of downforce by retaining the same wing area but with the advantage of less turbulance immediately behind the car. This should in theory allow a car following to get close enough through a turn to make a pass without losing front end grip. It does look radically different but I can see their intention. As for being fragile, each rear wing section is carrying only half the load so I doubt that they will collapse.
As I said I don't know much about aero stuff however the current rear wing is mounted from both sides and we see it fail regularly. A wing mounted from one side will have to be more fragile I would have thought.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:16 pm
by Julian Mayo
I would think it would be an integral part of the tub.
inidentally it takes about 1280 work hours to craft a tub, which has the suspension mounting points moulded into it. It takes a driver less than 1 tenth of a second to stuff it up, and about another second to rip a suspension assembly off. The tub is then useless.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:55 pm
by Kapel
Julian Mayo wrote:I would think it would be an integral part of the tub.
inidentally it takes about 1280 work hours to craft a tub, which has the suspension mounting points moulded into it. It takes a driver less than 1 tenth of a second to stuff it up, and about another second to rip a suspension assembly off. The tub is then useless.
No wonder no drivers like Sato.He surely must have paid a s#$% loads of bills for other cars this year
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 1:37 am
by Julian Mayo
yup.
Each tub is hand crafted, and of the 3 fully assembled cars that are chosen to go to a race meet (plus a spare tub in the back of the "truck") a driver will have his personal favourite. Sato aint getting Xmas cards from a lot of Drivers.
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:05 pm
by adz_619
Max mosely is comong up with these ideas which MAY spoil f1, all f1 really needs is a few things.............
1. a 1 hr qualifying session
2.slick tyres re introduced
These 2 would exciten f1 again, like the good old days
DO U REMEMBER???
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:50 am
by Julian Mayo
adz_619 wrote:Max mosely is comong up with these ideas which MAY spoil f1, all f1 really needs is a few things.............
1. a 1 hr qualifying session
2.slick tyres re introduced
These 2 would exciten f1 again, like the good old days
DO U REMEMBER???
Yup,
and they overtake, how?
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:14 am
by cmlean
I do have to agree with you JayVee in relation to the mounting of the rear wing. Trying to transfer all that downforce through a vertical upright that is not in line with the centre of the wing in asking for trouble.
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:04 pm
by rah
Nah shouldn't be a problem. Have a look at the front wing. The outside of that is unsuported. Looks to be around the same length from the centre support.
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:15 pm
by Julian Mayo
a more detailed plan would be handy, but I would guess that each of the upright sections would be an integral part of the rear suspension upright, ie,part of the carbon- fibre moulded tub, and therefor immensely strong. The worst failure I can picture is the top horizontal plane parting company, as a result of contact
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:10 pm
by cmlean
rah wrote:Nah shouldn't be a problem. Have a look at the front wing. The outside of that is unsuported. Looks to be around the same length from the centre support.
The outside of the front wing is unsupported however the downforce is across the whole face of the wing. This negates the problem I can see. With the proposed new rear wings, the load is going to flex the vertical support for the wing.
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:14 pm
by Ed
Two issues here, the load on the rear wings is greater than that on the front wing plus the flex could be an issue especially that in the past the FIA banned any flexing on the current rear wings.
I understand the Heretic is preparing an article on this
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:18 pm
by Julian Mayo
Ed wrote:Two issues here, the load on the rear wings is greater than that on the front wing plus the flex could be an issue especially that in the past the FIA banned any flexing on the current rear wings.
I understand the Heretic is preparing an article on this
Some in-depth info would be much appreciated
