Hey guys, I can't find a good pic right now, but the attached is close, except they've 'turned' the serrations on the leading edge to horizontal, rather than vertical. Think a horizontal extension with a saw tooth leading edge added to what's shown below. I get what they're trying to do in the image below (steer the air to the diffuser) but the latest 'trick' seems to be a horizontal sawtooth on the leading edge ahead of that whole mess. Anyone know why? TIA, Cheers, Ian Image Unavailable, Please Login
Not quite. It's the 'leading edge' of the floor under the side pods. (The air intakes amidship) Can't find any good pix, but the attached shows the location on the car. They've just started doing a pretty pronounced 'sawtooth' on that leading edge. I don't understand why. I'm pretty sure their front wings would kinda freak Bob out! (I know they do me! ) A whole other can o' worms where they're trying (& to a degree succeeding!) to make the air do stuff it really doesn't want to do..... Cheers, Ian Image Unavailable, Please Login
FWIW, F1 these days is pretty much the 'battle of the aerodynamicists'. Sure, you need power, and right now Merc have the advantage there, but overall it's about generating huge amounts of downforce (with minimum drag of course) so they'll literally stick to the track. I find it fascinating! Cheers, Ian
Just like you said... they are there to make the air do something it doesn't naturally want to do. Either attach to the side of the car, go into the radiator pod, detach from the car, go under the car... Bottom line they want as low a pressure under the car as possible, it could be to aid in building an air barrier below the side pod to stop the low pressure air under the car bleeding out. Bottom line they are making the air do unnatural things...LOL
Embraer uses a vortalons to control span flow. They my be using a similar technique on the F1 wing. It redirects air moving from the wings root outward. Image Unavailable, Please Login
The front wing is divided into multiple higher aspect ratio lifting surfaces... more efficient and can be tweaked easier than a single lower aspect ratio surface (span squared/area) The mess in front of the body, which must act as an inverted upper surface of a wing, is meant to energize the boundary layer and create low pressure attached flow "sucking" the body down. If the boundary layer separates, the inverted lift force is lost, just like an aircraft wing stalling from the trailing edge forward.
I think that's pretty much my guess too. As already noted, they're trying (& pretty much succeeding!) to make the air do stuff it really doesn't want to do. I was hoping some aero 'guru' would know the theory behind these leading edge 'serrations'. Thanks for the comments guys, Cheers, Ian
After looking at that treatment all I could think was that it broke up any smooth stream flow in the area.
You may well be correct. As someone noted above, they're looking to get as much high speed (low pressure as you know ) air to the diffuser at the rear. This obviously aids downforce generation, which they're all looking to achieve with minimal additional drag. Cheers, Ian
knew id find the answer somewhere "The separation of the bargeboard energizes the surface, improving their efficiency, even at a steeper angle of attack. Meanwhile, the floor extending strakes help to control how the front tyres wake affects the performance of the floor, which is especially important in yaw" Credit Matt Somerfield
Fair comment! Actually makes some sense though; F1 is now pretty much an aerodynamic battle. (Whether that's right or wrong is another debate.) One of their biggest 'problems' is the tires, particularly the fronts, stick out into the airstream, and to add further pain, they're rotating the 'wrong way' aero wise. They're all spending many $ trying to 'steer' the air around those big ol' tires - see the Merc wing pictured above. Then they want it to 'reattach' and be steered underneath, as high speed flow there gains some all important downforce. The so called 'barge boards' you see are doing a pretty good job of keeping the air 'attached' so they can then (try & ) steer it where they want. The image is 'amidships' of the current Ferrari for example....... Cheers, Ian Image Unavailable, Please Login
simple terms....making the air do more work than it wants to and do unnatural things.. Speaking of front tires, I see a lot of teams are "blowing" the front axle in an effort to form a barrier around the tires so their rotation is not as disruptive.......lots of little areo wizards working deep within the factories of England
Some of it looks really strange because not only are they directing air where they want it to go, they are also trading downforce (negative lift) against drag. On combat aircraft, we complicate it even more because we want all three of the above (except positive lift), plus we do not want the airframe to reflect radar energy coherently or put out too much of an IR signature. Lots of the early Russian jet aircraft had aerodynamic issues that they had to resort to fences to cure. Otherwise they ended up with all kinds of interference drag and funny airflow where you did not want it.
+1 The airplane guys have it easy by comparison! They just need to generate lift. Not enough? Stick a bigger wing on the thing. Too much drag? Just give it more fuel. Problem solved! What these guys are doing with the air around what is basically a brick is nothing short of stunning IMO. We've come a long way..... Cheers, Ian Image Unavailable, Please Login
Now there's a problem the F1 guys don't have to worry about! I get idea of dissipating radar reflections so as to be somewhat stealthy. All good. But reducing the IR signature? The thing's generating much heat. If it can be tracked via IR, surely it is what it is? Cheers, Ian
Certainement pas!!! With old fashioned turbojet engines it pretty much is what it is and yes when you are in afterburner there is a big hot streak, but with modern turbofan engines there's a huge opportunity to hide the IR signature of the for both fixed wing and helicopter engines. With a modern fan engine you can mix the fan and core flows down and make the signature really small if the bypass ratio is high. The other thing is that it's the surfaces that provide the signature. That is, if you can cool all the surfaces you can drastically reduce the signature. When you have nice and cool bypass air you can bathe the surfaces that you can "see" with cool air and squelch the signature. If the exhaust is ejected above the wing, then it can't be "seen" from below. On the F117 the exhaust is ejected in such a way that the signature is drastically reduced, and similarly the B2 has a very low IR signature. On the YF-23 there were two "troughs" behind the engine outlets. These troughs were made from "lamolloy" a double layer structure that was cooled with bypass air so it would reduce the signature of the engines when seen from above. On the CH47 there is a new technology IR suppressor that uses a double wall surface that that bleeds air into the exhaust and cools it and this really works well... So actually you can and the designers do control IR signature in applications where you need to even though there is a lot of heat coming out of the exhaust.
Winglets prevent turbulent airflow off the wing tips and essentially look like a wing of infinite span to the airflow. A NASA Langley genius, Richard Whitcomb, who developed the winglet theory, is also credited with the invention of area ruling (wasp waist), conical camber, and the supercritical wing. He won the Collier Trophy for area ruling in 1954.
My limited understanding of "low speed" (F1 style) aero certainly says that's correct. I guess many of them are now retrofitting these winglets - I've read (probably here! ) they definitely improve efficiency - specifically fuel consumption on many airliners. What I don't quite get is why they're almost all "up going" only - "Logic" tells me they'd be even better off with a "T" at the end - Add control not just to the upper surface but the lower too? Cheers, Ian