The future of F1 Aero?

Not sure how that'd work. At high speeds the purpose of having wings at the front and back is to push the wheels/car onto the ground.
If the wings were between the axles you might run into risking having lift at the front end and having a skittish rear.

In my head I'm imagining it like if you had a wooden plank suspended in space. If you push down in the middle the plank bows and the front and rear lift up.

I suppose it could still work. But speeds would be greatly reduced.

 

Nonsense. Then how do you explain the ground effect cars of the 80s and early 90s? The tunnels began just after the rear bulkhead and continued to the rear. The downforce they generated was applied directly on the bodywork above and also served to increase the efficiency of the rear wing. Yes they did have to deal with an aero imbalance front to rear, i.e. you'd get a lot of understeer, but I never heard any of them described as skittish at the rear. FAR from it! By moving the wing toward the middle of the car the load would also move forward with it. The closer to the center the more evenly distributed between the front and rear wheels.

 

It would certainly drastically reduce downforce! - What both of the above posts missed, IMHO, is the "turning moments" that are in effect when the front and rear wings are in front of the front wheels and behind the rear wheels respectively - The center of downforce of the rear wing is, what, about 2ft behind the rear axle. At speed, the downforce generated is effectively multiplied by that distance - and the front end would fly in the air if not balanced with the front wing.... I'm simplifying a little, but you get the idea.....

Put a single wing in the middle and this mechanical advantage goes away - As long as the "plank" is stiff enough, the downforce will be spread to all 4 wheels (not evenly, unless the wing was right over the middle of course.)

Now, what such a thing may look like, I'll let others ponder.

cheers,
Ian

 

The down force created by the wings of equal size are equivalent weather front or rear of either axle, The distance from the axle acts as a lever to apply more force or less to that axle. Wings behind the rear axle tend to lift the front of the car causing a need to extend forwards or increase the force of the front wing. A wing between the axles would exert down force on both axles
Putting the wings where they are now puts them in cleaner air making them more effective. Looks cooler too

I'm a fan of next to no down force or wings that create a drafting wake for closer racing, not optimum performance.

 

The placement of the rear wing (and restrictions on it in the rules of most open wheel sanctioning bodies) is to enhance the flow coming from under the car.

While the placement fore and aft has an effect on the moments about the aerodynamic center, the interaction of the rear wing with the underbody is what creates huge amounts of downforce.

To put it another way, the rear wing and the interacton of the rear wing and the aft upper body of the car form, in effect a venturi. That big venturi creates a low pressure area that sucks the air out from under the car creating huge amounts of downforce.

If you put the wing in the middle of the car the underbody wouldn't create nearly as much downforce. The reasons that rear wings are put where they are is that they pull the air out from under the car. The front wing is there to balance the rear wing and keep the nose on the ground.

This is a bit of a simplification, but that's basically what is happening.

 

+1 [We're pretty much in agreement ]

However, that big-a$$ rear wing is still creating plenty of downforce in it's own right..... In fact, it seems as if they're wanting the "gap" between the rear wing and "aft upper body" to be as big as possible lately..... Wouldn't that tend to slow the flow thru' there? Although, they're also firing the exhausts up there as well - That siht's gotta be moving.....

Hmmm.....
cheers,
Ian

 

Chaparral did it and I think it was banned because it worked so well.

 

If i heard right, and I'm not sure the car will be a cleaner design. Close to what tjhe A1GP car looks like for next year. None of these ugly flip ups, whaletails and bunny ears that have become the norm.

 

I'd actually like to see movable aero components. I think it'd be cool to see all the spoilers and flaps tuck in for those high speed straights and extend once the curves hit.

Passing is more a function of the track versus the aerodynamics IMO. All the newer tracks are great fun there's always decent passing provided the there's equal competition.

 

That would be kinda cool..... Kind of like a "transformers" thing going down the road.....

Wow! - Better get your flame suit out Someone herein who:

a. Likes the newer tracks and
b. Says "decent passing" opportunities!

Good for you!....

But, I do have to say while any track *should* have at least one or two passing zones, the possibilities are substantially reduced by the aero - You simply can't "tuck in" under someone's wing without loosing all (OK, some of) your downforce IMO.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Pretty sad when a track is considered competitive when it has two passing zones.
The excitement is in the pits. Literally and figuratively.

 

Chaparral 2H had a large center wing, and the 1968 Ferrari 312 F1 car had a central mounted wing also. The idea of the 2H was to be a down force car by it's shape only, final design was this large wing between the wheelbase.
Image Unavailable, Please Login