Due to the fact that the last race was sooooooooo bloody boring, while watching i started thinking about the wake created by the cars and the 1 second window while behind another car....

I wonder how many teams have actively looked at making the turbulence coming from the DDD and car aero as bad as possible for the following cars.

Its always talked about as a by-product of the aero regulations but you would have to think its a no brainer, that as well as having a fast car with top aero if you could make it nigh impossible for a following car to pass you would be onto a winner!!!

---

I just mentioned something on another topic about our extremely low exhaust possibly causing the 'hot' engine problem for Ferrari. Low enough to be picked up off the front wing.

Newey is a devil!

I wouldn't put it past them... (mainly cause couldn't get past them.. which is the whole problem )

BMW had a wind tunnel specifically designed / set up to take two cars one behind the other. This was to test the wake on a following car, and also to optimise their car for running in the wake of a competitor.

---

Admin@racingbulls.net
www.racingbulls.net

Interesting point with BMW growler.

Last year at the German GP i remember the BMWs following other cars in close formation towards the end of the race. With the heat from the front car the 'wake' could be clearly seen from the aero of the BMW. It looked really messy with huge vortexes coming from the sides of the rear wing while on the straights.

I thought at the time that our and a lot of others cars had much cleaner air from the aero than that of BMW....

---

I remember last year, the design of the Brawn car was better than other cars for following another car more close, remember that?

I thought the reason the Brawn could follow other cars last year better than other teams was because of its low nose design? air wake would not get under the Brawn low nose design, so the car would not get upset when following another car close?

---

----Webber versus Alonso----

i shall ask the same question again in this thread....wasn't the moveable aero flap in the front wing designed to assist with neutralising the wake flow and create passing opportunities? why isn't this a focal point, amongst many?

I guess it just doesn't have enough effect K1.

Quote:

i shall ask the same question again in this thread....wasn't the moveable aero flap in the front wing designed to assist with neutralising the wake flow and create passing opportunities? why isn't this a focal point, amongst many?

dont think that ever had the desired effect.think most teams would just use it for better lap times.

what they really need is those turtle shells from mario kart

Excellent idea boci. You should be on the Overtaking Working Group.

super markio cart lol

Whiety, the reason the Brawn was better than RBR behind other cars last year was that we had superior Aero, they had better mechanical grip, which is why they dominated races early on that were at tighter circuits, but we were better at tracks that had a lot of high speed corners.

Wasn't really anything to do with setting up the aero in any particular way, just the stregths of each car were different, and their's was not weakened by being behind another car as much as we were...

Turbulence behind a car is what creates the drag factor. I do not believe cars would be designed to create heaps of turbulence as this would make them very draggy. I don't think designers want this. (I could be wrong here, but I suspect I am not)

I am very sure though that a designer would want to give off a negatively effecting air flow to the car to the rear where possible. Makes sense for sure.

---

Cheers GB

---

----Webber versus Alonso----

All barge boards are there to create turbulence.

By creating and managing turbulence along the sides of the car they prevent air from getting underneath the car hence helping generate downforce.

I have no doubt in my mind that if there was 2 options for a certain part and one of them increased the turbulence with no other ill effect they would choose that one.

They just have to change the rules, the current rear aero of a car is not allowing passing. Longer rear wing and more shaped towards moving air up - which I think is what makes a slipsteam good (NFI) - is what think.

I reckon change the aero rules as well.

MASSIVELY reduce the opportunity to create downforce from the upper body and make it all about underbody aero instead.

Unberbody aero is a lot less affected by the wake, so less downforce will be lost following a car.

Only problem is how pitch and yaw sensitive underbody downforce is. The rules would have to be carefully crafted so as to minimise the problems with pitch and yaw.

I'm working on it

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

I'll create a distributed CFD computing application so that we can run your designs LH

gor for it blight :0