Re: Ferrari rim lips

R Brickston wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:22:41 -0700, "Mark" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"R Brickston" <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote in message news:7he2f21irfj0oh1jend7osc2348f0jnba4@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:55:01 +1000, fajp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Da Frank)
wrote:

http://www.formula1.com/race/technical_analysis/764/325.html

Ok, so how is that not a moving aero device ?
Well, so is the front and rear wing. The aerodynamics would be the
same whether the wheel cover is spinning or not.

If the wheel is made to spew air outwards at a higher rate, does that
not in effect create a draft underneath by the use of a "fan" ? And
what of the air that would otherwise go around the side of the car and
cause turbulance at the rear ? Doesn't this effect that ? Phil ? :)

It's counted as part of the brake duct which is specifically excluded from the bodywork rules. Which is not to say that 3.15 should not be applied (any part having an aerodynamic effect must conform to the bodywork rules) but as has been pointed out by me and others, 3.15 /could/ be applied to a lot of moving parts of the car but isn't for common sense reasons or convention, so it would be unlikely that the FIA would apply it while only Ferrari have them. The most likely outcome is that all the other teams produce their own version and *then* the FIA bans it as a moveable aero device.

Bonus question. What if McLaren decided to extend the crankshaft and
bolt a fan on the end of it ? You know, to cool the engine.

hmrng..
I think the air is drawn in from the brake duct opening which is not
underneath the car. Further, it would seem impossible for the rear
wheels to provide enough suction to cause a ground effect. Lastly, it
smoothes the air flow. So what? You see all those little winglets,
barge boards, viking horns, etc., appearing, dissappearing and
reappearing on the cars of all teams?
But haven't you been paying attention at all? The point is that aero devices cannot be moving. The winglets you talk about are fixed onto the body. This is not true for the wheel rims. The wheel rims are moving, so they are therefore potentially illegal.

The rotation of the cover doesn't matter to the airflow. IOW, if the
cover could be mounted in such a way as to be stationary, the aero
effect wouldn't change.

Really? The aerodynamics of a rotating wheel are the same as a stationary wheel? Silly me, I thought that one of the reasons F1 wind tunnels have rolling roads in them is because that's not true...

(hint: think about the no-slip condition)

--
Phil

http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ferrari rim lips
    ... so how is that not a moving aero device? ... so is the front and rear wing. ... The wheel rims are moving, ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: Ferrari rim lips
    ... so how is that not a moving aero device? ... so is the front and rear wing. ... The point is that aero devices cannot be moving. ... The wheel rims are moving, so they are therefore potentially illegal. ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: Horses vs Coaches
    ... dig into heavy soils, regardless of the materials. ... the thing moving, which will be critical. ... a barrel-type construction won't withstand the forces a wheel has ... much easier to shift loads that way, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Cordless Mouse - combo Keyboard/mouse
    ... me> I've rebuild my kernel, but the cursor is not moving... ... I used the below patch to find out how the position info looked ... Looking at the output when moving the mouse might help you to find out ... rolling up the wheel: ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: 1 foot wheel walk. need tips
    ... with the wheel basically not moving ... when I was moving my foot back, and didn't get anywhere (that's way ... I'd imagine a freestyle tyre will be easier ...
    (rec.sport.unicycling)