Re: McLaren brake ducts

On Feb 15, 12:09 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.UsenetREMOV...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Bob Dubery wrote:
On Feb 15, 6:49 am, a_Frank <f...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The point of that quote was that the only reason that moving aero
device passes scrutinee, is because of the rules declaring the area
to be that of part of a brake duct.
I don't think that's the point at all. As I understand it there is a
definition of "aerodynamic device" along the lines of "having the
function of generating down force". So streamlined suspension pieces -
which of course move relative to the unsprung part of the car - are
not aerodynamic devices and thus not movable aerodynamic devices as
long as they are not being used to generate downforce.

Not to step on toes but I was under the impression the reason they are
outside the "moveable aero" reg is because they are not on the sprung
part of the car.
Think back 40 years or so when the first clamp downs on "movable" aero
deviced were legislated. That effectively wiped out the wings in use
at that time - the wings that were attached directly to the wheel
mountings.

Or think back to the double-chassis Lotus which ran foul of
regulations about movable aero devices.

"Movable" is defined relative to the sprung part of the car.

So, as I understand it, if there's some piece on a car that has as a
function the generation of downforce then that piece must
a) fit in the prescribed theoretical box within which all such pieces
must be located.
b) not move or change angle of attack relative to the sprung portion
of the car.

In this particular case the wheel fairings don't generate downforce
and so there's no concern about them. If a team arrived with wheel
covers that looked like they were not aerodynamically neutral then I
imagine protests or requests for rule clarifications would follow
pretty quickly.

There are, for me, some gray areas in all of this.

1) The tuned mass damper which got kicked out during the 2006 season.
I was a bit puzzled (admittedly I am no engineer) by the logic that
said that that part had an aerodynamic function. Though I suppose this
was not that different from the warnings given to Williams in 1992 -
the wing stayed absolutely in the same position relative to the
chassis, but the active suspension was being used to raise or lower
the back of the car by a couple of millimeters and so with no change
to the ride hight at the front the angle of attack of the wings was
being changed.

2) The extra front wing element pioneered by McLaren last year and
quickly adopted by other teams. That element definitely flexed under
load, but the thinking seems to have been that it was just forced down
in it's entirety rather than changing angle and so McLaren did not
gain any advantage by that movement.


In the case of the items that we are describing, they do not generate
downforce. They don't even have any brake cooling function, but it's
not required that they do.

Don't they?
I'd don't see how they can - certainly not the front fairings on the
Ferrari. They'd need to have some kind of scoop to channel the air
past or into the wheel. The back fairings may be different, but the
flow of air around the front wheels is much more significant
aerodynamically and the aim of those fairings would be to reduce
turbulence. And every example I have seen does not cover the entire
wheel, so air channeled through to the wheel would spill out anyway.
<snip>
I thought Ferraris wheel nut were a great innovation. It's nice to see
such visible innovations too, even though you have to look closer to
see the full implementation. Most innovations/changes are in detail
that most of us are not aware of unless we leaf through an F1 technical
feature(tte).

Yes. I liked the days when the car looked very different from each
other, where you could see different designers trying different
theories.

These days
a) the regulations are far more restrictive
b) so many things are so much better understood

So there's less obvious differences.

As you say, it's more in the detail these days. There are differences.
The fairings on the Ferrari. Different styles of front wing (I'm
talking the 2007 season here). A couple of cars with "horns" on the
air intake. But think back to the mid 70s when, to name a few, the
Lotus, the Ferrari, the Brabham were all very different from each
other.

And, of course, there's more time and money spent on electronics and
transmissions these days - and that is never visible to the eye.
Though sometimes the effects are. A lot of work has been done on
bringing down shift times for transmissions - the amount of time
between disengaging one gear and engaging the next, during which no
power is being sent to the wheels. The saving in the best systems is
less than a second a lap. Not a second off the lap time, but a
fraction of a second more of power during the lap. We can't see that
and think about it and let the eyes take that in.

I think motorsport in general is like that now. All the big ideas have
been had. It's a matter of refinement - or banning - now.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 1987 Corolla SR5 front suspension repair
    ... anything new on the car, ... front left wheel bearing noise --pot hole strike-related? ... I'll get back to this after the control arm and wheel bearing are fixed. ... In the ball joint, the neck of the ball might also be ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: Now this is just getting silly...
    ... bodywork) produce any aero grip? ... Are the wings part of the main bodywork? ... car, which are merely a symptom of the problem and a result of the ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • First muni ride on the KH29
    ... wheel to Brechfa Forest, ... On a 29" the uni tends to run away from underneath me, ... I pulled up to the car park and was surprised to see so many cars. ... Eventually the group I saw in the car park ride past, ...
    (rec.sport.unicycling)
  • Re: Renault suspended from European GP
    ... The difference in this case is they released the car before that wheel ... They therefore knew the wheel nut ... with loose nuts. ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • A tale of two road users
    ... The car, a silver estate, HMN-543-C, was travelling at around 50 mph. ... The driver, a 70 year old man, at the wheel. ... two motorcyclists topped the hill coming the other ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)