2009 Rear Wings

[Powered by Cosworth]

http://images.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/50114_2.jpg

http://images.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/50105_2.jpg

Williams was testing their '09 wing at Jerez today. I had to look twice, thought there was some photoshoppery going on there.

It's bloody hidious!

I'd rather the split-wing idea they were throwing about a few years ago.

[christophulus]

Is that the finished article then, or a hybrid? Bolted to the back of a 2008 car it does look weird.. maybe the full 2009 will look better.

As long as they get rid of all the messy "aerodynamic devices" they have at the moment it'll be an improvement.

[ArrowsFA1]

That looks blummin' 'orrible :down:

[schmenke]

What? No tail lights?



I'm sure the sponsors are not very happy :mark:

[wedge]

For a moment I thought I was whisked away to 1983

[Daniel]

That's frigging horrible.

[call_me_andrew]

It's like a little mini wing.

When they put that little wing in the garage, does the garage ask if it's in yet?

[gloomyDAY]

ewwwwwwww

I thought that was an IndyCar.

[wmcot]

Look at the angle of the wing elements trying to get some downforce out of it! Might as well be vertical!

[Mark]

For a moment I thought I was whisked away to 1983

Same here. I thought it was a joke, but no :s . Why so narrow?

[ShiftingGears]

Same here. I thought it was a joke, but no :s . Why so narrow?

Less aerodynamic grip, therefore meaning less grip is lost when trailing another car through a corner, because the cars won't rely so much on downforce to provide grip.

[ArrowsFA1]

For a moment I thought I was whisked away to 1983
Ahhhhhhhh...those were the days :s mokin:

http://www.jonathangreaves.com/USERIMAGES/BT52(1).jpg

[PolePosition_1]

Thats just the wing on on a 2008 car. I'm sure it will look better once its fully completed.

[Azumanga Davo]

At last! All those AFX cars look correct now... :D

[leopard]

http://images.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/50114_2.jpg

http://images.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/50105_2.jpg

Williams was testing their '09 wing at Jerez today. I had to look twice, thought there was some photoshoppery going on there.

It's bloody hidious!

I'd rather the split-wing idea they were throwing about a few years ago.
I don't have problem with this,

[ioan]

Neither have I!
Did you notice the lack of all those flip ups and downs?
I would have liked to see it with the larger slicks mounted!
F1 is looking like going into the right direction for once. :up:

[Donney]

It looks weird at first but then.... after comparing it to Arrow's pic..... I have to admit I like the idea and I agree with ioan.

I am also sure it will look better once it is fully developed and mounted on the definitive 09 racer.

[AJP]

Are they still going to be using slicks next year...?

I actually like this look....especially if they have slicks bolted on... ;)

[wedge]

Less aerodynamic grip, therefore meaning less grip is lost when trailing another car through a corner, because the cars won't rely so much on downforce to provide grip.

Not really. More to influence the trailing wake and increase overtaking.

What is lost from the bodywork aero will be clawed back from undercar aero via a longer and higher diffuser.

[elinagr]

looks good!! and aggressive also!

any lap times?

[ShiftingGears]

What is lost from the bodywork aero will be clawed back from undercar aero via a longer and higher diffuser.

I forgot about that! In any case, it should be good for racing.

[MrJan]

Sod what it looks like, can you overtake the thing? :D

Not really. More to influence the trailing wake and increase overtaking.

What is lost from the bodywork aero will be clawed back from undercar aero via a longer and higher diffuser.

Have the diffuser regulations been changed for 09? I was under the impression that the diffuser cannot extent beyond the rear wheels. It would seem strange to alter that if the idea is to produce less grip.

A higher diffuser would more than likely cause the air flow off the engine cover to stall, which is an aerodynamicists nightmare.

Whilst the 09 rear wing aesthetics are questionable, weren't the same people saying it was hideous also the ones who were complaining about the flip-ups, vanes, horns and chimneys we see on the current spec cars?

Besides which, it's the on track action that counts, not the prettiness of the car. F1 isn't a beauty pagent.

A smaller rear wing will inevitably help the following car, since there is more air free for it to use. The high angle of the 09 rear wing shouldn't affect the grip of the following car anyway, since the air being pushed up over a current spec wing cannot be used by a following car anyway.

The only question I would pose is how much effect will such a small wing have on slipstreaming? The smaller the 'hole' in the air, the harder that will be.

[ArrowsFA1]

F1 isn't a beauty pagent.
True, but beauty and speed make a great combination as the Lotus 79 showed :s mokin:

IMHO things started to go wrong at the end of 1997 when we were presented with the narrow track, grooved tyred cars. The 1998 cars never looked quite "right" to my eyes, and from then on all the flip-ups, vanes, horns and chimneys have been developed to the nth degree. All very clever stuff I'm sure, but aesthetically...for me...no.

Noticed this at the bottom of the Autosport report

"While the new diffuser is lower, shorter, and moved further back"

Now, that, combined with the smaller rear wing, should make a hell of a difference to things.

[wedge]

The only question I would pose is how much effect will such a small wing have on slipstreaming? The smaller the 'hole' in the air, the harder that will be.

The rear tyres will be slightly wider so will that create more drag and vacuum?

Cockpit adjustable front wing - would that affect the balance of the car whilst following the wake of another car?

[COD]

As long as it provides more opportunities to overtake, I don't mind how it looks

[aryan]

That looks blummin' 'orrible :down:


There is nothing horrible about it. Just that our eyes aren't used to the 'new' shape. Some might even call it retro (which sells a lot these days).

I don't care how the wing looks, as long as it provides better racing. You wanna halve it, chop it, slice it, remove it, I wouldn't care. Some options (like removing it) are probably out due to marketing considerations, so we're left with a 'compromise', if you will.

[V12]

I don't have a problem with it. Different and "weird" sure, but I reckon i'll get used to it soon enough. Also loving the lack of flip-ups, winglets and all that assorted crap!

[ArrowsFA1]

There is nothing horrible about it. Just that our eyes aren't used to the 'new' shape.
Probably true, but I still don't like it ;)

[markabilly]

There is nothing horrible about it. Just that our eyes aren't used to the 'new' shape. Some might even call it retro (which sells a lot these days).

.


Probably true, but I still don't like it ;)

As I understand it the new cars will be wider and tires wider, so the wing will look even smaller, so I would not expect the looks to improve...

[ioan]

Probably true, but I still don't like it ;)

If you don't mind the question, what exactly would you like?

[elinagr]

can we have cars without front and rear wing? only mechanical grip..that would make passing something very usual

[gloomyDAY]

can we have cars without front and rear wing? only mechanical grip..that would make passing something very usualSorry, engineers aren't hired to make coffins.

[ShiftingGears]

Sorry, engineers aren't hired to make coffins.

I don't see your logic.

[gloomyDAY]

I don't see your logic.
How else are F1 cars supposed to stay grounded at 200+ MPH?

[ShiftingGears]

How else are F1 cars supposed to stay grounded at 200+ MPH?

By being designed well. F1 cars could hit 190mph in 1950, without incident.

[gloomyDAY]

By being designed well. F1 cars could hit 190mph in 1950, without incident.Can you offer a present day example?

A comparison between today's cars to cars from 5 decades ago is laughable.

[markabilly]

How else are F1 cars supposed to stay grounded at 200+ MPH?


Well there was a time when at the Ring, they were not suppose to.... :D

I guess I could something that has not been around in decades, very quaint and out moded thing that it is...something called pure driving skill using the seat of the pants....I know the whole idea is laughable, but there was a time before electronic data collection and wings....

a smile is just a smile, on that you can rely, as time goes by

[ShiftingGears]

Can you offer a present day example?

A comparison between today's cars to cars from 5 decades ago is laughable.


No more laughable than you throwing an unjustified claim out there, and then dismissing evidence to the contrary.

No modern open wheel race cars capable of hitting 200mph are wingless - what is your point?

Engineers take into account the amount of lift in certain chassis which are produced, and then reduce it (if that is the aim) by balancing the car, changing the chassis shape, etc - like motor racing did before wings.

Please point out why cars without wings would automatically produce front end lift when they dont have wings - remembering that engineers design cars within parameters dictated to them by the regulations. It's not like they would take a car designed for front and rear wings, and then lop the wings off and race it.

Wingless F1 cars would be safer and would give more opportunity to pass than current F1 cars, because cornering speeds would be lower.

[cy bais]

IMO, as far as rear wings go - it's ugly. i like the rear wings as they are now but don't like the little flip-up wings in the front and mid-sections. :)

[gloomyDAY]

No more laughable than you throwing an unjustified claim out there, and then dismissing evidence to the contrary.

No modern open wheel race cars capable of hitting 200mph are wingless - what is your point?

Engineers take into account the amount of lift in certain chassis which are produced, and then reduce it (if that is the aim) by balancing the car, changing the chassis shape, etc - like motor racing did before wings.

Please point out why cars without wings would automatically produce front end lift when they dont have wings - remembering that engineers design cars within parameters dictated to them by the regulations. It's not like they would take a car designed for front and rear wings, and then lop the wings off and race it.

Wingless F1 cars would be safer and would give more opportunity to pass than current F1 cars, because cornering speeds would be lower.1) You never offered a current day example.

2) I don't see the advantage of wingless open wheel cars. That would be regression of F1.

3) The regulations are headed in the correct direction to make racing more exciting for spectators and racers alike, that's my point.

4) To answer your question, I thought that was why Lotus introduced wings on open wheel cars. The front-end would lift....

I'll try to find a video of Colin Chapman discussing the Lotus chassis.

[ShiftingGears]

1) You never offered a current day example.


No modern open wheel race cars capable of hitting 200mph are wingless - what is your point?



2) I don't see the advantage of wingless open wheel cars. That would be regression of F1.

Like banning traction control?


3) The regulations are headed in the correct direction to make racing more exciting for spectators and racers alike, that's my point.

Which ties in with more passing opportunities from the lack of aerodynamic grip, as well as the cars getting sideways, hence more spectacle...



4) To answer your question, I thought that was why Lotus introduced wings on open wheel cars. The front-end would lift....

I'll try to find a video of Colin Chapman discussing the Lotus chassis.

I haven't seen that interview.

[gloomyDAY]

^^^^

It was either Colin Chapman or Graham Hill in the background discussing their experience with the car prior to the introduction of the Lotus 49. I'm still looking...

[Miatanut]

Can you offer a present day example?

A comparison between today's cars to cars from 5 decades ago is laughable.

How so? Did the laws of aerodynamics get repealed in the last fifty years? If so, by whom and when, because I don't remember it.

Before everything went spec. spec. spec, cars were going around Indy with slightly negative rear wing angles to reduce drag because all the downforce needed was developed by the undertray and the air flow at the rear of the car wants to go slightly downward. An F1 car without wings would have FAR more than enough downforce to keep the thing on the ground. Have you been paying any attention? Teams keep trying to do various kinds of flexiwings to shed downforce at top speed. They spend a great deal of time tuning ride height, rake, and spring rates to get the car to choke-off the underbody venturi slightly on the straights, to reduce drag. The focus is on the downforce for the fastest curve, not the top speed section.

A car with all of its downforce developed by the undertray would minimize the disadvantage of the following car and you would see more passing. With the DP01, ChampCar made an incremental reduction in rear wing turbulence which made a significant improvement in passing. I expect F1 will notice an even more significant improvement even though clean air for the following car is not an objective for F1 designers, and if anything, they want to dirty the air up a bit to keep that guy back there.

An F1 car without wings would provide the best racing we've seen in decades, but nobody has the guts to change the rules that way, so we will see things get only marginally better.

[Miatanut]

4) To answer your question, I thought that was why Lotus introduced wings on open wheel cars. The front-end would lift....
Front end lift was a problem with ALL powerful racing cars before designers started doing wind tunnel work to try to prevent it while at the same time not increasing drag too much. A lot of effort was spent on reducing (not eliminating) it in the Ford GT40, made for booking down the Mulsanne at over 200 MPH. You read interviews of aerodynamists from back then and the interviewer will ask why they didn't do something as simple as an air dam at the front. Something used at bottom-level club racing. Their answer is always "We didn't know about that back then." With current knowledge, it would be no problem for designers to create an F1 car with no wings and negative lift (downforce) at the front. Their whole focus would be on how much, how to minimize drag, and what speeds it should be most effective at.

[aryan]

An F1 car without wings would provide the best racing we've seen in decades, but nobody has the guts to change the rules that way, so we will see things get only marginally better.

So true.

Let's not forget that we are also forgetting ground effect.

Personally, I would get rid of all wings and instead re-introduce ground effect. Combined with slick tyres, that should provide enough downforce to compensate for lack of wings, and would leave no turbulent air behind.

But, I guess you can't put ads on the bottom of a car.

[markabilly]

1)



4) To answer your question, I thought that was why Lotus introduced wings on open wheel cars. The front-end would lift....

I'll try to find a video of Colin Chapman discussing the Lotus chassis.


A Texan building race cars out in desert of West Texas was the one who started putting wings on cars, both front and back, a couple of years before Colin. He was some guy named Jim Hall.

As Andretti said, the wings provide more traction, but it makes the car more of a go-kart, using point and shoot techniques. Before wings, the faster the corner, the greater the skill and driver sensitivity required for fast corners to keep the car on track

[gloomyDAY]

Damn, I just got raped in this thread.

Why can't we have wingless F1 cars? If it means more fun, excitement, then I assume most sponsors would be happy with the sports appeal.

[Miatanut]

There's a bunch of us here who are in the 'dump the wings' camp. Probably most of us thought wings were cool when they were new, but it has become clear they have screwed-up the racing.

[Azumanga Davo]

A Texan building race cars out in desert of West Texas was the one who started putting wings on cars, both front and back, a couple of years before Colin. He was some guy named Jim Hall.

Now he was one to watch, had some clever ideas he did. :)

I would hate to think the cars would ever be wingless. I reckon that sort of thing should be left in Formula Ford. ;) And I for one am not a fan at all of that style of car (although it's an important stepping stone on the way to greatness and a good career, just not my cup of tea to look at).

[Storm]

Why narrow the wing so much (I know to reduce the down-force), but wouldn't reducing the number of wing elements or having a maximum value for angle of attack achieve the same thing?

[ioan]

Why narrow the wing so much (I know to reduce the down-force), but wouldn't reducing the number of wing elements or having a maximum value for angle of attack achieve the same thing?

It might make it easier for a following car.

[wedge]

Why narrow the wing so much (I know to reduce the down-force), but wouldn't reducing the number of wing elements or having a maximum value for angle of attack achieve the same thing?

Depends.

In IRL they added more wing angle to create a bigger slipstream effect.

[Miatanut]

I would hate to think the cars would ever be wingless. I reckon that sort of thing should be left in Formula Ford. ;) And I for one am not a fan at all of that style of car (although it's an important stepping stone on the way to greatness and a good career, just not my cup of tea to look at).

You don't find these drop-dead gorgeous?
http://www.allamericanracers.com/gurney_grand-prix/eagle_f1-photo.html

[chuck34]

Markabilly beat me to it. Jim Hall/Chevy/Chaparral were the real innovators with wings/aero. Read the Milliken book for a great discription of this development (that's where I got my sig quote). It's a pretty technical book for the casual race fan, but great for engineering like me.

[MrJan]

You don't find these drop-dead gorgeous?
http://www.allamericanracers.com/gurney_grand-prix/eagle_f1-photo.html

Much prefer the '50s stuff myself :)

Are any other teams testing wings/have had pictures leaked etc.?

[Sleeper]

Why narrow the wing so much (I know to reduce the down-force), but wouldn't reducing the number of wing elements or having a maximum value for angle of attack achieve the same thing?
Because the wings higher, it will actually produce more downforce because the cockpit has a lower effect on the airstream to the rear wing. The narrowness is to reduce the turbulance it creates, in an atempt to improve the racing.

[Sleeper]

Noticed this at the bottom of the Autosport report

"While the new diffuser is lower, shorter, and moved further back"

Now, that, combined with the smaller rear wing, should make a hell of a difference to things.
If anything, the smaller diffuser will hinder racing. Now that the upper bodywork is even more important in creating the cars downforce, it will also be even more susceptable to the effects of turbulance. Doesnt sound like a recipe for good overtacking to me.

[Sleeper]

Why narrow the wing so much (I know to reduce the down-force), but wouldn't reducing the number of wing elements or having a maximum value for angle of attack achieve the same thing?
The higher wing creates more downforce, as it gets a cleaner airflow with less turbulance from the cockpit, the reduction in width is to reduce its effect on the turbulance behind it.

[Azumanga Davo]

You don't find these drop-dead gorgeous?
http://www.allamericanracers.com/gurney_grand-prix/eagle_f1-photo.html

Well, that's an entirely different concept. Due to weight distribution considerations at the time, no one had even begun to think alternatives. They look good, but for that era.

[Mysterious Rock]

Why narrow the wing so much (I know to reduce the down-force), but wouldn't reducing the number of wing elements or having a maximum value for angle of attack achieve the same thing?

I agree surely in a mathamatical sense if u have a wing half the width of a normal wing, but the angle is double the amount ie
2008 at 50 degrees
half the size at 25 degrees

Would it not create the saame amount of downforce, although in a more concentrated area.

[Azumanga Davo]

I agree surely in a mathamatical sense if u have a wing half the width of a normal wing, but the angle is double the amount ie
2008 at 50 degrees
half the size at 25 degrees

Would it not create the saame amount of downforce, although in a more concentrated area.

Numbers wrong way round. The numbers the way you have them would automatically mean it was cut in half. ;)

[Roamy]

Here is just another chapter in the POS manual by Mosely. In 1997 the cars looked brilliant the racing was exciting, F1 looked like a "Pinnacle" then Mosely got the whip out and F1 has been beaten for many many years. This guy is terrible and I just can't imagine that he is still there but maybe Bernie likes a good whipping now and then.

[Sleeper]

I agree surely in a mathamatical sense if u have a wing half the width of a normal wing, but the angle is double the amount ie
2008 at 50 degrees
half the size at 25 degrees

Would it not create the saame amount of downforce, although in a more concentrated area.

Its not going to work quite like that because at some point you get the airflow seperating from the plane because its at too steep an angle.

[MrJan]

Here is just another chapter in the POS manual by Mosely. In 1997 the cars looked brilliant the racing was exciting, F1 looked like a "Pinnacle" then Mosely got the whip out and F1 has been beaten for many many years. This guy is terrible and I just can't imagine that he is still there but maybe Bernie likes a good whipping now and then.

Wrong way round Fousto, it's Mosely that likes the whipping ;)

You line 'em up I'll knock 'em down (although that was so easy I'm almost embarrased to be the one to say it :D )

[Azumanga Davo]

Just realised. I should never attempt maths eh? :s

Mysterious Rock's numbers make it a quarter of 2008. That would be huge... :)