FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Nanzilela Obejane]

I think in the end the leverage exerted by the short fulcrum in use is negligible compared to the down force applied. In other words does it take more than X pound to actually lift the front end using the leverage point, and if the wing exerts less than X then there is no lift. The front wing I'm sure could generate MUCH more force if they wanted it merely by changing the angle of attack, but with aero it's always a case of wanting just enough to do exactly what you want without an ounce more of down force risking a net effect of slowing you down. I'm sure there are formulas crunched by engineers during every GP calculating just such things.

I've heard figures bandied about of "tonnes" of down-force created by the rear wing so even if the vector is .5m behind the fulcrum then quite a substantial force at the front is required to establish an equilibrium. Due to the distance in front of the fulcrum the front wing is this would be less than that created by the back wing but still needs to be created. As you say this would result in a slower car.

[atommo]

So they put a spoiler on the front of the car to counteract that effect

EDIT: Oops when you said spoiler I imagined one like the rear spoiler but at the front. Well hopefully its still interesting anyway ^^

[What's Burning?]

went to a race meeting this weekend at the local track and saw wings 1.5m behind the rear wheels. Even a Porsches spoiler is behind the wheel and will lift the front wheels.

I think you're answering your own question. The further behind the car the longer the fulcrum, the more pressure that size wing can exert. Often the regulations limit the size of the wing, so if you can't make it bigger, then positioning is a way to maximize downforce. Or the angle of attack... but that slows you down at high speeds.

[Nanzilela Obejane]

I think you're answering your own question. The further behind the car the longer the fulcrum, the more pressure that size wing can exert. Often the regulations limit the size of the wing, so if you can't make it bigger, then positioning is a way to maximize downforce. Or the angle of attack... but that slows you down at high speeds.

I understand that principle but by doing so the front wheels must be compromised by the lifting effect. I'm beginning to think it may be as you say - not be best practice but due to constraints etc it may be the best option to have them dangling out the back.

Saying that - if you brought it 1.5m in front of the rear tyres would that not give you the same effect?

[What's Burning?]

I think you're answering your own question. The further behind the car the longer the fulcrum, the more pressure that size wing can exert. Often the regulations limit the size of the wing, so if you can't make it bigger, then positioning is a way to maximize downforce. Or the angle of attack... but that slows you down at high speeds.

I understand that principle but by doing so the front wheels must be compromised by the lifting effect. I'm beginning to think it may be as you say - not be best practice but due to constraints etc it may be the best option to have them dangling out the back.

Saying that - if you brought it 1.5m in front of the rear tyres would that not give you the same effect?

I guess in theory yes, but it would present a problem of where you put the driver. It would also not take advantage of the entire flow of air over a vehicle as the shape of the chassy itself is designed to provide downforce, minimize lift and get as much clean air as possible to the back of the car. (where the wing and the diffuser are)

[LRW]

I guess in theory yes, but it would present a problem of where you put the driver. It would also not take advantage of the entire flow of air over a vehicle as the shape of the chassy itself is designed to provide downforce, minimize lift and get as much clean air as possible to the back of the car. (where the wing and the diffuser are)

I think youve just hit on something Genius - remote controlled F1!!

[What's Burning?]

I guess in theory yes, but it would present a problem of where you put the driver. It would also not take advantage of the entire flow of air over a vehicle as the shape of the chassy itself is designed to provide downforce, minimize lift and get as much clean air as possible to the back of the car. (where the wing and the diffuser are)

I think youve just hit on something Genius - remote controlled F1!!

Hey the military does say the pilot is the weakest component in today's fighter jets.

[LRW]

I guess in theory yes, but it would present a problem of where you put the driver. It would also not take advantage of the entire flow of air over a vehicle as the shape of the chassy itself is designed to provide downforce, minimize lift and get as much clean air as possible to the back of the car. (where the wing and the diffuser are)

I think youve just hit on something Genius - remote controlled F1!!

Hey the military does say the pilot is the weakest component in today's fighter jets.

Maldonado flies for the Military...?

[andrew]

I guess in theory yes, but it would present a problem of where you put the driver. It would also not take advantage of the entire flow of air over a vehicle as the shape of the chassy itself is designed to provide downforce, minimize lift and get as much clean air as possible to the back of the car. (where the wing and the diffuser are)

I think youve just hit on something Genius - remote controlled F1!!

Hey the military does say the pilot is the weakest component in today's fighter jets.

Maldonado flies for the Military...?

And he controls the weather and he could well read this forum so ya'll in for it now!

[LRW]

Maldonado flies for the Military...?

And he controls the weather and he could well read this forum so ya'll in for it now!

Controls the weather - WTF did New Orleans ever do to him....?

[scotty]

Interesting question. I can see the logic. Early F1 rear wings seem to have been designed under that logic if you look at some pics from the 60's. But it isn't that simple. Aerodynamics aren't the same as mechanics, the downforce isn't ALL at that one single point on the rear wing (the rear wing probably accounts for only ~30% of all downforce created by the car).

Firstly, the position of the rear wing is offset by the front wing, which is obviously ahead of the front wheels. They essentially cancel each other out in that respect - the rear wing is in itself counteracting the front wing's fulcrum effect, by your logic. The cars are designed so that aero devices work together, not against each other.

Then you're getting into the realms of aerodynamic efficency, where the front wing is positioned so that airflow is tidier over and around the front wheels, etc etc, and it all has to link up effectively, including the rear wing position, to minimise drag. Imagine a car where both wings were just positioned literally along the same points as each wheel axle - the front would be a mess for efficiency with those tyres completely exposed.

Then you have the diffuser, which acts below the wheel centre line and basically sucks the car down all along the floor area. Also negating any potential fulcrum type effect.

Hard to really explain aero in layman terms (hence the somewhat fractured and brief description), but i hope this makes some sense.

[Nanzilela Obejane]

Thanx Scotty, I'm pretty sure there is far more to it than meets the eye. The lifting effect will be negated by all the other sources of down-force (or we would see F1 cars going down the road like rearing stallions - could make for good viewing) but what lift has been generated has to use up available down-force to counteract it.

What would happen if you brought the rear wing forward to link in with the air intake just behind the driver? To my mind it would be above the airflow around the car and the front wing could be less substantial and geared more to directing the flow around the tyres and generating down-force there as well.

Anyway I'll pack up being an F1 designer now (can't see any of the managers breaking my door down) and stick to my day job.

[Jabberwocky]

I think the short answer is, because the rules says so.

Hysterically I think it if because it would have to be mounted behind the gearbox

Hysterically, um, sure!

I blame apple for designing the autocorrect on my android phone.

[atommo]

I think the short answer is, because the rules says so.

Hysterically I think it if because it would have to be mounted behind the gearbox

Hysterically, um, sure!

I blame apple for designing the autocorrect on my android phone.

So... What was "Hysterically" meant to be? [Physically maybe?]

[andrew]

I think the short answer is, because the rules says so.

Hysterically I think it if because it would have to be mounted behind the gearbox

Hysterically, um, sure!

I blame apple for designing the autocorrect on my android phone.

So... What was "Hysterically" meant to be? [Physically maybe?]

Historically.