I don’t know where else to ask this but I have a question for you. Is the area directly behind the driver’s helmet homologated? Is it posible to put a hole there for the ‘F-duct’ that can be covered by resting the drivers head and open it by the driver leaning forward?

Thanks for your great site!

stoic

Superb column,

I’m sure we would all really appreciate a proper diagrammatic breakdown of the double diffuser and the updates since last year – I’ve never seen a diagram of the diffuser.

LG has very BEST company advertising since sponsoring this column. Thanks LG

Thanks James

Rick

Thanks for putting together such a well-informed website with your incisive comments to boot! Congratulations.

I have found so little of substance on the net, especially with regards to the more technical subjects, so your site is a breath of fresh air.

Keep up the good work!

Nic

The cars use multi-element wings in an attempt to increase the effective area by extending the length over which the flow stays together/laminar and non-turbulent. I haven’t looked at the maths, bur contrary to Murray’s reply, the speed variation induced pressure effect is much smaller than the conservation of momentum effect of changing the air’s direction (air goes up, car goes down). By shortening the effective height of the wing by disturbing the flow through the slot that separates the two main elements, the wing could still function, but in effect as a smaller wing.

What I’m trying to describe is that allow with the physical wing structure there is a trailing flow of high velocity air moving approximately along the chord line (the line from the leading edge of the wing to the trailing edge). This body of air has its own momentum (generated by the wing pushing it there) and in effect extends the size of the wing. The slot between the two elements works to keep the flow laminar and is more effective at doing this than a single element of the same size. Disturbing the flow through the slot, which is what James drawing seems to imply to me, would reduce the effective size of the wing.

I think I had my physics a bit confused – the drag force goes up by the square of the speed – the power is a cubic function, so where I had 15 kW I should probably have had 7.5 kW (its been a while – I did some CFD stuff at uni in 1999, but elementary stuff, not F1 cars).

Looking at the speed trap data on the formula1.com site, I suspect we’re not going to notice too much difference on the TV screen as the McLarens are only matching the Renaults in top speed and are 4 km/h quicker than the Farraris. Picking a 3 per cent variation across the field is tricky with a panning camera. Still if Lewis or Jenson get a good run of the car in front (if they aren’t leading) then it won’t help.

With KERS at Bahrain, I suspect the 6.7 seconds would have been used in about 4 or 5 spots in the lap. Hopefully with the new rules, the drivers won’t be aiming to achieve 100 per cent performance at every corner, giving greater opportunities to stuff it down the inside.

With this limit, and the general constraints within the rules, efficiency isn’t really a key driver these days. Maximising total downforce is the key. At most tracks the cars are running as much downforce as they can get. Efficiency becomes an issue at tracks like Spa and Monza, but at most tracks the relatively high power, low torque nature of the engines means that more downforce is always a good thing.

The McLaren wing will be little to anyone elses until Spa or Monza, where it may do something different.

I’m internally debating whether I’d call the wing more efficient, as in lower drag mode it loses much more downforce. Still a good idea.

Once it was realized that racing cars have to adapt to the air that they move through and, better yet, utilize it there was no denying that henceforth exploiting that science would be one of the ways forward. I think that prohibition of movable aerodynamic devices was a wise choice because it focused designers on fewer problems resulting in more refined solutions. Yes, the knee valve is ludicrous but stalling the wing to eliminate drag at high speed isn’t. More elegant iterations will follow but maximum downforce, minimum drag – that’s something for nothing, as Chapman would say. Like KERS this belongs on an advanced design. The bold ones will enjoy their advantage, the others will catch up, the rules and the engineering will coalesce before long and, with a new baseline, F1 will roll on.

F1 cannot be justified by its application to today’s real world. The fact that it’s a blast is enough.