|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
31 May 2010, 14:58 (Ref:2701839) | #1 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,425
|
F-duct = cleaner air?
While watching the Turkish GP yesterday, with even more teams running F-ducts, I was thinking:-
If a driver is using his F-duct to stall the rear wing, will the turbulence coming off it be reduced? And if it is, will this allow the following car to get a better slipstream & more speed? Alternatively, if the following driver tries to use his F-duct, will it be less efficient? Apologies if this has been discussed somewhere else. |
||
__________________
I used to be with it, until they changed what it is. Now what I'm with is no longer it. |
31 May 2010, 17:10 (Ref:2701897) | #2 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 275
|
with less turbulence you would expect less tow. You have to look at it in perspective though, the turbulence is still immense and I wouldn't imagine that using an f-duct (silly name) in the tow would do all that much, handy when you pull out though.
|
||
|
31 May 2010, 20:58 (Ref:2702049) | #3 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 335
|
I started thinking about this during Malaysia (I think) when Petrov seemed to glue himself to Hamilton down the straights. I had expected to see something written by the experts shortly after that race, but nothing popped up.
You might have something. |
||
|
31 May 2010, 23:13 (Ref:2702150) | #4 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 200
|
It's called the 'F' duct as it is in line with the 'F' in Vodafone!
|
||
|
2 Jun 2010, 16:00 (Ref:2703295) | #5 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 692
|
Quote:
Its a good point. Anyone have any kind of idea? |
||
__________________
Please, call me dye. |
2 Jun 2010, 16:11 (Ref:2703298) | #6 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,348
|
I'm not sure if turbulence is all that relevant on the straight. It's more of a problem in corners when it prevents the following car's aero from working properly. And obviously there the F-duct isn't used.
|
|
|
3 Jun 2010, 21:26 (Ref:2704179) | #7 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,425
|
Quote:
And was that really the reason it's called an F-duct??! |
|||
__________________
I used to be with it, until they changed what it is. Now what I'm with is no longer it. |
3 Jun 2010, 21:53 (Ref:2704185) | #8 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,422
|
In my mind.. the bigger the wing the bigger the hole in the air a car is going to punch. Hence better slipstream? Once you are in in that is.
Less wing will mean less turbulance... but less slipstream too? If you had a car infront that had 0% drag... and a normal car behind.. there would be no slipstream for it to use? But then again cleaner air may mean a faster car. Or am I wrong? |
||
__________________
Local Track: Aldo Scribante What sort of motorist are you... Smooth or Hairy I'm definitely hairy. |
4 Jun 2010, 13:51 (Ref:2704535) | #9 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,981
|
This is a very complex subject and I am no expert, so anything I say is guesswork and probably wrong!
The purpose of the F-Duct is to increase top speed by reducing drag on the rear wing. As far as I know, over an aerofoil section increased drag causes an increase in turbulence - or at least increased turbulence increases the drag the aerofoil produces. Some early reports of how the F-Duct worked talked of 'stalling the rear wing'. I have read elsewhere that this is cannot be the case. Stalling the rear wing would indeed reduce downforce but at the expense of increased turbulence and therefore drag - which would slow the car rather than allow it to go faster. To achieve less drag the F-Duct and the airflow it controls to the rear wing slot, must somehow reduce the drag by improving the smoothness of the airflow over/under the rear wing. This I would have thought would reduce turbulence in the wake of the car. Again it is only possible for me to speculated how this might affect the car following, but I would guess that it's airflow management - using wings, vanes, ducts etc - would be better than it would be in the more turbulent air behind the same car without the F-Duct being operated. |
|
|
4 Jun 2010, 22:03 (Ref:2704810) | #10 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,425
|
I will have to talk to my wind tunnel tech brother about this!
|
||
__________________
I used to be with it, until they changed what it is. Now what I'm with is no longer it. |
5 Jun 2010, 00:30 (Ref:2704863) | #11 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
An article on how f-ducts work.
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/a...they-work.html What every petrol-head was dying to know. |
|
|
5 Jun 2010, 07:53 (Ref:2704938) | #12 | ||
Llama Assassin and Sheep Botherer
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
|
Its not really anything new its been used on aircraft for years here
I think theres a lot of confusion because not many people understand how it works,including me.. |
||
|
9 Jun 2010, 20:18 (Ref:2707718) | #13 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,425
|
Right, after talking to someone who knows what they're talking about - IF a car without an F-duct could get close enough to a car using one, it should get more of a tow. BUT it would never be able to get close enough due to the extra speed gained by the F-duct.
Not quite sure how the F-duct of the following car would perform but the effects would be negligible. So nothing really conclusive! |
||
__________________
I used to be with it, until they changed what it is. Now what I'm with is no longer it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intercooling on a race car. Air to air, or air to water? | Chris Wilson | Racing Technology | 11 | 2 Feb 2009 23:46 |
European Cleaner Racing Conference - MIA | TorqueWench | Historic Racing Today | 13 | 7 Jan 2009 05:50 |