The Big Honking Fin

[Audi Racer]

Does anyone else think that the ACO mandated Fin prevented the Mcnish and Rockenfeller Audi's from going Airborne. The way rockenfeller's car was moving at that speed im sure that wihtout that fin going sideways at that speed would have sent him airborne.

Both of the cars had accidents were the car was traveling sideways at over 100mph. 180mph in Mike Rockenfeller's case.

Mike Rockenfeller had the more dangerous crash considering there were know gravel traps or tire barriers that their where in McNish's crash.

Anyway does anyone think that the Fin was a success.

[Audi Racer]

oops. Can a moderator move this to the Sportscar and GT Racing subtopic...

[Audi Racer]

Mulsanne mike what do you think about this one. When te car doesnt flip no one even thinks about fins. I have to believe that the fin stopped the rockenfeller accident from going over the fence

[inpitlane]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

Mulsanne mike what do you think about this one. When te car doesnt flip no one even thinks about fins. I have to believe that the fin stopped the rockenfeller accident from going over the fence

I hate the fins but I'd have to say that with both Audi accidents the fins did do there bit to stop the cars becoming airborne.
If McNish's car had of taken to the air earlier then it probably would have gone straight over the armco and into the moat or the spectator area.
Sad to say it but I think we're stuck with the fin.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

Mulsanne mike what do you think about this one. When te car doesnt flip no one even thinks about fins. I have to believe that the fin stopped the rockenfeller accident from going over the fence

Briefly, yes I do think the fin worked as designed. Though this wasn't its ultimate test (hopefully we'll never see that but its out there and will happen).

[HJJ]

"Big Honking Fin" got a lot of air time by Brian Till on the Speed broadcast very early Sunday morning. He had to explain it to Dorsey. Pretty funny and brought a smile to my face.

[ujoint]

"It was ugly at first. But, it ain't ugly no more". Me.

[deggis]

It is still ugly. You just get used to it. Not really a surprise that it is least ugly in the most developed cars (i.e. 908, R18). In television it helps that you don't see the cars so much directly from the side.

[isynge]

In the Audi garage visit on Friday all of the Audi staff we talked to were pretty clear that in their opinion the fin works, and is likely to be here to stay for the foreseeable future. They also stated that their fin was overspecified, i.e. it significantly exceeds the mandated load requirements and in their view, as it enhances safety, is something that they are completely supportive of.

Suspect that they are now even more convinced of this argument, and we'll have to get used to the look of them.

[lms]

maybe it will look better on some futuristic-looking lmps. But definitely not on the current cars.

[AUSRSR]

TBH I'd mind the fins now, sort of grown on me. I reckon they did their job this weekend. Thankfully the Audi's were closed coupes this year had they been open tops the crashes might have had different outcomes

[wewantourdarbyback]

I don't know about Rockenfeller, not enough footage to really tell, but with the McNish crash the car left the ground after it hit the grass, the car stayed flat though. While it bounced as it skidded across the gravel it never turned over. I think the fin played at least some part in that, there was air under the floor of the car but it didn't turn over.

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by isynge

In the Audi garage visit on Friday all of the Audi staff we talked to were pretty clear that in their opinion the fin works, and is likely to be here to stay for the foreseeable future. They also stated that their fin was overspecified, i.e. it significantly exceeds the mandated load requirements and in their view, as it enhances safety, is something that they are completely supportive of.

Suspect that they are now even more convinced of this argument, and we'll have to get used to the look of them.

Yes the Audi fin is over-specified to take advantage of Aero benefits, i.e. Hiding it behind roof Air intake and incorporating a Swan neck rear wing support. But that's up to them, if they want to have a car going around that looks like somebody attached a Portaloo door to it then fair game to them.

I agree some fin regulation was necessary as a safety feature, not least also because this season Engine sizes are so much smaller so the upper rear bodywork wouldn't extend as far back as in previous years.

But all I would say to the ACO is can the regulations be tweaked to allow a bit more creativity in the shape of the rear fin, rather than have these great big slabs of door shaped carbon fibre? Just look at some of the ones we've had in Formula 1 these past few years, a few actually look quite good.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

Yes the Audi fin is over-specified to take advantage of Aero benefits, i.e. Hiding it behind roof Air intake and incorporating a Swan neck rear wing support. But that's up to them, if they want to have a car going around that looks like somebody attached a Portaloo door to it then fair game to them.

I agree some fin regulation was necessary as a safety feature, not least also because this season Engine sizes are so much smaller so the upper rear bodywork wouldn't extend as far back as in previous years.

But all I would say to the ACO is can the regulations be tweaked to allow a bit more creativity in the shape of the rear fin, rather than have these great big slabs of door shaped carbon fibre? Just look at some of the ones we've had in Formula 1 these past few years, a few actually look quite good.

The shape of the fin the ACO is mandating is dictated by the function. Fins on F1 cars function quite differently and one can't make references back to them even anecdotally. The data showed the larger the fin, the better it performs. I dare say it was that which drove Audi.

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

The shape of the fin the ACO is mandating is dictated by the function. Fins on F1 cars function quite differently and one can't make references back to them even anecdotally. The data showed the larger the fin, the better it performs. I dare say it was that which drove Audi.

Yes I realise the F1 cars fins were implemented for an entirely different reason, but they're still an example of how designs can be varied but to the same objective. Audi designed their Fin the way they did for Aero efficiency rather than increased safety, although it was a convenient after effect and goes down well in the PR department.

But in general you can still cover a similar amount of surface area but in a more creative way. It is possible for these Fins to be aesthetically beautiful as well as safe. Allowing a limited amount of angled changes to the straight edges would be a start. Total surface area is what really counts, not necessarily the shape.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

Yes I realise the F1 cars fins were implemented for an entirely different reason, but they're still an example of how designs can be varied but to the same objective. Audi designed their Fin the way they did for Aero efficiency rather than increased safety, although it was a convenient after effect and goes down well in the PR department.

But in general you can still cover a similar amount of surface area but in a more creative way. It is possible for these Fins to be aesthetically beautiful as well as safe. Allowing a limited amount of angled changes to the straight edges would be a start. Total surface area is what really counts, not necessarily the shape.

The objective of the fins in F1 is performance gain, period. In fact the Audi is fin designed just the opposite to what you suggest: Audi raised the height of their fin to the maximum (compare the Sebring car to the LM test car) and then some in order to increase its effectiveness. And the blending of the fin into the intake essentially lengths the fin, making it even more effective. On the other hand, Peugeot's fin has been designed much closer to the minimum heights and their very large "swoopy" intake leads the fin. Peugeot had two yaw induced flips in testing. I'm told there is cause/effect going on. This comes from those privy to the FIA/ACO meeting that occurred in early April of this year.

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

The objective of the fins in F1 is performance gain, period. In fact the Audi is fin designed just the opposite to what you suggest: Audi raised the height of their fin to the maximum (compare the Sebring car to the LM test car) and then some in order to increase its effectiveness. And the blending of the fin into the intake essentially lengths the fin, making it even more effective. On the other hand, Peugeot's fin has been designed much closer to the minimum heights and their very large "swoopy" intake leads the fin. Peugeot had two yaw induced flips in testing. I'm told there is cause/effect going on. This comes from those privy to the FIA/ACO meeting that occurred in early April of this year.

Did you attend that Manufacturers meeting that was held after the 24 hours of lemans this year. Or did it happen already. I wonder what was discussed for the future. In addition who was there/ Supposedly renault was there last year.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

Did you attend that Manufacturers meeting that was held after the 24 hours of lemans this year. Or did it happen already. I wonder what was discussed for the future. In addition who was there/ Supposedly renault was there last year.

The manufacturers don't like me snooping in their garage, they certainly don't want me at their meetings!

And Renault was confirmed as attending last year, 7.19.10 entry:

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsjuly10.html

[Oran Park Forever]

Originally Posted by [B

Flat12-Aircool[/B];2899734]

But in general you can still cover a similar amount of surface area but in a more creative way. It is possible for these Fins to be aesthetically beautiful as well as safe. Allowing a limited amount of angled changes to the straight edges would be a start. Total surface area is what really counts, not necessarily the shape.

Agreed they are truely hideous, completely spoiling the side on profile (especially of the closed cockpit prototypes). So why not make them transparent, as in use a thicker version of the same "Bird strike" rated plexiglass as used for the cockpits? (The screen & both side windows remained completely intact in McNish's accident so no problem with structural integrity) I'm sure with all the technology going round they could incorporate it into the production process of the carbon fibre engine cowlings. So then you'd have the best of both worlds, "safety with good looks"..........when was the last time that happened???


.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Oran Park Forever

Agreed they are truely hideous, completely spoiling the side on profile (especially of the closed cockpit prototypes). So why not make them transparent, as in use a thicker version of the same "Bird strike" rated plexiglass as used for the cockpits? (The screen & both side windows remained completely intact in McNish's accident so no problem with structural integrity) I'm sure with all the technology going round they could incorporate it into the production process of the carbon fibre engine cowlings. So then you'd have the best of both worlds, "safety with good looks"..........when was the last time that happened???


.

You understand plexi-glass is heavy, right? Not to mention how thick it would have to be in order to withstand the flex test? Heavy weight and high up...

[deggis]

Plus it creates more space for ads.

[Mal]

I asked Audi whether the fin had any additional benefits other than increased safety - their answer was no.