2004 Regulations just released

[Adam43]

Originally posted by The Badger
The Lister should be interesting to see how they get around this !!!

I particularly liked Pearce's attitude to the wing regs. Sort of well we'll just have to get 10% more efficiency out of a smaller wing.

Anyway, doesn't the wing on the Lister stick out past the body work anyway. It could make the Audi style endplates easy to fit for Lister!

[Fab]

Do we know if Lister intend to enter one or two cars in Sebring ?

[Graham Goodwin]

One

[Fab]

Originally posted by Graham Goodwin
One

But two in LMES and at LM, that's right ?

[Graham Goodwin]

Nope one car in LMES and LM

[MulsanneMike]

I think Courage is the one organization best positioned to respond to the shortened rear wings as they ran something similar in 2002 when they reduced them to 165cm in testing at Le Mans. They also have some data on the effects of shortened span.

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/couragec60-02-1.html

[Fab]

Originally posted by MulsanneMike
I think Courage is the one organization best positioned to respond to the shortened rear wings as they ran something similar in 2002 when they reduced them to 165cm in testing at Le Mans. They also have some data on the effects of shortened span.

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/couragec60-02-1.html

Mike, are you talking about Courage factory, or Pescarolo Team ?

The link above is on the Courage Evo, the work beeing done, as you precise it, by André de Cortanze ; at my knowing, Yves Courage is not involved in the Pescarolo Team's works on the bodywork.

[MulsanneMike]

For homologation purposes Courage would have to be involve in the end so I'm pretty confident that he has the data that was gathered by Pesca's experiments.

[Try Hard]

I've just had a thought regarding the rear wing width and endplates.
Does the ruling just affect the chord section of the wing? and not the rest of the bodywork (ie fenders can still be at max 200cm).
Where about does this restriction apply? I'll post an image later to hopefully to show you what i mean.

With regards to the courage, i don't know how large an affect the endplate movement will have, because of the outward slope the current endplate has, could the just build a less sloped or straight vertical one instead?

Hope this makes sense, and i've had a few ideas regarding this, which i'll post once lunch time rolls around....

Ed

[Try Hard]

Here are the ideas i mentioned in the previous post

Excuse the shoddy drawing, they have been drawn on MS paint whilst a work...
Number 1

[Try Hard]

number 2

any thoughts? (all pics viewed from rear of car)

[Tim Northcutt]

Not sure if the ACO would allow #1 scenario, because even though that "extension" beyond the endplate is not attached, it would still increase the overall downforce surface of the same plane that the wing is on...

Also, I feel that this diagram in a way defeats the purpose of the endplates...which is to reduce turbulence cause by the endplate itself and to channel air more efficiently over and under the wing...

Scenario 2 is interesting as well....since the endplates are designed to reduce turbulence from the endplate and to make the airflow more efficient over and under the wing, you might want to make the piece directly below the endplate longer before angling it out....

My major question for cars like the Audi, Dome, etc., is how far do those extensions at the bottom of the bodywork stick out??

If they are about 10 cm., I see teams doing their endplates the way R&S did theirs....run them off the edge of the fender itself... provided this doesn't mess up airflow off the fender....

It doesn't seem to have caused problems for R&S....theirs seem to work rather well...but I don't know if they are as efficient as what Audi has done, as an example...

Thus it would retain it's vertical shape and you wouldn't have the do a lot of guesswork and testing to adapt angles or try to skirt the rules to make something work.....

[Try Hard]

bear in mind they are just basic diagrams, more to show the idea than anything else.

Also with #1, as you say there is the turbulance off the end plate edges (forgot about that), why not reduce the endplate to the size of chord of the wing? after all i belive the postage stamp size is a maximum measurement after all, with nothing limiting the min. size.
And by keeping the gap as close as posible between extension and wing, this would cut down the turbulance even more, right?
You also mention one of my major questions regarding the rule, where exactly does the wing width apply to? is it a box section like in F1, or just a general, "this is your wing, i cannot be wider than 180cm" type? if it's the first, I can see problems regarding hte different wing heights (where do you set the reference height for the box etc), whilst with the second, #1 would be possible, as it's not technically a THE rear wing.... (there's another work around for the same plane idea you mentioned, but that's even more elaborate... think '80's F1 car rear wing's, and you getting close!)

With #2, I agree that you probably would want a longer section under the wing, thats shoddy drawing for you! The reason i suggest that though is that you maybe able to keep greater control of air flowing off the rear fender, as courage do. (the pic on mikes site shows the gap between the fender and endplate well, must be some reason for doing so.)
But i would agree that these do seem to be elaborate solutions, and for most it would proably be better to just have the similar positions, just more inboard.
I think with the Audi the biggest problem will be the position of the wing supports, as they are closer to the edge of the wing than on say the dome or courage. This will surely have a greater effect of channeling theair underneath the wing into an even tighter gap?
On the Courage, Dome, R&S, Lister, and Dallara (thank you Mr Short!) they all appear to have an outward slope on the endplates, or are connected to horizontal planes on the bodywork, with the wing supports in the centre. It seems that with this arrangement, it wouldn't be too difficult to send the endplate off the bodywork. After all Laurence Pearce even said as much in the DSc interview...

I think proably the biggest problem for R&S with their endplates is that the wing is set back from the bodywork, unlike everyone else whoose wings are over the bodywork (shortail v longtail for want of a better description). This would mean that you have less control over the airflow under the wing, as the plate isn't controlling the air over the full chord length, correct? I don't have the any valid proof as too how much difference this makes, but i would suspect that the endplates are less efficient on the R&S than any other.

Of course the other questions tied in with this is, will it be worth the cost of developing new ideas, given the fact the cars have only a couple of years at the max to live.....?

Anyway, that just some of my ideas on the subject, hope it all makes (some kind of loopey) sense

Regards
Ed

[Try Hard]

development of idea #1

note no endplate between regulated wing and extension.

[Try Hard]

and last for now (before i get told i have have to imaginative a brain, or too boring a job....)

Either top for high downforce, bottom for low drag, maybe even both for wet?



ed

[Tim Northcutt]

In that scenario, I think the ACO would rule that you're trying to skirt the rule on the shorter wing width, and they will not allow it...even with the gap....

But I also thought that Pescarolo's interpretation of endplates was very questionable, and they passed...

Who knows????

[Tim Northcutt]

On the one you last posted:

I'd have to look at the regs...they might rule that because those would sit on different planes than the rear wing itself, that there are "multiple wings' with those end pieces....

But I don't really know for sure....

[Try Hard]

Then again, no one was sure if the audi's were going to be legal when they first brought the extensions out last year....
Anyway hope this has got our collective brains thinking about this, however trivial.
Ed

[Adam43]

number 2 is similar to what the Lister have done (with 2003 car). Except, there body work is narrower than the rear wing so the curve goes inwards (moving top to bottom).

I suspect they might end up with a straight end plate when they impliment the new rules.

[Tim Northcutt]

I stated that earlier as well, AdamAshmore...and I think that is the solution they will implement....depending on whether theat extension outward is 10 cm wide when you measure the distaces of the vertical planes that the endplate and the outer edge of the fender comprise...

I'm sure that many CFD programs (for teams and for manufacturers) have been running the options and looking at scenarios ever since the new regs came out....

The variety of solutions that they will find will be the really interesting part of the equation...

[Adam43]

Sorry Tim forgot that (that was days ago ).

I too look forward to the variety of 'solutions'. However I expect that, at least at first, there will mainly just be a standard small endplated wing for most.

[Tim Northcutt]

I would agree with that as well...

I think this might require some windtunnel time to play with what works best....

Something tells me this fix to the endplates will not necessarily be a simple solution...