New Audi Rear wing

[Try Hard]

Just spotted it over on dsc.
Its not what i expected, I thought that they would have just moved the plates inwards to meet the endplates. However they made the endplates extend to max height (unlike before, when the extension "meet" on the lower edge of the wing endplate), and then added in 2 horizontal extension to take up the reduced width. IMO they look very similar to the opel DTM rear wing from 2002.
Bar that it doesn't look to different from the 2003 spec car.
Ed

[Adam43]

While the two box end plate extentions don't have a wing profile, I am suprised that they are not counted as wing. It's a horizontal plane.

Also I am suprised they didn't try to bring the end plates in. After all the actual end plate that finishes at the end of the wing proper isn't very big now. So surely the entention (after the small gap)doesn't do that much now?

[bf1]

Where can i see a pic? I am not a DSC member

[The Badger]

Is the back end of the car more tapered too ? And the side pods just aft of the fwd wheels are longer and dont slope in . Longer too

[Try Hard]

I agree adam, thats why i was expecting them to be further inwards.
And no i don't think it is more tapered
TB, I think the rear wing and front fender/side pods are the only changes (that are visable anyway).
bf1, I don't know of anywhere else yet, but try searching for goggling for paul ricard, Audi sport team veloqx, 04 rear wing etc, all the usuals....

Or just subscribe to dsc, it's worth it, belive me (good plug eh graham?)

[The Badger]

Originally posted by bf1
Where can i see a pic? I am not a DSC member

Hey bf1 ..... hows it going ? I never in my life thought I would meet up with someone from Waterford who liked sportscars with the amount of bangers driving around that town !!! Im just down the road from you , near the "big Strand" !!! Welcome to this forum

[Fab]

Originally posted by bf1
Where can i see a pic? I am not a DSC member

Welcome aboard bf1 !

As the others non-DSC members, you'll have to wait for a wider publication ! Be sure I'm drooling too...

[Try Hard]

Actually gues what else they (dsc) have just published, pics of the Lister, "Pescarolo", and Dome, from the Ricard test.

Now the lister appears to currently be running without endplates, whilst the coura..er..pescarolo has done what I thought everyone else would do, by just moving the (rather large) endplates in to meet the new wing width...
Not sure about the dome, as I can't really see the wing in the pic.

BTW the Pesca does look good in white...

And Fab I'm suprised your not a member of DSC, would have thought it right up your street?

Ed

[Fab]

Originally posted by Try Hard
Actually gues what else they (dsc) have just published, pics of the Lister, "Pescarolo", and Dome, from the Ricard test.

Originally posted by Try Hard
And Fab I'm suprised your not a member of DSC, would have thought it right up your street?

I had the choice : telly coverage (MotorsTV, Eurosport) OR DSC...

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Try Hard
Now the lister appears to currently be running without endplates

It does have end plates they just aren't very big!

The Audi's are so big because they have that separate part of the body work that comes up and almost meets the end plate proper (with a small) gap.

I was under the impression that they did thi s to get round a end plate size rule. I think I must be mistaken because the 'Pescarolo' doesn't seem to have a gap rather, as you say, extends down to the car.

Overall I am surprised at Audi's development, but some of the ideas are close to your guesses in the new rules thread we had Try Hard!

[Try Hard]

Quite, I had completely fogotten about thoose!

(thread is here for whoever is interested)

The #1 diagram is very similar to the Audi's, although where i drew a wing section extension, the audi's just use two seperate horizontal extensions.
The #2 is similar to the courage.

I'm a little confused with what you mean though Adam, as I though also the Pesca Courages had "seperate" extensions last year, although they were a very elaborate solution (MulsanneMikes site has info on this, under courage Evo 03 ). As far as I can tell the big endplates are no longer bodywork extensions, but in fact endplates in their own right (a la the regs for a new LMP car), as the pescarolo car appears to have wing mounting holes in them. The endplates didn't have these holes, although I can't tell for sure though, as its a small pic.

I can't quite understand why Audi went for this option, and followed the Pescarolo route of mounting the endplate's further in board. If the lower wing section is important, why not just leave it in place?
Last years pescarolo had their endplates mounted on a small extension (check the above Mulsannes Corner link to see what I mean), whereas now it is mounted directly to the main bodywork.

Also looking closely at the audi wing, it doesn't appear that what was perviously the extension is a seperate part of the structure anymore (ie I can't see an gaps), which makes it even more mystifying.

Maybe someone else could spread some light on this?


Hope this actually makes some sense....
Ed

[Try Hard]

one final thing i have notced (and this is on my hunt for pics to show the new wings)

On the RfH site it appears the dome is using the low wing that it has previously run at LM. To me, as the wing width has now been reduced, wil they run the wing in "high" spec so as to conteract the reduction in downforce?
Although is it worth the effort, as it doesn't appear Lammers s entering the LMES...

[gwyllion]

People who don't have access to DSC, should check Audi Sport UK Team Veloqx - Paul Ricard Testing.

[jhansen]

Thanks gwyllion! Finally I have seen the pic. I think Audi has made a good change to suit the rules. I don't feel the extensions that mount to the endplates are true airfoils. They would offer minimal if any noticable downforce. I would guess that they have not lost anything in terms of outright pace in the car. The bigger change will be the smaller fuel cell.

[Tim Northcutt]

Originally posted by jhansen
Thanks gwyllion! Finally I have seen the pic. I think Audi has made a good change to suit the rules. I don't feel the extensions that mount to the endplates are true airfoils. They would offer minimal if any noticable downforce. I would guess that they have not lost anything in terms of outright pace in the car. The bigger change will be the smaller fuel cell.

That solution is a big-time "bend" of the rule's intent, but I would agree that it is not another "airfoil" as some have suggested....it is a flat surface with the "box" areas all being parallel from opposite planes, and the shape via a cross-section (from the pictures anyway) looks like it conforms with the ACO's wordage that would not classify those pieces as "wings."

It is an interesting solution...we knew there would be problems with airflow off the tail and the sides of the fenders if they brought those endplates straight down from the ends of the rear wing....

[pirenzo]

why have they made the wing narrower at all?
Is it something new in the rules?

[Tim Northcutt]

Yep...new wing rules in the 2004 specs for a 2003 chassis....

[Try Hard]

good spot gwyillion I'm sure i looked at that site earlier today trying to find an alternative source. Good pics of the wing there.

[Fab]

Originally posted by Tim Northcutt
That solution is a big-time "bend" of the rule's intent

The solution is very clever IMHO - I'm really not a specialist of those questions ! - but I think it was not rulers intention... the wing - or what a beotian as me called the wing - is still 2 meters long, even if the flat part is not... smart guys those engineers !

[Try Hard]

Having had a think about it, the only reason that makes sense to me is that the extensions are used to manage/smooth the airflow in that region. Other wise it doesn't make much sense, as putting thoose extensions there without any "purpose" would just lead to a resultant increase in drag (more frontal area etc etc)

And Tim, haven't we seen Audi have a big rules bend before? The original endplate/bodywork "extension" was one of thoose.....

[Tim Northcutt]

Originally posted by Try Hard
Having had a think about it, the only reason that makes sense to me is that the extensions are used to manage/smooth the airflow in that region. Other wise it doesn't make much sense, as putting thoose extensions there without any "purpose" would just lead to a resultant increase in drag (more frontal area etc etc)

And Tim, haven't we seen Audi have a big rules bend before? The original endplate/bodywork "extension" was one of thoose.....

On the final sentence...yes, we have...but when you look at the way others handled endplate extensions the first time around, compared to Audi, when endplates were created by others, Audi's bend IMO, was "conservative compared to R&S, which had their endplates "overlap", but were not directly connected to the end of the wing itself (airflow would bend them back flush with the wing's plate) or Pesecarolo, which basically left a seam around the wing's endplate and built the "extensions" completely around the wing plate...thus making that wing's plate surface technically much larger than the dimensions of the rules allow...but they got away with it because of the seam...

(Note: See Mulsanne Mike's site and look up both of these chassis...he has better explanations than I do for these differences...but he concurs that those two chassis took "aggressive" approaches to the endplate extension solution)


To address the first part, If you recall watching race cars with wings, but no endplate extensions, racing in either humid weather or in rain, you noticed a lot of turbulence around the wing plates on the ends....

The extensions are designed to channel air more efficiently under and over the wing itself and especially around those wing plates.....the result is better downforce with less air turbulence around the wing plates and thus "less" overall drag.....

The aeronautical industry does the same thing with wing tips and tail tips...but their extensions are upward to channel the air over the wing more efficently...thus providing more efficient lift without the turbulence and drag on the end of the wings and tail....

Hope that gives some insight on the endplates, and at least my perspective of Audi's original endplate extensions compared to others...

[Try Hard]

I agree when you sya the other were more aggressive, but Audi were first with them....
I completely understand what your saying about the endplates chanelling the air more effiently, but from my perspective, surely you would get even more efficeny by placing the deep plate section as close as possible to the wing profile? and not with a 10cm horizontal difference.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that currently looking at the audi wing, it appears to me that the wing section would behave more like a wing without the long plates, as the vertical plates are not close enough to where the wing's accelerated airflow is.

I'll try and whip up a diagram if i have some time....

[Try Hard]

here are the pics.

I hope they try to expalin what i'm talking about. Of course i could be completely wrong, amatuer aerodynamists after all.....

Pic 1)

Showing Audi wing as i see it, and the aera of un affected flow on the outer edge of the plates, as you can see there is greater flow towards the edge, attempting to represent the fact that outer edges of the wing create more than the centre.

[Try Hard]

Image two showing what I beileve happens when the endplate is placed closer to the wing section.
Notice the larger area of accelerated flow closer to the plate, hence more downforce.

[Try Hard]

Just to add, when looking at the pics, image as if you are veiwing from directly behind the car.