4 ms·

If I'm understanding this right, it's a similar idea to what several F1 racing teams have been using this year, a concept that's been dubbed the "F-duct". [1]

If I'm understanding this right, it's a similar idea to what several F1 racing teams have been using this year, a concept that's been dubbed the "F-duct". [1] The idea is that downforce on the car is generally paid for by aero drag, and thus if you want grip in the corners, you have to sacrifice straight-line speed. But what if you could aerodynamically disable that wing on the straights, so you don't suffer from the drag? (mechanically movable wings are illegal) They devised a completely passive system that routes some air from the front of the car back to the rear, dumping it out behind the engine intake, just in front of the rear wing. When the driver seals the duct with his knee (or hand, in the case of Ferrari), the air can flow through this path, thus stalling out the rear wing, significantly diminishing its aero effect both in terms of downforce and drag. From the video, it sounds to me like the plane is doing sort of the opposite: directing air not to stall, but to cause an aero effect over the normal surface. [1] http://www.suite101.com/content/the-mclaren-f1-f-duct-how-it-works-a256163 http://www.suite101.com/content/the-mclaren-f1-f-duct-how-it...

hugh3 16y ago
Thanks for the explanation, I've been hearing about these F-ducts on Formula 1 cars (I follow F1 vaguely) and wondering what the hell all that was about. Is this the technology that Brawn pioneered last year?
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  No, this is new this year. It was first seen on the McLaren at the beginning of the season. Last year's Brawn innovation was the "double diffuser" -- and I understand what the diffuser does even less than I understand this.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Ah, I see. Skimming an article on the double diffuser, it seems to just be a creative interpretation of the rules which allows an extra piece of wing to be attached by some means that the rulebook-writers didn't think of. It's not particularly interesting, since it's based more on legalese than on physics. Personally I find the most frustrating thing about F1 to be the way they keep inventing new rules in an attempt to make the cars slower. Don't they know that people watch Formula 1 because they want to see fast cars race?
    - goatforce5 16y ago
      A friend of my dad's was really good at finding gaps in the rule books of dirt track speedway. Like, for instance, it might specify you could only have a radiator of a certain capacity in the car to cool the engine, but it didn't specify where it had to be mounted. If you can find somewhere with less mud being thrown at it or better air flow, then you've got a competitive advantage. Eventually some Nascar teams became aware of him. He told them his time was worth a lot of money. "Money's not a problem!" "If you're serious you'll send me a blank check." Two teams sent him checks. He filled in some unnamed amount, waited to see if it cashed and then ripped up the other one. He spent a few months in the States, came back, and bought himself one of the biggest houses in town. Sometimes chutzpah pays off. :)
    - CWuestefeld 16y ago
      I couldn't agree more. The teams have agreed not to use the F-duct next year. I found the late 80's in F1 extremely interesting due to the technical innovation. By the end of that era, the cars were "active everything", completely reconfiguring themselves (aero and suspension settings, brakes, you name it) for every different turn on the track. As an engineer, I was just eating that stuff up. The argument against it was that the proliferation of technology was leading to development budgets spiraling out of control. But the budgets haven't gotten any smaller since, AFAIK. It seems to me that the cars of today are so similar, differing only in tiny details, that there is precious little difference. Gone is the creativity of the 70s, like the Tyrrell six-wheeler [1] or the Brabham "fan car" [2]. [1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Tyrrell_P34 https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Tyrrell_P34 [2] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Brabham_BT46#Brabham_BT46B_.E2.80.93_the_.22Fan_car.22 https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Brabham_BT46#...

hugh3 16y ago

Thanks for the explanation, I've been hearing about these F-ducts on Formula 1 cars (I follow F1 vaguely) and wondering what the hell all that was about. Is this the technology that Brawn pioneered last year?

CWuestefeld 16y ago
No, this is new this year. It was first seen on the McLaren at the beginning of the season. Last year's Brawn innovation was the "double diffuser" -- and I understand what the diffuser does even less than I understand this.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Ah, I see. Skimming an article on the double diffuser, it seems to just be a creative interpretation of the rules which allows an extra piece of wing to be attached by some means that the rulebook-writers didn't think of. It's not particularly interesting, since it's based more on legalese than on physics. Personally I find the most frustrating thing about F1 to be the way they keep inventing new rules in an attempt to make the cars slower. Don't they know that people watch Formula 1 because they want to see fast cars race?
  - goatforce5 16y ago
    A friend of my dad's was really good at finding gaps in the rule books of dirt track speedway. Like, for instance, it might specify you could only have a radiator of a certain capacity in the car to cool the engine, but it didn't specify where it had to be mounted. If you can find somewhere with less mud being thrown at it or better air flow, then you've got a competitive advantage. Eventually some Nascar teams became aware of him. He told them his time was worth a lot of money. "Money's not a problem!" "If you're serious you'll send me a blank check." Two teams sent him checks. He filled in some unnamed amount, waited to see if it cashed and then ripped up the other one. He spent a few months in the States, came back, and bought himself one of the biggest houses in town. Sometimes chutzpah pays off. :)
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    I couldn't agree more. The teams have agreed not to use the F-duct next year. I found the late 80's in F1 extremely interesting due to the technical innovation. By the end of that era, the cars were "active everything", completely reconfiguring themselves (aero and suspension settings, brakes, you name it) for every different turn on the track. As an engineer, I was just eating that stuff up. The argument against it was that the proliferation of technology was leading to development budgets spiraling out of control. But the budgets haven't gotten any smaller since, AFAIK. It seems to me that the cars of today are so similar, differing only in tiny details, that there is precious little difference. Gone is the creativity of the 70s, like the Tyrrell six-wheeler [1] or the Brabham "fan car" [2]. [1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Tyrrell_P34 https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Tyrrell_P34 [2] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Brabham_BT46#Brabham_BT46B_.E2.80.93_the_.22Fan_car.22 https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Brabham_BT46#...