Wingless F1/WEC cars
Discussion
Since the late 60's F1 cars in particular have invariably featured a rear wing. Lashings of downforce and a great place for your title sponsor to advertise their wares.
At super-fast Monza constructors did as they still do - slimming the rear wing down to little more than a blade. Chapman took the idea to an extreme with a wingless Lotus 72 which still proved lethal when the wings were strapped back on. I think I'm right in saying that Graham Hill's Brabham BT34 was the last ever car to run in an F1 event genuinely (and intentionally) wingless - at Monza in 1971.
Then the ground effect era - surely the downforce generated could circumvent the need for wings. Hence the original long-nosed Lotus 80 and the Arrows A2 . It didn't work out well - both dismal failures.
Now Peugeot have released images of their new 9-X-8 hypercar - perhaps as a consequence of liberal diffuser regs it is designed to run without a rear wing. Should be great down the Mulsanne but perhaps less attractive when negotiating Eau Rouge in the wet.
What's the betting that, when it eventually reaches the grid, it will feature one of those advertising hoardings at the blunt end ?
At super-fast Monza constructors did as they still do - slimming the rear wing down to little more than a blade. Chapman took the idea to an extreme with a wingless Lotus 72 which still proved lethal when the wings were strapped back on. I think I'm right in saying that Graham Hill's Brabham BT34 was the last ever car to run in an F1 event genuinely (and intentionally) wingless - at Monza in 1971.
Then the ground effect era - surely the downforce generated could circumvent the need for wings. Hence the original long-nosed Lotus 80 and the Arrows A2 . It didn't work out well - both dismal failures.
Now Peugeot have released images of their new 9-X-8 hypercar - perhaps as a consequence of liberal diffuser regs it is designed to run without a rear wing. Should be great down the Mulsanne but perhaps less attractive when negotiating Eau Rouge in the wet.
What's the betting that, when it eventually reaches the grid, it will feature one of those advertising hoardings at the blunt end ?
There was some very specific wording from Olivier Jansonnie, Peugeot Sport’s WEC Programme Technical Director when talking about the 9x8's lack of a rear wing: "The regulations stipulate that only one adjustable aerodynamic device is permitted, without specifying the rear wing.".
Now to me that means they have followed the same "flow through" design thinking as Audi used for the R18 but moved the 'rear wing' inside the hollow body of the car. And while there are lots of rules and regulations around rear wing height/width/etc there aren't going to be anything like as many around a wing put somewhere nobody's put one before, so a lot more design freedom. And if you can get your single adjustable aerodynamic device to not only provide downforce but also direct air to secondary, fixed aero devices, feed the rear diffuser, AND reduce drag...
I mean, it's not like any F1 designer would actually design a car that looked anything like the ones on the grid today if you gave them a clean sheet of paper. What we have today is what you get when they are given a very thick rule book, not a clean sheet of paper.
Now to me that means they have followed the same "flow through" design thinking as Audi used for the R18 but moved the 'rear wing' inside the hollow body of the car. And while there are lots of rules and regulations around rear wing height/width/etc there aren't going to be anything like as many around a wing put somewhere nobody's put one before, so a lot more design freedom. And if you can get your single adjustable aerodynamic device to not only provide downforce but also direct air to secondary, fixed aero devices, feed the rear diffuser, AND reduce drag...
I mean, it's not like any F1 designer would actually design a car that looked anything like the ones on the grid today if you gave them a clean sheet of paper. What we have today is what you get when they are given a very thick rule book, not a clean sheet of paper.
Edited by //j17 on Monday 12th July 09:50
A further signifincant (IMO) factor - the current "hypaercar" regs are very much performance box racing. In the F1 example given, there was no max downforce mandated so "underfloor + wing > underfloor on it's own" is understandable.
In LMPH, they aren't allowed more than x Kg of downforce. If they can get that without a back wing, then they lose a chunk of drag. There's also minimum drag, so they can use the "spare" for enhanced cooling / whatever. Always nice to have plenty headroom on things like cooling at Le mans, otherwise you do a Porsche and turn up when it's a bit warm and nearly get beaten by Jackie Chan because all your "push the envelope" cars pushed hard enough to tear =)
Oh, and from a marketing perspective it's genius, even if they add a wing at the 11th hour. Everyone is talking about it =)
In LMPH, they aren't allowed more than x Kg of downforce. If they can get that without a back wing, then they lose a chunk of drag. There's also minimum drag, so they can use the "spare" for enhanced cooling / whatever. Always nice to have plenty headroom on things like cooling at Le mans, otherwise you do a Porsche and turn up when it's a bit warm and nearly get beaten by Jackie Chan because all your "push the envelope" cars pushed hard enough to tear =)
Oh, and from a marketing perspective it's genius, even if they add a wing at the 11th hour. Everyone is talking about it =)
The back wing on ground effect cars - depending on the car - was there as much to help speed up the air going through the ground effect venturis as it was to provide downforce. Perhaps more so. The 78 needed a huge wing because the centre of pressure from its tunnels was too far forward. It needed the wing to put more downforce on the back axle and balance the car. It was an effective car but slow on the straights because of the big rear wing. The 79, Black Beauty, used the wing to help the tunnels work.
The 80 tried to make the whole car ground effect, not just the sidepods. The nose had its own venturi, and had its own skirts too, which were removed relatively early on because they couldn't get them to work. The sidepod tunnels extended further back than they had in the 79, which meant the sidepod skirts had to have curves in them to clear the back wheels. They kept sticking and this was a problem Lotus were not able to resolve and of course it makes the downforce unpredictable.
On top of those problems, the car had a problem with natural resonance, basically tied to the length of the car. In effect, it would experience the equivalent of flutter, which would also make the downforce unpredictable but also put stress on the suspension. This was a fundamental problem that they could not solve. They'd need to redesign the car, change the length, retest and redesign the tunnels. They'd have to design and build new cars. In the end they went back to the 79 which, as all focus had been on making the 80 work, and on building enough of them for the season, had not been developed for the 1979 season nor for the new tyres (I believe they changed in size and also this was the year they switched from crossplies to radials). So the 79 was uncompetitive by the time it was brought back into service and didn't suit its new boots.
Another, more extreme example of the rear wing being there to help the underfloor aerodynamics rather than provide downforce of its own is Brawn's Jaguar XJR-14. The wing is there to extend the diffuser and make it more effective. That's why it hangs low off the back of the car not up in the airstream like a normal wing.
The 80 tried to make the whole car ground effect, not just the sidepods. The nose had its own venturi, and had its own skirts too, which were removed relatively early on because they couldn't get them to work. The sidepod tunnels extended further back than they had in the 79, which meant the sidepod skirts had to have curves in them to clear the back wheels. They kept sticking and this was a problem Lotus were not able to resolve and of course it makes the downforce unpredictable.
On top of those problems, the car had a problem with natural resonance, basically tied to the length of the car. In effect, it would experience the equivalent of flutter, which would also make the downforce unpredictable but also put stress on the suspension. This was a fundamental problem that they could not solve. They'd need to redesign the car, change the length, retest and redesign the tunnels. They'd have to design and build new cars. In the end they went back to the 79 which, as all focus had been on making the 80 work, and on building enough of them for the season, had not been developed for the 1979 season nor for the new tyres (I believe they changed in size and also this was the year they switched from crossplies to radials). So the 79 was uncompetitive by the time it was brought back into service and didn't suit its new boots.
Another, more extreme example of the rear wing being there to help the underfloor aerodynamics rather than provide downforce of its own is Brawn's Jaguar XJR-14. The wing is there to extend the diffuser and make it more effective. That's why it hangs low off the back of the car not up in the airstream like a normal wing.
Edited by kiseca on Monday 12th July 19:26
moffspeed said:
Since the late 60's F1 cars in particular have invariably featured a rear wing. Lashings of downforce and a great place for your title sponsor to advertise their wares.
At super-fast Monza constructors did as they still do - slimming the rear wing down to little more than a blade. Chapman took the idea to an extreme with a wingless Lotus 72 which still proved lethal when the wings were strapped back on. I think I'm right in saying that Graham Hill's Brabham BT34 was the last ever car to run in an F1 event genuinely (and intentionally) wingless - at Monza in 1971.
The 72 was designed with wings - they ran it without wings on occasion, as at Monza in 1970. But to describe it in either configuration as 'lethal' is over-egging it a bit. Jochen Rindt's fatal crash was caused by brake failure and had nothing to do with the absence of wings.At super-fast Monza constructors did as they still do - slimming the rear wing down to little more than a blade. Chapman took the idea to an extreme with a wingless Lotus 72 which still proved lethal when the wings were strapped back on. I think I'm right in saying that Graham Hill's Brabham BT34 was the last ever car to run in an F1 event genuinely (and intentionally) wingless - at Monza in 1971.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff