Cleaning the Aerodynamics 09/02/2008 I have seen a lot of dicussion of Adrian Newey's extension to the Red Bull RB4's airbox into a fin that almost reaches the rear wing. Theories suggesting what aerodynamic advantage might be gained are legion but I think it's as simple a matter as adding a stabilizing fin - and the team's comments would confirm this.Renault R28What seems to have escaped everyone's attention, however, is the ugly scoop that Renault have attached underneath the nose of the R28. When you combine that with the misshapen wing over the nose, the whole assembly looks like some weird exhibit in an avant garde art gallery in Paris.One must presume that the wind tunnel shows some advantage in this configuration but it is difficult to see what purpose the scoop serves. Were there a long-handled broom added, I could see that the idea was to clear the road of dust ahead of the car, a sort of dustpan and brush arrangement. As it is, the scoop seems to be a lower wing element that failed to grow to full size.Joking aside, the scoop must direct the airflow under the nose in some desired way that maximizes downforce from other elements. Apparently, the airstream on either side of the nose is not a problem and is allowed to proceed without manipulation to the rearward areas, so the wing does not extend to the endplates.It may be because it has not been seen before but the scoop looks extremely ugly to me, much more so than Newey's fin on the RB4. The Red Bull does at least create echoes of what has gone before, the Jaguar D Type and the Cadillacs of the late fifties/early sixties. But Renault's invention reminds me of nothing other than household cleaning implements.Sometimes I wonder whether Max should set up a committee to define boundaries of good taste allowed on F1 cars. There is a precedent, after all; he wouldn't allow BAR to have their dual livery, advertising one brand of cigarettes on one side and another on the other. And we might be able to get something done about the Honda liveries then, too...
Clive
Don Speekingleesh Max (well Bernie) did allow BAR to run the cars with a different livery on each side - what wasn't allowed was the different livery on each car.That scoop is pretty ugly alright. Date Added: 09/02/2008
Clive Ah yes, you're right, Don. Failure of the memory again - I knew one or the other wasn't allowed and got it the wrong way round. Date Added: 09/02/2008
Uppili The scoop as you call it is basically an extension of what we saw in the Ferrari F2005. You have got the idea for the scoop clear, which is to direct the air under the nose. If it was a regular wing, without the scoop, the air would come and hit the nose head on nowhere to go and deflect sideways and upwards. You have to have more ugly winglets on the surface of the car to get the downforce from that "lost" air causing increased drag. Directing air under the nose is a concept tried in many ways like the walrus nose Williams, current high nose Honda, the arrows A23 or the SA05/06 etc. The Renault gets a scoop like structure because of the bridges that hold the wing to the nosecone is almost horizontal (again an extension/ adoption from the 2000 Benetton) than vertical to reduce drag and may be give a bit of downforce by acting as a winglet in itself. Date Added: 09/02/2008
Clive Interesting, Uppili. And I think you're right because the Renault does seem to have fewer winglets behind the nose. What it does illustrate rather well is that aerodynamics is an arcane science and results in some pretty strange structures! Date Added: 09/02/2008
Steven Roy I was confused by the scoop when I first saw it. A few days ago I came across the story of the W wing and I think the combination of the scoop and W wing is designed to make the diffuser produce more down force.My guess would be that the scoop is there to optimise the flow under the car and the higher centre section of the W wing (which we haven't seen yet) is designed to work as an extractor for the diffuser. I would guess that there are two possible explanations for the lack of winglets. Either they have something new which they don't want to show or the winglets would interfere with the W wing. Date Added: 09/02/2008
Clive I'm glad you mentioned the W wing, Steven. Although we haven't seen it yet, one imagines that its name is a reference to its shape, in which case it may be like the rear wing that appeared briefly on a Red Bull RB4 during the recent tests. I have seen just one photo of it and later photos show a reversion to the more usual flat wing but I'm pretty certain I'm not imagining it. The thing was interesting enough for me to spend a while examining the photo. I just wish I could remember where I saw it... Date Added: 09/02/2008
Arnet I actually think the photograph you chose chose make the wing look gorgeous! It steps away from logic and looks truly creative. Obviously they have to stay within the "box" but it's one of the areas that, for me, is fun to watch how different designers come up with different solutions to the same problem. All of the winglets and scoops and such look like afterthoughts, but the front wing is essential to the race-car and I think Renaults answer to the question is highly creative and even a bit playful. So many other wings look like accidents or stop-gap solutions until the next update, but this one looks like a result. Date Added: 09/02/2008
Clive It's true that the angle of the photo makes the wing and scoop look quite sculptural, Arnet. A bit too "liquid" for my taste but I can agree that the whole thing is more integrated than many other designer's front wings. I guess I could get used to it being on the front of a car after a while - if I can just get rid of the vacuum cleaner i makes me think of... ;) Date Added: 10/02/2008
Arnet Actually on second glance it looks like a whale-sharks mouth to me, but that's not a bad thing. It's very good at what it does! Date Added: 10/02/2008
Clive A whale shark! That is exactly it - I knew it reminded me of something in the animal world and you have hit on it, Arnet. Date Added: 10/02/2008
Number 38 Now Clive, we've got to have a little chat about working late at night or maybe with distractions while at the keyboard.......how could you even type these words?"Sometimes I wonder whether Max should set up a committee to define boundaries of good taste allowed on F1 cars. "Allowing MadMax to do ANYTHING is a negative we should all fear! MadMax and "good taste"? That can't happen. And concerning today's article ....... does anyone remember when racing cars were BEAUTIFUL, the late 50s Vanwall, the Aston-Mastin DBR1, the Ferrari Monza 750 (a four cylinder Ferrari) ............. today EVERYTHING is ugly, VERY ugly. Date Added: 13/02/2008
Clive Said tongue in cheek, Number 38 - naturally, Max would be one of the last people I'd put in charge of deciding what looks good and what doesn't. ;)I am not quite as hard as you on the modern cars, however (and you left out the Maserati 250F - surely the prettiest ever), and can see the appeal in a clean and tastefully liveried car, even when sprouts weird aerodynamic shapes. The secret is in making the car seem all of a piece and not a haphazard collection of parts and colors. The Force India this year wasn't bad until they got rid of the testing livery, for instance. Date Added: 13/02/2008
Number 38 I'll concede modern "ugly" is more aerodynamically efficient than the good looking cars, aerodynamic or otherwise, ugly is still ugly. The shame of it all is modern performance is so great that we actually "fly" the cars. Too bad. Date Added: 15/02/2008
RSS comments feed
Back to the main blog
You may use some HTML in comments. For bold text use <strong></strong> and for italic text use <em></em>. If you know what you're doing feel free to use more complex mark-up but please no deprecated tags, break tags or JavaScript.
Enter the code shown above: Name * Comment * Email * URL
