FIRST PRINCIPLES AEROBYTES
TABLE 2: the effects of splitter end plates CD
-CL
With end plates Change, counts Change, %
0.598 -5
-0.8%
1.022 -6
-0.6%
-CLfront -CLrear %front 0.366 +20
0.655 -25
+5.7% -3.7% 35.81
+1.96abs +5.79%
-L/D 1.709 +4
+0.2%
TABLE 3: coeffi cients after various cooling system and rear-end modifi cations CD
-CL New baseline 0.582 1.065
-CLfront -CLrear %front 0.360
0.705 33.80
-L/D 1.830
improving airfl ow velocity through the radiators, the constructors being keen to ensure cooling would not be compromised by any other aerodynamic alterations. These involved blanking off various sections of the side openings in the sidepods, and fences behind the front wheels. The best of these did indeed improve the radiator fl ow rate, but at the cost of some front downforce (see pic 63-3). A few additional modifi cations that, it was hoped, would improve drag included removing the rear of the rear wheelarches and the underslung tail lights, and also removing the engine bay inlet snorkel, which was feeding the whole engine bay rather than just the engine. The
“the wing’s interaction with the underbody had improved”
coeffi cients after this part of the session were as shown in table 3. As can be seen, there was a drag
These front end plates also shifted the balance forwards, but knocked more counts of downforce off the rear than they added to the front. Drag did reduce a little though
reduction relative to the confi guration shown in table 2 (16 counts or 5.4 per cent less) and also an increase in downforce, up 43 counts overall (4.2 per cent) but all of this was at the rear. So the balance was back at just under 34 per cent front ahead of the next phase, which saw the rear wing location being moved. Initially, the wing was lowered in
This confi guration of sidepod produced the best through-radiator velocity but reduced front downforce somewhat
33mm increments until it was 100mm lower than standard. It was then moved forwards by 135mm. And fi nally, the fl ap angle on the two-element wing was adjusted. The results are shown in table 4, with wing position 1 the same as the previous confi guration in table 3. From rear wing position number 1 (stock) to number 4, as the wing was lowered there was a simple trend of reducing drag and reducing downforce together with a signifi cant, almost linear reduction in rear downforce, and a concomitant though non-linear increase in the forces felt by the front wheels. Despite the drag reductions, effi ciency also reduced at each step. However, when the wing was then moved forwards by 135mm while being
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100