Contents Author's preface 6 Acknowledgements i Foreword by Gordon Murray, Technical Director, McLaren Cars Motorsport 8 Chapter 1 From then until now — a brief history of downforce 9 Chapter 2 Out of thin air — some practical theory 18 Chapter 3 Spoiling things — front and rear ‘spoilers, and variations 35 Chapter 4 Oh for the wings — from fundamentals to designing a wing 53 Chapter 5 Undercurrents — ground effect 87 ‘ Chapter 6 Removing the guesswork — visualising and measuring 112 Chapter 7 You can make it — DIY construction 133 D Chapter 8 Case studies — Kd from Formula 1 to club categories 151 Chapter 9 Final thoughts 190 Appendix 1 Some wing data 193 Appendix 2 References and recommended reading 198 Glossary of terms and abbreviations 200 205 Index& \ AS 8 & RRae Wy a rf Lett Tes ut ae t q a 2% science, technology, and a, engineetin® ch is why there is scope silat once, i and amateurs. alike tp for profes experiment, and some- cab ne that i but su eg breakthrough ~ perhaps f industry-shaking_pro- ficient t0 gain a fraction partorsscond improvement in perfor. cen too of 4 important. today ‘second ' competitive arena, frac. tend to be pretty Acknowledgements SO MANY PEOPLE have helped me, rectly and indirectly, withthe production of this book that I just hope I havent left ‘anyone out of the following list. I have to Sy 2 particular thank you to a few individ- tuals for whose help I am especially grate- ful; to Tracey, who, despite undoubtedly coming 10 think of a drag coeficient a5 a measure of what T have pat her through these past many months, stood by me all the way, and t00k some of the photos too; to my brother, Andy, with whom T have shared the driving and development of a variety of hilldimb cars since 1979 — he allowed me to fiddle about with the aero- ddynamics of those vehicles more or less to my hear’s content, and this undoubtedly taught me as much as any of the text books T ever ead; David Jefirey, of the Department | of Aeronautics and ‘Astronautics at Southampton University, ‘who, with the help of sponsorship from Penske Cars, will have attained his doctor ‘ate by the time this book is published — he ‘somehow found the time not only 10 check the technical accuracy of my efforts, but also enabled me to put to rest some popur lar misconceptions on how wings and flaps really work; Gordon Murray, for taking the time and trouble to write the Foreword and Allan Staniforh, who set me on the right road at the beginning — you were right, Allan it was a large undertaking ‘Thanks,’ t00, to Dany! Reach, Alison Rodlich, and Flora Myer at Haynes; John Wood,’ Graham Kendall, Paul Atkin, Anthony Baxendale, Keith Read, and Geoff Cam (who sadly passed away just @ few ‘weeks before I finished the manuscript) of MIRA; Nick Goozee and David Johnson- Newell, Penske Cars; Brian O'Rourke, Williams GPE; John Russell, Williams TCE; Stuart Featherstone, Fluent’ Europe; Andy Scriven, Penske Racing South; Mike Pilbeam; Tom — Hammonds; Dave Longhurst, Dave Longhurst’ Racing Developments; Rob Dominy; _ Chris Bemard; Jack Brown and Bernie (Smitty) Smith, " Reclamation Racing; Andrew Chisholm and Mick Kouros, Martello Racing; Tony Broster; Tony Pashley: Bob Le Sueur, Haggispeed; Ed Nicholls, Professional Sports Car Racing Inc; Martin “Tayloe-Wilde, MultiSpons Composites; Eric ‘Taylor, Carr Reinforcements; Vic Claydon; Steve Bagnall and Steve Black, SBG Sport Mathew Laight, Benetton Formula; Giselle Davies, Jordan’ GP; Peter Coleby, GPC Motorsport; Quentin Spurring, | Steve Bennett, John Colley, and Peter. Wright; W. H. Bell; the FIA, RAC Motorsports Association, Silverstone Circuits Led, Brands Hatch Circuits Lid, Castle Combe’ Circuit, ‘Watkins Glen International, Gurston Down, Hillclimb, Goodwood Motorsport, and Santa Pod Raceway, those numerous other hilldimbers who have run my wings on their cars; and lastly my parents, who paid for me to go through University so 1 could ‘get a proper job, only to see me, 20 years ‘on, sill playing with racecars. ‘And not forgetting all the other fellow motorsport enthusiasts I've exchanged ideas with over the years.Foreword by Gordon Murray, Technical Director, McLaren Cars Motorspory DURING MOTOR RACING’S short history, there have been very few technical books written on the design, development, and aerodynamics of competition cars which have been accessible in their style of writing. I can remember studying Phipps and Costin’s Racing and Sports Car Chassis Design from cover to cover when 1 was designing my first racecar at 18, and as this was 1965 there was no section on aerodynamics or downforce! The book was invaluable to me at the time, as it represented the only practical work on the subject of racecar chassis design. Competition Car Downforce is surely ‘one of those golden rarities in the text book library, and probably represents the first really practical guide to racecar aero- dynamic downforce. I feel this book will appeal to a wide range of readers, from the non-technical enthusiast right through to designers and constructors in the hundreds of different motorsport categories . which employ aerodynamics as a tool. After consultation with some of the world’s foremost manufacturers and race teams, Simon McBea excellent job of sate et tion in an easy-to-read style Moma, such diverse subjects as co (with a minimum of mathe the creation of downforce M2 and namic devices, with an expi,td- how they work. At the same yanation some popular misconceptions 4s ¢ Pus also covers how the amateur cot He can attempt to visualise, Measure va quantify the aerodynamic perfor 24 a cat, and investigates how profess! teams and cons a FUCtOTS approach the sip The author has used his own ex ence ~ gathered during 18 years’ are and experimenting with downfore st racecars ~ to good effect, and he round off the book with case studies in compe. tition categories across the spectrum of motorsport on both sides of the Atlantic. I would thoroughly recommend this book to enthusiast and constructor alte, as it is unique in its subject and style and is a very useful tool when tackling the ‘black art’ of aerodynamic downforce. Coven sential the’Chapter 1 From then until ‘THERE IS, PERHAPS, no other aspect of competition car technology that has had as big an influence on performance as the exploitation of downforce. In all the world's current major single seater cham- pionships, including Formula 1, Indycars, Formula 3000 and Formula 3, aerody- namic downforce is the most important single element in the performance of the cars. In Sports and GT cars, and saloon cars too, downforce has a large part to play. In rallying, drag racing, sprinting and hillclimbing, short oval racing, and a myriad of motorsport categories around the world, downforce is now a crucial element in performance. Downforce has become so significant that in most leading formulae, the gov- erning bodies have seen fit to regularly review the regulations concerning down- force-inducing devices in an effort to try to keep things in check. In some cases this has involved drastic, sometimes almost panicky, changes to rules as lap speeds have escalated and lap times tum- bled to the extent that things seemed to be getting unsafe - cars were hurtling around corners at unimaginable speeds, producing driver-battering _ sideways forces; braking distances were being cut to tens of metres where 20 years ago hundreds of metres were required. But in other categories more regular reviews, in consultation with the racecar constructors and designers, has produced a more mea- sured, on-going response to the problem. Other things being equal, this helped to NOW stabilise lap times, more or less. Downforce plays such a large part in performance that devices to create it are expressly forbidden in some of the junior training formulae, like Formula Ford and Formula Vauxhall Junior. And the more senior training formulae permit only lim- ited, and strictly controlled, downforce creation so that drivers may learn in a gradual way how to handle it, how to exploit it, and how to ‘tune’ it to best advantage, before progressing to the top level where it is so crucial. Downforce has come a long way in just 40 years. The first known attempt to run an aerofoil on a racecar is generally thought to have been made by a Swiss engineer, Michael May, on a Porsche Spyder as long ago as 1956. The car had an aerofoil mounted above the cockpit, acting through the centre of gravity of the car, which tilted from -3° to +17°. The scrutineers at both the Nurburgring and Monza, where he was hoping to com- pete, wouldn't permit its use, and it never actually raced. During the early 1960s designers and engineers made further attempts at gain- ing an advantage from aerodynamics other than by simply reducing the drag of the car by making it ‘streamlined’, or by building a lower car to reduce its frontal area. Drag reduction enabled faster top speeds to be achieved from a car with unchanged horsepower, but although this would improve the speed on the straights, it was only going to produceFa, Be speeds catego > ie ‘ve shall 0 pa tess me ooh 5 \ R g 4 5 is A a 4 e 4 iu ze ue Hl a 5 i 8 sg can DORNPORSE camer with es that em to experimented to performance, and ‘t pre tore AP ae feast HOO ports cars and saloon cary appearing Pt was found thit even the works line speeds Were coming hou th increases in dR, 50 too rt reducing. The inescapabe ip cine seer ap Omyas that comering speeds concn gy increasing ad Ths Could ing, Decause “erp had cnt Be, fatfeen the res and the road ed that real doWryorce was ths meat ner being gene particularly innovative Hace remembered again (every. Sy, had forgten about boy fever heard of — May's earlier ox eon) that wings Kept aeroplanes expe by creating a lilting force at ine ee ta che he tes a a cue, why could races Batwa no thei cats upside down, bol Mime a force that pushed the cars and Sfamly ont the road t0 increase the a em al further? The innovative HB eican Jim Hall, who ‘aeared wth wings on his Chaparral 2 art Brdgehampton, New York State, me1906, and itis Hall who is universally ered with being the first to actualy sear wih aero ited FROM THEN UNTIL NOW rr, f It was the star of a revolution in race- car performance. Almost straight away Formula 1 took up the idea, and simple aluminium fabrications mounted on struts litle bigger than flamingo legs appeared tke ash, Bot rewretabhy, i would appear that insufficient thought was put into the design of some. inslatons, because a spate of accidents caused by structural failures of wings and wing sup- pons led the then current ruling body of Formula 1, the CSI, to attempt to ban swings altogether. But after some re-think ing and rapid talking by the constructors, new rules were drawn up by the CSI and wings were allowed back, in. modified and restricted form. Very soon they were in universal use on all Grand Prix cars, and it wasn't long before they began to pervade in other formulae too, The 1970s ‘saw gradual development and refinement Of wings in single seater and sports car categories, and saloon racers were doing their bit too. In Europe, the famous Group 2 saloons were sprouting more than ‘mere spoilers, with ‘airdams' and “spliters’ atthe front end of the cars, and ‘genuine aerofoil section wings at the rear. The next mental leap, that produced possibly the biggest performance leap of all, came in the late-1970s, when another clever engineer, Peter Wright, working for olin Chapman at Lotus Grand Prix, with Chapman's encouragement successfully introduced the concept of ‘ground effect into Formula 1, with the Lotus type 78. ‘The general concept, however, wasn't new. A patent taken’ out in the 1930s described how a symmetrical wing cre- ated downforce when in proximity to the ‘ground, and the designer of Sir Malcolm Campbell's speed record vehicles had found some downforce from the unde body too. Then Jim Hall showed what could be done with a car that ereated low pressure over its entire underside, with his Chaparral 2) in 1970, The effect was to suck the car down onto the road really firmly, and Hall did it by using large fans powered by auxiliary motors to remove air from the underside, whilst ‘skins’. (a Ee ‘The Chaparral 2F, similar to the fist ‘winged racer, the 2E. term which became infamous in the late- 1970s and early-1980s) did their best 10 seal the underside from the outside, and allow the creation of the low pressure area below the car But in Formula 1, ‘aerodynamic devices’ were forbidden from moving rel ative to the car (@ result of easier frowned-upon attempts at making wings change their angles of incidence, from steep on the slow bits of circuits to shal- Jow on the fast bits), which rendered the fan concept illegal. There was one attempt at circumventing this rule in 1978 by the Brabham fan car, when the fan's primary purpose was said by designer Gordon Murray to be engine cooling, which enabled them to win one race before it was banned. So. Wright andvg great step forward was reals Cop et 8 ction beneath the car using OF tors forward speed through the 3 Ser shaping of its underside, In Te terms, the whok iS an in pes oes 4 Vr, ‘ren This enabled the production of hth; ARS unknown levels of downforce, 2n Eorespondingly greater cornering forces. Fhe resultant increase in commering sand reduction in braking di thces (and, in some cases, the removal ofthe need for braking), saw rival design fs begin to take the wing car’ concept ery seriously. And it has (0 be said that the fist ground effect design, on the ots 78 car, was relatively ineficient The folowing year’s Lotus 79, though, was a beautiful and highly “effective refinement that enabled Mario Andretti 10 dominate the 1978 World Championship, and Lotus to take the Consiructos te But the other teams played catch-up very rapidly indeed, and it wasn't long before Lotus were being beaten at their own. game, 50 10 speak, with Williams Producing perhaps the most elegant ground effect car of all in the FWO7 ‘series. The ground effect principle pro- ceeded to pervade formulae all over the red wing which gen world wherever downforce Was permit. fed and a number of other classic ‘ieiens were born during this era, such Se the ubiquitous Ralt RT2/3/4 series, hich was so successful in Formulae 2, 3, we adantc/Pacific the world over. Sports cars exploited the principle too, and ben- tfited from their huge plan areas to pro- duce literally tons of downforce. But then the ruling body produced one ofits famous ‘rapid reactions’, and all of a sudden ground effect was banned in Formula 1 with the introduction of a mandatory flat bottom’ between the front and rear axle lines. The axe fell on other categories somewhat later, but fall it did, although Indycar racing ~ governed by its own rule-makers ~ retains ground effect (through profiled sidepods) to this day, albeit in a strictly controlled form. In Europe, Formula 1, Formula 3000 (which replaced Formula 2 in the early 1980s) and Formula 3 had to pursue ‘other means of regaining the downforce taken away by the changes in technical regulations, Formula 1 cars began a less than elegant looking development route involving extra ‘winglets’ attached to the ‘outer, forward-most parts of the rear wings. It was around this period that some of Grand Prix racing's most power- ful engines were being used, during the FROM THEN UNTIL Now ‘The beautiful and bighly effective Lotus 79, so called ‘turbo era’, and every bit dhywnforce tat could be won sat of the car was needed to assist putting prodigious quantities of power onto the road. Drag became almost an irrelevance with four figure brake horse power levels Sports prototypes like this 1990 Le Mans win downforce. being generated by the turbocharged 1.5 lire ‘engines. The less powerful single seater categories had to rely on striking. a balance between downforce and drag, and wing designs were not quite as out. Tageous as in Formula 1, Sports cars con- ining Jaguar XJR-12 Group car produced tons ofour 8 re Formula 1 went one beter it eves of consol, and produced $0 active suspension’ s9SeM5, i Spo ec a tule aswel as ther ground clearance ir bese an 2 conventional mechanic vehicle. The prime reason for eis was ite cy forse fame reasons, rer than for any pOs- sible handling benefits, 0 in truth, active was illegal = the cars were tow thensches moveable aerodynamic devices, wit cons built in specifically to move things around for aetodyramic reasons. Presumably the powers that be ‘ould separate this aspect from the fact tha a has © more, and ast dos 30 becomes an 2erodyramic device (moveable)? Otter categories around the world can pownrOnce she se of ace suspen ‘and ultimately it way ne omula 1 as well, But deve panned if The underside and diffusers sot gings, t00, came in for more conned nore complex shapes aeons ppeat_ 2s designers started eam ace dimensions, 2nd ‘flow thinking became a trendy phrase, manafehents were bolted on Which Other about gaining critical percent. ee ‘downforce, hopefully with. extra drag penalty. le that disastrous weekend at ‘Then, aft hen Roland Ratzenburger Senna lost their lives in sepa- the FIA, the governing ‘of motorsport, Roa some ed rule changes which had sail act of cating back downforce he Tignifcaly. Some rule changes gute mediate, and removed perhaps a Beer cent of downforce. But rule fem ee in for 1995, which was also rtd in Formula 3000 and Formula 3, applet age increase in the minimum per- Sim a ground clearance over a lange pro- porton ofthe underbody; the socalled : floor was in. This produced a etal reduction 10 downforce levels Ghaybe by a5 much as 40 per cend, and Mie essened the cars’ sensitivity to their Stade relative (0 the ground, which aide them more predictable, and hence safer to drive ‘Throughout this period of turmoil in the European administered formulae, the fulemakers of Indycar had been regu- hily reviewing their technical regulations in the light of performance gains from the ‘as, and imposing almost annual rule ‘changes. This approach seemed to ensure that really drastic changes were never acwally necessary ~ the rule-makers just chipped away at what was allowed in corer t0 keep performance -in check. Naturally, the designers and aerodynami- ciss always did their utmost to win back at least as much as was lost. Recent aero- ‘dynamic rule changes in the face of tyre and engine development progress have dnt allow wo systems FROM THEN UNTIL NOW been somewhat controversial, and itr emains to be seen whether the char ‘work as intended. a ‘Spons cars, meanwhile, had undergone fg taal change, and the’ glorious spons srototype cars had been replaced, essen- filly, with road going GT cars. Downforce-inducing devices were per. pied, including splitters, wings, and rofiled undersides, but in emasculated Form compared to the previous formula, ‘saloon car racing had undergone ‘changes during this period too, and now eiitisted of Class 1 and Class 2 cate- jories. Class 1 permitted quite extensive aexlifications from the ‘silhouette’ of the pase vehicle, and some serious down- force was available. Class 2 started out ooking pretty much like showroom shape, but from 1995 limited splitters and wings were permitted. At the time of writing, though, the rules were being ‘udied very carefully. ‘Throughout the whole of the period described briefly here, some formulae * have come and gone, some have remained unchanged, and others have adapted to rule changes and trends. But wherever its exploitation has been Right Since 1995, Formula 1 cars bave been ‘obliged 10 run ‘stepped underbodies’ as on this 1996 Ferrari F310. k Below ‘GT cars' replaced the sports prototypes; | this is the 1996 McLaren F1 GTR. h 5‘cass 2 ‘Sper Touring’ cars allow Himied doarnfrce this tbe Volo S40. allowed, downforce has had a dominant invence on racecar performance. There are, of cours, other imporant contribu {ors to continually improving racecar et formance, and these obviously include the tyres ~ the four litle contact patches between the Wyres and the ground ult- mately define and limit how much grip a ‘ar can genera. But in the case of racing categories where significant down- force is permite, tyres have developed in response to the gains thatthe aerody- ‘amici have found Tes interesting thatthe perpetual strug- gde of racecar designers to make cars go fasier is sometimes seen 10 be at odds ‘with what might be said 10 be the main purposes of motorsport ~ to provide racing and entrainment for participants and spectators. Indeed, downforce itself 4s seen by some to be the main cause of the perceived lack of overtaking in many facing categories. Drivers are often heard to complain that as soon as they tempt generation with small wings and sphiters to get close behind another car in a eek so as to spsteam past on the fensuing straight, their own car loses so ‘much downforce at the front that signifi- Cant grip is lost, and they cannot sustain the passing attempt. Further, the finger is pointed at downforce for reducing brak- ing distances to mere tens of yards, which, it is said, also makes overtaking with the so-called ‘out-braking man- ceuvre very difficult to carry out Undeniably these effects exist, but whether they are the primary causes of this apparent difficulty to overtake is a ‘moot point, Other factors such as track design, car dimensions, and. ‘Maginot Line’ driver mentality Cthey shall not pass =”) must all be to blame in some part as well, However, during 1996 the FIA com- missioned studies into the aerodynamics of cars following each other closely, in an apparent attempt to find a general contfig- uration that would enable close running, and overtaking to occur. Where would tbe sponsors’ names go f wings were banned? Interestingly, the emphasis of these studies switched for a while from aerody- ‘namics to tyres. It seems the studies indi cated that if total downforce | was reduced, far from making it easier for cars to follow each other, things actually got worse, and the adverse effect on the fol lowing car was, relatively speaking, sreater in this guise. But ultimately the FIA decided to introduce ‘teaded’ tyres into Formula 1 in 1998, in the hope that reducing the amount of rubber in contact ‘with the road will reduce grip, and hence ‘comering speeds, with a commensurate increase in braking distances. At the same time, the cars are to be made 20cm almost Bin) narrower too, which will reduce the plan area that can be used for downforce creation by the cars’ under- bodies; the simultaneous reduction of their frontal areas should _iterease straightline speeds. It emaiis to be seen ‘what the results will be. But it is to be hoped that not too much technical free- dom is taken away by the imposition of further rules banning wings and other downforce-inducing devices a8 some ‘observers seem to want. The science (and an) of producing aerodynamic downforce is far too fascinating to allow that to happen. And where would all those sponsors’ names go? But notwithstanding that slightly facetious argument, there is also a legitimate case that can be put on safety grounds for the retention of down- force as an aid to keeping cars firmly planted on the ground. There are, merci- fully, very few cases of competition cars in any category doing ‘back flips’ these days except in the most extreme and freakish of circumstances, so a unilateral ban on ‘wings’ would be most unsafe ‘There are a great many motorsport cat- cegories that permit the exploitation of downforce, and the remainder of this ‘book will ook at the theory and practice involved in creating downforce in a wide range of these, across the whole motor- sport spectrum.Chapter 2 Out — of thin air re Sy OF cure, SUE nec be a prety Big 1900 Sos ae gra mse dos ther hot bow He the he fink fhe" tte pre bv, re Be poctcaloc hive 1 remain 8 Se oh a ch ae Foes ceact on peachy we have 3 rural fein for come scodyruni forces If wea 02 ‘Gling along ina cat, and we sick an arm ga anys wk nih et ‘eeting troughs dosed one. Secon el te gone santa foe ‘reed byte a npg on the am, He palo of te hand w opened and ted one way and then the er we ca feet pear and downward forces a5 well 2s the force that tries to deag the arm Tuo backwards it thee ae cl the obvious ee seas othe fowes tvohed. Thee ae ‘oor ae, yt gly ina fect, crew forts which we an angle which oetsgc ruber than In the seme Giection. My Alevel physics teacher Sen My ow cxretne ugh ey ioe How HA sch atic tig ones wae ord tan only Attzed C9) by 210mm, 11.7 by 8.3in) piece of writing Rm cae ag oom oF vane bye Soren te foges see Pe hand, Now fold the «opr pow you et ea Mewes, 6 a sree nat to your mouth is horizon. ae ct abaey of te paper allows Ba donors hom Jour fngen ieee en, aces ep surface of the piece of paper; do you see ‘what happens? The piece of paper bends sta NePearde hesueam ot a lowe at of your mnt est a force fee cni on we piece of papee SSeE cao fe upward again Ge pl Stony bbe cdlow Shichi cour Sri hry oes yet te force Shoes einags ithe alow Tis wae Taek wath keepe acopancy te ae Wb abo the Bove ton pushes Troms fy es te grounds when 50 Groce From Aristotle to Bernoulli i So how are these obvious and not so obvious forces generated? Arisiotle, that wellknown Ancient Greek who lived from 384 to 322 BC - a modest chap whove specialised subject was ‘the whole Nl OUT OF THN A, field of knowledge’ ~ had a stab at i. He reckoned that as a body moved throug air, a vacuum was formed ahead of which caused the body to contin moving. Well, you can see what he was getting at... Then, in 1726, sir teas Newton came Up with some more plate, ible ideas when he realised that ale and water moved in response to similar physt- cal laws, and that the forces. involved depended on the density and velocity of the fuid flowing past an object. and aise on the shape and size of the “displacing. object. This was getting much closer to what wwe know today, but sadly his fist go at quantifying things was wide of the mark, and realy under-esimated the reality He assumed that the forces on an object were caused by air particles rebounding from the object in a, well, Newtonian sort of way, a8 shown in Figure 2-1. In ths case, the lift and drag. forces were thought to be the result of momentum transfer between the air particles and the plate with which they collided. This is clearly part of the cause of the forces involved — go back to the arm-out-ofhe- window example, and you can fee! that this is s0. Drag can be parly explained by the Newtonian ‘colision’ effect. But the calculations for the lift and drag cre- 1» ated did not agree with experiment. About 150 years later, another chap falled Rayleigh likened the - atflow around our inclined plate to the low set up by the plate planing on the surface of 2 body of water. But there was sill a lage difference between this theory and the ‘results from actual experiments, in ‘which the lit force was measured at var. us angles of incl or any ou ination, or angles of 1 was not until 1907, when a Russian called Joukowski turned his mind to the Problem, that the flow patterns were cor. feclly visualised, and the formule derived for the lift force were found 10 very closely match experimental results. Joukowski realised that the influence of the inclined plate extended, by the effects Of viscosity, into the air, some consider- able distance from the ‘plate itself, and this allowed him to come up with theo- fies to match observed results. I i inter- esting to note that the Wright brothers had got their powered plane to remain in the air for a distance of 852f (259:8n) in 1903, some four years before Joukowski found “The Formula’ — which goes 10 prove that you don't have to be fully versed in the theory in order 1 make something work in practice! Just as well, because this seems 10 be the basis on Figure 2-1 ‘Newton's Theory of Dounforce’ transfer as lift and drag Ar particles bounce off inclined plate 19 momentum to the pi “ur‘COMPETITION CAR ar convert. An Kalan physicist PY yma om oul sd wes Panic Niet relationship oy in 38, eg ea ee eno rare after Beroul sch aera desces tM 2, ‘onship, was actually deter id Euler qrhoes we wont tempt 1 2 1 2 gare 2-2 Scbemanc of carburetor choke be ‘Aitlow accelerates through constriction and so pressure drops: fastest, the pressure is ‘where he Hemords the ow velocity In ree, the Toca pressure is forced tate that the equation is i a given canine, oF mean ee Se is what makes Princo “The Bertone Figure 22 schemat- 2am cDKE Ube. A ota rough the tube by is ben dean rae engine. The ow ron as been accelerated because of the crosesectional Ot ke tube, 20 there i a drop ae ein the resid pat of the See and peste rc aks pewol through the car ton i Sd nt the lt charge to the engine. now 10 the experiment in yw me err rch ean see what caused the liting and Yerse air above the paper moved (Se than the air below it a6 you blew tert and 2s sich the foal resure are dns presure reduction over decree of the pce of paper created the suticrough force 10 lit the paper 3 ae agains the force of gravity "ra the principle also applies to a wing secon isthe invened, downforceinduc- 3 OUT OF TaN AIR Figure 2-3 How a wing creates dou Downwash Ar travels faster below wing, 80 causing @ pressure drop ea ing configuration, as shown in Figure 2-3, ‘The air which flows beneath the wing, where the wing's maximum curvature exists, has to travel a greater distance to get from the leading edge to the wailing edge than the air tavelling above the wing, So the air taking the longer route beneath the wing accelerates to a greater velocity. And, as in the carburettor choke tube example, this causes a reduction in local pressure, which this time acts on the lower wing surface, and creates down- force by sucking the wing downovards. Professional aerodynamicists explain the creation of lft by an aerofoil in terms of the apparent circulation of air around it, They look at the velocity vectors above and below the wing, together with the “downwash’ ahead of the wing and the ‘upwash’ behind it (in the downforce-pro- ducing context), and then refer to this as the circulation that the wing has imposed fon the airflow. The streamlines indeed do behave as if there was a rotating and moving cylinder of air, a cylindrical vortex if you wil, aligned with the axis of the wing. The lift forces can actualy be ‘calculated in terms of the strength of the vonex. This is all very well if you're a ‘mathematician, ut the concept seems rather abstract if you're not ~ itis, after all, a mathematical model rather than something which is physical and real, ‘And in any case, having once considered the circulatory pattern, they then pass on {o the principles of Bernoulli anyway, 30 for the purposes of this book, this mathe- ‘matical principle of circulation will be passed over. Serious students will need 10 Consult one of the more theoretical texts listed in Appendix 2 for futher reading (on this topic. For the rest of us, Bemoulli ‘will do the job. ‘The forces involved ‘The two components of aerodynamic force are drag and Wft (see Figure 2-4). ‘These combine together as vectors 10 give the resultant. total aerodynamic force, and this is the net effect of all theote. 1 ution for pres above, The peu SACS re om the Sa on for it and cared mabe Game Se Se ice sulle! pres, un A ras = Cox 14 peyton? ent of lift, Cy is 2 force. RS is the coefficient of lift, Co qo roohe 2 pres int ier en of dag, and A is the refer ie spe bate ie CS re 25 Ore Flat plate Co ~ 1.25 Se {Qa >. vs Ds 2 Se Ce Cy~ 0.12 Ri OUT OF Tan atm ence area. (NB For an seri his alvays taken tobe the plan ares bey this how the coefficients ae expense bat in the case of who ves at vention i 1 Use Fromal mess Geigand it) Poh “The lit and drag coeffice uve measures of how much 2 particular shape generatse ding fet, again ou ini ingly helpfl to the exent that a Mat plate turned pe an aiflow will create more agg wn, Similar width teardrop shaped Sag (Gee Figure 2-5). However, we ORS tell just by looking, thatthe Rat pis nee 2 drag coefficient (Cp) of perigee and the teardrop shape, fir legis four or five times longer than us Se has a Cp of about 0.12: But we cas See nts are rela. lift and drag If we look at ion Is surpris. that we brow pendicular to The Metaren F1 GTR sports racer ks less rage than ment ‘When it comes to lit coefficients, sub> fective judgement is not so easy (unless You happen to be measuring such things na regular basis) although some exam lend themselves 10. guessimates, ing the Melarens cited above again, Formula 1 car just bas to have 2 higher (negative) lit'coefficient with is mmultielement aerofois, The Formula 1 Sons car, in road wim, has no aero, and despite a profiled underbody ~ of Which more ina later chapter ~ i simply doesn't look to have 2 downforce induc. ‘be McLaren Formula 1 car.cat wit before cee Foe wen ‘comes tthe 2s inporant ie & never quite ta so kets ok at an exam {1996 vintage) racecas, Formals 1 ear might to avoid ION CAR DOWNFORCE be gover su), 1 22k, then sports race Tated 25 case, 28 St ied, that size 8 NS ude of ae for at the fo bac ote hat Xf ae. the masterpiece was right fe based on real drawing on <¥- ee oe A (200 0.98) «(100 014) «(05028 x0.18) n1Ssqmori8aft Maree dag seals ext possatsee (Oe ox). At the say th font SPE ong Ye scake. appre me looks (0 ‘of lift at he F1 GTR GT Endurance. vi siuforce pro speed: # MO a estimated frontal oe isin, Sanat sof cone 3 ot i mulled by Height in this vo ave overated snd sa ang at 200m Ths 1 ane on rs pos co vit lye, craame oes 0 cs lower..Do the sum re i cent wot ahs ae a Sg cur ubleaie Sting cin oe Seta ae ge tb en a er ene Ont ee crea eaeg aatgitianecgente hegre Sinia gecesi Seip ogee ee patty had oS of ear, and calculate overall C, OUT OF MAN AiR force at 20004 G20kmh) In hey circuit Clow dra) cone Reda the Mona and Recemution cous where tects a en Se only possible, but regularly exceeded. If wre tae approaching uh ere Ss soe aera a (,725kg) for the purposes of these caleas, tions we wil ao us Se ene SE pear the th The ete geenated ia he ponte or ee Eso oath of nent 1 co cour, Fe cma Sen telomere area ewe is presumably analogous to the high spent actu of the Ferma Bing her's, the spam et eae data ana a ae {tee oft Pore Tearat pao teed Running the" eatin Tree ain we setts ec veal Cras ne 232 be ic ee formdtgh ket ioouass ae lenient dene as secupe sins hates te see Sos) aushowe map eerie the tpows tar agony ms eel ie succes ofthe Pomel cents i Gxeting the nega Noe et tee Gi thous ly eve ae Sus in fon of them te demonarat ee ee fe poole Ih Bit core tin bon ora shou downforce, well adap teconec ten of uraong Suse's weal ol diteyenane fem poste By sae thet aga whee ra “te so of lit (ha i downfors) 0 dg (JD) often cuted asa mere Sesame fcteke, M to rene Sorted thought hee’ ihe Pera et Roan UD mo of 310 whereas he GT tars UD mio O61, The mplston 6 at be sands a Der ene ne aca sien as he OP acer Ta is a slightly simplistic way of looking at thing toogh Hoe tee ke fo Sot a ope of oo, Seen Ske pan or te nlc pring wo ech Cacgury So UD mine eng for B SOmparing cars within a given category, ‘and maybe for studying how a given man ‘lacturer develops his cars over ime, but Deraps they should not be used 10 comm ‘are car in ufferentcatewories Staying with Formula 1 for the moment in the years 1994 to 1996 there Were concerted effons by the regulators {0 cut back on levels of downfore, with rule changes to wing dimensions, wing Positions, and also to permited under body shapes, There seems to be a gen gril acceptance that there has been substantial reduction in achievable down. force as a result of these measures. One designer has been quoted as saying that his team tends wo run as much downforce 8 possible at most circuits. Taken against the background of regulatory reductions to downforce, this has necessitated the Use of les efficient LD ratios, 30 the cars how create relatively more drag than they did just two or three years ago. Somehow, though, lap records sill get broken almost every year, as a result of technical progress in all areas of perfor ‘mance. Not the least ofthe ertical perfor ‘mance factors is engine power, and feroe competition between the engine manu facturers has acually seen top speeds in Formula 1 reach record levels, in spite of the apparently deagay aerodynamic pack ages being utilised.” At Hockenheim in 1996, the MeLaren-Mercedes cars were apparently measured at over 211mph G39kmh) on the circuit's long straights, and one of them, with the benefit of a slipsiream "tow from another car, was ‘locked at over 214mph (a4kmh) Drag and power There is a direct mathematical relation- ship between top speed and available brake horsepower, which is based on the equation for calculating drag force. in ‘simplified, imperial units form iti: bay tote yd Go rr ‘Ais in square feet and v is pow in mph.‘COMPETTION CAR DOWN in? and v in sec: TO settee sie oy one a is, muipied tat pe at pled Jee neo 8 ce a by evel seine 2 EP acevo te pase val Pa er wich fer We Ft ak hee we the ceation tat he Fae atthe wes. Tis gabe acon Sto cvewome a esse mie he Race and al Car Sank ot (evil con, HAYNES ‘eatgveea hay able fom which ie Ame sail bosepowee Fett ae yw known. The “Corecion aos quted ae sad ake ‘ooscoun ange ables sch 8 ‘erator lots, fre, re sling Mice and 0 foah The cone i wie) tom ae gue hee ft 4 Selection of competion categories: att, Sobel Type ofcar ies et egies sete wi cod cx nar aes ep Formula ord sal ib) ost Car sig sexer ith tad tne res (eg Forma Ferma 30M, Formula 3) 0875 ue slow spars wth engine sane en fear ven ‘bees (eg Le Mans, Imp, Mind 085 ron eng, rear whee deve ‘ompettion car (eg Chubmans) 082 Awe now make some 1p sped eat tats for our two example cas, De ‘en Format ade Maen OF ce act we get he lowing re, ce abo Puc’? 7 Gp A. bp Avbbp Max spd cr &, 1095 16 700 6125 1956mph Formula 314.5kmh (950 195 600 510 197.2mph wear 317.0kmh square feet, and the bhp values As ite ones realy bandied about in eed ronson press in 1996, so they will the rte uate, even if they are not Ser avaiable Bhp figures have been cor- cording to the previous table, “Sealy, a much lower Cp than 0.75 mua have been used on the Mclaren Famla 1 cat when over 211mph Gpatkmh) was recorded, a value of 0.60 pater being necessary t0 achieve that ‘vith the power and frontal area figures used here. ‘the vast majority of racers do not have tne luxury of access 10a wind-tunnel, which means tha, generally speaking, Cp Tahues ‘will have to be guesstimated Tomehow or other. I, however, a test tack with sufficient room to reach Ghvolute maximum speed is available, nd all the necessary gear ratios to attain that speed are also to hand, then it will be posible to estimate the Cp, once the frontal area has been measured. But whist it is an academically interesting Exercise, it has to be asked “does it really inate”. Top speed is rarely of any signif feance in most forms of motorsport (with the obvious exception of high speed oval racing). And yet, a5 we shall see in a later chapter, it & of benefit to be able to est imate the Cp when it comes to calculating how much additional drag, induced. by cena downforce creation, may be toler- sted at cerain venues, ‘or how much ‘needs to be removed at others. Aisin Downforce and grip But why is downforce useful’ Why does it make cars go quicker around a given bend or circuit when clearly it creates a penalty in the form of extra drag? It's all to do with friction, and grip. Imagine an ‘object being pulled along by a piece of ssring across a surface ata constant # Formula 1 car * Gt car OUT OF THIN AR Re 27 fee ere aera dg z } 600 VY £ ew 3 200 ° 20 40 60 a Rao 160 180 200 220 speed. The friction between the object and the surface gies by another equati ve “The fictional force F = 4 ste the Grech err, repre the coeficient of friction, and Ree ‘normal force oral being’ Son for ‘perpendicular, cen ula, oF vera) bet ee cee and the surface, which, ordi- ly isthe objects weigh Che cals sty paling ts mass ono the sue) The cet of ton is yovemed by nature ofthe object and the surtace reo, 0. for camp ene ockey Puck of wet ce exhibis a low coeficient of clon, andthe ice 1's all to do witb friction and grip (Pilbeam MP72) Beneit Hi gr 4 ae i 4 Bg z 7 i 8 : a : al i i Hi gong Bg = i z i i 5 tonal force tha the car's tyres can gener- ate. If a car creates postive lit, then the ide prke, sional forces that can be wiotced, whereas if the car the, maximum fice re comespondingly sonal ee at other things being increased TM, downforce can acceler car oemer with greater force amin no downforce, OF One Ban? ae Providing these aging forces can be exploited, increased mi yeforce should be able 19 the ar we gt of comers and Straights cover 2 8Tan one without downforce, in es tie Te able to accelerate and cuss and comet faster. And this brake hare Mypout. Naturally, nothing is what MS fee, and, a5 we have already ever comnforce is no exception. The seen, Corrag. penalties involved “mean re Science (and a) is about that ne gains aginst the Toss to ‘Rheve a net benef vate Hite ak through @ simplistic exam- ts wom aythicl racecar taveling ser angle coastantradivs Corner tO a pencfit of downforce. Assume the ved uround the comer in a steady aurea with no acceleration or deceleration forces, just a perfectly bal- tr carneing force (HOt very realistic ‘haps, but the maths is simpler), The Fee ken by the car makes it a right Tngled (0°), 16AR Om) radius corner. Ge have seen that the limiting force hich can be generated is given by P= Th and weil assume j. i an average vasa tyre value of 14. The car's mass is Tr00b (dks). The equation for the force which Keeps a body moving in a ‘roular path, knowin as the centripetal, oF ‘cenre seeking’ force, is given by Fe (oer ‘where m is the body's mass, and r is the radius of the circle. So now, we can say that BR = (oe because the limiting friction is exactly OUT OF THIN AIR balancing the force required to the cela path, and ne vaca {acceleration or braking) are being false This means our driver is very stlind Indeed, and can balance the car precisely fon the limit of adhesion availabe to hing ‘Oh, if only that were possible...” Now let's indulge in a spot of algebraic fignen-pokery, and rearrange this equ tion to make ¥, the velocity, the subjer, viz: v= Vinke/m) From this, We can feed in values for the coefficient of friction, the weight, er effective weight of the car, the comer radius, and the car's mass, and caleulene the maximum comering speed possible in those conditions. If we start with zero downforce gener ation, then R is equal to the car's weight, and the calculation becomes Vows * VILA 1,100 x 32.2 « 164,100), ‘which comes out to eax * 86.0 sec (26.2m/sec), of ‘.émph (04.3kmh) Notice that the car's weight is expressed in this equation a its mass, which is what the 1,100Ib really is, multiplied by the force due to gravity, of 3221 force per I> mass. Using the equation for aerodynamic lif, and substituting the previously deter. mined values for the C,,of 232, and for the reference area, A, of 16sq ft (15m, we can calculate how much dowaforce such a car would produce a this speed Downforce = 05 x 0.00238 x 232 x 16 x (86.0? = 326.7Ib (148.5kg, or 1,457 Newtons) This figure is added to the vehicle's weight to produce an effective weight value ~ the car is now being pressed onto the gropnd with more force than just its own weight, and the value for Ris the 2° weight plus the downforce value Thus, the maximum comering speed now Yo = VILA (1100 + 3267) x 322 1641.10 ~ 97.98 (29 9 /se0), 6.smph (107 em) This is clearly a. significant increase in fOmering speed compared to the unas Sisted value, and to bring this gain into Sion sharper focus, we can calculate the ime saving achieved. by this gain in Speed, Having said thatthe comet was 2 90%, 164le 50m) constant radius, the die tance through itis one quarter of the ci. Cumference of a 16af radius circle, which ce ead be gen by Sa 257.6ft (78.5m). es ‘Time taken = distance/speed So jin the unassisted case, the comer lakes 257.6/86.0 = 2995 see, and in the assisted case, the comer takes 257.6/97.9 = 2631 sec, a saving in this one short Section of track of 0.364 sec. Add to this the fact that the car now enters the next section of track &2mph (13.2kmh) faster than the unassisted car, and yet more fains are to be had from carrying. that extra speed. Then one has to” take ‘account of the exira downforce created because the car is now able to comer faster than before! The process isan itera: tive one. Actually, the situation is not quite this simple, because tyres do not behave in a totally linear way. As the normal force on them increases, their coefficient of friction actually tails off, which means two things = firsly, the maths gets more compli cated, and secondly, the gains are not as big as in our simple example. But never- theless, there are still significant benefits to be had, and clearly downforce has a ‘major role to play in racecar perfor- mance. Production cars and aerodynamic lift ‘The case of the production car is, genet- ally speaking, rather different, with‘oN CAR DOWNFORCE stl les bear 2 arking Tete en es rt th pate Senaton (ee, Figure 2-8). This, creme eane that low pressure 15 TE Sou ive the vehicle, which is the Bice of the upward ting force. AS put is eet into perspective, worth topping to look at some mor TRY downforce valves on coment fone maces arava. iu © ut an unimpeshable SSeeel tothe autor during 1996 that tebe of he Balch Touring Car sonship (BTCC) oF ‘Super Touring’ Cats EF 30 10,1301 (55 10 59kg) of reo teat 1oomph (160K. This Sate 4 OT on a ations are such that downforce is Sepia amas bourne is compared with the produc. ths fates, which do not camry the tom ont ardams, oF the SPIE, Or the deep foe of their racing, counterparts, feat Sen are sid to produce positive are ihe order of +160 (0 +1805 (972 to ti) at 1oOmph (16OKm) then 120 Gans of downforce seems quite reason- Cake nis means, in fact, that the effec. the weight of the C4 16 UD to 3000 water in racing trim than in tan sem cer reat of the downforce. This represents veut 13 per cent extra ‘normal’ force shows, on the tyres at this speed, which Suplsically wansates 10 13 per cent Jeter comering forces being. possible. Breacing category where hundredths of 1 Zcond count, this is highly significant. com econ te her dfons that we wee ignore,and which would seem to rer Sompiene an. akeady. complex eal Bur consideration of these adi tional factors is pretty crucial if we are to restrsand the poeta inuences, Fist Scone the two types of ow which (Ge cus and define them. low may be Sher ania or turulené Pgure 2-5) If all the particles within a parcel of air Figure 2-8 Madern saloon car profile and a postive lift aero shape. Pat ven thw hea may be ofthe same mapas tio as inthe laminar caoe OUT OF TaN AiR a are moving in the sa are mann J same diection a8 theless sigh sea onsen cel by heap Ma loW: However athe ane teh are parallel, then the Now may Faris SA to ia Sie i par he the Now may be sido ines cea su and the sea om age ise to be parallel. The flow has = mina g air become tubule particles ‘Out erratic, non-parallel Getting | ere specifics, flows coer ct as air nee around a body like a car. t may precisely then Meee. follow the shape of the vehicle, im wich se oe OM CA8e it is referred to as ‘attached! flow if ‘yes : is said to be turbulent. Th of flow may be visualised shonly after share ig Om, following the vehicle's pe, Tighting a fire, as smoke rises from the, as is referred to instead as ‘separ- yet ineficiently combust aed’ flow (Figure 2-10). The mainte. dhe smoke ma be seusting fuel. tity pone \ mance of an atached flow has ea (0 rise in more or ay tse influence on drag and downforce, a8 we Figure 2-9 Laminar and turbulent fou, 7 SS > Laminar flow Turbulent flow Figure 2-10 Attached and separated flow. en Separated flow Vdaed (OUT oF Tan Am s oat at and spe seu ait boundary yer. on the other her ‘igure 2-12 Trenton from laminar fo arbi a bag ao somthing Saute nar Bonet omcl aac boundary layer ong an aed Mi be yer such as 2 change of cursus surface ‘roughness’, then the hounds ‘Laminar boundery layer Turbulent boundary layer care fen tule ; ‘ as such, wf the 210. The Poundy, yer wil as | = a ee es 3 freon inoease In thickness futher along Me SaaS Boxy was dear Me aa te srice ofa body 0 tha may Be ne a ‘acon a Lina ove te ft, upper Oe aye ane: of sy. a slon car, but wl eres reas thickness and become tule fone Flow hes seperated ack aon the vehicle (ace Figure net She rou of dsturbances auned ight ent min Seernsotieeae’” | amram rpg ue dele evgon meyer es mg | Sth PT Sues ere ona nya nt int ase dounce fom the sutace surface ition than des a tubuent on, Barna tO re-enengise a turbulent sized passenger car of 45m. (18 76H) Ee aim mites Swami cies Slatin faetpansa Panag or Yom Ce ete ceahconmeabreal mimdn sim ims deine | Peg ree Mteed alee ec a eran Bt equals Naiers Pena tani oii seloeie er eet Oro eas amon Orato wy 0 Seis ecm ee a ee aay reece reac Cinco win sei we Sat, sl eae oncepe of the Reynolds Number. model of the same ear At the same a ‘dyough wach tre isa of a separated flow. This can have in ape Be bay eo on Defined by yet another mathematical for- speed, the Reynolds Number will be a Nelocky walt. fom 2er atthe sur lant positive benefits for drag reduc, face, the local mainsieam veloc at and downforce creation, and so Ie wont mula a5 ‘quarter ofthe fll scale value, or 19 mie 1 outer edge, This yer i elle the be wrong to say that the laminar Cone lion (1.9% 109. Now, i the wind-tunnel “boundary er. tion is whut we are always aiming. for Re prt being used for these tests was only cape 1 the veloc diferences betwen the Whit a laminar boundary layers bance able of producing speeds of, ay, mi anna * Jonvsec, then the. Reynolds Number here pis ar density, w now represents woul fl 10 760,00, oF 76 10, whee | viscosity, vs velocty and Ls ‘some Isa whole ore Of magna lower it | ‘characteristic length’ such asthe length of now possible that reales osaind at hie 4 cat ofthe chord dimension of 2 wing, sce and a this speed might note ta Turbulent the Reynolds Number i perhaps most appliabe tothe fl ar fll peed case boundary ayer simply thought of asa means ofcompar- because the effects of acest sd dem, | dng data obtained at diferent speeds and sty mean tht the Dow pater coud be | ferent scales If we wish to tse metic very ateren. Remember ta the band, tunis this equation comes down to" ary layer sae off fe fait to laminar a the fron of @ moving body, | Re = 67,78, wth vin mvc and Lin macs For users of imperial units Re = 6300 x1, wit vin Vee and Lin fet boundary layer from thin ahd ania 1 thio and turbulent i likely to occur fare {ts imeresting to note thatthe Reynolds ther along, relatively speaking, than on [Number is another dimensionless quan- the full sc body tig; that i when the units of densiy, "So the Reynolds Number i a. conve- speed, enggh and viscosity are ali nent way of indicating the. scale. and resolved in the full equation, they cancel speed at which data were obtained, inCOMPETITION CAR DOWNFORCE ET co ts a ext, Shuained at similar scale and speed. But the Reynolds Number can also be used as an indicator to whether flow is likely to be laminar or turbulent, since, in general, flow becomes more turbulent with increasing speed, and also increasing dis- tance CL) along a body. Thus a high Reynolds Number might be used to indi- cate that the flow is turbulent. Flow is three-dimensional Because it is common practice to display flow around a shape in simple two- dimensional ways, largely, no doubt, because it is easier to draw things in two dimensions, it is all too easy to think only in two dimensions as well. But a car is a three-dimensional body, and air will seek {0 use all three dimensions as it takes its entirely natural path along the line of least resistance, Professional race team displaying an alo objects in a threedimensiong gy ESE fest of us are . Such facies, Sd we eee wah use our ment Fluids always flow most easily from areas ‘of high pressure to areas of low pressure. hae 9 reat of compliance wih the laws of nature, and in the context of air. flow around a car, is not something which usually causes any problems. But air which has accelerated into a low ‘sure region ~ over the roof of a passen- ger bused racer, for example, or undemeath a ground effect single seater = usually then has to slow down again as the local pressure rises and retums back to ambient. A region of rising pressure is known as an ‘adverse pressure gradient’, This in itself is not necessarily problem atic, unless the airflow is expected to make too rapid a change of direction in such a region in order to return to ambi- fent pressure. In such a case, the airflow {s quite likely to separate from the surface in question, such as. at the sharp angle change at the rear of the roof line of a But enough of abstract theory, Seats The following’ charac il devas, BATE of downiontinhae fae orn nine at the Ctical apni tn “ory that explains thei Ree,Chapter 3 Spoiling things Years of instability ‘As we discovered in Chapter 1, Michael May's ill-fated attempt at introducing real downforce to motorsport back in 1956 was either ignored, or — more likely, per- haps — just not understood. Whichever it was, his efforts must have been com- pletely forgotten about, because it was quite some time before racers once more ‘discovered’ downforce, and even then it seems as if it was almost by accident, It was during the 1960s that production- based and sports GT racers (that is, racers k of closed wheel cars) got really con- cerned about aerodynamic lift at speed. By this time top speeds had risen to the extent that the aerodynamic forces were t pretty large, and drag-reducing streamlin- ' ing was beginning to create shapes that could actually cause positive lift. The effect of such lift was, literally, very unsettling, especially for the drivers, because cars could become unstable at speed. This problem would have undoubtedly attracted most attention in the faster sporting arenas such as Le Mans, and the Superspeedways of the United States. However, because their shape is intrinsically less lift-inducing, ‘open wheel single seater racecars didn't experience this high speed instability to the same extent as their closed wheel brethren, So, it was in the closed wheel cate- gories that lift reducing attachments first materialised. ‘Chin spoilers’ and ‘airdams’ at the front and ‘ridge’ spoilers at the rear were amongst the first anti-lift devices, Front ‘splitters’ later augmented airdams at the front, and over the years since the 1960s, as these items have been refined and developed, other variations have been added with the same lift reducing purpose. This chapter will attempt to explain how these devices work, and what can be expected from them in terms of lift reduction and downforce produc- tion. ‘Whether it was rear ridge spoilers or front airdams that appeared first in motor racing is a matter for the historians to argue over. In a practical sense, the end of the car that those 1960s racers would have been most likely to study first, aero- dynamically speaking, would have been influenced predominantly by which end started to lose grip first at speed! But as far as we are concerned here, we have to start at one end or the other, and, by the flip of a coin, the rear wins! Rear spoilers Rear spoilers come in all shapes and sizes, from a simple inclined flat plate as defined by NASCAR and fitted to Winston Cup stock-cars, to a three-dimensional, carefully integrated shape that smoothly follows the lines of the rear of a car. Whatever its shape, for our purposes here we shall consider the definition of a rear spoiler to be a device which is continu- ous with the upper surface of the car, with no gaps between itself and the car's bodywork. Spoilers with a gap between‘Rear soer on a NASCAR Winston Cup Ca” themselves and the bodywork will be Medel as wings, however cre ‘ey and wings will be looked at in @ Santee nadie Soremeee irae ares ae own in Figure the ear of cat, 28 sho SUF Re spoter causes the flow to sepa Are in front of itself, and creates a sepa- sae pole rather similar to that shown ie tom of the windshield, If the ow has abendy separated over the rear ep the car then rear spor wil induce the Now to separate sooner. The effect of this fo ducal reduce the Toca ait- flow vey over the rear surface, which Figure 3-1 Te efit ofa rear oer. ‘Slower flow over rear raises pressure and ‘reduces rear end lift Spoiler over rear deck SPOIUNG THuNcs in turn causes arise in pressure over this area. This therefore reduces the ronal lit created by the unadorned car prog Corculy, tig 4 wear spe doesnt necessarily increase a cars dag That wee ct ae Tee rear spoiler actually decreases diag, bur 2 3 genesaton & would be wise 1 simply look for ait reduction and nee be too greedy! Those 19608. pioneers found that the height of the spoiler could be increased without initially hurting top speed, and, indeed, in some citum: stances, top speed did actually increase, ‘demonstrating that drag reductions were 2 possibility. Then at a particular spoiler height top speed sarted to come down, but 50 too did lap times. This, of course, shows that although drag had increased, the overll net benefit was postive and ‘good, and derived from increased sabi ity and grip. It seems that there may be an optimal height for a rear spoiler, though it is important to bear in mind that what ‘works well on one car may not transfer to another with comparable gain. In one study it was determined that the greatest gain, represented by the change to the rear lift coefficient (AC,) was achieved at 4 spoiler height which was about 8 per cent of the car's wheelbase (this equates to about 8 to Sin (20 to 23em) height for 2 medium size production car of 106in {2,700mml wheelbase), and gave a AC, Value of -0.45 ~ that i, it created a sub Figure 3-2 4 rear spoiler can’ belp bere! a ‘antial reduction in rear end lift which {ured the coefficient of lift at the rear axle from about +0.10 (that 1s, posite (of a NASCAR Winston Cup car. In another study, ACy, values of -0.30 and -0.40 for rear Spoiler heights of just in and din (50 and 100mm) were indi ‘ated, for negligible drag. increments, Indeed, at a spoiler height of just lin (25mm), AC, was around -0 20, and drag, had also been reduced by about ~0.03. The marked difference between the two sets of data in these two studies arises, in all probability, because they were two dif ferent studies, on two different cat pro Ble, and tis serves to luseate how 2 spoiler’s effectiveness is dependant on the individval car it is fited to, and on ‘what has happened t0 the airflow on its ‘ay tothe rear ofthe car. tis clearly dif ficult to generalise, and to further empha- sise this we could visualise an extreme case of 2 1990s hatchback shape with a spoiler mounted at the bosom of the tail fate, where it is situated entirely in the Turbulent wake in a position that can do nothing for downforce production of lift reduction (Figure 3-2) The angle of @ Mat plate spoiler has also been shown, on a production-based. ‘ear shape, to influence the aerodynamic benefit, and, not surprisingly, the more‘COMPETITION CAR DOWNFORCE ‘ncined the spoiler 38, the trac wih 8G, of around Sia a ing 0 about 0. Be ey wih inten ncliation ess, tea aru abot AG +008 a peer in og ere ‘Jould be regarded as significant oF not change i Sony i the car was competing i, for Zeample 2 Bah hin, where oP Speeds fora producton-baed car mi Be limted 10 aout 10010 120nph, chan Em 2 NISAR et eg 2 Tomph.Ecualy, the ear stated witha rag coefient of, ay, 0.30, then an ftease of 08 would be far more ouceabe than the same increase On 4 Car wih a Go of 050. ei dicts nore ei cokes and compromises 0 be made in selecting Tow much downforce & needed versis how mich dag can be tolerated ia a later chapter. But the key points of rear ak tp a pont whch an oaly Speer, up to a point which can fealy be ewrmited by sme form of testing ofthe cat concered, gives more tena in reducing, My dag increases reed not be huge, and in some. siua- tons, dag can actualy be redced. And 2 lnyer spate inclination also creates ‘pewter reduction benef, hough an Increase in dg wil flow. I ineesting to look at what these changes init cocem actualy mean in terms of forces ck by a car, by looking aan example If we conser a Sandard pratuaon fay car with a reference onal area of 258q ft (2.32sq m) trave tet lah (ch, we ed amintetemental changes 1 Cy values io the equation fo c ‘Sle testa oes toed 2 ‘of four, an un foe ye us sb 3. 6k) 20 12a (58.2ke) oe ab cai) 030 Wabee7skw 35 22a 10LAKB) ta) 2b (1634) Remember, when calculating the forces at emetic speed hat the force Is propor. fakal to the square of the speed, 30 at seer ceokminy, divide these figures by di a 20omph (320kmB) multiply TPom by four At any intermediate speed Seer, say 75mph, multiply by the Ghio of the speeds squared, that is Gori00y, For a clearer picture, look at the paph in Figure 3-3, which shows the Iorces created by 2 range of G, values dros 2 wide speed range for a car of feference area 25 f(2325q m). ‘Geary, even wih modest changes 10 the G, values the forces can be substan- tial and it would be far beter to have a fegaive sign on them, 0 that they repre- Senned downforce working for us, than a pealive sign, indicating. aerodynamic lft Thich was trying to Moat the car ofF the read! The sigiicance of the forces can be assessed by relating them tothe state teght of the car involved, as described in Chapter 2 For example, if our refer tence car weighed 220019 (000k), wit, Sy, 4 5050 weight distribution, and we achieved a AG, of -0.25 then at 100mph C60kmh) the effective weight at the rear ‘wil be aerodynamically increased "by Toolo C.7kg), which is 14.5 per cent of the atic weight on the eat ofthe ca. In simple terms, tis translates to 145 pet cent extra pip at that speed, and’ who twouldn wan that mich extra grip? And ven at half the speed, where the gains are a quarer a8 great, this represents an increase in grip of over 36 per cent. This ‘may not sound much, but uken together ith the possibility of very litle drag penalty, even this small a. gain could terse ino vial hundreds or even tenths ofa second offs lap ora time, chet aera onrenneneeeenneen _ ace cs ar Si . A Fm cA é 200 10 20 #035, tr ; > 0 0 8 Speed, mph 100120 If it only made the difference between a min 30.01sec lap and a Imin 29.99sec lap, the boost to driver and team morale alone would make it all worthwhile! But increasing grip atthe rear alone may not help our cause as much as we hoped ~ tunless it produced a lot of aerodynamic lift at the fear inthe frst place, of course. Is more likely, paniculaly with a pas: senger car, that somewhat more lift will be created towards the front of the car, and 0 we have to look at ways of com- bating, and possibly reversing, that hit in order to increase grip at the front end Front spoilers Front spoilers also vary in design com- plexity, from simple ‘chin’ spoilers, which are litle more than a vertical or near-ver- tical piece of rigid, fat sheet bolted to the lower front pane! of a cat, to the beauti- fully shaped ‘airdam’ spoilers now inte- grated into road car designs, and extended in dimensions and effectiveness fon competition cars. For the purposes of definition here, lets assume that a front spoiler is something to be added to an existing car shape, whether or not some orm of spoiler or airdam already exists. Finding a tly adequate explanation for how a front spoiler works is bit like looking for the Holy Grail, What's more, there are some variations on the theme which quite dearly have diferent func- tions, and provide benefits using different principles. However, because all these devices get lumped together under the ‘same heading, descriptions oftheir work- ings get rather confsing. So let's see iF ‘we can unravel some of the mystery ‘without adding to the confusion. In its simples form, an ‘airdam’ front spoiler extends downwards from the Tower front panel ofthe car to reduce the ‘carto-ground gap, and this reduces the amount of air which passes beneath the Car when itis in motion. Some of the air which would have passed under the car is now diverted down the sides. So how does this help? There are wo potential benefits, depending on the type and form fof car. If the car is 2 production-based Vehicle which has not been, or ~ becauseFront pers canbe comple, at on tbe Ford Mondeo Super Tourer. ‘Austin Healey Sprit. (of regulations ~ cannot be much altered from standard, then in all probability will have an underside which i far from smooth. There will be crankcases, geat- boxes, ethauss, driveshafts, wheels, wheel caves, fuel tanks, and all manner (of lumps, bumps, and holes. Clearly, air Pasig unde a car with such an under will not have a smooth passage, and 1s cay to understand chat this station causes significant drag. So, ifthe mass of air flowing through this region is ‘COMPETITION CAR DOWNFORCE ‘or very simple, as on ibis reduced, it follows that drag should reduce, and this proves to be the case Thus, even though the frontal area of a ‘car may actully be increased by the addition of this type of spoiler, the drag coefficient can be reduced sufficiently 10 ‘more than compensate for this, and a net reduction in drag ensues, However, for a car that has already been fitted with a smooth underside, perhaps in a search for reduced drag, a furher drag reduction should not be expected from an airdam; SPOILING THINGS “a in realty, an increase in drag may well occur in this case by vine of the increase to frontal area. Nevertheless, the positive effects of lift reduction/down- force may sill be achieved, to the overall benefit of the car's on-track performance, ‘The second benefit, and the one in which we are most interested here, is that the pressure beneath the car is reduced by the fiting of this type of front spoiler ‘But how does this happen? Lets take an extreme example and consider what hap- if you block off the flow to the Underside atthe front completely, with an airdam which reaches to the ground, This wouldn't be pructical, and nor would ‘most competition regulations allow it, but fers stick with the notion for a while: Ifa ccar with this very deep airdam could ‘move along, the air under the car would be in much the same state as the air in its wake, which is to say, turbulent, and being hauled along behind the cat ‘The wake is a low pressure region (we know this intuitively because not only ‘can we see leaves, dust and debes being ‘sucked along behind a car, but we can feel our own car get sucked into the ‘wake of another car we are following closely), “and in the _ configuration described here, the underside of the car becomes, like the wake, a low pressure region (see Figure 3-4). The low pressure has the entre planform area of the car 10 act upon, and the theoretical result is. a car with a decidedly negative lift coeffi- Gent — that is, one which would create significant downforce (remember, force = pressure x area). Of course, the impracti- tality of such a ground-scraping spoiler ‘means that the theoretical benefits cannot be achieved, but the effect, though much reduced, is sill obtainable even with the type of ground clearance that doesn't requite repairs at the end of every lap. So lift reduction isa teal prospect, and gen- uuine downforce may be achievable, depending on the precise shape of the car, its ground clearunce, and the details ‘of the spoiler and overall car design. The effectiveness of a front spoiler ‘working in this way can be increased by Figure 3-4 4 front airdam. Airdam reduces amount of air flowing under car, ‘and creates wake-t low pressure beneath front Tnsot‘COMPETITION CAR DOWNFORCE e the use of side skits, which help o seal east was 2 change which had no drag the ne aom Now entering along penalfy. At spoiler depths greater than the ders ofthe car Cleatly if the 170mm, the changes to the ACy were tail re nS hanteen reduced under the car, ig off, and had virualy leveled out at Pres pdown theses wil uy to spill 250mm (98in) depth 10 around -0.27 ae ean cemesure area, and Wt was Drag, however, continued 10 climb, etn eres n would rate the pres although the increase even at 250mm aes thick would seduce any ben- depth was just +0.04, s0 the penalty was ae pent have been created, Go not huge (hough i significance would Beckto ne exrcme example gain the depend on your competion area, of er touching the ground, and i's easy course) Fee oe int If tre sides were also An interesting point shown in the data ecco touch the ground, then the on this est was thatthe OC, values actu- Srnne uct the Sear would. be ally increased as the ACy decreased. In cere ie same as\In the wake. Liting other words, inthis test the lift coeicent era rSoun pardon the expression, at the rear got worse a8 the front got Sit they owt gute touch te ground beter This may have been because the eee Coriusly ‘allows, 4 gap aiflow to the rear had been modified by sagt hich air can spil into the the aintam, or it may have been 2 elect prestre region under the cit, mechanical cantilever effect due to the sri magnnade ofthe low pressure 6 overhang of the airdam in front of the Haced which in rum reduces dow front atle. Either way, it is a further force More of this in later chapter, but_lesson In how changes at one end of the {begins to be clear why the elec ofan car can affect things atthe other. Zerodynamie device a the font of 4 cat Anyway, well look atthe font end in Atay be alleced by the shape and design glorious isolation for & minute, knowing Gf components or panels much further that itis potentially risky to do so, and back put some numbers on these ACis values. So, the airdam spoiler creates lif Once again we can tabulate actual forces reduction, or downforce if we are lucky, forthe levels of change to the front end by blocking off the flow to the underside. lift coefficient that the study quoted ‘What magnitude of effect can we expect? above indicated were achieved. Weill use ‘A study done on a road-going passenger our typical family car dimensions of 255q ‘ar shape with a front ground clearance ft (2.325q m) frontal reference area, and of 300mm (118in) showed that decreas- 100mplh (160kmbh) for the sake of exam- ing the carto-ground gap with a simple ple: fat sheet airdam spoiler reduced the front lift coefficient quite significantly, and ACy Lif force also, inkally atleast, reduced the overall 0.10 64> Gdkg) drag coefficient too. With a spoiler depth 0.15 96lb (43.6kg offst 90mm G Sin), the Ay valve that 020 taal Ga. 15 the change ln ont end it cocfcient 023 ab G20) ~ was around -0.21, and the drag had reduced to its minimum with a ACp of ‘These values are obviously the same as shout -0.0, This obviously represents an those in the eater table for the same \ change in aerodynamic perfor. change to the lit coeliient, only this ance, Howeve, it reduction continued ume they apply to the front end. peat spoiler depts, and by 170mm Furthermore, the same comments can be Gin) the AC value had gone down to applied to the significance of these it jhout 025 although drag had climbed force values in relation tothe static 1p 10 is original level again. Here at weight on the front axle of the car in SPOILING THINGS 6 westion. Thus, 160Ib (72.7ks) represents seeper cent of the ‘weight on the front le of 2 2,200 Ib (1,000 kg) car with a $0730 weight distrbution, and. if this fave lift reduction is obtained, then the pip increase at this speed will be in Breet proportion. And, if you recall, in Chapter 2 Wwe said that typical production Gis are said to produce around 160 to {Bob 727 to 81.2kg of positive li, Jyerall, at 100mph. So an airdam front Spoiler could be expected 10 not only seicel this level of positive lift, but if it Gira reasonably deep and’ effective Teviee, to generate some downforce as fell, perhaps of the order of 80lb (G6.4kg) of 50 at this speed. The danger frere, though, is of over generalising, and in realty the effect on any panicular car will only be determined by wind-tunnel for track testing. But we have at least seen that the lift coefficient changes, front and rear, from the two types of spoiler looked at 20 far, can be of the same order, which ‘means that it ought to be possible to reduce overall lift (or gain real down- force) and maintain an aerodynamic bal- ance, which is extremely important. ‘There is a further important, related issue to keep firmly in mind when con- ‘sidering a front airdam for your racecar ~ cooling. And not just engine cooling, but brake and ~ paniculay ifthe ca is front- wheel drive — transmission cooling 100. Interestingly, by creating a low pressure area below 4 car, the flow of cooling air through the engine compartment may actually be enhanced. At the risk of being thought slanderous, it always appears as if the designers of road vehicles include a nice big hole in the front of the car to ‘channel air fo a radiator matrix, but they then seem to forget about getting the air from the radiator. Somehow, the air is ‘supposed to find its own way out, past the engine, and probably the transmission t00, and into the turbulent, sluggish flow beneath the car, However, the fiting of an airdam, which we have seen causes a reduction in air pressure beneath the front of the car especially, can also create some suction on the air in the engine ‘compartment. The effect of this can be to fencourage more cooling air away from the radiator, and the engine may run cooler as a result. This in turn may ‘enable a smaller air intake for cooling ait to be used, with a further positive influ- tence on drag ~ but this would have t0 be the result of some cautious experimenta- tion to avoid taking the notion to a reck- less extreme, and causing overheating. ‘A front-engined car relies on a flow of air over its crankease to facilitate some of the heat rejection, so care must be exer- cised when contemplating an airdam. At the very least, it may be necessary to pro- Vide an appropriately sited cut-out, ducted and radiused of course, to chan: rel some air to where itis needed for this role. The same may apply to a front wheel drive vehicle if the transmission requires cooling in this way, and, in the same vein, the airflow to auxiliary oil ‘coolers must be maintained. Brake cool- ing will be ignored at your peril 100, though the dependence on cool brakes will, of course, depend on the particular ‘conipetition category. But as with the ‘other aspects of cooling mentioned here, itis possible that installing an airdam will interfere with that part of the airflow ‘which transports heat away from the front brakes (and possibly the rear brakes too, le’s not forget). Once more, radiused ducts which channel air to the brakes may prove to be necessary. This whole topic of cooling is probably an area ‘where track testing and actual competi- tion will be the only way you will find ‘out what the ultimate requirements are going to be, Variations on the airdam theme We have seen that the basic, simple airdam reduces under-car pressure by blocking off most, or some, of the flow under the car, which creates wake-like, ow pressure conditions in that region. What an airdam will do in addition is locally accelerate the velocity of the air which does flow under the spoiler, in thei TT ‘comprTmon Ey edad ese fhe ca i of 0 PC Nor eae the ae Blow 20d phe sam tan empty ein edad abe of He cree cs fs roaendne PS i recap as mentioned ee a pear redton 37 sre tng eine. ules we Sr oe we exp 0 sw ped fm 8 eer press 3o how cn tC wll ale othe aa 4d 2 Peet ern wich ened re sie teers nce thee Se Sd rman he ery 10 Beal of nc Coe on hs meen ner cle). Se Fe Fey ‘eat you hve now is deve which acces som andes te ten the namo ap Damen he | ‘airdam and the ground, and a surface on | Sher stow peor can act The Tats tnenfrecing o the Hoxzone Site per orbs ace which proving the nace HiT 10 also create @ ‘caR DOWNFORCE ee ere soon ng. ee ae aren cs oma ae ten go i ee df est nok artis alto hee, at SE pvc ely, a er soins ves a soins we em oe hg Sie foe cn ip Bess cn at oe Ho sea fee he toe Eee ris, Na team eerie Ch ira Toning et ce a fr 95 mp rh Oa a Mee denon si cored feta wi so ctype ‘he spiter Wiuther extension, ttealy speaking, Stich can be sed to the adam i the Figure 35.4 fronatedam iigrated wba difser ‘Smooth, fast low = low pressure SPOILING THINGS fa Vale $40 Super Touring car wi rated conte section tn adam, Compare witb the Mondeo on page 40. 430 called ‘splitter, This is a horizontal Extension of the lower lip of an aicdam which protrudes forwards. Simple, and ‘even crude thigh the spliter’ may Spear to be, i is actually an extremely ficient aerodynamic device which can fereate virwally drag-free downforce! How does it do tha In essence, by tpping fino an area of high pressure. Most closed wheel cars, except the very streamlined, Tow drag type, have fo some extent got a "blunt™ nose. As these cars move along the air divides up and passes over, round, and under them. But immediately ahead of the blunt nose is what is known fas a ‘stagnation zone’, where the air jus kkind of runs into the front of the car Some of it is ducted into the cooling system from this area, which is logical because the air here is, relatively speak- fing, ata locally raised pressure, and s0 it will naturally follow ‘any path which allows some relief to the high pressure. ‘The stagnation zone can pethaps be thought of as high pressure air bubble stuck to the front of the car. Once again, therefore, we have a parcel of air that can be exploited, and again the technique is, prety simple — stick a flat plate out ino it 30 thatthe high pressure exisis above the plate, and the ‘raised pressure presses ‘down onto the plate, thus creating down- force (see Figure 3-6). ’A spliter will lso tend to assist with the original function of an airdam too, in that it is bound to restrict the amount of air that flows into the underside region of the car, Ths, in a sense, a splger has the same effect as a deeper ainlam, and as 2 result, yet more ar is diverted around the ‘ides of a car. This may help to account for the efficiency of the spliter as 2 downforce inducing device, in that very litte if any exta’ drag seems to be incurred by a properly integrated spliter. (indeed i was said that_one Super "Touring car in 1996, when fited with just the front airdanvspliter kit, produced less drag than its standard ‘production sister The drag figure only got worse‘stagnation zone sean te ment ofthe wider cing 18 Ta fe fear acofol) The amount Portree can be conoid DY Se ena of he sper, up 10 2 pol She sper age, hen 8 fie 1 imple means of contaling pore downforce balance See catego of eoune, such Sper Tourn ers profii charges Ue 'hpe, whee scrdymamic pack: Shave to be fied foreach ene Ts pohaps seven hat itis only wort Making 2 iter of 2 cerain Teng. tf proses beyond the ih freer sagtauon reion i il yld no ‘ional enc, eas become a felnenble lay dinging fone of te cat Equally apparent that a spite Stpiy wl no work all on ca hat fas sleek, tow dag shape wih a len Ay frontend. The creston ofthe high fresue. pation sone comes about Exstse mnt crs ave lie fot end, oud here a apliter cn tp the high pres Sure area ahead of W your car has 3 sc snd fini tpered nose scton, though there may Be no high press ‘Smooth, fast lw «low pressure "ot other routes to gain down and you will have to pursue force. ne of te apparent problems with 3 finer arrangement is that i can be very seeaddearance sensiive, of, f yOu ‘Een ‘ade height sensitive” Changes t0 Fie ride height of a car, caused by a com- phnation of dynamic suspension changes dich as ‘dive under braking, and com- pression as the direct result of down- force, quite naturally alter the ground earance of the whole of the body of a far But sirdams and spliters are already Very close to the ground, and as we have Seen, ther very operation as aerodynamic evices isa function of theie proximity to the ground. The nearer the ground they become, the more downforce they tend to create, So iis possible to envisage the situation where a car may produce very Inconsistent amounts of downforce because is de height Is constandy fluc- ‘wating. One way of reducing this prob- Jem 1 to stiffen the cars suspension, which reduces the amount of suspension deflection for a given input load, be it ‘mechanical or aerodynamic. This can have disadvantages, not only in terms of area 10 tap, SPOILING THINGS ° ee fn de «wom he, bt no ivi ily by reducing the ability of the pe oad conor wth ee ak tower conc i ae a ao ly Fe sh ae ami ol fg, 50 Nace nc etre footianges. in ride height, and which wt cate een fet hoe cut ef ape Ei ET scaly mented vats Se sie caesar on i, te le ey ie ge cy te Ha re Sa on SE ee be the re of blocking’ the flow 10 the rosy oe el and Sader com ee wld eae Ce cp fe Ba lok ln cr aed teat so te Oa? Se TP Se fat cad we ee tet a conan of ser a ey Pu ca ssn scam, le were okie ot esl. uy Oat rn gee There 6 no doubt that spliter cn produce sgn downer 199 the Mclaren FI GTR spore racer had teen the repent of wry Ie aera amie development tine, jst one doy having appareniy been’ spent the indie! prior 10 the’ date when Sesgns had we homologaed and fed forthe season. I bas worlemen feat wing 4 rear une sy ad Simpie" nose secon cng an Ail and very small sper Kondo Steere for most of the season, the front helsing sot se gp than the fears For 1935, umber of changes fwere made; the ies enforced swtch {0-4 angleclment rear wing, bt ao tow permiged ster exteg up to fmm fonher forwards, The, cx wat res ing cory re min funnel teng thin he previous year, Sd, Gordon Moray eat, dower ‘wasup by an amaing 60 pe cent on the Drevios yea Iwas so beer balance fin the previous years undenseet faving been eadisted’ Now whist some Of ts mprovement was due 1 other evelopment, the fing of the front ‘he Bomm spliter extension belped eradicate underser onthe Mclaren FI GTR n 1996.«“ splter did help the GTR to produce si faficanuly more front end downforce: Ir has been reposted that a passenget based closed wheel racecar produced a [SGu value of -020 for a AC of just “0102 with he fing of fall wh ter of unspecified dimensions. Clearly this fe very efficent gain in downdorce, and frcan be added tothe gains achieved from an ainlam, & can be seen that the Combined result might be as high a8 4 Gy of around -040 10-045, For ovr reference ‘typical passenger ca, fr c23zsq. m) frontal area at 10Omph {uGokmnh, this would create 256 to 28815 (i164 wo 1309kg) of downforce to over- ome natural lft and add 10 grip at speed Not just closed wheelers Spliters may be thought of as devices Rhone use was limited (0 closed whee! fheecars such as saloons/sedans, and Spon GT cars. But this isnot so, Spiers fave been used successfully in some single seater applications as well as the “open whee!” sports racer in the form of Some Forma ‘COMPETITION CAR DOWNFORCE the Clubmans car, which includes cate- ees such as Formula 750 and Formula egy in the UK. In the late-1970s single jee an with what used to be rather Sefuely called full width n0se cones’ as Sidinct from the narrow-nose-With-wings GeNfuration, and cars lke the March Seu/7e37793, Chevron B38/B40. and Feemnla 2 and Formula 3 racers of similar Fiage were very successful with such wee salled, Most of them utilised Pome form. of splitter, which was some SONS adjustable, and there would appear te'have been no problem balancing the Mlownforce from the rear wing. with this Steup. Another form of adjustment applied to this nose type was the attach- arr of height-adjustable vertical plates mounted 10 the top lip of the nose, just head of the front wheels, Clearly these plates ‘would act rather lke a ridge Spoiler on the rear of a car, and would fave the effect of separating the flow focally, and creating small high pressure bubbles ahead of themselves. The addi- tional downforce would not be great, but they provided a method of fine tuning. a 750 car sete wide nose wth spliter arrangement. Tis be Jenniecar M1. SPOILING THINas ‘This shape of nose continues to find i amongst the competitors in some favou ferewores, and it may well be that on ce Cars it offers a lower drag, more say Of gereaing Connie Ae ined of ene toepe Ther So acer, who have sey ie form pay why and erly homer o thay fl wih nose see 1c ig by cveing ome ot fen owe ata tne fon eet te on tg ha en faut now pes d fot art ee cocci Wat aS Ft winks aajabes yer choke, one yin Toe hac and Rally Feline oot apes fog Ce So ii ven vais tae coneoporcel wee ch ane a Oe iets ose Sik a esters Wang sp hincaan vee te ear a to 12am) were 2 ee wan, spent ere, Re wnt Col ened tat compress why ae of speein ae Ap ‘cantly, and ay {0 be dialled in in the pad dock bere ue tearm = that the splinter needs to alld specie arenes ming, One of the above mentio es te wre of its splinter braced, and it could cnnenaa ee scien eerie epee mene Staa ‘strut cured this particular problem, ra i peers tea earn womyet, cinaraiecat een 2 eit hori mies an Cautmamnn Enirccari! Steet i ela Bagong oon ‘he underchasss Spite’ on the Jordan 196 Formula 1 car. (Tracey ings) oS osama. astm msreuMen’s @EBL furniture‘ho ye abo splot Van Dremen RF9T Porm ental chasis. Thus, on most of the Sete he fat undead js shea! of fw reel pa fe nse Mion im much the same Way 25 8 Spc pue forward of apa, Trcquenly there scope for 2 sal sete ate to orm above ths “pl Sen cate 4 pesuredileetal ‘hich ase downforce, An furter Teka Formula Las and many ther Scar singe, sees) thee are fa ‘Siero the undenide which sick So the, maximum permited oy Sitka” ahead ofthe seat whee. Again These panes epi the stration zone thar ela imme abe of the ear tyes to cene a presure diferent Sfove and below them, and ad 10 the fare oneal downfone. In cach case thes pun nec to be rl enough to tect bending under the fore applied, nd wo wana tat foe tthe esis Sa hence there cots! patches Dive, dive, divel Another device which we will inchude in this chapter, since it doesn't nealy fall under any other heading, is the “dive Renault por car plate, of ‘dive plane’ if you prefer, so Dated because of its resemblance t0 the ive planes on submarines. In their sim- plest form they are fat plates, inclined Gownwards at the front, atached 10 the fower sides of the ‘front ends. of Stloon/sedan and sports GT racers. Such an inclined plate Will, of course, create some value of downforce, but it would ‘not be expected to be very much, oF very Cicient. Again, they could be viewed 28, 3 means of fine tuning if they were fdjustable of perhaps interchangeable However, there have been cases. where ‘overall downforce figures have increased ‘considerably simply with the iting. of dive plates, to levels that could not pos sibly ‘arise direcly from the dive plates themselves Th these instances, there must have been some secondary influence on air flow which had a beneficial effect, and it {s likely that the effect in these cases was to set Up a vortex pattern down the sides of the car, which had the result of seal ing the underside from flow which other wise would have leaked in from the sides. This in turn could lead to more scien dowaforce production fom the ey ine of which in a er are and Bey. presto, kas. more sree jst y fiting ite dive plates dove tont Ther ite Tele that a ure racer wl sik Iucky and a ind of pene rom the ting of es a few days ina wine ina ete you to ote ti Moning and inlnaon ~ but 3s rae vices, they obviously have a fine’ pive pats have mutated ito 2 Sy more complex Tors, and ‘She es in is immediately apparent Tene designers were aiming £9 5c Up braces dow theses of te car whist thothers the devices appear to be tere Feetine tung only. Safety angles in NASCAR Winston Cup stock-cars lap at very high speeds on ovals and. Superspeedways, and as such, the aerodynamic forces ‘which act upon them are pretty enor- ‘mous. Downforce is held in check, with strict rules on airdams and rear spoilers, and bold efforts at aerodynamic parity between the different makes of cars are ‘Dee plates om tbe front of hs Marcos LM600 GT2 contender. also made by the regultor in an effort to ensure food show te put on and everbody i competive- But tree Is ‘one problem ‘which afited NASCAR which seems 1o have Been price tha eategor in terms oft fequeny of caren: A the ons ave 0 unique in motonpent, eventhough they involve the use poder “Te problem was tht cars which were sable when being driven nthe nerd direction of sve that forward, c- ally became asbomne wien hey went ingo spin and stoned traveling almost tuckwarle Wind tunel suds deer fined tat ata yaw angle of around a? That, runing amos backwards ~ the profile of the Upper suface of the cat became very simlar oa postive ft er foi. At spews of around 16imph @257kmh), enough lift was generated for the car to leave the ground. Remember that these cas weigh 3.0 (150K), so 2 substantial umount of it was bein Greated. Vans soos Were proposed td ted, bur the combination of Festus finaly setled upon exists nowhere ese in the sport. The simple part of the solu-Flaps lift once car spins to almost backwards COMPETITION CAR DOWNFORCE Figure 3-7 Roof flaps on a NASCAR Winston Cup car. tion, tied out fairly early on during attempts to solve the problem, and still retained today, was to run half-inch (12.5mm) metal strips fore and aft down each side of the roof. At zero or small yaw angle, these strips would have little or no aerodynamic influence except, maybe, to enhance stability slightly. But at high yaw angles, specifically when travelling sideways, they would act as spoilers on the flow over the roof, and would tend to kill any lift forces that might start to build up. Further strips on the front and rear screens augment these roof strips, and small skirts on the bottom of the sills also contribute. But this still didn’t address the ‘nearly backwards’ situation. One attempted solution was to allow the entire boot/rear deck lid to hinge upwards under the influence of the air flowing in the ‘wrong’ direction, so that it became one huge spoiler, But in tests (using the Winston Cup corporate jet to supply a 200mph wind . . .) it was found that the forces involved were so massive that even the retaining cables gave up and the lid blew completely off Finally, the idea was refined so that roof mounted flaps, about 20 by 8in (510 by 205mm), hinged to flip up in the same way that the rear deck lid did, were fitted at the rear of the roof, where the lift at high yaw angles was greatest. One flap was orientated trans- versely, and another was located next to it, orientated at an angle perpendicular to the flow in the worst 140° yaw situation Gee Figure 3-7). The flaps open under the influence of the enhanced low pres- sure which occurs when the car gets to that critical angle, but remain shut when the car goes about its business in the accepted direction, NASCAR now has some accumulated experience of the functioning of these safety enhancing spoilers, and the results seem to have been highly beneficial and successful. Very much a case of downforce — or at least, lift reduction — improving safety . .Chapter 4 Oh for the wings ONCE IT BECAME clear that ‘lift reduc- tion’ was only @ part of what was pos- Sple with appropriately shaped and positioned aerodynamic attachments, the search was On for greater quantities of downforce to press racecars ever more firmly onto the track, and enable higher comering speeds. Following Jim Hall's CGunection of the use of the inverted erofoil, the downforce revolution turned really popular in the late 1960s, as Formula 1 cars sprouted wings front and rear, and we can now look back, 30 years later, to see where we've been (if only we could see where we're going as well .. ). The wing designs used in those days look pretty tame in comparison to the complex assemblages adorning each end of today’s top level single seater racecars, and development continues at a furious pace at the sharp end of motor- sport technology. Wings ain't what they used to be... Definitions Before we go anywhere, we have to start off with some background by way of terms and definitions, if only so that we know we're all referring to the same thing. It probably goes without saying that the terminology of wings, as well as some of the technology, comes from the World of aeronautics and aircraft, and the reference section at the end of this book gives a number of titles that the reader will gain far more detail and theoretical explanation from than will be included here. Although the definitions start with ‘A’ they are not listed alphabetically, but rather as they came to mind. See also Figure 4-1. “Aerofoil, of airfoil if you prefer, is gen- erally just regarded as another word for a wing, which is a body so shaped that its motion through the air creates lift, or, in ‘our case, downforce, without causing excessive drag. An aerofoil is the cross section which defines the shape of a three-dimensional wing, and since wing shapes can be quite complex, it follows that a wing may have various sections along its length. ‘The leading edge, or LE, is rather obvi- ously the front part of the wing, and is usually a more or less blunt, radiused shape. The trailing edge, or TE, is just as obviously the rearmost part of the wing, and is generally thin and tapered. The straight line joining the LE to the TE is the chord line, and the distance along this line from the LE to the TE is the chord. dimension, denoted by the letter ‘c. The maximum thickness of the wing is denoted by the letter ‘t’, and is expressed as a percentage or decimal fraction of the chord dimension. Thus if a wing has a chord dimension of 12in (305mm), and t= 0.18c, the maximum thickness is 12 x 0.18 = 2.16in (54.9mm). The maximum thick- ness position is also usually stated as a decimal fraction of the chord, measured from the LE, 50 if trax is said to be at 0.3¢, it will be 3.6in (1.4mm) from the LE ofa 12in (305mm) chord wing.SReGggt care i i fh Seat seeeitped lis Fat liniinalall times 10 think of the sitlow approaching a racecar wing as being horizontal, pant felt the ground. This may be tive of front wings (though not necessary) bar is almost cerainly never trie of 2 rear ‘wing Race cat ings ate no Allowed 10 have variable angle of au ‘whist on the move ~ changes to angle fay only be made in the pits or pad. lock. jim Hall's Chaparral 2E and 2F of (906 and 1967 had’ variable incidence angle rear wings, and were adjusted by the diver via a third pedal (the cas had auto transmission). The point (or line) at which the forces fon-a wing appear to ac, and at which there { no moment, is known as the cant of pressure. realy this elect the sum of the pressure disinbution over the whole of the wing, both lower and upper surfaces, caused by the wings Influence on the local air Velocities and the resultant local pressure changes. AS wwe saw in Chapter 2, the eect of a wing 's to reduce the local pressure below the Suction side of the more cambered lower surface, and to raise the pressure of the Negi ee ‘he Cbaparal 26 and 2F (cen bere) bad drver-adistable eg incidence angle. aie over the upper, fresure side ofthe In the cae of wings, downforce (or feng Gee Figure #2) The real of ths neve If) and E'hat bah” downforce and, unforsr a Cp ae qused nth ler to a tute, dag are produc ‘lon area ofthe wing, thatthe spnon fora spe Fo mo htt heen mee i Son ang te sto ieee nn A fn ett ec very use Mam the wing surface (SEC rues scomicd BY 2 Fare hp in downloand an ely en incase in dag The San Ths & an exy cond Tete emedy on 4 eer proved 20 ow thas happened. With an ao eee po wal ene te ns Eres bur he cisequcnes for him "pace ue er moe das Stun be be cet Downforce and wing design criteria Before we srt 10 look in detail at the inluence of wing design crea, mention faust fist be made of the NACA wing frafles. The National Advisory CConatce for Aeronautics (NACA) was an American body ~ the forerunner of the Flow steep an angle of attack NASA'= which developed yal Mistag a clontn acest ere the 1920 an Wn a Germany and elvewhere, The boo to ‘Of Abbot and von Doenhot (see Appendy 2) ealtled. Tbe TBeory of Wing es ves a reat many of the NACA we Frofes, and thls catalogue sl serge FValuable source of shipes that could Spplied to motorpor. Yes, the pee hoe rested for aeronautical. apres ons, and yes the teams atthe foro nto wee may now hare ogressed beyond the ned for this SFinfomaion. But that sill leaves"2s fof lr of constructors and competion, mater and professional, who arent int penton to design and test a wing by Eomputer 0 refine itn 8 windsunnel, yer who would rather not ke 2 com Pleely Mind guess about an appropri profile, Such a reference book, however fncien and whatever is original applic. ton, is a godsend. Of course, the actual hoe of profile sl has to be made, bit hopefully we can derive some gideines here. Further sources of simi informa: ton are alto given In the appendix ace car wings can be singeeement OF FO TH WN ‘Porm 750 ars run smal tgs ect cama erat oo drag. ee eae ae aren etc ements mt pnd ye St tae eas Sag eone fae limited capacity Bris bllimb care dom’ worry about dragTat por ‘coupermon CAR Figure 44 Lf cera of anche yHNFORCE angle. A symmetie single. sal ot_surpnisingly, produces. et wing re a 2270 ANE OF incidence fo compe increases MOLE OF less linc shines ee 0 und vin ile for a wing in ree ale Hire 4 and Appendix 2), frond Faery that all angle Varies with yi tong and flow conditions 8