Sunteți pe pagina 1din 24


INTRODUCTION TO AERODYNAMICS Aerodynamics is a branch of dynamics concerned with studying the motion of air, particularly when it interacts with a moving object. Aerodynamics is a subfield of fluid dynamics and gas dynamics, with much theory shared between them. Aerodynamics is often used synonymously with gas dynamics, with the difference being that gas dynamics applies to all gases. Understanding the motion of air (often called a flow field) around an object enables the calculation of forces and moments acting on the object. Typical properties calculated for a flow field include velocity, pressure, density and temperature as a function of position and time. By defining a control volume around the flow field, equations for the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy can be defined and used to solve for the properties. The use of aerodynamics through mathematicalanalysis, empirical approximations, wind tunnel experimentation, and computer simulations form the scientific basis for heavier-than-air flight. Aerodynamic problems can be classified according to the flow environment. External aerodynamics is the study of flow around solid objects of various shapes. Evaluating the lift and drag on an airplane or the shock waves that form in front of the nose of a rocket are examples of external aerodynamics. Internal aerodynamics is the study of flow through passages in solid objects. For instance, internal aerodynamics encompasses the study of the airflow through a jet engine or through an air conditioning pipe. In fluid dynamics, drag (sometimes called air resistance or fluid resistance) refers to forces which act on a solid object in the direction of the relative fluid flow velocity. Unlike other resistive forces such as dry friction, which is nearly independent of velocity, drag forces depend on velocity.[5] Drag forces always decrease fluid velocity relative to the solid object in the fluid's path. As such minimizing drag is a major objective to achieve high speeds as in case of planes as well as the very fast Formula 1 cars. Lift is the force that directly opposes the weight of an object and holds it in the air Lift occurs when a solid object turns a moving flow of gas. A negative lift causes downforce, which is the force that acts to push an object closer to the ground. Lift and downforce are basically the same except that downforce acts downward and lift acts upward.

Why You Need Aerodynamics

Not only can better aerodynamics help improve the speed of a car, but it can also better the efficiency of a car Proper aerodynamic shaping, has been found to be the most effective and least costly method of increasing fuel economy and performance, especially at higher speeds Automotive aerodynamics also plays an important role in other related areas including:

high-speed traction, sensitivity to crosswinds, efficient cooling (engine, drive train, exhaust system, and brakes), keeping the front windshield, the windows, the mirrors and the headlights clean, and last but not least, reducing wind noise to a minimum

USE OF AERODYNAMICS IN F1 CARS The rear wing of a modern Formula One car, with three aerodynamic elements (1, 2, 3). The rows of holes for adjustment of the angle of attack (4) and installation of another element (5) are visible on the wing's endplate. The use of aerodynamics to increase the cars' grip was pioneered in Formula One in the late 1960s by Lotus, Ferrari and Brabham. Wings Early designs linked wings directly to the suspension, but several accidents led to rules stating that wings must be fixed rigidly to the chassis. The cars' aerodynamics are designed to provide maximum downforce with a minimum of drag; every part of the bodywork is designed with this aim in mind. Like most open wheeler cars they feature large front and rear aerofoils, but they are far more developed than American open wheel racers, which depend more on suspension tuning; for instance, the nose is raised above the centre of the front aerofoil, allowing its entire width to provide downforce. The front and rear wings are highly sculpted and extremely fine 'tuned', along with the rest of the body such as the turning vanes beneath the nose, bargeboards, sidepods, underbody, and the rear diffuser. They also feature aerodynamic appendages that direct the airflow. Such an extreme level of aerodynamic development means that an F1 car produces much more downforce than any other open-wheel formula; for example the Indycars produce downforce equal to their weight at 190 km/h (118 mph), while an F1 car achieves the same downforce:weight ratio of 1:1 at 125 to 130 km/h (78 to 81 mph), and at 190 km/h (118 mph) the ratio is roughly 2:1.[6] The bargeboards in particular are designed, shaped, configured, adjusted and positioned not to create downforce directly, as with a conventional wing or underbody venturi, but to

create vortices from the air spillage at their edges. The use of vortices is a significant feature of the latest breeds of F1 cars. Since a vortex is a rotating fluid that creates a low pressure zone at its centre, creating vortices lowers the overall local pressure of the air. Since low pressure is what is desired under the car, as it allows normal atmospheric pressure to press the car down from the top, by creating vortices downforce can be augmented while still staying within the rules prohibiting ground effects.[dubious discuss] The new F1 cars for the 2009 season have come under much questioning especially the rear diffusers of the Brawn GP cars raced by Jenson Button and Rubens Barrichello. Appeals from many of the teams were heard by the FIA, which met in Paris, before the 2009 Chinese Grand Prix and the use of diffusers was declared as legal. Brawn GP boss Ross Brawn claimed the diffuser design as "an innovative approach of an existing idea". Ground effects F1 regulations heavily limit the use of ground effect aerodynamics, which are a highly efficient means of creating downforce with a relatively small drag penalty. The underside of the vehicle, the undertray, must be flat between the axles. A 10mm[7] thick wooden plank or skid block runs down the middle of the car to prevent the cars from running low enough to contact the track surface; this skid block is measured before and after a race. Should the plank be less than 9 mm thick after the race, the car is disqualified. A substantial amount of downforce is provided by using a rear diffuser which rises from the undertray at the rear axle to the actual rear of the bodywork. The limitations on ground effects, limited size of the wings (requiring use at high angles of attack to create sufficient downforce), and vortices created by open wheels lead to a high aerodynamic drag coefficient (about 1 according to Minardi's technical director Gabriele Tredozi;[8] compare with the average modern saloon car (sedan in the USA), which has a Cd value between 0.25 and 0.35), so that, despite the enormous power output of the engines, the top speed of these cars is less than that of World War II vintage Mercedes-Benz and Auto Union Silver Arrows racers. However, this drag is more than compensated for by the ability to corner at extremely high speed. The aerodynamics are adjusted for each track; with a relatively low drag configuration for tracks where high speed is relatively more important like Autodromo Nazionale Monza, and a high traction configuration for tracks where cornering is more important, like the Circuit de Monaco.

Race-car aerodynamics
In recent years motor racing has become one of the most popular of sports, attracting record numbers of followers. In some racing categories the vehicles resemble production sedans while in others they look more like fighter airplanes, and there is also a great variety of tracks that range from paved to unpaved and from straight to oval or regular road courses. In all forms of racing, however, aerodynamics eventually surfaced as a significant design parameter, and nowadays all race-car designs have some level of aerodynamic element. The complexity of racecar aerodynamics is comparable to airplane aerodynamics and is not limited to drag reduction. The generation of aerodynamic downforce (force directed downward, or negative lift) and its effect on lateral stability result in a major enhancement in race-car performance, particularly when high-speed turns are involved. In the process of designing and refining current race-car shapes, all available aerospace type design tools are used. Because of effects such as flow

separation, vortex flows, and boundary-layer transitions, the flow over most types of race cars is not easily predictable. Owing to the competitive nature of this sport and the short design cycles, engineering decisions must rely on information gathered from track and wind-tunnel testing, and even computational fluid dynamics. Although the foundations of aerodynamics were formulated over the past 200 years, not all its principles were immediately utilized by race-car designers. Naturally, the desire for low drag was recognized first, and early designers focused mainly on streamlining their race cars. Although there was some experimentation with the addition of wings to influence the vertical load on the vehicle during the late 1920s, this major innovation was completely ignored for the following 35 years. Once designers realized the significance of aerodynamic downforce and its effect on vehicle performance, fixtures such as inverted wings or even underbody diffusers were added. The benefits of aerodynamic downforce and the improved performance are basically a result of increasing the tire adhesion by simply pushing the tires more toward the ground. Because of this additional load, larger friction (traction) levels can be achieved, and the vehicle can turn, accelerate, and brake more quickly. Furthermore, by controlling the fore/aft downforce ratio, vehicle handling can be easily modified to meet the needs of a particular race track. The foremost and simplest approach to generate downforce was of course to add inverted wings to existing race cars. But almost immediately it was realized that the vehicle body may be used to generate downforce as well. The main advantage of this approach is that even small values of negative pressure under the vehicle can result in a sizable aerodynamic downforce because of the large planview area of the vehicle. The large front and rear wings are immediately visible. However, underbody diffusers and vortex generators are hidden below the car and cannot easily be detected by the competition. The principles of these and some other downforce generating methods will be discussed.

Race-car wings
Airplane wing design matured by the middle of the twentieth century and it was only natural that race-car designers borrowed successful airplane wing profiles to use on their vehicles. This approach, however, was not entirely successful due to the inherent differences between these two applications. A race-car lifting surface design is different from a typical airplane wing design for the following reasons: 1. Race-car (front) wings operate very close to the ground, resulting in a significant increase in downforce. This increase is a manifestation of a phenomenon known as the wing-in-ground effect, which, interestingly, is favorable for the performance of both ordinary airfoils creating lift and inverted airfoils creating downforce. Of course, the effect does not come freely because a similar increase in drag is measured. Since many race cars use front wings mounted close to the ground, this principle is widely utilized in race-car design. 2. In most forms of motor racing a large rear wing is used. In the case of open-wheel race cars such as Indy cars these wings have very small aspect ratio (span/chord ratio), contrary to the much higher aspect ratio of airplane wings. The first result of the smaller aspect ratio was a significantly higher drag, but with the fringe benefit of delaying wing stall (the sudden drop of lift). This penalty could be reduced by adding very large end plates, seen on most race cars, which indeed improve the lift-to-drag ratio. A second problem resulted from basing early

designs on existing high-lift airfoil shapes, borrowed from airplanes having several elements (flaps and slots). But as noted, these airfoils were developed for airplanes having very wide wings (high aspect ratio), and therefore their performance was not optimized for race-car application. Recently, quite different, custom-designed airfoil shapes have been used to address this problem. 3. The third major difference between aircraft and race-car wings is the strong interaction between the lifting surface and the other body components. As an example, the data for a prototype race car with large underbody diffusers is presented in Fig. In this case the wing height (h) was varied up to a height where the interaction is minimal. Clearly, the combined downforce increases as the wing approaches the vehicle's rear deck. At a very close proximity the flow separates between the rear deck and the wing and the downforce is reduced. The horizontal positioning (such as fore-aft) of the wing also has a strong effect on the vehicle's aerodynamics (usually downforce increases as the wing is shifted backward), but racing regulations state that the wing trailing edge cannot extend behind the vehicle body (from top view). The very large change in the downforce of this prototype car is due to the increased underbody diffuser flow, but the effect remains clear with sedan or even open-wheel race cars as well.

Creating downforce with the vehicle's body Once the potential of using aerodynamic downforce to win races was realized, designers began experimenting with methods other than simply attaching inverted wings. One approach is quite similar to the previously mentioned wing-in-ground-effect model. Colin Chapman, designer of the famous Lotus 78, developed this concept to fit Formula One (F1) race-car geometry. In his design the vehicle's side pods had an inverted airfoil shape (in ground effect) and the two sides of the car were sealed by sliding skirts. These side seals created a two-dimensional environment for the small-aspect-ratio inverted-wing- shaped side pods (resulting in air speeds much higher than the vehicle's speed). The concept (as shown in the lower inset to Fig.) worked very well, resulting in large suction forces under the car (in accord with the Bernoulli principle that higher flow speeds result in lower pressure). The skirted car was highly successful and the Lotus 78 won the world championship in 1977. By the end of the 1980s this method was

used in many forms of racing, resulting in downforce values exceeding the weight of the vehicle. The sliding seals, however, were not trouble-free. Irregularities in the road surface occasionally resulted in seal failure and the immediate loss of downforce, with catastrophic consequences. [The effect of increasing the gap between the ground and the seal on the downforce is shown in Fig. 3; a 20-mm (0.8-in.) gap could result in loss of 50% of the downforce.] This problem led to the banning of all sliding seals in F1 cars by 1983. In the following years, this ruling was mandated in most other forms of racing as well, and the only parts of the vehicle allowed to be in contact with the ground were the tires. Another approach that worked well is based on controlling the low pressure under the car, independent of the vehicle's speed. This approach resulted in the so-called suction cars. The first was the 1969 Chaparral 2J. This car used auxiliary engines to drive two large suction fans behind the vehicle. The whole periphery around the car underbody and the ground was sealed, and the fans were used to suck the leaking air through the seals to maintain the controllable low pressure. Another benefit from this design was that the ejected underbody flow (backward) reduced the flow separation behind the vehicle, and therefore the vehicle's drag was reduced. The downforce was controlled by the auxiliary motors and did not increase with the square of speed, making the car quite comfortable (no stiff suspension) and competitive. The design was immediately successful. However, this success was not well received by the competition, and regulation almost immediately outlawed such designs. Underbody diffusers (tunnels) Once the sliding skirts were banned the suction under the car was significantly reduced (Fig. 3). A logical evolution of this concept led to underbody tunnels formed under the sidepods, which sometimes were called diffusers. The integration of this concept into an actual race-car underbody is depicted in the upper part of Fig. 4. Flow visualizations clearly show the existence of the side vortices responsible for reattaching the flow in the tunnels (diffusers). Surface pressures measured along the tunnel centerlines are shown in Fig. 4 as well, and a sharp suction peak at the tunnel entrance is evident. In this study several diffuser angles were used and the resulting downforce and drag coefficients for the complete vehicle are shown in the table inserted in the figure. For this particular geometry, diffuser angles larger than 14 caused the flow to separate from the diffuser walls with the result of less downforce. The significance of the pressure peak at the diffuser entrance for race-car application is that the location of the vehicle's center of pressure could be controlled by the fore-aft shifting of the diffuser entrance. Of course, the downforce usually incr eases with reduced ground clearance, an effect that continues down to very small ground clearance values.

Fig. 4 Creation of downforce with underbody diffusers (tunnels). Upper drawing shows race-car underbody. Graph shows effect of underbody diffuser angle on the diffuser centerline pressure distribution. Here, Cp is a nondimensional pressure coefficient, and negative values mean pressures below the ambient level. Resulting downforce coefficients, CL, and drag coefficients CD for the complete vehicle are shown in the table. Lower diagram defines the diffuser angle , and locates measurement points, whose fore-aft positions are graphed in terms of X/L, where X is distance from front of car and L is length of car. Rear-wing negative incidence w = 12. (From J. Katz, Race-Car Aerodynamics, 2d ed., Robert Bentley Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2006)

BODY (WORK) The general shape of body is like a Boat and In general the body of F1 car can thought as a Bluff Body close to ground, with large wake and associated form drag. [Ref. 1]The teardrop shape, previously discussed, displays ideal aerodynamic properties in an unconstrained flow and is well suited for aeronautical applications. However, when this shape is incorporated into

the design of an F1 vehicle, it is subjected to constrained flow, which causes different flow behaviors. This is due to the simple fact that these cars are very close to the ground. The presence of the ground prevents the formation of a symmetrical flow pattern .The results of this flow behavior are an unfavorable increased drag coefficient and generation of a very favorable downforce. The rounded and tapered shape of the top of the car is designed to slice through the air and minimize wind resistance. Detailed pieces of bodywork on top of the car can be added to allow a smooth flow of air to reach the downforce creating elements (i.e., wings or spoilers, and underbody tunnels). The underside of the body is similar in shape to an inverted wing and creates an area of low pressure between the car and the track, pressing the car to the road. This is sometimes called a ground effect and has been the subject of many rule changes over the years in different racing series. FRONT WING Front wing aerodynamics is one of the most complex elements of Formula One car aerodynamics. Through the history of Formula One, the front wing has developed from a simple single element wing into a highly three-dimensional, multi-element high lift device Endplates are sophisticated, which avoid the spoiling of air and influence the performance of the front wing. The most obvious function of a front wing is to produce downforce on the front end of the car. The wing itself generally produces approximately 25 30 % of the total car downforce. [Ref.1] beside its contribution to the overall downforce, the front wing also works as an adjustable counterbalance to the rear wing load. A front wing system is placed on the frontend of a car also regulate the air flow over the entire car (as shown in fig. 4.2.2) and as the foremost device that disturbs the incoming (from the car point of view) airflow, it prevents the rest of the car to see a preferable clean flow as a by-product of this is high downforce production. [Ref.3] The performance of the front wing is also strongly dependent on the presence of the front wheel. A rotating wheel produces strong crosswise flow areas close to the ground in front of the wheel due to a squeezing or jetting effect. These jet vortices are highly influential in understanding the form of the front wing wake, and their effect changes by the end plates. [Ref.2] On each end of the wing as well as nose cone is made symmetrical and provided with endplates. The height of front wing is reduce nearer to the nose cone as this allows air to flow into the radiators and to the under floor aerodynamic aids. If the wing flap maintained it's height right to the nose cone, the radiators would receive less airflow and therefore the engine temperature would rise. [Ref.3] the asymmetrical shape also allows a better airflow to the under floor and the diffuser, increasing downforce. This again allows a slightly better airflow to the under floor aerodynamics and help in producing ground effect. By means of a ground effect, this was particularly interesting for front wings because if would increase downforce at high speeds without an increase of drag. NOSE CONE The nose cone is nothing but the front edges of the formula1 racing car the height of nose cone plays an important role in case of f1 car design. The main advantages of a higher nose need some thinking and knowledge of the complete car to see. At first sight the higher nose is equal to less downforce as by itself it pushes less air up over the nose. In recent cars surprisingly the nose is not aimed to push air up, but instead small at the front to allow airflow aside of the nose. The air that passes the nose forms the basic concept of a high nose cone. Having such a

nose allows air to go straight through under the nose instead of having to bend around it. While it reduces drag for sure, the front wing planes can span the complete width of the car, which in fact allows more downforce to be generated at the front. All air that passed under the nose is then guided under the car or split to either side of the car by the splitter located just in front of the side pods. Why now would we want so much air to nicely pass the nose and go into the side pods or under the car's floor? Quite simply where the most downforce can be generated, exactly the diffuser that locates at the end of the car's stepped floor. The more air you get under the floor and the faster it can exit out of the diffuser the more downforce will be generated. The advantage of such a floor is even more obvious as downforce is generated not only in the diffuser but also under the complete floor. But the sky is not all blue as there are also some disadvantages to it. The nose itself of course does not generate much downforce; in fact the higher the noses point the less downforce by itself (this does not include any downforce generated by front wing or floor). Another is advantage for the highest noses may be visibility from the driver's point of view. The main advantages of a higher nose need some thinking and knowledge of the complete car to see. REAR WING it is mounted at rear side of the car. These devices contribute to approximately a third of the cars total down force, while only weighing about 7 kg. Usually the rear wing is comprised of two sets of aerofoils connected to each other by the wing endplates .The upper aerofoil, usually consisting of three elements, provides the most downforce, therefore varied from race to race .The lower aerofoil, usually consisting of two elements, is smaller and provides some downforce . However, the lower aerofoil creates a low-pressure region just below the wing to help the diffuser create more downforce below the car. The working principle of rear wing is the rear wing is varied from track to track because of the trade off between downforce and drag. More wing angle increases the downforce and produces more drag, thus reducing the cars top speed. So when racing on tracks with long straights and few turns, like Monza, it is better to adjust the wings to have small angles. Conversely, when racing on tracks with many turns and few straights, like Austria, it is better to adjust the wings to have large angles. At either end of the wing are the end-plates are provided which serve two purposes. The first purpose of the end plates is to prevent tip losses on the wing. Tip losses occur due to higher-pressure air on the upper surface of the aerofoil moving around the tip of the aerofoil to the lower pressure under surface of the aerofoil. This can provide a significant contribution to drag and is a common problem on transport aircraft where the problem is minimized using winglets. The second purpose that the end plates serve is to prevent interference from the rear wheels. The wheels make the biggest contribution to the drag than any other component on the car and the regulations prevent them from being encased by body work. The air around both the front and the rear wheels is very turbulent and therefore it is not desirable to have this highly turbulent air flow interfering with the relatively smooth flow over the rear wing and reduces the performance of the rear wing and also increases the drag force which limits the top speed of the car.

COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMIC ANALYSIS A great deal of research has been done on the aerodynamic characteristics of race cars competing in major racing series throughout the world. Because of the competitive nature of motor sport, this research is usually not published until after it is obsolete. The teams operating at the minor league levels of the sport do not have the funding resources of the major series to perform aerodynamic research. In an effort to provide some information for teams competing in the minor league Formula Mazda racecar class, this study was conducted using the Star-CD CFD code to perform a turbulent simulation (using a k" model) of the airflow on the front and rear wings of a Formula Mazda car with different angles of attack and the effect of the ground on the front wing. Results are presented graphically, showing pressure and velocity distributions and lift (Cl ) and drag coefficients (Cd ) for the different cases. It was shown that the ground effect has a marked effect on the Cl and that the angle of attack has a significant effect on the lift and drag coefficients, and it was shown that an angle of 12_ below the horizontal seems to indicate stalling conditions. It is suggested that this information, along with experimental validation, can be valuable for improving the optimum handling of these Formula Mazda race cars. Physical characteristics of the wings A Formula Mazda front wing is a single element configuration comprised of two sections, one on either side of a fiberglass nose. Each wing section has angle of attack adjusters on the inboard end and spill plates on the outboard end. The wing has a chord of 15 in. It is mounted with the center of the leading edge 5.5 in. above the ground, well within the distance of ground effect. The simulation here will concentrate on the angle of attack and effect of the ground on the lift and drag in the case of the front wing on the car, and on the effect of the angle of attack on the rear wing. A sectional drawing of the front wing is shown in Fig. 2. The angle dimension in the drawing is the difference in angle of attack between the SCCA, Inc. measurement method and standard aerodynamic practice. Based on the wing dimensions and the properties of Standard Air, the front wing operates at Re = 0.9 106 at 80 miles/h and at Re = 1.5 106 at 130 miles/h. A drawing showing the cross section of the rear wing is shown in Fig. 3. It is of single element design with two support struts in the center and spill plates on the end. Angle of attack adjusters are provided as part of the support strut assembly. The wing has a chord of 17.75 in. (SCCA, Inc). The wing is mounted above the bodywork and can be considered to be in free air. The dimensioned angle in the drawing is the difference In angle of attack between the SCCA, Inc. measurement method and standard aerodynamic practice. Based on the wing dimensions and the properties of standard air, the rear wing operates at Re = 1.1 106 at 80 miles/h and at Re = 1.8 106 at 130 miles/h. The computer model The numerical model was set up and run using the Star-CD Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) code. Due to the assumption of isothermal flows and no heat transfer, the energy equation was not introduced. This can be justified by the fact that the viscous dissipative term in the energy equation is not expected to be significant, and also by the fact that, more often than not, these wings are painted in light or white colors, as seen in Fig. 1, to reflect any sunlight, maintaining near-ambient temperature conditions on the wing surfaces. The combination of these two effects will minimize any significant temperature changes through the boundary layer and

hence negates the necessity to couple the momentum and energy equations due to variable thermal properties as a function of temperature. The continuity and momentum equations remain to be solved. The turbulence was modeled using the k" method. The various equations and the default values associated with this turbulence model are discussed in more detail in 10] and are not discussed here. The front wing is basically attached to the sides of the body of the race car, while the back wing is attached using a strut to the body of the car. These would normally introduce some 3-D effects into the flow patterns developed around these wings. It is expected, though, that the results of the 2-D simulation will be uniformly affected by these construction detail. However, the relative results and trends for the different simulations are expected to stay relatively the same. The mode of attachment for the front wing would most probably create a slight decrease in the negative lift as the air flow speed becomes faster on the top of the wing due to the narrowing of the flow channel as a result of the frontal shape of the body of the race car, while the drag will increase a little due to the increase in the localized velocities around the wing. For the rear wing, there will probably be a minimal change in the lift, because the horizontal cross-section of the strut holding the wing is relatively small, while there would be a small increase in the drag coefficient due to the increased velocity locally as the flow area on the wing near the strut is diminished by that cross-sectional area. Any end effects for either wings, such as vortex generation, are assumed to be relatively small due to the relatively small Reynolds number of the flow. Ranzenbach [6] suggested dimensions of a calculation grid, placing the leading edge 1.75 times the chord length downstream from the inlet with the outlet located 3 times the chord length downstream from the trailing edge. The suggested distance of the grid above and below the airfoil is 2.56 times the chord. These dimensions were used for this problem. For the 45.05 cm (17.75 in.) rear wing chord, this is calculated as 77.5 cm (31.0 in.) between the inlet and leading edge, 135.25 cm (53.25 in.) behind the trailing edge, and 114.3 cm (45 in.) on the top or bottom of the airfoil. These numbers were rounded off to obtain a rear wing calculation grid of 274.32 cm228.6 cm (108 n. long 90 in. tall). The leading edge of the wing was set at 90.0 cm (36 in.) from the inlet, which meant that the trailing edge was 137.16 cm (54.0 in.) forward from the outlet. The default symmetry boundaries were accepted at the top and bottom as a condition where the normal velocity and normal gradients of all other variables are zero. This was the most suitable of all the boundary conditions offered by Star-CD. For the front wing in ground effect, the height of the grid was modified by a wall boundary 13.97 cm (5.50 in.) below the leading edge to simulate the ground plane. The calculation grid for the front wing was constructed to include 1764 cells. Fig. 4 shows the grid of the front wing in ground effect. Fig. 5, which has 10,968 cells, shows the grid pattern for the back wing. A grid independency test was performed on the front airfoil to determine a suitable mesh size for the problem. Three nodal densities were chosen for the runs, i.e. 2208, 4416 and 8832 nodes. Fig. 6 and Table 1 present results to validate the choice of grid density. Fig. 6 shows a plot of velocity profiles on a vertical line chosen at 12.7 cm downstream (horizontally) from the airfoil leading edge. The line spans the distance from the bottom of the airfoil to the ground level. Table 1 also summarizes the values of the integrated Fy downforce on the airfoil. Both these results indicate that there is practically no difference in the overlaid values of the velocity for these three nodal densities, and also that there are very small differences between the calculated normal downforce (1.0%), which is deemed accurate for engineering calculations.

Front wing in ground effect grid pattern

Rear wing grid pattern.

Front airfoil in free air velocity (0_ AOA).

Results and discussions The results of the computer simulations were complied and plotted graphically. The velocity plots show the magnitude of the air velocity at the different points in the flow field. The velocity distribution is normalized using the local velocity to the free stream velocity and plots the resultant values against the normalized chord length for a velocity distribution across the length of the chord. In the same manner, the coefficient of pressure is plotted against the normalized chord to develop a pressure distribution. 6.1. Front wing (airfoil) Figs. 7 and 8 illustrate the velocities for the front wing operating in a non-obstructed airflow nd with the center of the leading edge operating 13.97 cm (5.50 in.) above the ground (with ground effect), respectively. With the airfoil close to the ground, the velocity on the upper surface is slower than for the airfoil in free air. On the lower surface of the wing, the velocity is higher for the airfoil in ground effect than the one in free air using the principle of continuity to maintain the same flow under the wing downstream as the wing upstream. The following two graphs, Figs. 9 and 10, show that the airfoil in ground effect generates more downforce than the airfoil in free air. Both show a greater pressure difference between the upper surface and the lower surface for the airfoil operating in ground effect than the one operating in free air. The velocity and pressure on the upper surface of the two airfoils show only a little bit of variance. Most of the difference between the two airfoils occurs on the lower surface. .

Front airfoil in ground effect velocity (0_ AOA).

Free air/ground effect velocity distribution (0_ AOA).

Free air/Ground effect pressure distribution (4_ AOA).

Front wing pressure distribution with different AOAs.

Figs. 11 and 12 summarize the results of several runs for the front wing with different AOAs with ground effect. At 12_ AOA, the region of high velocity begins to separate from the airfoil surface at the trailing edge. This shows that the airfoil is beginning to approach a stall condition. At 16_ angle of attack, separation occurs at about half the chord length. This is confirmed by the velocity and pressure distributions in those figures. Of interest is the sudden velocity jump downward at around x/c = 0.4 for the wing at 16 AOA. This is likely a result of the separation phenomenon. Another observation that was made was the existence of a vortex downstream of the airfoil at this AOA (grayblue area of Fig. 12). x is the horizontal dimensional variable starting from the front tip of the wing, while c is the chordal length of the wing horizontally from the upstream tip to the wings tail. The vertical axes of Figs. 9 and 10 are plots of the nondimensional u/U and the coefficient of pressure Cp, respectively. u is the horizontal velocity near the wing and U is the freestream horizontal velocity used at the entry to the solution field. The velocity and pressure distributions are similar on the upper surface for all angles of attack. The differences occur in the velocity and pressure distributions on the lower surface. Usually, increasing the angle of attack would increase the downforce. A look at the pressure plots shows that a greater portion of the lower surface of the wing is in close proximity to the ground. The air accelerates through the gap between the airfoil and the ground, creating a low-pressure area. The greater the portion of the lower surface that is in close proximity to the ground, the larger the low-pressure area and hence, the greater the downward force will be. Fig. 13 represents the plot of the velocity field for the 16_ AOA which indicates a fairly high velocity near the ground as opposed to above the airfoil, with some rather low velocities at the trailing edge of it. This latterarea indicated some flow reversal for

this case as well. The CFD code is able to calculate the resultant lift and drag force on the wing, and Fig. 14 shows the variation of the coefficients of lift (Cd ) and drag (Cl ) for various angles of attacks of the front wing in ground effect. The greatest downforce occurs at 12_ AOA. This shows the condition of what could be considered the stalling condition. The Cd is the normalized (by dividing by the velocity head) and integrated horizontal force on the wing surface area, while the Cl is the normalized (by dividing by the velocity head) and integrated vertical force on the wing area.

Front wing velocity distribution with 16_ AOA.

Discussion and conclusions A two-dimensional CFD study has been performed on the airfoil profiles of the front (with/without ground effect) and rear wings (free standing) of a Formula Mazda race car for various AOA. Detailed velocity and pressure distribution plots along the surfaces of the airfoils have been presented. As suspected, the front wings performance seems to be affected by the existence of the ground nearby. The front wing seems to develop a larger net downforce (negative lift) when flow is simulated with ground effect. This can be seen through the marked increase in negative pressure shown in Fig. 10 due to that effect. Table 2, shown earlier, presents the effects of the ground on the downward lift for AOAs 0_ and 4_. The calculated results clearly show an increase in this force when a front airfoil is considered with ground effect of about 13% to 20%. This increase can be attributed to the anticipated velocity increase on the underside of the wing, which in turn decreases the pressure on the wing from that side. Fig. 14 summarizes the results of the coefficients when ground effect is considered, and shows that there is a slight increase in the Cl of about 20% from 0_ to 12_ AOA. In addition, there is a marked decrease in Cl by about 45%, which may indicate that between 12_ and 16_ AOA there is a potential for a stall condition with the airfoil. Also, the Cd for this wing shows a steady increase to about 50% until the 12 AOA is reached, after which the value of the coefficient value becomes relatively constant. This is anticipated to be the case where increased drag is achieved on the wing, along with the increased lift, until the expected stall condition is approached. When considering the rear wing airfoil, Fig. 22 indicates a similar effect on the front wing and shows the marked change in the Cl as the AOA approaches 12_. After this, there is a drop in that value of about 10%, indicating the suspected stall condition. In a similar vein, there is a marked monotonous increase in the Cd as the AOA increases, which is anticipated with these types of wings. These results indicate that, for design purposes, consideration of the front airfoil has to be taken with the effect of the ground for the proper overall consideration of the stability and handling of the Mazda race car. For both airfoils, the hydrodynamic performance of the foils are significantly affected by the AOA and need to be considered for the overall handling of the car. These values, along with experimental validation and an overall analysis of the forces on the particular steering mechanisms of these race cars, and along with

race track conditions, can enhance the optimum handling of these vehicles. Future work is suggested to perform parametric studies of various ground clearances of the front foil to see its effect on the aforementioned coefficients. Also, the consideration of the thermal temperature gradients around the race car and its effects through the air density on these coefficients should be studied. DRAG REDUCTION SYSTEM

The Drag Reduction System (DRS) is perhaps the most interesting of the new Technical Regulations imposed on Formula 1 in 2011. Its purpose? To promote overtaking by counteracting the loss of downforce incurred when following another Formula 1 car. This is acheived by reducing the following car's aerodynamic drag by opening a driver activated flap on the rear wing of the car.

The horizontal elements of the Rear wing consist of the main plane and the flap. The DRS allows the flap to lift a maximum of 50mm from the fixed main plane. The airflow through the rear wing is disrupted and as a result becomes less efficient at generating downforce. Downforce however is only useful to a Formula 1 car when it's changing direction. In a straight line, the less downforce, the lower the drag, the faster the top speed of the car. Sam Michael, the technical director of the Williams team beleives that DRS in qualifying will be worth about half a second per lap. The rear wing angle adjustment will make the car approximately 10-15 km/hr faster in a straight line. The effectiveness of the DRS will vary from track to track and from car to car. The best tracks for DRS will be the high speed, high downforce/drag circuits

like Spa, Suzuka and Silverstone. In this respect, DRS is similar to the F-Duct device of 2010. Moveable aerodynamic components are nothing new, every time you sit on an airliner you see the wing flaps, ailerons moving around, and often as you come into land you can see the array of hydraulics employed to move them. The systems on a Formula 1 car work in essentially the same way. Hydraulic tubes, rods and actuators. But whilst on an Airbus A320 or even a modern UAV or fighter jet there is a huge amount of space to work in, on a grand prix car the opposite is true. None the less grand Prix drivers have a new tool at their disposal, the so called Drag Reduction System, DRS. It is essentially an adjustable rear wing which can be used to facilitate overtaking. Under the rules for 2011, the driver of a following car can adjust the flap of his rear wing under certain circumstances. When two or more cars pass over timing loops in the surface of the track, if a following car is measured at less than one second behind a leading car it will be sent a signal that will allow its driver to deploy the cars active rear wing. The flap is lifted up at the front and pivots about a point at the trailing edge of the wing, so that in the event of a failure, the flap will drop down into the default, high-downforce position. Since the timing loops will be sited after corners, drivers will only be able to deploy the active rear wing as a car goes down a particular nominated straight, in Melbourne for example this was the starting straight.

Simon McBeath conducted a basic CFD study of the Drag Reduction System in action. Here we compare the Drag Reduction System in open position (left) and closed (right). The results of the study appear on the graph below.

DRS is unlike last years front wing adjustment in that it does not give a number of position settings, its either on or off. Last year it was found that teams were using the front wing flaps more to work with the dual tyre compounds and falling car weight through the race rather than its intended purpose overtaking. From the steering wheel a signal is sent to the ECU, the same McLaren Electronics unit used in all Formula 1 cars since 2008. That unit will likely drive a Moog valve mounted somewhere in the region of the transmission. Exactly how teams have approached the problem of actuating the wing itself is difficult to be sure of though some run tubing up through the central wing supports or through the end plates, though neither have an especially large cross sectional area to run pipework or rods. Looking at some of the front wing end plate devices used in F1 recently hydraulic lines are run to a small actuator, whilst on others an electronic actuator is used. Negating the need for a hydraulic system. Exact costs are hard to come by but the time taken to construct a cars pipework at a specialist such as FHS Motor Racing is a good indication it is almost how long is a piece of string trying to work out how long it would take, if we take a simplistic approach & just say how long to assemble a set of hoses then we are talking very approximately 35/40 hours explains Peter Hughes the firms MD. F1 teams will typically design the assembly themselves then send the files over to us to see it it is actually possible to make. We take the design files and convert them into something thats workable. Many of the teams have worked with us for years though and know what is possible.

Things like bend radius or whether something is suitable for Swaging or similar. Then as a system is being developed we go on site with the client and do mock ups to ensure it all fits. The materials used in these systems also require great precision and a healthy budget as Hughes explains today in F1 it is mainly titanium tube, though some of what we do involves PEEK mainly in the fuel system but primarily titanium. Aluminium and stainless steel are also used. Titanium is favoured for its inherent lightness and strength, it means you can, make the cross section of the material so much thinner than if you were using Almuminium. To my knowledge nobody has come up with anything better that is reasonably priced. The problem with making these parts from Titanium is that when you are bending it you only get one go you bend it allowing a margin for spring back and then its done. Its work hardened by then. Thats the skill, knowing the correct angle and spring back even from batch to batch it varies in hardness, so we have to test every batch. Over time we have learned to manipulate titanium tubing in ways, especially in small spaces, that other people cannot do, and the fruits of that will be on cars in the future. It a good area for us. Despite the ongoing pressure on top flight motor racing to cut costs, new regulations, such as the switch from adjustable front wing to adjustable rear inevitably increase expenditure, and although the actuation systems are similar in operation little if anything can be carried over. There is very little carry over, there are move to try and change that, so they can use last years on this years but that goes completely against the grain of the way engineers think, better lighter, car dimension changes make huge differences to use. A simple example is the car fuel filler cap thats one of our systems continues Hughes. However the late publishing of the regulations for 2011 pushed costs up and put extra demands on the suppliers. One of the biggest issues we have is that we use unusual sizes of tube, so that they can be fitted to the hoses but the tube is typically on a delivery lead time of three or four months so we have to order large amount maybe 500-600 metres of seven or eight sizes in advance to make sure its on the shelf. It means early on we have to ask the teams which size they will need to ensure we have it in stock explains Hughes. But you cannot get teams to commit, we can watch them order five of something, you ask them if they want more, we suggest that maybe they take ten, but they insist on five ten days later they order another five, two weeks later another 5. If they order 15 to start with then it would have been much cheaper but until they know they cant commit, its so frustrating. You could take a chunk of time and cost out for the teams if they ordered that way. After the first race of the year at Melbourne the DRS was not seen as being as all that influential, though the longer straights of Sepang, Spa and Monza should prove more definitive.