The question of dynamic wing speaks to effectiveness and safety. An effective improvement will help you win races though only if yours is more "effective" than the competition, otherwise it's for the "show". No competitive gain is no gain. Make it easier to pass, as in the F Duct you improve the "show".
However you have to survive the show. Safety is a much bigger concern today than when the first wings appeared. Yes there were dramatic failures in the early examples and moveable aerodynamic devices were banned. For a while we had decent looking reasonble to drive cars, then came ground effects and later the high tech manipulation of fixed aero devices.
Now in F1, Nascar, LMP1-2 and lesser classes we cars that are nearly impossible to pass, literally throw themselves over if the aero is disturbed and the show isn't what it used to be. The cars are safer to crash however.
Aero devices are absolute in operation. If you make an absolute variable by computer, or human or infinately small but probable random factors you have seriously set back safety and increased costs as well.
At racing speeds if you are counting on enough downforce from your aero package to deliver say 3gs worth of traction and something happens, something minor, instantly you are no longer driving the line, your on a tangent into the kitty litter or worse.
Suppose you are a fairly talented driver like Mark Weber and forget to move your elbow (or whatever controls the F Duct) under braking, well you have a spectacular lack of stopping power. There's enough to do in a race car without fiddling with adjustable aero.
Today the rules require a certain heights, body shapes, wing profiles etc. on scrutineering yet at racing speeds the wings, end plates, splitters, barge boards etc drop / flex or magically move into an optimum range, one that is not possible at static height. Now you have a variable aero device, the whole car, which has become ride height dependant just like ground effects.
This is as much a safety concerrn as sliding skirts, sucker fans, movable wings (all banned) because as we've seen, a slight rise in ride height can take out most if not all your downforce.
So I'm in favour of wing or aero packages that are 1) Safe in construction 2) Not be ride height dependant 3) Not be susceptable to human error 4) Not be susceptable to sudden losses due to common racing circmstances such as raising a wheel on a speed bump or a nudge from another car.
Arriving at an effective aero package to those standards would change the cars shape and characteristics of the aero devices, I suspect a reduction in total downforce and less distrurbance to cars trying to pass. Makes too much sense yes?
However you have to survive the show. Safety is a much bigger concern today than when the first wings appeared. Yes there were dramatic failures in the early examples and moveable aerodynamic devices were banned. For a while we had decent looking reasonble to drive cars, then came ground effects and later the high tech manipulation of fixed aero devices.
Now in F1, Nascar, LMP1-2 and lesser classes we cars that are nearly impossible to pass, literally throw themselves over if the aero is disturbed and the show isn't what it used to be. The cars are safer to crash however.
Aero devices are absolute in operation. If you make an absolute variable by computer, or human or infinately small but probable random factors you have seriously set back safety and increased costs as well.
At racing speeds if you are counting on enough downforce from your aero package to deliver say 3gs worth of traction and something happens, something minor, instantly you are no longer driving the line, your on a tangent into the kitty litter or worse.
Suppose you are a fairly talented driver like Mark Weber and forget to move your elbow (or whatever controls the F Duct) under braking, well you have a spectacular lack of stopping power. There's enough to do in a race car without fiddling with adjustable aero.
Today the rules require a certain heights, body shapes, wing profiles etc. on scrutineering yet at racing speeds the wings, end plates, splitters, barge boards etc drop / flex or magically move into an optimum range, one that is not possible at static height. Now you have a variable aero device, the whole car, which has become ride height dependant just like ground effects.
This is as much a safety concerrn as sliding skirts, sucker fans, movable wings (all banned) because as we've seen, a slight rise in ride height can take out most if not all your downforce.
So I'm in favour of wing or aero packages that are 1) Safe in construction 2) Not be ride height dependant 3) Not be susceptable to human error 4) Not be susceptable to sudden losses due to common racing circmstances such as raising a wheel on a speed bump or a nudge from another car.
Arriving at an effective aero package to those standards would change the cars shape and characteristics of the aero devices, I suspect a reduction in total downforce and less distrurbance to cars trying to pass. Makes too much sense yes?
Last edited:
