F-duct = cleaner air?

Steven Humphrey · 31 May 2010, 14:58 (Ref:2701839)

While watching the Turkish GP yesterday, with even more teams running F-ducts, I was thinking:-

If a driver is using his F-duct to stall the rear wing, will the turbulence coming off it be reduced? And if it is, will this allow the following car to get a better slipstream & more speed? Alternatively, if the following driver tries to use his F-duct, will it be less efficient? Apologies if this has been discussed somewhere else.

neiltb · 31 May 2010, 17:10 (Ref:2701897)

with less turbulence you would expect less tow. You have to look at it in perspective though, the turbulence is still immense and I wouldn't imagine that using an f-duct (silly name) in the tow would do all that much, handy when you pull out though.

Rgms320 · 31 May 2010, 20:58 (Ref:2702049)

I started thinking about this during Malaysia (I think) when Petrov seemed to glue himself to Hamilton down the straights. I had expected to see something written by the experts shortly after that race, but nothing popped up.

You might have something.

Tall Chris · 31 May 2010, 23:13 (Ref:2702150)

Quote:

Originally Posted by neiltb

with less turbulence you would expect less tow. You have to look at it in perspective though, the turbulence is still immense and I wouldn't imagine that using an f-duct (silly name) in the tow would do all that much, handy when you pull out though.

It's called the 'F' duct as it is in line with the 'F' in Vodafone!

dyewat808 · 2 Jun 2010, 16:00 (Ref:2703295)

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnage arnie

While watching the Turkish GP yesterday, with even more teams running F-ducts, I was thinking:-

If a driver is using his F-duct to stall the rear wing, will the turbulence coming off it be reduced? And if it is, will this allow the following car to get a better slipstream & more speed? Alternatively, if the following driver tries to use his F-duct, will it be less efficient? Apologies if this has been discussed somewhere else.

Flamin' hell - why hasn't anyone else thought of this?

Its a good point. Anyone have any kind of idea?

Dead-Eye · 2 Jun 2010, 16:11 (Ref:2703298)

I'm not sure if turbulence is all that relevant on the straight. It's more of a problem in corners when it prevents the following car's aero from working properly. And obviously there the F-duct isn't used.

Steven Humphrey · 3 Jun 2010, 21:26 (Ref:2704179)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

I'm not sure if turbulence is all that relevant on the straight. It's more of a problem in corners when it prevents the following car's aero from working properly. And obviously there the F-duct isn't used.

I was thinking more about slipstreaming & the effectiveness of an F-duct while following an F-duct equipped car.

And was that really the reason it's called an F-duct??!

Cougar · 3 Jun 2010, 21:53 (Ref:2704185)

In my mind.. the bigger the wing the bigger the hole in the air a car is going to punch. Hence better slipstream? Once you are in in that is.

Less wing will mean less turbulance... but less slipstream too?

If you had a car infront that had 0% drag... and a normal car behind.. there would be no slipstream for it to use?

But then again cleaner air may mean a faster car.

Or am I wrong?

phoenix · 4 Jun 2010, 13:51 (Ref:2704535)

This is a very complex subject and I am no expert, so anything I say is guesswork and probably wrong!

The purpose of the F-Duct is to increase top speed by reducing drag on the rear wing. As far as I know, over an aerofoil section increased drag causes an increase in turbulence - or at least increased turbulence increases the drag the aerofoil produces.

Some early reports of how the F-Duct worked talked of 'stalling the rear wing'. I have read elsewhere that this is cannot be the case. Stalling the rear wing would indeed reduce downforce but at the expense of increased turbulence and therefore drag - which would slow the car rather than allow it to go faster.

To achieve less drag the F-Duct and the airflow it controls to the rear wing slot, must somehow reduce the drag by improving the smoothness of the airflow over/under the rear wing. This I would have thought would reduce turbulence in the wake of the car.

Again it is only possible for me to speculated how this might affect the car following, but I would guess that it's airflow management - using wings, vanes, ducts etc - would be better than it would be in the more turbulent air behind the same car without the F-Duct being operated.

Steven Humphrey · 4 Jun 2010, 22:03 (Ref:2704810)

I will have to talk to my wind tunnel tech brother about this!

Marbot · 5 Jun 2010, 00:30 (Ref:2704863)

An article on how f-ducts work.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/a...they-work.html

What every petrol-head was dying to know.

Armco Bender · 5 Jun 2010, 07:53 (Ref:2704938)

Its not really anything new its been used on aircraft for years here
I think theres a lot of confusion because not many people understand how it works,including me..

Steven Humphrey · 9 Jun 2010, 20:18 (Ref:2707718)

Right, after talking to someone who knows what they're talking about - IF a car without an F-duct could get close enough to a car using one, it should get more of a tow. BUT it would never be able to get close enough due to the extra speed gained by the F-duct.

Not quite sure how the F-duct of the following car would perform but the effects would be negligible.

So nothing really conclusive!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Intercooling on a race car. Air to air, or air to water?	Chris Wilson	Racing Technology	11	2 Feb 2009 23:46
European Cleaner Racing Conference - MIA	TorqueWench	Historic Racing Today	13	7 Jan 2009 05:50