1997 Williams Ultra-Low Drag Rear Wing

[amp88]

I've just been re-watching the 1997 FIA F1 Season Review and there was a small section that I don't remember seeing when I've watched the video before. It's a short clip of Villeneuve coming in to the pits during testing of an "Ultra-Low Drag Rear Wing". It was taken during the 1997 season and the mechanics weren't happy it was being filmed (as they so often are with "secret" technology). It was never raced with, so I was just wondering if anyone knows anything about this wing? How much did it decrease drag/downforce and why wasn't it put in a race?

I've attached a couple of screenshots of the rear wing below.

TIA for any info.

 

[DQuaN]

There is hardly a wing there.

Low drag: Yes

Low downforce: Hell yeah.

Look how low down it is as well. That can't provide much downforce.

 

[Dropout.]

That would be totally insane to drive.

I'm in!

 

[Lee]

You'd get more downforce if you strapped me to the back of the car...

 

[Dropout.]

Wanna test that theory?

 

[amp88]

Yeah, it was developed for Monza (where downforce obviously isn't the highest priority). Here's a pic of the wing they decided to run in the race (very skinny!)

 

[liam2maps]

"Dear Sir Frank, please change your wing, no one can see the sponsorship I paid for"

Did he get one of those too

 

[The359]

Many Group C cars ran with low drag rear wings set low like that for certain races as well.

 

[SouL]

I can't remember what season it was in, but when mansell was driving for Williams (I'm thinking early 90s, when the McLarens weren't as quick) they had a low drag/downforce wing for Hockenheim.

 

[Appie]

thats a really small wing to get mcuh downforce

and like DQuaN said, it wont provide much downforce

I think

 

[Blake]

I think the tyres would have killed the airflow around that wing. The wing is so low, and close to the tyres, that it probably wouldn’t have done much good.

It was probably a better choice to raise it and put it in the cleaner air.

 

[amp88]

Ok, thanks for the opinions people 👍

 

[Mulsanne]

Many Group C cars ran with low drag rear wings set low like that for certain races as well.

Mazda ran a similar wing on their #6 MXR01 (Jaguar XJR-14 with a Judd engine) at Le Mans in 1992. Unfortunately, it rained, the car was never a factor and ended up crashing out of the race.

The team's other car, #5, had the regular large wing and led part of the race and finished 4th.

 

[TheWizard]

Probably has to do with how the streamlines come out of the portion of the vehicle just in front of the wing.

It's really hard to keep the flow "attached" to the body of a vehicle, for the entire range of speeds the vehicle is going to be operated at. Since toward the back of the vehicle the flow is most likely to be "separated", the wing needs to be put higher to actually provide any effect at all. If the flow is separated and it's higher than the wing is, then it basically acts like a "wall", preventing the air to go through it and therefore from reaching the wing, down below. If the air can't get to the wing, the wing can't produce any downforce, and therefore it's completely useless.

Also, I think Blake makes a good point, too. The airflow around the tires has pretty good chances of being turbulent and non-smooth. The last thing you want for a wing is non-smooth flow, as it leads to flow separation. Flow separation is a bad thing. In an airplane it can cause stalling: no lift is being produced. Same thing for the F1 car: no (negative) lift = no downforce = useless wing.

The Wizard.

 

[z-reserve]

This rear wing is the cutest thing I've ever seen on an F1 car, bar none! Grand were the years of Williams-Renault.

I'd surely like to ask felloman Villeneuve about that... one day or not.

 

[TheCracker]

There is hardly a wing there.

Low drag: Yes

Low downforce: Hell yeah.

Look how low down it is as well. That can't provide much downforce.

It won't produce much downforce - but it will provide stability, something that would be lacking if it had no rear wing at all.

Honda have been over the Winter running a version of their car with no front or rear wing (just a small stability 'fin' at the back) they've been going for the F1 top speed record.

 

[Pupik]

I wonder if Williams was just testing and checking the effectiveness of the bottom tier of the rear wing? It may have been easier to change a small section at a time, to test different set-ups for the bottom tier.

Just speculating. I'll check Autocourse 1997-98 to see if there's any info.

 

[The359]

Mazda ran a similar wing on their #6 MXR01 (Jaguar XJR-14 with a Judd engine) at Le Mans in 1992. Unfortunately, it rained, the car was never a factor and ended up crashing out of the race.

The team's other car, #5, had the regular large wing and led part of the race and finished 4th.

Actually both Mazda MXR-01 #5 and #6 ran both. I believe they switched between the two from practice to the race, although I'm not sure which ran which.

High Downforce #5:

Low Downforce #5:

High Downforce #6:

Low Downforce #6:

 

[Mulsanne]

#5 ran the large wing in the race, while #6 ran the small wing.

Great pictures, BTW!