2010 Formula 1 Petronas Malaysian Grand Prix

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter
  • 243 comments
  • 21,047 views
Ardius
Good race, not pleased with the result really for my fantasy team, but whatever, I don't care because the championship is extremely close!
Massa 39
Alonso 37
Vettel 37
Button 35
Rosberg 35
Hamilton 31
Kubica 30

9 points between 7 drivers! Who would like to predict the drivers champion? :lol:
Click to expand...

This is Vettel's year.

red7
Wow, rd. 3 was very entertaining to say the least. I started cracking up out loud when Hamilton and Petrov started doing the triple digit shuffle down the straight. I've just never seen that before.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was quite funny.
 
After reading about the F-Duct thingy for nearly 10 times, I still somehow don't get it :confused:
 
InvincibleM5
After reading about the F-Duct thingy for nearly 10 times, I still somehow don't get it :confused:
Click to expand...

I think, by reducing the airflow with their leg (hole in car's nose), the drivers simply gain more topspeed, because less air is reaching the rearwing... could be completely the opposite tho. :dunce:

Someone corect me, if I got it wrong, please.
 
InvincibleM5
After reading about the F-Duct thingy for nearly 10 times, I still somehow don't get it :confused:
Click to expand...

It's pretty much two downforce settings in one go.

When they want to go fast in a straight line, they block the hole with their knees, which opens a hole in the rear wing. This reduces the downforce, which reduces the drag, which increases the top speed.

If they want to go fast round a corner, they unblock the hole with their knees - the rear wing hole opens, increasing downforce, which increases cornering speeds.


Incidentally, McLaren say that it's not called "the F-Duct", but they won't say what it is called. I tend to refer to it as "the Buttonhole".
 
Last edited:
Great race and no rain!

I hope China has more of the same :)
 
Famine
It's pretty much two downforce settings in one go.

When they want to go fast in a straight line, they block the hole with their knees, which opens a hole in the rear wing. This reduces the downforce, which reduces the drag, which increases the top speed.

If they want to go fast round a corner, they unblock the hole with their knees - the rear wing hole opens, increasing downforce, which increases cornering speeds.
Click to expand...

:confused:

OK, I understand how the air gets to the rear wing when the driver's knee plugs the cockpit hole, but from there, how does the air open a hole in the wing? And how does that stall the wing?
 
SUPER NUMBBER
OK, I understand how the air gets to the rear wing when the driver's knee plugs the cockpit hole, but from there, how does the air open a hole in the wing?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it doesn't. It's a lever.

SUPER NUMBBER
And how does that stall the wing?
Click to expand...

A wing with a hole in it makes less downforce than the same one without the hole.
 
InvincibleM5
After reading about the F-Duct thingy for nearly 10 times, I still somehow don't get it :confused:
Click to expand...

This is my take on it:

The duct on the upper nose of the car has a operable aperture that is controlled by the drivers knee. I imagine that this is a lever that the driver depresses when wanting to increase the speed of the car. I don't think it would be practical to operate it when taking corners!

When the driver depresses the lever the aperture opens and allows the air to flow through it. The air is passed through a duct that is fed through the cockpit to the engine bay and is the led through the engine cover at high level. The air is then exhausted through a permanent opening at the end/top of the engine cover which dumps the air onto the rear aerofoil. The resultant effect is to 'stall' the air that is rushing over the car that would otherwise cause drag when hitting the rear wing and therefore 'stall' the downforce. Without this drag factor the car becomes more efficient and gains additional speed.

I can not qualify any of this though :lol:
 
That's where it gets tricky: I thought any moving aero devices were banned. A lever would imply moving parts, no?
 
SUPER NUMBBER
That's where it gets tricky: I thought any moving aero devices were banned. A lever would imply moving parts, no?
Click to expand...

It's not a moving aero device, because it doesn't move in relation to the aerodynamics - it's driver-operated.
 
7563290.pilotoons_malasia_grande_premio_418_499.jpg
 
Famine
It's not a moving aero device, because it doesn't move in relation to the aerodynamics - it's driver-operated.
Click to expand...

I take it you mean the activation mechanism (the hole inside the cockpit) is not a lever - you just said there was a lever on the spoiler.

I think I fully understand how the device is activated. I just want to know what the air does once it gets to the rear wing.
 
Stevisiov
I'm sure there was someone taking bets on when the first (unintentional) virgin related innuendo would turn up. :lol:
Click to expand...

Who said it was unintentional... I'm surprised it took this long for someone to spot it!!!

C.
 
SUPER NUMBBER
I take it you mean the activation mechanism (the hole inside the cockpit) is not a lever
Click to expand...

Err... no? I very clearly said that it is a lever. It isn't classified as a "moveable aerodynamic device" because it does not move aerodynamically. It is moved by the driver in the cockpit when he chooses and not by airflow.
 
The lever is moveable, but it's not aerodynamic (it is inside the cockpit.) The rear wing is an aerodynamic device, but it does not move. Therefore, there are no moveable aerodynamic devices on the McLaren (except the front wing which is adjustable as is allowed.)
 
A driver operated device that modifies the airflow around the rear wing to change the level of downforce/drag at will. 2 things come to mind: there is no such thing as the spirit of the rule and F1 is all about pushing it to the limit. Clever engineering, that’s it.
 
An article in PlanetF1 says that the driver's knee is actually blocking the airflow, and that's the way I've always known it to work. It makes no mention of a lever inside the cockpit. And it makes sense, because I'm pretty sure a lever that influences airflow (no matter where it is) is an aero device, and if it moves, it's a moving aero device. Surely if being inside is the only thing that made it legal, they could've used a button operated on the steering wheel, or a lever attached to the gas pedal. The only way McLaren are able to pass it is because the driver cannot be considered an aero device, so blocking airflow with the driver's knee is fair game. That's how I understood it to be legal.
 
SUPER NUMBBER
An article in PlanetF1 says that the driver's knee is actually blocking the airflow, and that's the way I've always known it to work. It makes no mention of a lever inside the cockpit. And it makes sense, because I'm pretty sure a lever that influences airflow (no matter where it is) is an aero device, and if it moves, it's a moving aero device. Surely if being inside is the only thing that made it legal, they could've used a button operated on the steering wheel, or a lever attached to the gas pedal. The only way McLaren are able to pass it is because the driver cannot be considered an aero device, so blocking airflow with the driver's knee is fair game. That's how I understood it to be legal.
Click to expand...

That's the understanding I had.
 
Thanks for your reply Hybrid, Famine and Fastas :)

Now I know how it works. Ferrari is working on it but that will need to do major modifications to the chassis of the car to make it work. Red Bull already told they're not going to use it until it's really safe to use.

This is quite an invention by the way.
 
Yeah, its not a lever, its a flow-hole. Without the driver's leg blocking it, the air just flows into the cockpit rather than to the rear wing. When the driver puts his knee in the hole, it completes the "circuit" (so to speak) and allows air to reach the rear wing and stall it.
This is how it avoids being a "moveable aero device" because the only moving part is the driver.

To implement it is incredibly simple and easy, a very cheap solution as long as the car's structure has the space remaining to allow it (you just need a length of tubing). Seeing as the sidepods are the only part of the crash structure which can be altered through the season, this is why Sauber have started with a sidepod-based system (though I don't know how this specifically works).
So other teams complaining of it costing "millions" to implement are in effect lying unless their car is too tightly packaged.
There is a point to be made about where this will go in future though - how many crazy systems are the teams going to come up with to bend this rule? Are we going to see driver's operating 50-odd devices? :lol:

Personally I think its very clever by McLaren to think up of such a cheap and effective solution - rather than an expensive solutuions like normal. They should be applauded for finding solutions which aren't hyper-expensive KERS batteries. However, I think it should be banned eventually because I can only see it getting silly.
Still, F1 should look to encourage simple and cheap innovations like this one.
 
Well KERS is being looked at again - seems like teams are interested after all, as long as it doesn't require a mega investment. So it's either the F-Duct or KERS.

Anyways, I got caught discussing the activation system but nobody explained how piping air to the rear wing stalls it. Maybe someone with a physics degree should grab this?
 
Maybe the duct is directed so that more air passes under the wing than above it.
 
SUPER NUMBBER
Well KERS is being looked at again - seems like teams are interested after all, as long as it doesn't require a mega investment. So it's either the F-Duct or KERS.
Click to expand...

Actually, KERS can be reasonably effective if its the system Williams have developed with the flywheel rather than the batteries. I'm not convinced its what we need though.
I tend to agree with the call for new engine regulations and bringing back turbos - which are far more relevant to the current car industry than aerodynamic advances depending on specific rules. The BTCC have 3 different engines being run at the moment and the performance differential doesn't appear to be huge.
Turbos are also a bit more "green".
However, an engine race is most certainly expensive, but I don't think we can avoid F1 being expensive in one form or another - but at least it could be more relevant spending rather than for some arbitrary percentage of downforce according to specific aero regulations.
 
The return of KERS is not a good idea in my view. Last year it worked when the attacking car had it and the defending car didn't. When both cars had KERS they both used it, one to attack and one to defend. That doesn't help with overtaking.

The FIA broke the moveable aero device rule themselves last year with the moveable front wing. Does that rule still exist? (The moveable aero rule, not the front wing rule)
 
Last edited:
Tired Tyres
The FIA broke the moveable aero device rule themselves last year with the moveable front wing. Does that rule still exist? (The moveable aero rule, not the front wing rule)
Click to expand...

I don't see why not, as the front wing rule is pretty specific. They can just list it as an exception. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure we would be seeing some crazy stuff.
 
Its impossible to stall a wing by adding more air on the cambered part. The way I see it they run excessively close wings and when the driver is on the straight he closes the hole thus choking the wing for that air and stalling it. Sabuers system doesnot even use a driver system that we know of so maybe a fluidic switch that works after a certain pressure is reached which could be adjusted to a correlated airspeed used to make the device automatic. Im pretty sure thats how it works since the knee idea is too dangerous.
 
I disagree RE: KERS - I think KERS is actually a lot more road useful than anything else on an F1 car at the moment... you're not going to have an "F-duct" on a road car are you?

Going back to Ardius' points RE: Turbos - also agree here that this is also more road useful as well... look at the Audi's at Le Mans... the FSi engine that was developed for the R10's has dripped down into all of the VW/Audi etc petrol engines...

C.
 
livemusic's take makes more sense; feeding air to the under side of the spoiler should in theory raise the pressure at high speed, decreasing the vacuum and downforce.
 
I also agree that Kers is more relevant for standard road cars. I know that Toyota uses a Kers system on there hybrids to recharge the battery's. The more money you invest in to that technology it will only get better.

But as for how it stalls the rear wing, I believe it creates the air to be turbulent in front of the wing causing the air to not be able to correctly pass over the wing and having little effect for down force. Just like when your flying an aircraft and you hit a pocket of turbulent air the plane loses altitude because the air is not flowing over the wing properly creating the lift.
 
Back