University of Ljubljana

Faculty of mathematics and physics

Department of physics
Race Car Aerodynamics
Gregor Seljak
May 13, 2008
Mentor: Prof. Dr. Rudolf Podgornik
Asist. Dr. Gregor Veble
Abstract
The purpose of this seminar is to describe main aerodynamic principles of
car racing. In the rst part, theoretical solutions for airfoil and nite wing
characteristics are derived and principle of ground eect is introduced. In
the second part, practical applications of aerodynamic devices in car racing
are described.
Contents
1 Introduction 2
2 Airfoils 2
2.1 Flow over an airfoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Thin airfoil theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Viscid ow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 Finite wings 8
3.1 Prandtls classical lifting-line theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4 Ground eect 12
5 Applications in car racing 13
5.1 Rear wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2 Front wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3 Underbody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6 Conclusion 19
1
1 Introduction
First racing cars were primarily designed to achieve high top speeds and the
main goal was to minimize the air drag. But at high speeds, cars developed
lift forces, which aected their stability. In order to improve their stability
and handling, engineers mounted inverted wings proles
1
generating negative
lift. First such cars were Opels rocket powered RAK1 and RAK2 in 1928[1].
However, in Formula, wings were not used for another 30 years. Racing in
this era occured on tracks where the maximum speed could be attained over
signicant distance, so development aimed on reducing drag and potencial of
downforce had not been discovered until the late 1960s[2]. But since then,
Formula 1 has led the way in innovative methods of generating downforce
within ever more restrictive regulations.
Figure 1: Opels rocket powered RAK2, with large side wings
2 Airfoils
Airfoil can be dened as a shape of wing, as seen in cross-section. In order
to describe an airfoil, we must dene the following terms[3](Figure 2)
The mean camber line is a line drawn midway between the upper and
lower surfaces.
The leading and trailing edge are the most forward an rearward of the
mean camber line.
1
Compared to an aircraft
2
The chord line is a line connecing leading an trailing edge.
The chord length is the distance from the leading to the trailing edge,
measured along the chord line.
The camber is the maximum distance between mean camber line and
chord line.
The thickness is the distance between the upper and lower surfaces.
Figure 2: Airfoil nomenclature
The amount of lift L produced by the airfoil, can be expressed in term of lift
coecient C
L
L =
1
2

V
2

SC
L
(1)
where V

denotes the freestrem velocity,

uid density and S the airfoil

area.
2.1 Flow over an airfoil
Properties of an airfoil can be measured in a wind tunnel, where constant-
chord wing spannes the entire test section, from one sidewall to the other.
In this conditions, the ow sees a wing without wing tips. Such wing is
called innite wing and streches to innity along the span. Because the
airfoil section is identical along the wing, the properties of the airfoil and the
innite wing are identical. Therefore the ow over an airfoil can be described
as a 2D incompressible inviscid ow over an innite wing[3].
Lift per unit span L

generated by an arbitrary airfoil(or any other body)

moving at speed V

through the iud with density

and circulation is
3
given by Kutta-Joukowsky theorem[3]
L

. (2)
Circulation around an airfoil, can be calculated with the concept of a vortex
sheet, which was rst introduced by Prandtl an his colleagues. Consider an
airfoil of arbitrary shape and thickness as shown in Figure 3. Circulation can
be distributed over the whole airfoil area with surface density(vortex sheet
strength) d/ds = (s), where (s) must satisfy Kutta condition[3]
(trailing edge) = 0 (3)
Entire circulation is then given by
=

(s)ds , (4)
where the integral is taken around the complete surface of the airfoil. How-
ever, there is no general solution for (s) for an airfoil of arbitrary shape
and it must be found numericaly, but analytical solutions can be found with
some aproximations.
Figure 3: Simulation of an arbitrary airfoil by distributing a vortex sheet
over the airfoil surface.
2.2 Thin airfoil theory
Here we discuss thin airfoil in freestream of velocity V

under small angle

of attack . Camber and thickness are small in relation with chord length c.
In such case, airfoil can be described with a single vortex sheet distributed
over the camber line(Figure 4). Our goal is to calculate the variation of
(s), such that the chamber line becomes streamline and Kutta condition at
trailing edge, (c) = 0, is satised.
4
Figure 4: Thin airfoil approximation. Vortex sheet is distributed over the
chamber line
The velocity at any point in the ow is the sum of the uniform freestream
velocity and velocity induced by the vortex sheet . In order the camber line
to be a streamline, the component of velocity normal to the camber line must
be zero at any point along the camber line.
w

(s) + V
,n
= 0 , (5)
where w

(s) is the component of velocity normal to the chamber line induced

by the vortex sheet and V
,n
the component of the freestrem velocity normal
to the camber line. Considering small angle of attack
2
and dening (x) =
dz/dx as the slope of the chamber line, V
,n
can be written as (Figure 5)
V
,n
= V

dz
dx

(6)
Because airfoil is very thin, we can make the approximation
w

(s) w(x) , (7)

where w(x) denotes the component of velocity normal to the chord line and
can be, using the Biot-Savart law[4], expressed as
w(x) =

c
0
()d
2(x )
(8)
Substituting equations (6), (7) and (8) into (5) and considering Kutta con-
dition, we obtain
1
2

c
0
()d
x
= V

dz
dx

(c) = 0 (9)
2
tan
1

5
Figure 5: Determination of the component of freestrem velocity normal to
the chamber line
fundamental equations of thin airfoil theory.
In order to satisfy this conditions , we rst transform our variables x and
into [3]
=
c
2
(1 cos ) x =
c
2
(1 cos
0
) (10)
and equation (9) becomes
1
2

0
() sin d
cos cos
0
= V

dz
dx

(11)
with a solution that satises Kutta condition () = 0
() = 2V

A
0
1 + cos
sin
+

n=1
A
n
sin(n)

(12)
In order to nd coecients A
0
and A
n
, we substitute equation (12) into
equation (11) and use the following trigonometric relations[3]

0
sin(n) sin d
cos cos
0
= cos(n
0
) (13)

0
cos(n)d
cos cos
0
=
sin(n
0
)
sin
0
(14)
6
and nally obtain
dz
dx
= ( A
0
) +

n=1
A
n
cos(n
0
) (15)
This equation is in form of a Fourier cosine series expansion for the function
dz/dx. Comparing it to the general form for the Fourier cosine expansion we
obtain
A
0
=
1

0
dz
dx
d
0
(16)
A
n
=
2

0
dz
dx
cos(n
0
)d
0
(17)
The total circulation due to entire vortex sheet from leading to the trailing
edge is
=

c
0
()d =
c
2

c
0
() sin d (18)
Substituting equation (12) for () into equation (18) and carrying out the
integration, we obtain
= cV

A
0
+

2
A
1

(19)
hence the lift per unit span, given by Kutta-Joukowski is
L

= c

V
2

A
0
+

2
A
1

(20)
This equation leads to the lift coecient in form
c
l
= (2A
0
+ A
1
) = 2

+
1

0
dz
dx
(cos(n
0
) 1)d
0

(21)
and lift slope
l
S

dc
l
d
= 2 (22)
Last two results are important. We can see, that lift coecient is func-
tion of the shape of the prole dz/dx and angle of attack , and that even
symmetrical wing produces lift, when set under an angle of attack. Lift slope
is constant, independently of the shape of the prole, while the zero lift angle

L=0
=
1

0
dz
dx

cos(n
0
) 1

d
0
(23)
depends on the shape. The more highly chambered the airfoil, the larger is

L=0
7
2.3 Viscid ow
By now, we have studied the inviscid incompressible ow. But in real case,
ow is viscous. It is time to compare our theoretical results with real one.
In Figure 6, we can see variation of lift coecient with the angle of attack.
At low angles of attack c
l
varies linearly with , as predicted by the theory.
However, at certain angle of attack, c
l
reaches its maximum value c
l,max
and
starts to decrease. This is due to viscous eect of the uid (air). First, the
ow moves smoothly over the airfoil and is attached over most of the surface,
but at certain value of seperates from the top surface, creating a wake of
turbulent ow behind the airfoil, which results in drop in lift and increase in
drag.
Figure 6: Variation of lift coecient with the angle of atack.
To increase lift of the airfoil, we must increase c
l,max
. As we have seen,
the c
l,max
of the airfoil primarily depends on its shape. Airfoils shape can
be changed with use of multielement aps at the trailing edge and slats at
leading edge. They increase chamber of the airfoil and therefore its c
l,max
.
The streamline pattern for the ow over such airfoil can be seen in Figure 7.
3 Finite wings
Properies of airfoils are the same as the properties of a wing of innite span.
However, all real wing are of nite span and the ow over nite wing is 3
dimensional. Because of higher pressure on the bottom surface of the wing,
8
Figure 7: Flow over multielement airfoil.
the ow tends to leak around the wing tips. This ow establishes a circulary
motion that trails downstream of the wing. A trailing vortex is created at
each wing tip. These wing-tip vortices induce a small downward component
of air velocity, called downwash . It produces a local relative wind which
is directed downward in the vicinity of the wing, and reduces the angle of
attack that each section of the wing eectively sees

eff
=
i
(24)
and it creates a component of drag, dened as induced drag.
3.1 Prandtls classical lifting-line theory
The idea of lifting line theory, is to use two dimensional results, and correct
them for the inuence of the trailing vortex wake and its downwash[5]. Lets
replace a nite wing of span b, with a bound vortex
3
extending from y = b/2
to y = b/2. But due to the Helmholtzs theorem[3], a vortex lament cant
end in a uid. Therefore assume the vortex lament continues as two free
vortices trailing downstream from the wing tips to innity(Figure 8). This
vortex is, due to its shape, called horseshoe vortex. Downwash induced
by such vortex, does not realistically simulate that of a nite wing, as it
aproaches at wing tips[3].
Instead of representing the wing by a single horseshoe vortex, Prandtl su-
perimposed an innite number of horseshoe vortices, each with an innites-
imally small strength d, and with all the bound vortices coincident along
3
A vortex bound to a xed location in ow
9
Figure 8: Replacement of the nite wing with single horseshoe vortex.
a single line, called the lifting line. In this model, we have a continious dis-
tribution of circulation (y) along the lifting line with the value
0
at the
origin. The two trailing vortices in single horseshoe vortex model, have now
Figure 9: Superposition of an innite number of horseshoe vortices along the
lifting line.
became a continious vortex sheet trailing downstream of the lifting line, and
the total downstream velocity w, induced at the coordinate y
0
by the entire
trailing vortex sheet can be expressed as
w(y
0
) =
1
4

b/2
b/2
(d/dy)dy
y
0
y
(25)
The induced angle of attack at the arbitrary spanwise location y
0
is given by

i
(y
0
) = arctan

w(y
0
)
V

=
w(y
0
)
V

, (26)
10
where we considered V

w(y
0
) and arctan() for small values of .
Now we can obtain an expression for the induced angle of attack in term of
the circulation distribution along the wing

i
(y
0
) =
1
4V

b/2
b/2
(d/dy)dy
y
0
y
(27)
Combining results
c
l
=
2(y
0
)
V

(28)
and
c
l
= 2[
eff
(y
0
)
L=0
] (29)
for coecient of lift per unit span from thin airfoil theory, we obtain

eff
=
(y
0
)
V

c(y
0
)
+
L=0
(30)
Substituting equations (27) and (30) into (24), we nally obtain the funda-
mental equation of Prandtls lifting line theory[3].
(y
0
) =
(y
0
)
V

c(y
0
)
+
L=0
(y
0
) +
1
4V

b/2
b/2
(d/dy)dy
y
0
y
(31)
Just as in thin airfoil theory, this integral equation can be solved by assuming
a Fourier series representation for the distribution of vorticity
() = 2bV

n=1
A
n
sin n (32)
where we considered transormation y = (b/2) cos , with 0 and
coecients A
n
must satisfy Equation (31). With such vorticity distribution,
Equation (31) becomes
(
0
) =
2b
c(
0
)
N

n=1
A
n
sin n
0
+
L=0
(
0
) +
N

n=1
nA
n
sin n
0
sin
0
(33)
The total lift distribution is obtained by integrating equation for lift distri-
bution over the span
L =

b/2
b/2

(y)dy (34)
Coecients of lift and induced drag
4
, can be calculated via equations
C
L
=
L
q

S
=
2
V

b/2
b/2
(y)dy (35)
4
Note the dierence in nomenclature. In 2D case, coecients have been denoted with
lowercase letters-c
l
, c
d
. In 3D case, we use capital letters-C
L
, C
D
11
and
C
D
=
D
q

S
=
2
V

b/2
b/2

i
(y)(y)dy (36)
respecteviliy. Considering expressions (32) and (33), they can be written as
C
L
= A
1
AR (37)
and
C
D,i
=
C
2
L
AR
(1 + ) (38)
where AR is aspect ratio of nite ng, dened as AR = b
2
/S, and =

N
2
(A
n
/A 1)
2
. Note that C
L
depends only on the leading coecient in
Fourier series expansion and that 0. Therefore, the lowest induced drag
will be produced by a wing where = 0, that is, n = 1. Such circula-
tion distribution is given by () = 2bV

A
1
sin and is known as elliptical
circulation distribution.
4 Ground eect
The main dierece between wing application in aviation and car racing is,
that cars are in contact with the ground. Therefore, wing experiences some
additional eects due to ground proximity. Remember the wing tip vortices
we mentioned at the beginning of the previous section. They do nothing
but harm, as they increase drag and decrease lift at given angle of attack.
When ying near to the ground, the ground partially blocks(Figure 10) the
trailing vortices and decreases the amount of downwash generated by the
wing[6]. This reduction in downwash increases the eective angle of attack
of the wing so that it creates more lift and less drag than it would otherwise.
This eect is greater, the closer to the ground the wing operates.
Figure 10: Eect of the ground proximity on creation of the trailing vortices.
Another way to create downforce is to create low pressure area underneath
the car, so that the higher pressure above the car will apply a downward
12
force. The area between cars underbody and the ground, can be thougth
as an example of Venturi nozzle[1]. The Venturi eect may be derived from
a combination of Bernoullis principle and the equation of continuity. The
uid velocity increases through the constriction to satisfy the equation of
continuity, while its pressure decreases due to conservation of energy. The
gain in kinetic energy is supplied by a drop in pressure. The main advantage
of ground eect is, that it produces almost no drag.
5 Applications in car racing
Now summarize what we have learned so far. The coecient of lift increases
with increasing angle of attack. At some angle, ow seperates from the wing,
which causes drop of lift coecient. With use of multidimensional aps, we
increase chamber of the airfoil and thus maximum coecent of lift.
In 3 dimensional case, vortices appear at wing tips. They reduce wings
eciency and increase drag. The lowest drag can be achieved with elliptically
shaped wing. Dimensions of the wing are also important. Wing with greater
surface, produces more lift and wing with higher aspect ratio induces less air
resistance.
In the next sections, we will see, how engineers used this principles at
developing the main aerodynamical parts of racing cars.
5.1 Rear wing
First rear wing appeared in 1966[1], when Jim Hall equiped his Chaparral
2E with a rear wing. From then on, use of wings grew quickly. First wings
were mounted high over the rear end of the car to operate in indisturbed
ow. They were also mounted on pivots, so the driver was able to change
the angle of attack during the ride. High mounted wings often broke o
during the race and were therefore prohibited by FIA. In Formula 1, wings
were rst introduced in 1968 at the Belgium grand prix[7], when Ferrari used
full inverted rear wings, and Brabham did likewise, just one day after the
Ferraris wings rst appeared.
Modern rear wings produce approximately 30-35 % of the total down-
force of the car[2]. A typical conguration(Figure 12) consists of two sets of
airfoils connected to each other by the wing endplates. The most downforce
is provided by the upper airfoil. To achieve the greatest possible lift coe-
cient, it consists of multiple high aspect ratio elements, which prevent ow
separation. Angle of attack depends on circuit conguration. On tracks with
many turns, more downforce is needed, therefore the wing is set at higher
13
Figure 11: Chaparral 2E (left) and Ferrari 312 (right).
angle of attack. Conversely, on tracks with long straights, wing has small
angle attack, thus reducing air drag and allowing higher top speeds. Lower
airfoil section actually reduces the downforce produced by total rear wing,
but it creates a low-pressure region just below the wing to help the diuser
5
to create more downforce below the car. Ususally it consists of two elements.
Another important part of rear wing are endplates . They provide a con-
venient way of mounting wings, but also have aerodynamic function. They
reduce the 3D eect of the wing by preventing air leakage around the wing
tips and thus formation of trailing vortices. An additional goal of the rear
endplates is to help reduce the inuence of upow from the rear wheels.
The U-shaped cutout from the endplate further alleviates the development
of trailing vortices.
5.2 Front wing
The front wing on the car produces 25-30% of the cars downforce[2] and it
has experienced more modications than rear wing. It is the rst part of
the car to meet the air mass, therefore, besides creating downforce, its main
task is to eciently guide the air towards the body and rear of the car, as
the turbulent ow impacts the eciency of the rear wing.
Front wings appeared in Formula 1 just two weaks after the rst rear
wings, on Lotus 49B[9]. First front wings were quite simple with single
rectangular airfoil with at vertical endplates to reduce wing tip vortices.
First improvement appeared in 1971, with so-called Gurney ap[9]. This
is a at trailing edge ap perpendicular to the chord and projects no more
than 5% of the chord. It can improve the performance of a simple airfoil to
nearly the same level as a complex design. The same year, the concept of
5
See section 5.3
14
Figure 12: Modern rear wing consists of upper(1) an lower(2) airfoil section
mounted on endplates (3) with U-shaped cutout (4).
Figure 13: Conguration of modern front wing. Two element airfoil (1 & 2)
is mounted under the nose of the car (3). Endplates (4) direct air around
the wheels and curved area (5) under the nose increases wings eciency.
elliptical wing was applied. March equiped its 711 with elliptical front wing.
Two years later Ferrari avoided wing-body interaction with wing mounted
quite far ahead from the body. Multi element wings were introduced in 1984
by McLaren[9]. The angle of attack of the second element was allowed to
15
be modied so that the load applied on the front wing could be changed
to balance the car according to the drivers wishes. In 1990 Tyrell raised
the nose of its 019 to increase the ow under the nose cone and improve
ow conditions under the car[9]. This concept avoids wing-body interaction
and allows the front wing to operate in undisturbed ow. It also enlarges
eective area of the wing. After Imola 1994, the FIA regulations do not
allow any chassis parts under a minimum ground height. This clearance is
dierent between the centre and the side of the car[9]. Teams used this to
curve front wing in the centre of the span and regain some of the lost ground
eect. In 1998, regulations decreased the width of Formula 1 car, so the front
wings overlapped the front wheels. This created unnecessary turbulence in
front of the wheels and reducing aerodynamic eciency of the wing. With
reducing wings span this could be avoided, but it would also decrease wings
aspect ratio. Instead of this, teams use wing tips to direct the air around the
wheels[9].
Figure 14: Some historical milestones in front wing development. Lotus 49B,
March 711, Ferrari 312 B3 and Tyrrell 019.
16
5.3 Underbody
The second revolution in Formula 1 aerodynamics occurred about a decade
after the rst, with the introuction of the Lotus T78 in 1977[7]. Lotus T78
and its further development, Lotus T79, were rst cars to use ground ef-
fect. The underbody took shape of inverted wing prole(Figure 15). The
decreasing cross-sectional area accelerated the airow and created low pres-
sure underneath the car. The gap between the bottom of the sidepods and
the ground was sealed with so-called sidepods. They helped to maintain 2D
ow characteristics that provide increased downforce and reduced drag, com-
pared to a typical 3D wing. Skirts enabled very high cornering speeds and
were prohibited by the rules, due to safety reasons and from 1983 onwards,
the tehnical regulations in Formula 1 require the underbody panel between
the wheels to be completely level[1].
Figure 15: Lotus T79 and sketch of its underbody.
The ow wolume between the vehicle and the ground is strongly de-
pendent on the cars attitude relative to the ground[1]. This correlation
is illusrtated in Figure 16. Very small ground clearence results in positive
lift, since there is almost no airow between the underbody and the ground.
With increasing ground clearence the airow produces low pressures causing
overall lift to be lowered to negative values and then to rise again as ground
clearence continues to increase. This is due to the fact that the ow velocity
under the car decreases as ground clearence increases. More downforce can
be generated using a diusor between the wheels at the rear of the car[8].The
air enters the diuser in a low-pressure, high-velocity state after accelerat-
ing under the car. By gradually increasing the cross-sectional area of the
diuser, the air gradually slows down and returns to its original free-stream
speed and pressure. The diusers aim is to decelerate the air without it
17
separating from the tunnel walls, which would cause a stall, reducing the
downforce and inducing a large drag force. By installing an inverted wing
close to the diuser exit
6
it is possible to create a low-pressure area, which
essentially sucks the air from the diuser. The diuser and wing combina-
tion permits a higher air mass ow rate through the diuser, thus resulting in
higher downforce. Sharp edges on the vertical tunnel walls generate vortices
from entrained air and help conne the air through the diuser and reduce
the chance it will separate.
Figure 16: Correlation between lift coecient and ground clearence(left) and
diuser on Ferrari F430(right).
Again Chaparral, showed completely new way to create downforce. The
Chaparral 2J in 1969 used two rear fans to suck in air from under the car,
thus creating low pressure under the car[1]. Big advantage of this concept
is, that downforce can be generated independently of the speed. Fans were
also used in Formula 1. Brabham BT46 used a rear mounted fan driven o
the gearbox. It won its debut race in 1978, but was promptly banned by the
governing body.
Barge boards were rst seen in 1993 and their purpose is to smooth
the airow around the car and into the radiator intakes. They are most
commonly mounted between the front wheels and the sidepods (Figure 18)
.Their main purpose is to direct relatively clean air into the sidepods.Clean
air is from the low section of the front wing where airow is fairly unaected
by the wing and far away from tires, which may throw stones and debris in
to the radiator. Bargeboards also produce vortices to seal the area between
the sidepots and the surface, so they work as a substitude for skirts.
6
See rear wing section
18
Figure 17: Two cars which used fans to create downforce. The Chaparral 2J
"sucker car" (left) and Brabham BT46 "fan car" (right).
Figure 18: Bargeboards on McLaren MP4/8.
6 Conclusion
Nowadays all calculations are made numerically using sophisticated CFD
7
software and half- or full-scale car models are tested in wind tunnels. At
designing cars, engineers must satisfy technical regulation set by FIA, which
tries to make racing safe for all participants. In its early years, F1 was very
dangereous sport. For drivers and also for spectators, as very litle had been
done for their safety. But thanks to more and more restrictive regulations,
there has not been any severe accident since 1994. Now the main problem is
attractiveness of races, as we see few overtakings and duels between drivers.
7
Computational Fluid Dynamics
19
For the next season FIA applied some new regulations, as reintroduction of
slick tyres and driver-adjustable front wing[10], which could make races more
spectacular, and we can hope to see some duels like in old days[11].
References
[1] W. H. Hucho, Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles, 4th edition (Warrendale:
Society of Automotive Engineers, 1998)
[2] Peter Wright, Formula 1 Technology (Warrendale: Society of Automo-
tive Engineers,2001)
[3] J. D. Anderson, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics (Boston: McGraw-Hill,
2001)
[4] Applied Aerodynamics: A Digital Textbook,
http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedaero/airfoils1/tatderivation.html
[5] Applied Aerodynamics: A Digital Textbook,
http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedaero/potential3d/liftingline.html
[6] Ground Eect and WIG Vehicles
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0130.shtml
[7] Gordon McCabe, Explanation And Discovery In Aerodynamics,
arXiv:physics/0512224v1 (2008)
[8] Symscape,
http://www.symscape.com/blog/f1_aero
[9] F. Mortel: Craneld Team F1: The Front Wing,
http://www.carbodydesign.com/detail.php?id=710 (2003)
[10] http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67029
[11] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzCqY8Wg5So
20