I just watched the Aussi Grand Prix practice on the
Speed Channel.
That is the dumbest rear wing ever mounted on a
race car.
It is near pure drag. A total waste of fuel. Really
stupid.
They should of used a piece of plywood mounted
perpendicularto the air stream. It would have done
as well.
Paul Lamar


I agree...the whole car is an excercise in ugly...
Ron

Congratulations to the Honda engineers for wining
the Australian Gran Prix first and second. Now called the Brawn
team. Congratulations
to the drivers as well.
The Mercedes engine must have been the key as they
did so poorly
last year with the Honda engine. I always thought Honda was
very good when
it came to engines. Either that or the 2009 Honda car is a
great leap forward.
The only passing that I saw was when the mandatory
extra soft tires
went away after a couple of hot laps. That also led
to a crash or two IMHO. Time will tell if the rear wing will help
passing. I doubt
it.

The low wide front wing is too vulnerable so they
need to mount one up high on the front of the car
feeding the loads
directly into the hub carriers like we did on Ron
Grable's car at Mid Ohio. That would allow a conventional, more
streamlinedand better
looking nose.

I had no trouble designing,
manufacturing and making suspension
mounted wings work on dozens of race cars back in
the early 1970's. The current
Formula 1 engineers can do it too. I'll help if
they ask. The car will ride
and corner better over the bumps with softer
springs. They have got to get rid of that silly rear wing.


The first two pictures are of Ron's car after we
were forced to mount
the wings on the chassis. The third picture is of
Ron sitting on the left front
tire with the high mounted front wing to his right.
Sorry Ron about your
head being cut off but the picture was damaged
somehow. These are all
I have. Do you have any better pictures you can
scan and send me?
Paul Lamar

Hi Paul and group,
The teams using the KERS are using batteries for the power
boost, except Williams which use...Anyone got a link for that specific
technology?
Marc Joseph


There was an article about it in Race Tech magazine this month.
I don't know of a link. Basically it is a large diameter electric
motor generator that acts as a flywheel to store the braking energy.
Williams choose not to use it for this race. The teams are having
difficulty getting the car weight down to the minimum with KERS.
Low weight is the be all and end all in Formula 1. It negatively
affects the cornering speed, the braking and the acceleration.
KERS gives an extra 80 HP but at the expense of about 100 pounds.
There is little choice on where to mount it so one can not shift
it around like one can with ballast to tune the cornering power
of the car. The CG of the KERS is also higher than that of ballast
and CG height is very important in terms of cornering power.
My guess is about half the teams choose not use it in this race.
The pay off was neutral. If there is any venue where KERS will pay
off it is road racing where the cars are either flat out or hard
on the brakes.

KERS will never pay off on the freeway as it will be a big negative
climbing hills due to its extra weight. There is no advantage when
coasting down the other side as the aero drag of the car is too
high. The
car slows enough just coasting without using the brakes. The Prius
is not a good example as the car itself has been optimized for low
aero drag and tire rolling and aero resistance to begin with.


If the Prius technology was applied to all cars, all cars would
get better gas mileage. However people don't like riding around
on rock hard narrow tires that don't corner worth a damn. They
also don't like riding around in cars that all look like
Prius's :)

Formula 1 needs to recover some of the 50% waste energy
in the exhaust as that will affect all internal combustion
engines world wide in a positive manner. In other words
some form of turbo compounding. Little or no weight is added
while the fuel burn is reduced up to 20% or more in
the case of the Wankel. In some cases a smaller engine could
be used which will actually reduce the over all weight of
the vehicle.
Paul Lamar

Thanks Paul for this explanation.

Back on the race, I was a bit surprised.When the safety car was out
the first time.I saw several cars braking furiously.Why?Then a
team radio communication, for the pilot, was aired.It said Don't
forget to turn on the KERS after the safety car is out. The braking
was, naturally, to recharged the batteries to maximum output. I think
it is 80HP for 6.6 seconds.

Paul as top gun in aerodynamic(In My Humble Opinion), what do you thing
of the front spoiler? In any case after the first race, all teams will
have an ample supply of nose replacement :))

Also, Button (I think) was in for a pit stop.And the front end was
passed the marker.So they had problems refueling the car costing 5
seconds.Not long ago that would cost the race for the driver. Very
different race overall.

And last, as per Christian Tortorra, rumours has put Montréal back in
the Grand Prix for THIS year. I sincerely hope the track will not come
apart has it did last year :((I present my sincere apologies for that.

Marc Joseph

One of the main problems with a low mounted front wing
is the dynamic pressure builds up on the front of the  body and
front tires. That slows and diverts the air flowing over the low mounted
front wing.

That is why you are seeing the strange, arched front body up and over the front
suspension and down to the front wing. It reduces the frontal
area of the body directly behind the front wing and is the main
reason the car is so ugly IMHO. It also causes structural problems
with the front suspension adding to the overall weight less ballast.

A high mounted full width front wing avoids these problems.

Paul Lamar