Quote from tristancliffe :

Look at planes - they always fly with their wings at 15° AoA. Don't they??

Also, I didn't say that zero AoA is 'best' in any way, shape or form. You don't run a flat wing at high angles of attack, cars and planes do run profiles at lots of angles - the profile is the more important part.

Planes vary their AoA dramatically depending upon the needs of the current situation. In cruising situations, minimal drag is desired, which generally means minimal AoA. However, minimal AoA means going fairly fast. As speed increases, so too does drag, so it may in fact make sense to go slower and use a higher AoA for optimal efficiency. Likewise, if a heavy load is being carried, sitting at the optimal portion of the lift/drag curve is highly desirable, and this is accomplished via a relatively large AoA.

Primarily the airfoil profile and wingspan determine at what AoA that optimal lift/drag point occurs.

I do not understand the emphasis on not comparing a downforce device on a car with an airplane wing. The configuration of the former often resembles an airplane wing with its flaps down. Even the endplates resemble winglets, both of which are designed to reduce wingtip vortices.

Quote from Forbin :

I do not understand the emphasis on not comparing a downforce device on a car with an airplane wing.

Because, If aviation was about creating MAXIMUM lift at lowest possible drag, we would be hitting the moon and not landing in airports.

Airplane wing profiles are great for showing what the dynamics of A 'wing' is, provided that the 'wing' is meant to be a low-drag lift system and not a device to produce downforce.

You would see the two elements looking quite different.

The fundamental principles are the same though. The goals are just a little different.

That's why fundamentally, it's okay to show what the wing could be if it was not an efficient aerodynamic device for racing.
It's perfect to explain it for kids like that.

But to say "race car wings are just inverted aviation wings" is a load of horse pile.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Look at F1 wings. The first element has a very low AoA, and the air coming goes upwards. The second element has a low AoA to that airflow, but larger against the ground.. The third element is even more steeply angled, but it's AoA to the air that's hitting it is surprisingly low.

so much wrong with that
1) the first element of the rear wing has a fairly high aoa of 14-15° (depending on the track and so on of course) as you can see from the best side on image i was able to find (not ideal but its sufficiently close to being exactly from the side that perspective errors dont make much of a difference)
2) for lift cause while reversing the rear wing will have the largest effect which is a 2 element wing on an f1
3) the elements arent seperate wings operating in their own flow regimes the elements for an overal wing with a fairly high aoa (~25° in the attached image) with a slot that serves to energise the boundary layer (similar to how leading edge slats work) allowing the wing to operate at those silly high aoas without stalling

Quote from Dennis93 :

The profile of an aircraft is completely different and should not be compared, as they work in two different ways.

no they dont

Quote :

Downforce is not about pushing air up

yes it is (at least as far as upper body downforce is concerned)
unless you accelerate air up your car wont accelerate down
newtons 3rd law and so forth

Quote from tristancliffe :

If AoA was all important, then why do they bother with the 'flat' first element at all? Get rid of it, save the weight, and just have a wing at high AoA to make it work...

1) if aoa wasnt all important how does a plane fly upside down?
and again
2) the first element has a high aoa
3) the elements arent seperate wings

Quote from Shotglass :

so much wrong with that
1) the first element of the rear wing has a fairly high aoa of 14-15° (depending on the track and so on of course) as you can see from the best side on image i was able to find (not ideal but its sufficiently close to being exactly from the side that perspective errors dont make much of a difference)
2) for lift cause while reversing the rear wing will have the largest effect which is a 2 element wing on an f1
3) the elements arent seperate wings operating in their own flow regimes the elements for an overal wing with a fairly high aoa (~25° in the attached image) with a slot that serves to energise the boundary layer (similar to how leading edge slats work) allowing the wing to operate at those silly high aoas without stalling



no they dont



yes it is (at least as far as upper body downforce is concerned)
unless you accelerate air up your car wont accelerate down
newtons 3rd law and so forth



1) if aoa wasnt all important how does a plane fly upside down?
and again
2) the first element has a high aoa
3) the elements arent seperate wings

Your first three points are exactly what I'm saying. The profile shape is what your diagram attachment shows. It isn't a flat plank at some angle. It's a shape. The shape is the important part. The profile is the important part.

I couldn't understand some of your points because of your weird idea about punctuation, so I'll skip them.

The elements are separate wings. You could take one off and leave the other. They work together, but they are individual parts. Actually, in F1 they probably are now moulded as one part, but typically they have always been separate parts.

no my points are the exact opposite of what youre saying
but nice attempt at trying to twist my words