Whats the aversion to barge boards?

Seems to me every US open wheel series bans barge boards, and every european series has them. also seems they are a pretty useful device, which makes me wonder why our cars cant have them. What I especially dont understand is why with brand new rules FB outlawd them. From what ive seen with the phenoix prototypes and from other cars, cooling and drag are of main concern, thus the sidepods on the phenoix seem to as small as possible primarily for drag reasons. Seems like a barge board would be a perfect fit. I would really like to see one american single seat series come into 21st century aerodynamics.

The rules for most club cars seem to preclude barge boards, and have forever, depending on the "no ducting" interpretation.

While barge boards are indeed interesting and certainly usefull, the question you have to ask yourself is this: just how much money are you willing to spend to constantly chase the ideal?

i understand that in principal but barge boards are, even in f1 fairly basic shapes. Also basic parameters could be included in rules, and i know I could make a basic functional one in my shop in less than half an hour.

edit: well half hour might be optimistic, but i have enough info available to know what is right and wrong, and what will produce results.

You can have just about anything you can dream of.;)

At the risk of getting flamed - Barge boards, wings, diffusers, gurneyflaps, and all the appendages that we see on modern F1 do not necessarily bring value to relatively low power cars like a FC car or similar.

The core question you have to ask is how much horse power are you willing to trade for downforce or to move air from one place to another - none of this is free. Second, you need to have some "Data" to support the idea - wind tunnels, CFD, something other than it looks cool. You need to decide what problem do you need to solve with the appedage. Could the problem be solved by other means than a barg board or other device. Finally, you need a strategy which helps you prioritize your problems and potential solutions.

But data is the missing link. 90% of club drivers drive the cars as provided by the factory - they adjust a few paremeters but few are actually developing parts with hard data from a tunnel or (CFD). Why is simple, all this stuff costs money for marginal in most cases benefits - certainly less improvement than available by improving the nut behind the wheel. That said, I have tufted my car from time to time to understand flow and I have a data logger which is helpful and I even have access to CFD but its still very hard.

Net - get a strategy and use a fact basis to make your decisions

David Keep
Reynard 90SF

I don't see anything in the FB rules that would not allow barge boards. They are not "ducts" as the SCCA definition of ducts says "a tube or passage for conveying material, usually air". A barge board is merely a "diverter" not a tube or passage. I know Dustin (our engineer) has tried them out on the 2009 car using CFD and we will definitely test them on the car at some point. Is there a passage in the rules that you believe precludes using them on an FB car? Please Share....

As far as sidepods, cooling, etc. Every new FB car at some point has had issues with cooling....except the Phoenix....and we've run the car in 100 degree heat. We feel that our 2007 car was designed exactly for the requirements of what would be needed for the motorcycle engine in a formula car. The new 2009 car has some new aero features which will enhance our cooling package, and we've adjusted the new sidepods and air inlets/outlets accordingly.

And David makes a good point....we're designing a car with 180hp...not 900hp. When we designed our F1000 car we didn't copy the sexy lines of an F1 car...we built a car for the dynamics of the realistic realm it was going to live and race in. I'm confident that over time the cream will rise to the top.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

I thought for sure i saw somewhere that barge boards or similar type apendages were illegal. Im sorry if i concluded incorrectly or misunderstood. Also i want to make clear that i wasnt underminding the phoenix cars because i do belive they seem to be the most throughly developed cars of FB to this date. And im also very happy to see companys bringing porducts and development to such a small sector.

However, my question wasnt only pertaining to FB. I belive pro mazda, and FA's are *powerfull enough* to trade the drag of a barge board. From what i see the drag to downforce ratio of barge boards is one of the most effective aero devices avialable.

if you look at recently designed cars like the tatuus formula toyota, with only 200bhp and 300lbs heavier than the phoenix, it incorporates barge boards. So i guess to re phrase myself im wondering why the rules of formula cars here tend to not only keep aero devices like barge boards illegal, but keep other modern aero devices off cars even though they might be incorporated into other series of the same chassis. for instance the FE and formula ireland VD cars.

But i assume my idea of lack of interest in the sport,equals lack of funds which means lower technology cars seems to be correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Misterkris

i understand that in principal but barge boards are, even in f1 fairly basic shapes. Also basic parameters could be included in rules, and i know I could make a basic functional one in my shop in less than half an hour.

edit: well half hour might be optimistic, but i have enough info available to know what is right and wrong, and what will produce results.

---

Since I run a Formula S car which is "aerodynamically unrestricted" by the rules I would be happy to test your barge board principals for you. Just send me your data.:D

Barge boards, like many of the other wizzy devices amateur racers are in love with, are generally incorporated onto lower formula cars just because they look cool and may may help promote sales. Don't kid yourself that they are actually doing anything for the cars performance - there is a performance gain ONLY if they are in exactly the right place, are the right shape, and the shaping of everything behind them is correct - just throwing them on the car, even if they "look" to be in the right place, is no guarantee that they are actually accomplishing anything positive. Add in to that the fact that the gains are generally only able to be quantified by wind tunnel work, NOT by the driver generally (especially at this level), and you can see why they can lead you down a path of lots of $$$$.

Matt is correct, there is no "duct or passage" rule in FB, but there is in most other classes, with part of the specific rules stating that all ducted air must pass through radiators, over the shocks, into the engine, etc., and in some classes are covered by the "no forward facing gaps" rules. For those classes, if one were to argue against bargeboards, the arguement would be that they are most definetely defining a "passage", and therefore come under the control of the definition of "duct" in the Glossary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by formulasuper

Since I run a Formula S car which is "aerodynamically unrestricted" by the rules I would be happy to test your barge board principals for you. Just send me your data.:D

---

As you already know it wont work on an RT 5, which i assume from your signature is what you have. I would be happy to share some ideas with you but assume your being facetious.

I have to disagree with performance of BB. If you look at what people are doing from club racing to pro racing to hypermiling,all over the world, drag reduction and pressure manipulation is much better understood these days. and often produces suprisingly benificaly results.

Were diffusers immediatly accepted or where they just some new fance pants shiny hippy thing?

I agree with Mr. Pare's observations and at the risk of getting deeper here:

Yes - some of the diffuser designs on f2000 cars out there either don't work or inhibit performance and are nothing more than whizzy dippy thingies - On the other hand - there are some out there that do work - the problem is what the diffuser does needed to solve some problem - How do you choose which design of the many designs that are out there - No data that I am aware of in the public domain to tell you which device does what - certainly nothing from Van Diemen and the other OEM's and no data for the aftermarket devices. If there is something out there - I would love to see that data - because then you might be able to make more than a guess. But there are lots of different designs out there...

David Keep

yes there is availible info out there as to the designing of diffusers. The angle of the diffuser, along with the size of its endplates, and the height of the rear wing are the main considerations. It is however interesting that when rear wings and diffusers are conjunctually designed the other most critcal piece is the design of the BB's, because they all work in harmony.

The issue remains getting them to work in harmony, not against each other - and you'd be surprised at just how sensetive the exact placement and shaping can be.

When Reynard first ran their cars in a wind tunnel to find out where to place the lower wing element, they made a grid of mounting holes 1/4" apart. Only ONE holeset worked - the others did nothing to aid the pumping of the diffuser.

At the wind tunnel here in town, where Honda spends a ton of money testing things for the IRL (the models are made about 100 yards from my shop), they found the same thing - place something wrong by fractions of an inch, or just change the shaping slightly (regardless of what the CFD program said), and the results could be dramatically different.

While aero work is indeed much better understood these days, and can be predicted to some degree, it still has to be quantified on the actual car, and this is where the extra $$$ comes in that I speak of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Misterkris

yes there is availible info out there as to the designing of diffusers. The angle of the diffuser, along with the size of its endplates, and the height of the rear wing are the main considerations. It is however interesting that when rear wings and diffusers are conjunctually designed the other most critcal piece is the design of the BB's, because they all work in harmony.

---

Nobody here is saying that you shouldn't, or that there is nothing to be gained by such exploration. Only that it is much more difficult than simply slapping a set of "that looks about right" bargeboards on the front of the car and calling it a day. If you believe that you can do it that way and gain a surprisingly beneficial result, then by all means, have at it. Many of us have been down that path before, and know it's not that simple.

Now, for some perhaps that experience translates into "it's so difficult, you might as well not even try" - and maybe they'd have a point there. Better to consistently get 90% of the performance than to tweak yourself out of contention, I suppose.

But that's the great thing about most of these classes you speak of - there is nothing preventing you from going out and giving it a go yourself!


Cheers,
Rennie

In Formula One, one of the functions of the barge board is to create a vortex that creates a seal between the bottom edge of the sidepod and the ground, like a skirt. Probably only about $50 - $60 million worth of wind tunnel time to get that right!

Frank Williamson