formula 1 car wheel aerodynamics

Formula 1 car wheel aerodynamics

W. P. Kellar,1 S. R. G. Pearse1,2 and A. M. Savill1

1Computational Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Cambridge University Engineering Department, Trumpington St.,Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK

2A top UK Formula 1 team

AbstractA detailed project has been carried out to investigate the aerodynamic performance of aFormula 1 car front wheel. Experimental drag measurements were carried out on a 40%scale rig representing the front right-hand quarter of a generic Formula 1 car, withfeatures such as the front wing and car body modelled accurately to generate a suitableflowfield around the wheel. Smoke flow visualization gave valuable insights into themajor flow features and enabled understanding of how the wheel aerodynamic perform-ance might be improved. Further visualization was carried out using a fully 3DCFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) analysis of the test rig geometry, using state-of-the-art in-house geometry handling and CFD facilities based around an unstructuredNavierStokes solver. Drag measurements were successfully obtained for a large rangeof typical car configurations, including front wing endplate variations. The experimentaland computational flow visualization enabled a new front wing geometry to be designed,which gave a significant reduction in the drag of the wheel.

Keywords: Formula 1, aerodynamics, CFD, flow visualization, wheels

Introduction

Governing bodies of many categories of motorracing specify that the wheels of the racing carsmust be exposed to oncoming airflow. Thesestipulations act, for example, to preserve thecharacter of the sport, and to give safety benefitssuch as enabling drivers to detect brake lock. Suchregulations have a significant effect on the aerody-namic performance of the cars, causing for examplea large increase in overall drag (Morelli 1969).

The difference between winning and losing inFormula 1 can often come down to fractions of a

percent in car performance; these small perform-ance increments can represent significant financialinvestment. The net drag of Formula 1 cars isvery significant to the overall car performanceand, of this net value, the significant componentcaused by the exposed wheels is dependent on thesurrounding flowfield. Changing this flowfield toimprove car performance is relatively easy com-pared with, for example, squeezing a few morehorsepower from the engine, so there are signi-ficant benefits in both development cost andperformance to be found in the area of wheel andfront-quarter aerodynamics (Hanna 1995). Theflowfield structure is highly complex and three-dimensional (Sawley 1997) and, to enable insightsinto this flow for design optimization, goodvisualization techniques are necessary. A limitedamount of literature (Cogotti 1982, Hucho 1987)gives further details on previous experimentalwork in this area.

1999 Blackwell Science Ltd Sports Engineering (1999) 2, 203212 203 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd Sports Engineering (1999) 2, 203212 203 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd Sports Engineering (1999) 2, 203212 203 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd Sports Engineering (1999) 2, 203212 203

Correspondence address:William Kellar, CFD Laboratory, Cambridge UniversityEngineering Department, Trumpington St.,Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK.Tel.: +44 (0)1223 332869. Fax: +44 (0)1223 332662.E-mail: [email protected]

Experimental testing

Wind tunnel test rig

A 40% scale model of the front right-hand quarterof a generic Formula 1 car was used for experi-mental testing. This model essentially conformedto the relevant FIA (Federation Internationalede lAutomobile) regulations of 1998 governingthe external shape and geometry of Formula 1 cars.A solid body and suspension system was mountedon a rigid backboard, with a false floor representingthe ground plane. A 40% Formula 1-type wheelwas free to turn on the suspension axle.

Wheel rotation was achieved through the falsefloor, by a variable speed drivewheel in contact withthe tyre. The deficiencies of this wheel rotationmethod, compared to a more realistic rolling-roadset-up, were compensated for by calculating thedevelopment of the boundary layer displacementthickness along the false floor with a combinedlaminar (Thwaites) and turbulent (7th power law)method. This indicated the clearance of the wheel,relative to the ground plane, which would bestmodel the correct flow in the contact patch region.This clearance causes only a small change in wheeldrag of a few percent (Cogotti 1982) as long as thegap is less than about 10% of the wheel radius, andthis change is well quantified.

The wheel suspension was pin-jointed, andinstrumented to measure drag via a strain gaugebridge and signal amplifier. This strain gaugebridge was mounted on a tie-bar connecting thewheel axle region to the backboard of the modelunder the nosecone tip. The signal processingconsisted of a low-pass filter, amplifier and oscil-loscope; the filter removed noise due to the wheelrotation and other vibrations. The arms of thesuspension were given removable aerofoil shrouds,to investigate the effect of suspension profile on thefront wheel flowfield. These aerofoil shrouds tookthe form of symmetrical standard NACA aerofoilswith maximum thickness 22 mm and chord 80 mm,aligned parallel to the ground plane.

The wing was designed to give similar liftcharacteristics to a generic Formula 1 wing. This

in turn would give suitable flow characteristics inthe region around the wheel. As in typical Formula1 front wing design, a multielement spoiler wasdevised; using as an upper element a constantsection Benedek B8556B wing, and as a lower ele-ment a constant section Gottinger 795 wing. Thesection chords were chosen to match the scale ofthe test rig, and the wing span, in line with therelevant regulations, gave overlap between the wingand the front wheel. These aerofoil sections werechosen for their low-speed Reynolds number char-acteristics (Simons 1994), to match the wind tunneltest conditions. The front wing design was com-pleted by a variety of endplates, designed to mimictypical Formula 1 practice. Two typical wing andendplate configurations are shown in Figs 1 and 2.The intention behind these designs in practice isboth to influence the strongly vortical flow going

Figure 1 Test rig wing configuration with basic wing endplate.

Figure 2 Test rig wing configuration with modified wingendplate.

Formula 1 car wheel aerodynamics W. P. Kellar et al.

204 Sports Engineering (1999) 2, 203212 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd

onto the front wheels, and to improve the aerody-namic characteristics of the wing. It should beemphasized that no attempt was made here toinvestigate in detail the actual performance of thewing itself.

An underbody diffuser passage was designed, togive the effect of underbody flow entrainment in thefront wheel region which occurs for a real car thisflow could be relevant in terms of wheel drag. Thisdesign was fairly speculative as the absence of amoving ground plane would significantly alter thediffuser performance. The diffuser took the form ofa diverging passage formed by a flat plate on theunderside of the car body, and the ground plane.This plate was shaped in accordance with therelevant FIA regulations (except for the omissionof a step perpendicular to the direction of air flow),i.e. the shape was a simplified approximation to theplan view of the car, from the front of the cockpitbackwards, and the leading edge of the plate waslocated under the front of the cockpit region. Theplate was aligned to diverge from the ground planetowards the rear of the car, at an angle of 0.7.On the 40% scale model described here, the leadingedge of the plate was 10 mm from the ground plane.

The sidepod ducts were filled with a honeycombmaterial at a variety of angles to the duct walls. Thismaterial was chosen to give suitable pressure lossesin the flow through the duct, and the intention was toinvestigate the upstream influence of the sidepodflow on the wheel wake development.

Wind tunnel facilities

The experimental aerodynamics facilities at Cam-bridge University Engineering Department offer,amongst many other features, a 60-m s1 maximumspeed closed-circuit wind tunnel with a workingsection of 2.08 m2. With the 40% scale test rig inplace, the effects of model blockage, atmosphericpressure and local temperature variations wereaccounted for in a calibration calculation for thetunnel over a range of operating conditions. Such acalculation enabled the local Reynolds number ofthe flow around the wheel to be determined towithin 1%. The experimental set-up then enabled

a constant flow over the wheel of Reynoldsnumber 0.65 106 to be achieved within thenormal operating range of the wind tunnel. ThisReynolds number was selected to give suitable flowconditions under which to avoid upper and lowerlimit transition phenomena in the wheel flow;boundary layer turbulent transition and bursting ofthe boundary layer re-attachment bubble, respec-tively (Fackrell & Harvey 1973). The Reynoldsnumber was based on the wheel diameter of0.26 m and the local velocity, typically 38.5 m s1,although the value chosen was dependent on thekinematic viscosity as calculated from the atmo-spheric conditions. This local velocity was evaluat-ed taking into account the model blockage as 1.3%of the tunnel working section area.

This level of accuracy in the wind tunnel flowconditions led to a baseline uncertainty in theexperimental drag coefficient measurements of0.2%. Accuracy is discussed in more detail later.

Smoke flow visualization

Smoke flow was achieved over the whole 40%model with the use of a second, open-circuit windtunnel. This could only be operated at very lowspeed to maintain the visibility of the smoke. Thetunnel was operated at a low Reynolds numberof 25 103, based on wheel diameter. Otherlimitations in the simulation were the significantblockage of the model in the working section,and the absence of wheel rotation due to theprohibitive size of the drive mechanism. Theselimitations meant that the smoke flow results weretaken only as illustrative of the general features ofthe flowfield, rather than as definitive informationon detailed characteristics such as the flow separa-tion points on the front wing. Use of a smokeprobe enabled fully 3D investigation of the flow assmoke could be injected at any point in thedomain.

Numerical flow visualization CFD

Computational fluid dynamics (as the numericalsimulation of flow around a body in a discretized

W. P. Kellar et al. Formula 1 car wheel aerodynamics

1999 Blackwell Science Ltd Sports Engineering (1999) 2, 203212 205 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd Sports Engineering (1999) 2, 203212 205 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd Sports Engineering (1999) 2, 203212 205

domain) offers significant benefits to aerodynamicdesigners. It allows the rapid investigation of alarge number of widely differing aerodynamiccomponents without the associated manufacturingand testing costs for experimental prototypes.Those designs indicated by the CFD analysis tobe the most worthwhile can then be taken to thephysical prototype stage. The method also offersvery detailed quantitative fluid information, al-though this must be tempered with experimentalcorrelation.

CFD is used by the most progressive teams inFormula 1 as a very powerful design tool. Thetechnology is still at an early stage in particular,there can be significant bottle-necks in the geom-etry handling and mesh generation stages of theCFD analysis, which are discussed in detail in arelated paper (Kellar et al. 1999). There are alsosome fundamental modelling issues still to beaddressed, in particular turbulence modelling inautomotive CFD.

CFD analysis facilities

The new CFD laboratory at Cambridge UniversityEngineering Department offers a range of tools fora CFD analysis, from commercial CAD geometrymanipulation to in-house state-of-the-art 3DNavierStokes solvers and postprocessing. The CFDcodes are derived from turbomachinery applica-tions and work to develop incompressible versionsis ongoing. The present study aimed to modelaccurately the wheel and wing of the test rig and toobtain detailed information on the wheel flowfield.

CAD geometry modelling was carried out usingcommercial packages, and in a more basic in-houseCAD format. The use of these two routes was dueto uncertainty as to which format would interfacemost easily with domain discretization procedures.The in-house CAD successfully generated thedesired level of baseline geometry representation,and was chosen for the full CFD analysis. Thismethod of geometry generation is not particularlysuitable for the investigation of highly complexgeometries, so commercial CAD was used togenerate a full car body representation, but the

developing nature of the CADCFD interfacemeant that this complex geometry could not beanalysed further during the study. A hybrid formof geometry modelling using commercial andin-house CAD has subsequently been appliedsuccessfully.

Domain discretization was carried out using anunstructured surface and volume mesh generationmethod (Dawes 1996). This, based on the rigorousCAD geometry, gave a very quick and robustalgorithm with which to optimize the meshes forCFD computation. An unstructured grid wasrequired to resolve the complex surfaces in thegeometry. Figure 3 shows the domain discretiza-tion used for the CFD analysis. The simulation didnot apply rotation to the wheel surfaces, and conse-quently the domain mesh does not contain veryhigh surface cell density which would be requiredto fully resolve viscous surface effects.

Figure 3 Domain discretization for CFD analysis. The volumemesh is illustrated with a characteristic slice through thedomain. The surface mesh on the wheel and wing is omitted forclarity.



The flow solution was calculated with theunstructured tetrahedral mesh method of Dawes(Dawes 1992), called NEWT. The flow is simulatedby solving the fully 3D viscous unsteady Reynoldstime-averaged NavierStokes equations within thediscretized domain. Turbulence closure is providedby the k-e model, together with a modified lowReynolds number model handling near wall regionsand transition. The main limitations of such aturbulence modelling approach in this applicationare the strongly rotating and anisotropic nature ofthe turbulent separated flow regions. Second-order-accurate discretization of the convective fluxes isachieved four stage RungeKutta time integrationis applied. In this study, the flow was simulated atMach 0.3. This was to avoid convergence problemsin a low speed calculation with a compressible code.This flow condition, although representative of thetop speed of a Formula 1 car, is higher than that usedin the experimental testing. Subsequent work hasfound that the general flowfield features shown bythe CFD solution are very similar for a range of flowconditions appropriate to Formula 1 (the work is atan early stage and is not discussed in detail here).The choice of Reynolds number for the experimen-tal drag measurements was also made to fall withinthe transition limits of the flow over the wheel; CFDcannot be expected accurately to predict suchtransition, even in the presence of a full viscous layervolume mesh, and the choice of CFD flow condi-tions becomes less critical with this in mind.

The CFD analysis is thus taken in a similarmanner to the smoke flow tests, i.e. to give visual-ization information representative of generalfeatures of the flowfield.

Experimental results

Test programme

The test rig offered a large number of possibleexperimental configurations. Baseline results wereobtainable for the wheel in isolation. The windtunnel programme tested all possible configurationvariations, and a drag coefficient value was obtainedfor each case.

The strain gauge bridge was balanced beforeeach run. The appropriate tunnel settings weredetermined from the calibration calculations toobtain the desired Reynolds number. A series ofstationaryrotatingstationary drag values werethen found for the current configuration, with themean drag value for each instance being noted forlater nondimensionalization calculations. A repre-sentative section of the experimental drag coeffi-cient results is shown here in Fig. 4; the test rigconfigurations are as follows:

A Baseline drag coefficient mean drag coefficientover all configurations with a wing and endplatepresent.

B No wing present only car wheel and body.Aerofoil shrouding on suspension elements.

C No wing present. No aerofoil shrouding.D Wing configuration as Fig. 1. Aerofoil shroud-

ing on suspension elements.

Figure 4 Drag test results. The details of the configurations Athrough G can be found in the main text. The Reynoldsnumber for each test, based on wheel diameter of 0.26 m, is0.65 106.



E Wing configuration as Fig. 1. No aerofoil shroud-ing.

F Wing configuration as Fig. 2. No aerofoil shroud-ing.

G New endplate design. No aerofoil shrouding.

The drag coefficient was evaluated using thelocal velocity as derived from the Reynolds number(see section on wind tunnel facilities), and thedensity as derived from atmospheric conditions.

Assessment of experimental error

As stated previously, the error in measured dragcoefficient due to tunnel parameters was found to be0.2%. The force calibration of the strain apparatuswas carried out regularly by applying a series ofknown loads to the wheel and noting the oscilloscoperesponse, to remove errors caused by mechanicalplay and deterioration in the fabric of the model.The baseline errors in oscilloscope readings wereestimated initially as 0.6% this value rose to aworst case of 2% towards the end of the testing dueto deterioration of the test rig. The repeatability ofthe tests in general was excellent.

Smoke flow results

The smoke flow testing programme was much thesame as the experimental drag programme, in thatall possible configurations were tested systematic-ally (here without wheel rotation). The repeatabil-

ity of the tests was excellent. The results wererecorded photographically and on video, and arepresentative image is given in Fig. 5.

CFD results

A flow solution was successfully obtained for thebasic test rig geometry, i.e. the wheel and frontwing, with a flat wing endplate. The domain wasdiscretized into 340 524 cells. The solution CPUtime was approximately 15 h on a Pentium II233 MHz workstation (it is noted that the timetaken to generate this solution from the initialgeometry definition was significantly reduced fromtypical times; see Kellar et al. 1999). The net massflow error in the solution was 0.08%, illustra-ting good convergence in the numerical method.Graphical postprocessing enabled scalar and vectorfluid parameters to be plotted with ease in 3D, anda representative selection of results is reproducedhere in Figs 6 and 8.

Discussion of results

Smoke visualization

The smoke tests gave very good information on thefull 3D nature of the flowfield; however, it shouldbe reiterated that the experimental limitationsmean the results are purely representative of thegeneral flowfield. The main characteristics of the

Figure 5 Smoke flow test results; repre-sentative plan view of wheel flowfield.Tests carried out at Reynolds number25 103.



flow as determined by the present study are detailedbelow.

A strong vortex is shed from the bottom edge ofthe front wing endplate. This deflects around theinboard side of the wheel; partly due to theinfluence of the endplate shapes, partly due toroll-up with the vorticity shed from the wingelements themselves, and partly due to the presenceof the wheel. The resulting vortical flow rises upalong the nosecone into the sidepod region, as itpasses downstream.

The wheel wake is formed by two main charac-teristics. These are vortices shed from the base andcrown of the tyre, and a region of separatedrecirculatory flow behind the wheel. The exactpositioning of these characteristics is influenced bythe rotation of the wheel (illustrated by wool tuftson the test rig during experimental measurements).The resultant wheel wake is turbulent although theedges are fairly distinct; the two largest vorticesfrom the base of the tyre remain clear quite adistance downstream of the wheel. The turbulentwheel wake region rises off the ground plane at adistance of approximately one and a half wheeldiameters behind the wheel, and the recirculationin the wake ends around this point. This effectappears to be due to the influence of the vorticityshed from the front wing region.

The degree of symmetry in the wake is sensitiveto the nature of the vortical flow leaving the frontwing, i.e. dependent on the wing geometry. Thewake symmetry is also affected by the presence ofthe sidepods, which interfere with the downstreamflow development. In terms of the sidepod flowitself, the angle of the oncoming flow to thesesidepods is dependent on the wake symmetry andtherefore the wing geometry. The actual flowthrough the sidepods could be significantly affectedby separation at the pod entry walls giving highlyturbulent flow in the ducts.

Numerical visualization

The CFD solution gave a comprehensiverepresentation of the wheel flowfield, in terms offlow patterns and fluid parameters. The streamline

Figure 7 Contour key for Fig. 6.

Figure 8 CFD visualization results; representative streamlineplot.

Figure 6 CFD visualization results; Mach no. contour solution.



views were clearly similar to the smoke flow results,despite the differences in testing conditions. Thispoint is very supportive of the use of CFD as avisualization tool in this instance. It was notpossible directly to evaluate global forces such asthe wheel drag from the CFD results, although anattempt was made to estimate the effective wingdownforce to confirm that the design was workingeffectively. However, to have any significantconfidence in the CFD as a quantitative tool wouldhave required much more extensive experimentalcorroboration, and the intention here was only togain qualitative visualization information. Themain features of the CFD flowfield, as determinedby the present study, are as follows.

There is strongly vortical flow leaving the frontwing, as seen in the smoke flow results, and thepattern was much the same in each instance. Theorigin of this flow was shown to be strongly linkedto the geometry of the wing endplate, particularlythe lower endplate edge. The shed vorticity isdeflected by the wheel, affecting the stagnationconditions on the front of the wheel, and has asignificant effect on the wheel wake. The influenceof the suspension elements on the wake appears tobe slight, but there was a clear interaction betweenthe two.

The wheel wake region is asymmetrical, shownby a high pressure region bending inboard down-stream of the wheel. This effect was misleadingin the given CFD simulation due to the absence ofthe body (although not excessively so as pressuretends to be low under the nosecone); however, thegeneral trend matched the smoke flow results. Themajor influence on this wake asymmetry appearedto be the wing vortex. The high pressure regionbehind the wheel is indicative of the recirculatoryseparated flow in the wheel wake shown in thesmoke tests. The accuracy of the detail in theseparated flow regions is limited by fundamentalfeatures of the turbulence modelling used in thisstudy.

The flow conditions on the wheel itself arecharacterized by high pressure in the stagnationregion in front of the wheel; low pressure at thewheel crown as the flow accelerates; and a slight

recovery from this crown pressure (in the turbulentwake) acting as base pressure on the downstreamside of the wheel.

The CFD results show the wing design to beacting appropriately: static pressure contoursshow, for example, approximately constant rela-tively high and low pressures on the upper andlower surfaces, respectively, of the wing. A simpleintegration of the pressure distribution confirmedthat the effective lift coefficient was approximate-ly the same as that assumed in the design. Theeffective lift distribution was also found to berealistic.

Drag measurements

The overall set of experimental drag measurementsshows significant variation between the differentconfigurations tested; this in conjunction with theflowfield changes noted previously shows theimportance in terms of drag of the car front quartergeometry changing the wheel flowfield. The mostsignificant points from the results are as follows.

The tests carried out in the absence of a frontwing gave relatively high drag results. This was dueto the symmetry of the wheel flow being affectedonly by the body without the tempering effect ofwing vorticity. These two tests were essentiallycarried out to satisfy experimental curiosity as aFormula 1 car would never be expected to rununder normal conditions without a wing; thediscussion hereafter relates only to those resultstaken with a wing present on the rig.

The mean drag coefficient over all configurationswith a wing and endplate present is 0.456 0.003 fora stationary wheel and 0.470 0.003 for a rotatingwheel. These values are taken as the generic baselineresults for this series of experiments. These resultscompare well with those of previous studies (Fackrell& Harvey 1973, Cogotti 1982), taking into accountthat here we modelled the entire front quarterof the car rather than a wheel in isolation.

In general, the introduction of a front wing andendplate decreases wheel drag. This appears to bedue to the strong vorticity from the front wingand endplate causing the wheel wake to straighten,



along with a complex interaction of this wake flowwith the car body.

The aerofoil shrouding of the suspension armsshows, as expected, a reduction in the measureddrag. Results D and E illustrate this for theconfiguration of Fig. 1. However, strictly speakingthis is a reduction of the drag of the wheel andsuspension assembly as a whole; the effect of theshrouds themselves on the wheel flowfield is notclear. The magnitude of this beneficial effect wasmuch the same for different wing configurations(hence, results E, F and G were tested withoutaerofoil suspension shrouding, for reasons of ex-perimental convenience).

The different wing and endplate configurationshave a variety of effects. The significance in termsof drag is that those endplates which most deflectthe vortical flow around the wheel appear to causethe least wheel drag; the deflected vortex thenseems to straighten the wake downstream. Thoseendplates which generate the least vorticity seem tobe beneficial in terms of drag, by virtue of the effectof the shed vortex being limited by its reducedstrength (although a certain measure of vorticity isbeneficial; note the high drag results taken with nowing present).

The least successful configuration in terms ofdrag (of those configurations tested with a wingand endplate present) is an endplate which streng-thened the wing vortex without deflecting it aroundthe wheel (result F); thus, by the above arguments,being worse in two respects.

A new endplate design drag reduction

Bearing in mind the conclusions drawn about theeffects of wing geometry and wake symmetry, aspeculative new wing endplate was designed withthe intention of reducing wheel drag. The newgeometry essentially consisted of an inboard bendmodification at the lower downstream corner of thebasic wing endplate of Fig. 1. The axis of the bendwas aligned with the lower edge of the upper wingelement, and the lower rearmost corner of theendplate was moved inboard by 25 mm on the scalemodel described here, giving an angled triangular

region on the endplate. Both the modified triangleand the original section of the endplate remainedplanar. This region of the endplate was indicatedby the initial visualization results (experimental andcomputational) to be directly responsible for thedirection of the flow onto the lower front wheel,and there was also significant flow separation andvorticity in this area.

Smoke flow testing on this new configurationsuggested that the desired objectives of weakenedwing vortex and increased vortex deflection wereachieved. The deflection was caused by the basicorientation of the endplate corner region, and theweakened vorticity was obtained by reducing theseparation from the lower endplate edge. The newdesign gave a significant reduction in drag (seeresult G) and, with the anticipated effects of aero-foil suspension shrouds included, gave the lowestdrag of any configuration tested.

Conclusions

The wake of a Formula 1 car wheel was found toconsist of a significant region of separated flow.This region is formed by flow separating from thecrown and sidewalls of the wheel, which recircu-lates into the convergent region of the lowerdownstream portion of the wheel. The shape ofthe wake is influenced by horseshoe vortices shedfrom the wheel, and the overall wake symmetry isaffected by aerodynamic features of the car as awhole.

The aerodynamic drag of the wheel is significantlyaffected by the symmetry characteristics of the wheelwake. A more symmetrical wake appears to give areduced drag. This symmetry is strongly dependenton the vortical flow shed from the front wing.

The exact design of the car front wing andassociated endplate could significantly affect thenature of the vortical flow leaving the front wing,and thus also the wheel drag.

Flow visualization, both experimental and nu-merical, gives invaluable insights into the wheelflowfield characteristics. This enabled the flowfieldto be manipulated by a new wheel forebody design,which significantly reduced wheel drag.



Future work could hope to address the signif-icance of the geometry changes considered hereon the performance of the wing itself. The effectsof wheel yaw under steering could also be con-sidered.

References

Cogotti, A.1 (1982) Aerodynamic characteristics of carwheels. Impact of Aerodynamics on Vehicle Design.Inderscience Enterprises, Milton Keynes, UK.2

Dawes, W.N. (1992) The practical application of solutionadaption to the numerical simulation of complexturbomachinery probs. Progress in Aerospace Science, 29,2212693 .

Dawes, W.N. (1996) The generation of 3D, stretched,viscous unstructured meshes for arbitrary domains.ASME 96-GT-55. American Society of MechanicalEngineers, New York, NY, USA4 .

Fackrell, J.E. & Harvey, J.K.5 (1973) The Flowfield andPressure Distribution of an Isolated Road Wheel, pp. 155165. BRHA Fluid Engineering, Cranfield.

Hanna, R.K. (1995) The role of unstructured CFD in thedevelopment process for Formula 1 racing cars. AutotechC498/36/244, IMechE, London, UK.6

Hucho, W.-H. (1987) Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles.Butterworths, London, UK7 .

Kellar, W.P., Savill, A.M. & Dawes, W.N. (1999) Integ-rated CAD/CFD visualisation of a generic Formula 1 carfront wheel flowfield. Lecture Notes in Computer Science,Vol. 1593. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany8 .

Morelli, A. (1969) Aerodynamic actions on an automobilewheel. Road Vehicle Aerodynamics. City University9 ,London, UK.

Sawley, M.L. (1997) Numerical simulation of the flowaround a Formula 1 racing car. EPFL SupercomputingReview, November, 1117.

Simons, M. (1994) Model Aircraft Aerodynamics, Argus,London, UK.10



formula 1 car wheel aerodynamics

Documents