1. Race Car Aerodynamics GDP
MSc Race Car Aerodynamics
Z. Chen, B. Dufour, C. Elliott, F. Harrold, C. Jacques, N. McDowell and R. van der Meer

2. Introduction
 Good aerodynamic design reduces lap time
 Improve the aerodynamics of a hill-climb car
model
 CFD enables analysis of different concepts at
low cost
2

3. Overview
 Aims & Objectives
 Methodology CFD
 Methodology Design
 Baseline Car
 Design upgrades
 Resulting Car
 Discussion
 Conclusion
3

4. Aim & Objectives
 The aim of this project is “to accurately determine and improve the
aerodynamic performance of a hill climb car model using CFD”
 First semester objectives were:
– Determining the regulations and general performance levels of hill
climb race cars.
– Gaining a clear understanding of the devices used to add aerodynamic
performance to a race car.
– Setting up a valid CFD simulation of a baseline race car model to
accurately determine its aerodynamic performance.
4

5. Aim & Objectives
 Second semester objectives were:
– Making alterations to the model to improve aerodynamic
performance.
– Quantifying the impact of these alterations using CFD.
– Optimising the alterations and ensuring they result in a holistic
design.
5

6. Methodology
6

7. CAD Corrections
 Baseline CAD was unsuitable.
 Modifications made:
– Realignment of Rear Wing
– Realignment of Sidepods
– The addition of relationships between respective parts
– CFD Preparation
– Changing of the axis system to ensure usability later on
7

8. Boundary Conditions
Boundary Conditions
Car Surface No Slip Wall
Inlet Velocity Inlet
Outlet Pressure Outlet
Engine Intake Pressure Outlet
Sidepod Intake Pressure Outlet
Ground Moving Wall
Symmetry Plane Symmetry
Top and Side Walls No Slip Wall
8

9. Physics Settings
Physics Settings
Inlet Velocity
Ground Tangential Velocity
Front Wheel Wall Rotation
Rear Wheel Wall Rotation
9

10. Domain
Cross section:
Based on the RJ
Mitchell wind tunnel
Length:
Roughly 3 car lengths upstream and 5 car lengths downstream
10

11. Solver
Solver Parameter Value
Space Three Dimensional
Time Steady
Material Gas
Flow Segregated
Equation of State Constant Density
Viscous Regime Turbulent
Reynolds Averaged Turbulence K-Epsilon
Relaxation Scheme Gauss Seidel
Turbulent Specification Intensity and Viscosity Ratio
Turbulent Viscosity Ratio 10
11

12. Mesh Settings
Mesh Parameter Value
Base Size 1.0m
Maximum Cell Size 0.25m
Maximum Core/Prism Layer Transition Ratio 2
Prism Layers 8
Prism Layer Stretching 1.05
Prism Layer Thickness 0.01m
Surface Curvature 180 points per circle
Surface Growth Rate 1.3
Minimum Surface Size 0.001m
Maximum Surface Size 0.5m
Template Gowth Rate Very Slow
Wrapper Feature Angle 30 deg
Wrapper Scale Factor 25% 12

13. Domain and Mesh Independence
Domain Length (m) CL CD Efficiency
17 -2.025 0.805 2.515
18 -1.989 0.837 2.376
-2.10
-2.05
-2.00
-1.95
-1.90
-1.85
-1.80
0.0E+00 2.0E+06 4.0E+06 6.0E+06 8.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.2E+07 1.4E+07 1.6E+07
CL
Number of Cells
Baseline Mesh Independency Study
• Mesh independence tested
by varying base size
between 0.7-5m
• Mesh found to be stable for
most runs
• Domain independence showed
small changes through
lengthening
• Minimal changes
13

14. Y-Plus
• Below 30 in regions of stagnation and separation
• Average 50
14

15. Design Methodology
15

16. Objective
 Increase lift coefficient value above 4
 Keep drag coefficient value below 1.2
 Increase efficiency
 Drivable aerodynamic balance (39% to
44% front)
16

17. Hardpoints
The following were considered unchangeable:
 Mass flow into the sidepod and engine air intake (within 5% of baseline)
 Shape of the wheels
 Wheelbase of the vehicle
 Shape and position of driver
17

18. Member Allocation
Person Area of Car Group Tasks
Barret Sidepod Communication and Organization
Chen Engine Cover and
Nose Cone
CAD Assembly
Craig Front Wing CAD Assembly, Third Iteration Simulation, Report Proof Reading
Cyril Underbody Full Car Data Processing, First Iteration Simulation, Second Iteration
Simulation
Francis Rear Wing and
Exhaust
Baseline Simulation Setup and Runs, First Iteration CAD Assembly, Interim
Presentation Assembly, Third Iteration Simulation, Report Proof Reading
Nicky Front Wing CAD Corrections, Baseline Simulation Setup and Runs, Third Iteration
Simulations
Robbin Underbody Assembly of Report, Second Iteration Simulation, Third Iteration Simulation,
Project Planning and Supervision
18

19. Baseline Results
19

20. Lift, Drag, Efficiency & Balance
Car (Unit) CL CD Efficiency % Front Balance
Baseline -2.02 0.805 2.52 24.4
 Frontal area: 0.08022687m²
 Downforce and drag are both low
 Balance is too far rearward
20

21. Components breakdown
35.74%
55.58%
10.48%
-9.81%
-9.36%
17.37%
-20.00% -10.00% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%
Components CL breakdown
Underbody
Sidepods
Wheels
Body/Nose
Rear Wing
Front Wing
In terms of downforce:
 Rear wing is the part producing most of
the downforce
 Unbalance between front and rear wing
 Underbody is only producing 17%
 Sidepods is high, nearly 10%
In terms of drag:
 Wheels are producing most of the drag
 The other source is the rear wing
 Rest is about 7-10%
7.43%
22.69%
7.14%
44.66%
9.60%
8.49%
Front wing
Rear wing
Sidepods
Wheels
Body/Nose
Underbody
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
Components CD breakdown
21

22. Pressure Coefficient
 Top view
– High pressure visible on the rear wing pressure
side
– Low pressure on the side pod inlet
 Side view
– Low pressure on the outer side of both rear and
front tyres
 Bottom view
– Pressure on the underbody is close to zero
– High pressure on the diffuser inlet
22

23. Pressure Coefficient
 Front view
– High pressure region on the nose cone,
inner side of the front tyres and bottom of
the sidepod inlet
 Rear view
– Separation developing on the diffuser
23

24. First Design Iteration
Upgrades
24

25. Front Wing – 2D Optimisation
 2D Analysis of Baseline Wing
 Selection of suitable aerofoil profile
 2D Optimisation of New Wing – Angles, Slot
Gaps, Overlaps
25
Wing Version Cl Cd Efficiency
Baseline 2D -2.888 0.649 4.449
Final 2D -4.389 0.236 18.5930.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Position,m
Velocity, m/s
Wake Velocity Profiles
Baseline
Wing
2D Final
Wing
Geometry

26. Front Wing – 2D Optimisation
Baseline Wing Geometry
Iteration 1 Wing Geometry
26

27. Front Wing – Width Study
 This study was focused
primarily around efficiency of
the full car
 Optimal reviewing the data
points lies between 80-
87.5% width 2.5
2.55
2.6
2.65
2.7
2.75
2.8
2.85
2.9
70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Efficiency,L/D
Wing Width, % of Total width allowed
Wing Width Study, Efficiency
27

28. Front Wing Iteration 1
Endplate Refinement:
 Addition of Footplate
 Turning Vane for optimised
flow
 Sweep angles tested to reduce
separation but channel
underfloor flow
28

29. Sidepod
1-SP-IT1-CS1-A 1-SP-IT1-CS1-B 1-SP-IT1-CS1-C
1-SP-IT1-CS1-D
Car 1 Sidepod 29

30. Engine Cover
Geometry:
 Removed sharp corner
 Made it longer
 Made it smoother
30

31. Engine Cover
Model Overall CL Rear Wing CL Efficiency
Baseline -2.030 -1.1276 2.523
Iteration 1 -2.213 -1.2633 2.620
CFD results:
Improve the rear wing performance
31

32. Underfloor
 Diffuser shape changed to an aerofoil shape: S1223
 Venturi channels included into the underfloor design and
tucked inwards.
 Diffuser is extended from 159 to 423mm behind the rear
wheels and widened as closest as possible to the rear tyres.
 Two different exit heights tested: 150mm and 170mm.
 Flat plates installed on the side of the diffuser.
 Inlet shape was also modified.
32

33. Underfloor
 Significant increase in downforce
 Moderate increase in drag
 The 170mm exit height has proven to be the best
 Less separation visible on the diffuser
 Recirculation region removed from the inlet
33
-0.1
0.2
0.5
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.7
2
2.3
2.6
2.9
CL
CL Breakdown Comparison
Baseline car Design 2 : 150mm Design 2 : 170mm
-0.05
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
0.75
0.85
CD
CD Breakdown Comparison
Baseline car Design 2 : 150mm Design 2 : 170mm

34. Rear Wing
 Changed all aerofoil profiles to Selig-1223.
 Rotated first element to -5 degrees AoA.
 Beam wing lowered by 60mm.
 Beam wing and diffuser interaction led to
removal of beam wing.
34
Baseline First Iteration

35. First Iteration Car
35

36. First Iteration Full Car Geometry
36

37. Lift, Drag, Balance & Efficiency
Model CL CD
Aerodynamic
Efficiency
% Front
Balance
Baseline -2.02 0.805 2.52 24.4
First Iteration -3.07 0.925 3.31 31.2
 52% increase in downforce production.
 15% increase in drag production.
 31% increase in efficiency.
 7% increase in balance towards the front of the
car.
37

38. Component Breakdown
-0.3
0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
3
Total Fwing Rwing Sidepod Wheels Body & Nose Underbody
CL
Component Lift Coefficient Breakdown
Baseline car First Iteration
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Total Fwing Rwing Sidepod Wheels Body & Nose UnderbodyCD
Component Drag Coefficient Breakdown
Baseline car First Iteration 38

39. Pressure Coefficient Against Baseline
39

40. Second Design Iteration
Upgrades
40

41. Front Wing
Ride height of wing analysis with respect to
full car downforce:
 Balance moves rearwards with increasing
ride height
 Optimal coefficient of lift at approximately
18mm ride height
41
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07
3.08
3.09
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CoefficientofLift
Ride height, mm
Coefficient of Lift vs Ride height
67%
68%
69%
70%
71%
72%
73%
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
BalanceRearwards%
Ride height, mm
Balance vs Ride height

42. Front Wing
Test of Different Concepts
 Cut-out Wing
 Bridge Wing
 Shallow Angle of Attack Wing
 Bargeboard Endplates
Carried Forwards
 Cut-out Front Wing
42
Description CL CD Balance %
Rearward
Efficiency
Baseline Setup 3.086 0.925 69.186 3.336
Bridge Wing 2.973 0.927 69.441 3.208
Shallow Angle 2.905 0.939 85.525 3.095
Experimental cut-
out
3.093 0.948 74.351 3.262
Bargeboard 2.528 0.919 78.074 2.749

43. Front Wing
Cascade Addition:
 Fourth and Fifth Element
 2D X and Y optimisations
 Span length of cascade
43
16.8
17
17.2
17.4
17.6
17.8
18
18.2
4.25
4.3
4.35
4.4
4.45
4.5
4.55
4.6
4.65
4.7
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Efficiency
CoefficientofLift
X Direction distance (mm)
Coefficient of Lift against X Position
Coefficient
of Lift CL
Efficiency
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
1.5
1.75
2
2.25
2.5
2.75
3
3.25
3.5
3.75
4
4.25
4.5
4.75
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Efficiency
CoefficientofLift
Y Direction distance (mm)
Coefficient of Lift against Y Position
Coefficient
of Lift CL
Efficiency

44. Sidepod
Part Number
Inlet
Area
(mm^2)
Mass
Flow
(Kg/S)
CL CD Efficiency
2-SP-IT2-CS1-F 5880 0.1409 -3.314 1.005 3.295
2-SP-IT2-CS2-A 6011 0.1540 -3.410 1.003 3.398
2-SP-IT2-CS1-F
2-SP-IT2-CS2-A
44

45. Nose Cone
 Made the nose higher to help
diffuser
 Connected the nose and
splitter curve
 Reduced the effect on the
trailing edge of the front wing
CFD results:
Runs Overall CL Overall CD Front Wing CL Rear Wing CL Diffuser CL Efficiency
Iteration 1 -2.98 0.93 -1.07 -1.14 -1.30 3.20
Iteration 2 -3.15 0.95 -1.16 -1.14 -1.39 3.33
45

46. Underfloor
 Modifications were brought to an “idealised car”
Run Diffuser CL Diffuser CD Overall CL Overall CD Efficiency
First Iteration Car -1.31 0.145 -3.07 0.925 3.31
Idealised Car -1.41 0.164 -2.68 0.937 2.86
46

47. Underfloor
 Different area ratios were tested
 Lower pressure appearing on the diffuser
Throat Exit Ratio to
ground
clearance
Diffuser
CL
Diffuser
CD
Overall
CL
Overall
CD
Efficiency
15 170 6.34 -1.41 0.164 -2.68 0.937 2.86
20 170 5.41 -1.55 0.164 -2.93 0.942 3.11
20 190 6.00 -1.74 0.176 -3.09 0.953 3.25
20 210 6.59 -1.85 0.189 -3.17 0.965 3.28
20 230 7.18 -1.90 0.198 -3.26 0.994 3.28
20 250 7.76 -1.87 0.204 -3.07 0.993 3.10
25 265 7.15 -1.90 0.209 -3.18 1.02 3.13
47

48. Underfloor
 Illegal skirts tested
 Upward skirts tried
Runs Diffuser
CL
Diffuser
CD
Overall
CL
Overall
CD
Efficiency
Throat 20mm (T20) Exit 230mm (E230) -1.90 0.198 -3.28 0.994 3.28
T20 E230 with illegal skirts -2.36 0.205 -3.67 0.967 3.79
T20 E230 with upward skirts -1.95 0.200 -3.20 0.975 3.28
48

49. Underfloor
 Area ratio optimized from 7.18 to 7.47
 New side pod included in the design
 Flat plates added behind the rear wheels
Runs Diffuser
CL
Diffuser
CD
Overall
CL
Overall
CD
Efficiency
T20 E230 with upward skirts -1.95 0.200 -3.20 0.975 3.28
T20 E220 with upward skirts -1.92 0.197 -3.17 0.963 3.29
T20 E240 with upward skirts -1.96 0.205 -3.22 0.983 3.28
T20 E240 with upward skirts
and iteration 2 side pod
-1.94 0.204 -3.40 1.01 3.36
T20 E240 with upward skirts,
iteration 2 side pod and rear flat
plates
-2.00 0.208 -3.46 1.01 3.42
49

50. Rear Wing
 Slot gap and Overlap Optimisation
 Remodelled mounts
 Redesigned endplates
 Rear wing positioning optimisation
First iteration Second Iteration
50
Model CL CD Efficiency
Revised Iteration 1 -2.871 0.970 2.960
Iteration 1 with New
RW
-3.092 0.935 3.307

51. Second Iteration Car
51

52. Second Iteration Car
52

53. Lift, Drag, Balance & Efficiency
Model CL CD
Aerodynamic
Efficiency
% Front Balance
Baseline -2.02 0.805 2.52 24.4
First Iteration -3.07 0.925 3.31 31.2
Second Iteration -3.47 1.010 3.42 34.3
• 11.5% increase in downforce production
• 8.4% increase in drag production
• 3.2% increase in efficiency
• 3.1% increase in balance towards the front of the car
53

54. Component Breakdown
54
-0.3
0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
3
3.3
Full car Front Wing Rear Wing Sidepods Wheels Body/Nose Underbody
CL
Component Lift Coefficient Breakdown
Iteration 1 Iteration 2
-0.05
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
0.75
0.85
0.95
1.05
Full car Front Wing Rear Wing Sidepods Wheels Body/Nose Underbody
CD
Component Drag Coefficient Breakdown
Iteration 1 Iteration 2

55. Pressure Coefficient
55

56. Third Design Iteration
Upgrades
56

57. Front Wing
 Movement of wheels outboard of the car
 Introduction of Strakes
 Re-introduction of the middle of the wing
Carried Forward:
 Re-introduction of the middle of the wing
57

58. Front Wing
Vortex Channel Configuration CL CD
Wide Main, Original Cascade -3.47603 1.010946
Original Main, Original Cascade -3.57881 1.011578
Original Main, Narrow Cascade -3.60611 1.011733
Capturing Vortices:
 Optimum width for mainplane
elements
 Optimum width for cascade
elements
 Vortex Generator design and test
58

59. Sidepod
3-SP-IT1-CS1-A
3-SP-IT2-CS1-C
3-SP-IT3-CS1-A
Case
Description
Part
Number
Inlet
Area
(mm^2)
Mass
Flow
(Kg/S)
Area CL ∆CL CD ∆CD
3-SP-IT3-CS1-A 5062 0.1240 0.0874 -3.6618 -0.2521 0.9735 -0.030 3.761
59

60. Third Iteration-Nose Cone
 Improved the front wing performance by
pressing the front nose down
 Improved the flow around the trailing edge of
the front wing by making the middle nose higher
 Moved the balance towards
 Was not carried forward
CFD results:
Runs Overall CL Overall CD Efficiency Front Wing CL
Diffuser
CL
% Front
Balance
Iteration 2 -3.461 1.012 3.419 -0.960 -1.940 34.3
Iteration 3 -3.434 1.003 3.424 -1.010 -1.824 39.4 60

61. Underfloor
 Vortex generators and fins
 Zoom in on both devices
Runs Diffuser CL Diffuser CD Overall CL Overall CD Efficiency
Second Iteration Car -2.00 0.208 -3.46 1.01 3.42
Vortex Generators -2.02 0.208 -3.48 1.01 3.45
Fins -2.02 0.209 -3.48 1.01 3.45
61

62. Underfloor
 Barge boards
 Turning Vane
Runs
Diffuser
CL
Diffuser
CD
Overall
CL
Overall
CD
Efficiency
Second Iteration
Car
-2.00 0.208 -3.46 1.01 3.42
Barge Boards -1.98 0.217 -3.45 1.01 3.42
Single Turning
Vane
-2.07 0.214 -3.52 1.01 3.50
62

63. Underfloor
 Double turning vanes
 Double steeper vanes
 Double steepest vanes
Runs
Diffuser
CL
Diffuser
CD
Overall
CL
Overall
CD
Efficiency
Second
Iteration Car
-2.00 0.208 -3.46 1.01 3.42
Barge Boards -1.98 0.217 -3.45 1.01 3.42
Single Turning
Vane
-2.07 0.214 -3.52 1.01 3.50
Double
Turning Vanes
-2.07 0.216 -3.54 1.01 3.51
Steeper
Double
-2.06 0.218 -3.52 1.01 3.51
Steepest
Double
-2.03 0.222 -3.49 1.01 3.46
63

64. Underfloor
 Gurney flap
 Wing element
Runs
Diffuser
CL
Diffuser
CD
Overall
CL
Overall
CD
Efficiency
Second Iteration Car -2.00 0.208 -3.46 1.01 3.42
Gurney Flap added -2.30 0.303 -3.68 1.07 3.45
Wing element added -2.41 0.368 -3.76 1.12 3.35
64

65. Underfloor
 Testing the Gurney Flap on the Final car at
different speed
 30m/s
Runs Velocity m/s Diffuser CL Diffuser CD Overall CL Overall CD Efficiency
Third Iteration Car 30 -2.84 0.422 -4.48 1.14 3.93
Gurney Flap added 30 -3.86 0.899 -5.43 1.52 3.57
Third Iteration Car 150 -2.62 0.247 -4.60 1.02 4.52
Gurney Flap added 150 -2.90 0.348 -4.80 1.08 4.45
 150m/s
65

66. Exhaust Reimplementation
 Rear Wing improvements were limited through
diffuser developments
 Exhaust reimplementation was deemed to
add a larger performance gain
 Exhaust added to engine cover
 Exit speed calculated at 109.62m/s
 Tested over a range of exit angles
Second Iteration Third Iteration
66
CL CD
Exhaust Setting Full Car Rear Wing Diffuser Full Car Rear wing Diffuser
No Exhaust -3.832 -1.022 -2.389 0.989 0.240 0.260
Optimised -4.597 -1.112 -3.093 1.133 0.244 0.461

67. Third Iteration Car
67

68. Third Iteration Car
68

69. Lift, Drag, Balance and Efficiency
Model CL CD
Aerodynamic
Efficiency % Front Balance
Baseline -2.02 0.805 2.52 24.4
First Iteration -3.07 0.925 3.31 31.2
Second Iteration -3.47 1.010 3.42 34.3
Third Iteration -4.48 1.142 3.93 32.1
 22.5% increase in downforce production
 3.7% increase in drag production
 13.0% increase in efficiency
 2.2% reduction in front balance
69

70. Component Breakdown
70
-0.5
-0.2
0.1
0.4
0.7
1.0
1.3
1.6
1.9
2.2
2.5
2.8
3.1
3.4
3.7
4.0
4.3
4.6
Full car Front Wing Rear Wing Sidepods Wheels Body/Nose Underbody
CL
Coefficient of Lift Breakdown Comparison
Iteration 3 Iteration 2
-0.05
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
0.75
0.85
0.95
1.05
1.15
Full car Front Wing Rear Wing Sidepods Wheels Body/Nose Underbody
CD
Coefficient of Drag Breakdown Comparison
Iteration 3 Iteration 2

71. Component Breakdown
71
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Full car Front Wing Rear Wing Sidepods Wheels Body/Nose Underbody
CL
Coefficient of Lift Breakdown Comparison
Iteration 3 Iteration 3: 150m/s
-0.05
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
0.75
0.85
0.95
1.05
1.15
Full car Front Wing Rear Wing Sidepods Wheels Body/Nose Underbody
CD
Coefficient of Drag Breakdown Comparison
Iteration 3 Iteration 3: 150m/s

72. Pressure Coefficient
72

73. Discussion
73

74. Reynolds Scaling Effects
Velocity
(m/s)
CL CD Balance
% Front
Balance
% Rear
Efficiency
30 -4.4823 1.1416 0.3206 0.6793 -3.9261
60 -4.4228 1.0458 0.4365 0.5634 -4.2290
90 -4.4683 1.0256 0.4543 0.5456 -4.3568
120 -4.4710 1.0141 0.4628 0.5371 -4.4088
150 -4.6042 1.0185 0.4629 0.5370 -4.5203
 Significant rearward balance at 30 m/s
≈ 23 mph full-car
 Balance shifts forward as speed
increases
• Inertial forces dominate so reduced
separation
• Exhaust effect diminishes
 Balance is 46% forward at 150m/s ≈
117 mph full-car
 Efficiency increases at higher Reynolds
number
74
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
%FrontBalance
Velocity (m/s)
Velocity against Front Balance

75. CFD Accuracy
 Baseline car model
• Extensive verification
• Validation against force coefficients
• No comparison of flow field with experiment
 Design alterations
• Carried over settings of baseline car
• Potential inaccuracy for radical geometry changes
• Ideally verify and validate further
75

76. Design Feasibility
There are some feasibility concerns as this is a purely aerodynamic investigation:
 The rear wing mounts and the underbody are sticking out far rearward
 The wing-shaped diffuser results in high engine positioning
 The lack of suspension results in no attachment of the wheels to the car chassis
 The limited space for the driver in the final nose design
76

77. Further Design Optimisations
 Front Wing:
• Angles of attack
• Aerofoil shape
• Further analysis into inwash wings
• Bargeboard Endplates
77
 Sidepod
• Optimize airflow from wheel cover to rear wing
• Vortex generators

78. Further Design Optimisations
 Rear wing
• Teamwork with engine cover and diffuser
• Beam wing
• Channelling of the turbulent air emanating from the wheels
• Addition of cut-outs to the endplate
78
 Diffuser
• Gurney
• Bargeboard ahead the diffuser
• An automated optimisation on the top surface

79. Conclusion
 Baseline model simulated in CFD
• Extensive verification
• Validation against force coefficients
 Design improvements made
• 3 design iterations were performed
• Coefficient of Lift value increased to 4.48
• Coefficient of Drag value kept relatively low at 1.14
 Further work to be done
• Verify and validate CFD of final design
• Further optimise design and address feasibility concerns
79