加里·安德森解析F1主动式后翼四种概念的工作原理
加里·安德森撰文指出，巴库赛道与蒙扎类似，直线速度对表现至关重要，并解析了2026年F1主动空气动力学规则下不同后翼概念的工作原理。
巴库和蒙扎一样，也是另一条直线速度对性能贡献巨大的赛道。这意味着尾翼设计尤为重要，尤其是按照2026年新实施的一级方程式主动空气动力学规则，弯道模式和直线模式之间的差异格外关键。
这两种尾翼状态的目标是：在弯道模式下产生尽可能大的下压力，在直线模式下实现尽可能低的阻力水平。不过按照规则，这两种模式之间的切换必须在0.4秒内完成。
车手按下按钮即可激活直线模式，因此切换到低阻力模式并没有什么紧迫性。但当从直线模式切回弯道模式时，整个过程是在车手踩下制动踏板时自动完成的。当尾翼闭合时，气流必须同样迅速地重新附着到尾翼下表面，否则赛车在初始制动阶段车尾会不稳定。
如果这种情况发生得太频繁，车手也可以按一个按钮让它提早那么一点点触发，但这样一来尾翼在赛道上的闭合时机就会有些随机，当与其他赛车缠斗时，车手可能会忘记操作，甚至可能想把闭合时机推向极限，从而再次引发气流问题。
在本赛季早些时候的两次比赛中，分别在红牛环和银石赛道，我们看到马克斯·维斯塔潘在入弯时冲出了赛道。这两次冲出赛道都发生在直道模式后初始刹车阶段，车队后来承认这是由设计上的机械问题导致的。这类问题会因为晚一两米刹车、乱流增加或风向的轻微变化而放大。
使用它的实际目的完全不是为了改善超车，因为每位车手在每一圈经过直道模式路段时都可以使用它。它只是为了达到更高的尾速，尤其是因为一套存在缺陷的混动规则，这些赛车往往在直道结束前很久就耗尽了电力。此外，处于直道模式意味着更低的空气阻力，因此对于尾速而言，投入的每一分功率都能换来更大的回报，特别是相对于达到该速度所需的功率水平而言。
那么，各车队为本赛季想出了哪些不同的解决方案呢？主要有四种概念。在这四种概念之内，显然还存在着略微不同的运行方式。
这就是我所说的对过去可调尾翼系统，即概念的延伸。不过，开口的尺寸不再像DRS方案那样被限定，所以它可以做到你想要的任意大小。
品红色箭头显示了翼片组件的前缘在打开时的旋转方向，蓝色箭头显示了它在关闭时的方向。不出所料，凭借他们所掌握的知识，这正是大多数车队在赛季初所追求的概念。
在梅赛德斯的标注中，红色线条的粗细差异意在说明尾翼处于过弯模式与直道模式时的下压力水平差异。
采用这一概念时，即使在直道模式下，尾翼的主翼面和上层翼片组件也会产生一定程度的下压力，而且两者很可能仍然会相互影响，或者用我喜欢的说法，彼此“对话”，从而再次产生下压力。
这意味着，即使在直道模式下，尾翼各部分的气流仍会附着在下表面上。因此，取决于设计团队在实际尾翼构型上的激进程度，当它进入过弯模式时，应该不会出现任何气流重新附着的问题。
这一概念最早由法拉利提出，并在赛季很早阶段的第二站中国大奖赛周末进行了测试。它有过许多名字，从“马卡雷娜”到人字拖，再到H形翼——迈凯伦就是这样称呼自己的版本的。
目前法拉利和红牛在持续使用这一概念，迈凯伦则似乎随机使用——实际上它只在蒙扎参加过正式比赛，但本周末将在巴库回归。
考虑到红牛和迈凯伦都是在看到法拉利的动作之后才走上这条路的（尽管红牛坚称在法拉利的版本出现之前，他们自己的版本已在研发中），这个概念必定有值得之处。否则，何必费这个功夫呢？
假设赛车在弯道模式下产生类似水平的尾翼下压力，红色箭头所指部分的重量变化与梅赛德斯的方案一样。然而，在打开状态下，这一概念有所不同。打开时，翼片组件由于处于倒置状态，正如绿色箭头所标示的那样，会产生一定程度的升力——换句话说，与下压力正好相反。
主翼面仍会产生少量下压力，如图中缩小的红色箭头所示。这种减小主要源于襟翼上的气流与主翼面之间缺乏交互，也就是所谓的“联动”。这会降低阻力吗？很可能会，但要真正算出潜在的性能提升百分比，还需要相当深入的研究。
在我看来，法拉利这一设计有意思的地方在于襟翼组件在开启和关闭时的旋转方向。从车手右手一侧看车，襟翼组件开启时按洋红色箭头所示逆时针旋转。正如我之前所说，这个功能对气流变化并不关键，因为你需要的只是尽快减小阻力。至于关闭，它显然朝相反方向、即顺时针关闭，如蓝色箭头所示。
这意味着它在旋转时会增大攻角并促使气流重新附着。旋转的最后阶段与梅赛德斯的设计非常相似，都只是把缝隙收窄到最小，因此它不需要让气流以不同于这种更标准设计的方式重新附着。在我看来，它的一个潜在优势是，在旋转关闭时，它是在顶着顺气流方向的空气动力运转，所以其关闭旋转会耗尽所允许的最大 0.4 秒时间。在这段时间里，它有点像降落伞，有助于降低车速。
红牛和迈凯伦版本的这种翻板式可变翼的最大区别在于，它们在开启和关闭时都朝相反方向旋转。因此对这两家来说，襟翼组件在到达最终位置之前要经历更大的攻角变化，这意味着它们要求气流在到位的瞬间就重新附着。
这是阿尔派自本赛季开始以来使用的独特概念。再次假设它在关闭时能产生与梅赛德斯和法拉利相近的尾翼下压力水平，它只是通过降低尾缘（如蓝色箭头所示）来减小襟翼总成的攻角。
这本身会略微打开缝隙间距，从而降低下压力水平，同时也就降低了整个翼面总成的阻力。它的优点是气流始终不会在翼面总成上脱离附着，所以当襟翼总成的攻角增大时（如蓝色箭头所示），它所要求的只是下压力随攻角成比例增加。
这又是一个一次性的设计，但我会称它为阿尔派概念的一种变体。只有奥迪在使用它。
它通过让襟翼总成围绕其大致中心旋转来减小襟翼总成的攻角。当进入直道模式时，它会降低襟翼总成的尾缘并抬高其前缘，如洋红色箭头所示。而进入过弯模式时则做相反的动作，同样用蓝色箭头标出。
那么最大的问题就是哪种概念更好？如果单纯从杆位、分站冠军和积分榜来看，你必须倾向于梅赛德斯的概念。
再加上这一概念其实只是可调尾翼（DRS）概念的延伸，这意味着梅赛德斯并不是从一张白纸开始这个赛季的。它对这一翼面的特性已有充分的认识和理解，并且已经有一套运作机制定义得相当清楚，所以不需要投入大量的研发设计能力去搞出一套能用的系统。
随着本赛季的推进，明年各车队会朝哪个方向发展，将会非常值得关注。
英文原文
Baku is another track where, like Monza, straightline speed is a major contributor to performance. This means rear wing design, and in particular the difference between cornering mode and straightline mode under Formula 1's new-for-2026 active aerodynamic regulations, is particularly important.
The objective of these two wing states is to create as much downforce as possible when in cornering mode and as low a drag level as possible when in straight mode. However, by regulation that transition between the two modes has to happen within 0.4 seconds.
The driver presses a button to activate straight mode, so there's no real urgency in getting to the low-drag mode. However, when going from straight mode to cornering mode it all happens automatically when the driver hits the brake pedal. When it closes, the airflow must reattach to the wing's undersurface just as quickly, otherwise the rear of the car will be unstable in the initial braking phase.
If that happens too often, the driver can also press a button to set it off just that little bit earlier, but then the on-track closing position will be a little bit random and, when in battle with another car, it could be easy to forget or even try to push the closing more to the limit, triggering the airflow problem again.
On two occasions earlier in the season, at the Red Bull Ring and Silverstone, we saw Max Verstappen go off track on corner entry. Both of these offs were at initial braking after a straight mode, and the team later admitted were caused by a mechanical problem with the design. This sort of problem can increase in magnitude just by being that metre or two later on the brakes, increased turbulence or a slight change in wind direction.
The actual use of it is in no way to improve overtaking, as everyone has it on the straight-mode sections of the track on every lap. It is simply to achieve higher top speeds, especially when these cars, because of a flawed set of hybrid regulations, are prone to running out of electrical power well before the end of the straights. Also, when in straight mode it means lower drag, so you get a bigger bang for your buck when it comes to top speeds, especially relative to the power level it takes to achieve that speed.
So what are the various different solutions that the teams have come up with for this season? Well, there are four main concepts. Within those four are obviously slightly different operational functions.
This is what I would call an extension of the previous DRS concept. However, the size of the opening is not defined as it was with the DRS solution, so it can be as big as you like.
The magenta arrow shows the rotational direction that the leading edge of the flap assembly goes in when opening, and the blue arrow shows its direction when closing. Not surprisingly, with the knowledge they had, this was the concept that most teams pursued for the start of the season.
On the Mercedes annotation, the red-line thickness difference is hopefully illustrating the downforce levels from when the wing is in cornering mode to when it is in straight mode.
With this concept, the wing's main plane and upper flap assembly will, even in straight mode, create some level of downforce and the two of them will probably still interact or, as I like to call it, ‘talk' to each other, again producing downforce.
This means that the airflow on each of these sections of rear wing will still be attached to the undersurface even when in straight-line mode. So depending on how aggressive the design group has been on the actual wing configuration there shouldn't be any reattachment problems when it goes into cornering mode.
This concept was first introduced by Ferrari and tested in a grand prix weekend very early in the season at round two in China. It has had many names, from ‘macarena' to flip-flop and H-wing, which is what McLaren called its version.
It is now used consistently by Ferrari and Red Bull and seemingly randomly by McLaren - it's only actually been raced at Monza but will be back this weekend for Baku.
If we take into account that both Red Bull and McLaren followed this path after seeing what Ferrari was up to (though Red Bull's insisted it had its version in the works before Ferrari's appeared), there must be something worthwhile in this concept. Otherwise, why bother?
Assuming that the cars generate similar levels of rear-wing downforce when in cornering mode, the red arrows change in weight just like the ones on the Mercedes. However, when open this concept is different. When open, the flap assembly, by being upside down, will, as highlighted with the green arrows, produce some level of lift – in other words, the opposite to downforce.
The mainplane will still produce a small level of downforce, as the reduced red arrows show. This reduction will mainly be because of the lack of interaction – ‘talking' – between the airflow on the flaps and the main plane. Will that reduce the levels of drag? Probably, but it would need fairly intense research to actually come up with the potential percentage performance gain.
The interesting thing for me about the Ferrari concept is the direction of rotation the flap assembly goes through when opening and closing. Looking from the driver's right-hand side of the car, the flap assembly rotates anti-clockwise, as the magenta arrows show, when opening. As I said earlier, this function is not critical to the airflow change, as all you want is a drag reduction as quickly as possible. As for the closing, it obviously closes in the opposite direction, clockwise, as the blue arrows show.
This means that it increases its angle of attack and induces airflow reattachment as it rotates. The last part of the rotation is very similar to the Mercedes concept in that it is just reducing the slot gap to its minimum, so it is not asking the airflow to reattach any differently from this more standard concept. One of its potential advantages for me is that, when being rotated to close, it is fighting against the in-line aerodynamic forces, so its closing rotation will be taking up the maximum of that allowable 0.4 seconds. During that period it is a bit like a parachute, helping with the speed reduction of the car.
The big difference with the Red Bull and McLaren versions of this flip-flop wing is that they both rotate their wings in the opposite direction when opening and closing. So for both of them, the flap assembly is going through a greater angle of attack until it gets to its final position, meaning they are asking for instantaneous airflow reattachment when that positioning is achieved.
This is a lone concept used by Alpine since the start of the season. Assuming once again that, when closed, it produces similar levels of rear-wing downforce to Mercedes and Ferrari, it simply reduces the angle of attack of the flap assembly by dropping the trailing edge, illustrated by the blue arrow.
This inherently opens the slot gap slightly, so reduces the downforce level and with it the drag of the complete wing assembly. Its positives are that it never really loses airflow attachment on the wing assembly, so when the angle of attack of the flap assembly is increased, which is shown with the blue arrow, all it is asking is for the downforce to increase in relation to the angle of attack.
This is again a one-off, but I would call it a deviation of the Alpine concept. It is only used by Audi.
It reduces the angle of attack of the flap assembly by rotating the flap assembly around more or less its centre. When it goes to straight-line mode, it drops the trailing edge and raises the leading edge of the flap assembly, as shown by the magenta arrows. It does the opposite to go to cornering mode, again highlighted with the blue arrows.
So the big question is which concept is best? Well, if you simply look at poles, race wins and the points table, you would have to err on the side of the Mercedes concept.
That, together with the fact that the concept is simply an extension of the DRS concept, means Mercedes didn't start the season from a clean sheet of paper. It had knowledge and understanding of the wing's characteristics and had a mechanism to operate it fairly well defined, so didn't have to use a lot of research and design capacity to come up with a functioning system.
It will be interesting to see who heads in which direction for next year as this season progresses.
The Race ·
内容来自公开信源，聚合内容版权归原作者与来源所有。