You've nearly asked the same question as I've always wanted to - but were slightly embarrassed to. Surely if the wing is stalling, that's not terribly efficient aerodynamically and could lead to more unpredictable results? What I'm sort of trying to say is, purely in terms of drag (and hence straightline speed) is the following true?FB said:I think this is best described as cause and effect. Higher wing angles allow for greater downforce in the corners and higher cornering speeds. The wing stalling device negates the effect of the wing potentially leading to higher top speeds on the straights.
The question I have is how effective is the "F-Duct"? Does it make the car run as if the wing isn't there or does it reduce the effectiveness of the wing making it provide a similar level of down force to a lower wing angle? If the latter of these two options it would result in similar straight line speeds between an F-Ducted and non-F-Ducted car (wouldn't it?) but, as Flood points out in his article, higher cornering speeds for the F-Ducted car.
Is there a fluid dynamicist in the house?
Renault's Robert Kubica said at the Hungarian Grand Prix that he had no doubts about the importance of the F-duct.
When asked which of technical innovations seens in 2010 was the most important, he said: "If it is working properly, it's the F-duct. The longer straights you have, the more of an advantage you have."
As well as using the F-duct for a pure top speed advantage, teams can also utilise the concept to help them run with more downforce for the corners – because the knock-on increase in drag is eradicated on the straights by the stalling of the rear wing.