• Vortex Flow in Formula 1: Insights from Pegrum’s 2007 PhD Thesis

• Chapter 1: Introduction
Pegrum’s dissertation begins by highlighting the importance of aerodynamics in race-car performance. It traces how
adding wings for downforce in the late 1960s dramatically increased cornering speedsit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. Ground
effect (using the car’s floor to generate suction) was another breakthrough, first seen in the Lotus 79it.scribd.com. By the
2000s, Formula 1 cars bristled with complex appendages (wings, endplates, barge boards, etc.) to manage airflow
it.scribd.com. A modern F1 front wing does more than produce downforce – it also creates powerful vortices that control
downstream flow. In particular, the front wing endplates act as vortex generators, and their trailing vortices must immedi-
ately pass around the exposed front wheelsit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. The open-wheel design (mandated by regulations)
means these vortices encounter a large rotating wheel and strong lateral “cross-flow” around itit.scribd.com. This interac-
tion is complex and can create an “undesirable region of energy loss” inboard of the front wheelsit.scribd.com, potentially
hurting aerodynamic performance. These challenges motivate the research: by understanding how the front-wing vortex
system behaves and interacts with the wheel flow, engineers can find ways to mitigate losses and improve car perfor-
manceit.scribd.com.
• Chapter 2: Literature Review
Chapter 2 surveys prior work in three key areas related to the problemit.scribd.com: (1) Vortical Structures – fundamen-
tals of vortex flow, since the front wing/endplate can be viewed as a vortex generator; (2) Vortical Behavior – how vortices
interact, especially in ground effect and when multiple vortices are shed together; (3) Wheel Aerodynamics – characteris-
tics of flow around isolated wheels, to appreciate how a wheel might perturb the wing’s vorticesit.scribd.com. The review
notes that due to F1’s competitive secrecy, published research on specific F1 aerodynamics is limitedit.scribd.com, so
one must draw on classical aerodynamics and analogous studies. Key points from each section include:
• Vortex Fundamentals: The thesis starts by defining what a vortex is and how to identify it. It references the work
of Jeong & Hussain (1995), who clarified vortex identification criteria (like the swirling strength or $\lambda_2$
methods)it.scribd.com. A vortex is essentially a region of swirling flow with a concentrated core of rotating fluid.
Classic aerodynamic texts (e.g. Batchelor 1967, Lamb 1932) and studies of wing-tip vortices are cited to explain
how lifting surfaces shed trailing vortices due to pressure differences between their upper and lower surfaces
it.scribd.com. The formation of trailing vortices is depicted with the standard example of a trailing vortex sheet
rolling up into tip vortices behind an airplane wingit.scribd.com. In race cars, inverted wings (negative angle of
attack) also shed vortices that are crucial for downstream flow control. The review emphasizes that vortices are
ubiquitous – from tornadoes and hurricanes to wingtips and even rotating machineryit.scribd.comit.scribd.com
– and understanding their behavior is paramount in aerodynamic design.
• Vortex Interactions and Breakdown: Once generated, vortices can interact with each other and with nearby sur-
faces (like the ground). Pegrum reviews literature on co-rotating vortex pairs and vortex merging. For example,
Chen & Savaș (1999) showed how dual vortices from flapped airfoils can orbit around each other and merge into
one stronger vortex under certain conditionsit.scribd.com. This is relevant because an F1 front wing often pro-
duces multiple co-rotating vortices (as we’ll see, the front wing endplate can shed a “main” vortex plus smaller
ones from the footplate or canard elements). The merging process can affect the “vortex health” – i.e. the
strength and coherence of the resulting vortex – and is influenced by their relative strengths and spacing
it.scribd.comit.scribd.com. The thesis also delves into vortex breakdown, a phenomenon where a vortex loses
its coherent structure, often forming a “bubble” or spiraling apart. Early work by Peckham & Atkinson (1957) and
Lambourne & Bryer (1962) observed vortex breakdown on delta wings at high angles of attackit.scribd.com
it.scribd.com, which leads to abrupt loss of lift. In vortex breakdown, the core flow stagnates and the vortex ab-
ruptly expands or wanders. Swirl ratio (the ratio of tangential velocity to axial velocity in the vortex core) is identi-
fied as a critical parameter. Hall (1972) and Leibovich (1978) found that a vortex tends to break down when the
swirl angle exceeds roughly $40°$–$50°$it.scribd.comit.scribd.com. In other words, if the rotation is too intense
compared to the forward flow, the vortex becomes prone to destabilizing. An adverse pressure gradient can
trigger the breakdown once the vortex is primed by high swirlit.scribd.com. This is extremely relevant to a front
wing in ground effect: as ground clearance reduces, vortices become stronger (due to increased lift) but also
can experience more rapid decay or even breakdown if the conditions are rightit.scribd.com. Indeed, prior
 studies specific to racing car wings indicated that at very low ride heights the endplate vortices may burst. Nota-
bly, Zhang & Zerihan (2004) found that a double-element wing in ground effect experienced vortex breakdown
when the ground clearance was below about 0.25 wing chordit.scribd.com. Likewise, Moseley (1999) (an earlier
Imperial College PhD) used particle image velocimetry (PIV) on an F1 front wing and observed a spiral-type
breakdown at ride height $h/c \approx 0.20$it.scribd.comit.scribd.com. These works established that “vortex
health” deteriorates at extreme ground effect – the vortex core can burst, causing a sudden loss of downforce.
Pegrum’s literature review thus sets the expectation that vortex breakdown is a potential danger for F1 wings in
close ground proximity, and controlling or delaying it is a key design concern.
• Wheel Aerodynamics: The third section reviews the flow around an isolated wheel, since the front-wing vortices
will encounter the front wheel almost immediately. Agathangelou & Gascoyne (1998) (two F1 engineers) re-
ported that the exposed wheels contribute roughly 40% of the total drag of a Formula 1 carit.scribd.com. A
wheel is essentially a bluff body in the flow, generating a large separated wake. Unlike a smooth wing, a wheel’s
flow is characterized by flow separation on its top and a strong “jetting” flow near the ground contact patch.
Classic work by Fackrell & Harvey in the 1970s at Imperial College built the foundation of wheel aerodynamics.
Pegrum cites Fackrell’s findings that a rotating wheel has a very different flow field than a stationary wheel
it.scribd.com. When the wheel spins (as on a moving car), the boundary layer on the forward-moving upper part
of the tire separates earlier, producing a distinctive high-speed jet of air shooting out from under the front of the
wheel (just ahead of where it touches ground)it.scribd.comit.scribd.com. This “jetting” reduces the wake width
and causes a pair of strong counter-rotating vortices to form behind the wheel, making the wake taller and nar-
rowerit.scribd.com. In contrast, a non-rotating wheel has separation farther back and creates a wider, flatter
wake. These differences mean that simulating wheel rotation (e.g. with a rolling road in the wind tunnel) is cru-
cial for realistic resultsit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. Other references, like Cogotti (1983) and Morelli, documented
the complex horseshoe vortices and pressure distribution around wheels. The literature makes clear that the
wheel’s presence will deflect and disrupt nearby airflow: as the front-wing vortex approaches the wheel, it en-
counters the wheel’s separated flow and strong upwash in front of the wheel. Harvey & Perry (1971) had even
observed that trailing vortices near a ground plane tend to lift upwards away from the ground due to mirror-in-
duced velocity – in an aircraft landing context, vortices rise and separate laterallyit.scribd.com. By analogy, an
F1 front-wing vortex might also be pushed upward or aside as it nears the wheel. All these insights set the stage
for Pegrum’s experiments, identifying what flow features to look for (vortex merging, potential breakdown,
wheel-induced distortion) and why they matter for a race car.
Finally, Chapter 2 concludes with the specific research aims and objectivesit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. In essence, the
goal was to experimentally characterize the front-wing vortex system both with and without a wheel present, including
the effects of ride height and wheel rotation. This meant mapping the vortex positions, strengths (“health”), and how they
change downstream under various conditions. The ultimate aim was to inform better design strategies for managing
these vortices to improve downforce and reduce losses in an F1 car.
• Chapter 3: Experimental Setup and Analysis Techniques
Chapter 3 details the methodology used to investigate the vortices. All experiments were conducted in the Imperial Col-
lege’s Donald Campbell low-speed wind tunnelit.scribd.com. Key aspects of the setup included:
• Wind Tunnel Models: Pegrum used multiple front-wing models at 1/2 scale (approximately). One was a high-
fidelity model of a McLaren F1 front wing (circa 2006) including endplate, main plane, flap, and a footplate (a
small horizontal extension at the bottom of the endplate)it.scribd.comit.scribd.com. This model represents a
realistic, complex geometry producing several vortices. Additionally, simpler configurations were tested: a sin-
gle-element wing with a small endplate, and a double-element wing with small endplateit.scribd.com
it.scribd.com. These simplified “generic” wings helped isolate certain vortical structures (for example, a single-
element wing might generate just one primary vortex) for controlled experiments. All models were mounted
close to a movable ground plane, with adjustable ride height ($h$) relative to the wing chord ($c$), so that
ground effect could be varied.
• Wheel Simulation: A key part of the setup was a rotating front wheel model placed downstream of the wing’s
endplate. The wheel was driven by an electric motor and a moving belt (“rolling road”) simulated the ground

1
 motionit.scribd.com. This allowed realistic wheel flow, matching wheel rotation to wind speed so that at the
contact patch the tire surface and belt moved together (zero relative speed). They also had the capability to test
without the belt movement (stationary ground) to see the differencesit.scribd.com. (Notably, Chapter 4.2.3 spe-
cifically analyzes the Effect of Rolling Road on the flowit.scribd.com.) The rotating wheel setup was critical to
reproduce the true wheel wake behavior as documented by Fackrell – ensuring the phenomena like jetting flow
and the correct wake size occur, which would influence the vortices passing by.
• Instrumentation and Measurement Techniques: The thesis employed a multi-faceted approach to capture the
vortex flow:
o Flow Visualization: Laser-Sheet Smoke visualization was used to qualitatively see the vortex cores and
their paths. For example, a laser light sheet illuminated oil smoke, slicing the flow at various cross-sec-
tions. This produced images of swirling streaklines that reveal vortex positions and any merging or
breakdown (Fig. 4.1 shows an upstream view of the vortices as smoke trailsit.scribd.com).
o Hot-Film Anemometry: An array of hot-film sensors was used to measure time-averaged velocity fields
in some planesit.scribd.com. Hot-film (or hot-wire) anemometers can capture the mean flow speed
and even fluctuations; they likely scanned across a plane to map the velocity deficit of vortex cores.
o Total Pressure Probes: A Kiel probe (a yaw-insensitive total pressure probe) was used to survey the
pressure field downstream of the wingit.scribd.com. By measuring total pressure at many points in
cross-sections of the flow, Pegrum could map the vortex cores as regions of low total pressure (since
spinning vortices have low pressure in their cores). The Kiel probe is designed to tolerate flows with
high incidence angles (up to ~35°) without errorit.scribd.com, but the thesis notes that very strong
cross-flows near the wheel still exceeded this at timesit.scribd.com. From the pressure maps, the
team could infer vortex strength (circulation) and size.
o Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV): PIV was also utilized for more detailed velocity field measurements
it.scribd.com. PIV involves seeding the flow with tracer particles and using high-speed cameras and
lasers to capture their motion, yielding velocity vector maps. Pegrum performed PIV on cross-sectional
planes both in the near field (just behind the wing) and far field (further downstream) to track how the
vortices evolved. In some figures, vorticity contour plots from PIV are presented to quantify the vortex
structure (e.g. Fig. 5.2 shows non-dimensional vorticity in a plane around the wheelit.scribd.com).
• Data Analysis: To extract quantitative vortex characteristics, Pegrum employed vortex parameterization tech-
niques. For instance, a vortex core’s circulation $\Gamma$ was estimated by integrating the vorticity or by fit-
ting an analytical vortex model to the measured pressure deficit. The thesis mentions using an assumption of
an “isolated axisymmetric vortex” to derive parametersit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. This suggests they may have
fit a theoretical profile (like a Lamb-Oseen vortex model) to the data. One challenge noted is when vortices are
close together (interacting), the assumption of axisymmetry breaks down and such estimates become less reli-
ableit.scribd.com. The methodology also involved defining a “cut-off radius” when computing circulation – es-
sentially ignoring weak vorticity far from the core to focus on the primary vortex strengthit.scribd.com. These
careful analysis methods allowed the researcher to quantify vortex position, circulation, core size, and swirl an-
gle for each case.
Chapter 3 thus establishes the experimental credibility: a well-instrumented, scale-model wind tunnel study capturing
both qualitative and quantitative aspects of the vortex flows. This provides the foundation for the results in Chapters 4–6.
• Chapter 4: Flow Structure Downstream of the Wing (No Wheel)
In Chapter 4, Pegrum examines the vortex system generated by the McLaren front wing in ground effect without the pres-
ence of a wheel. This is essentially the “baseline” – how the wing’s vortices behave in free stream (with ground) before a
wheel interferes. Key findings from this chapter include:
• Multiple Vortices and Topology: The front wing/endplate produced a system of several co-rotating vortices. A
laser smoke visualization (Fig. 4.1) looking upstream shows these vortices swirling in the flowit.scribd.com. The
thesis provides a schematic (Fig. 4.2) illustrating the vortex topologyit.scribd.com. Typically, the “main vortex”
originates from the tip of the endplate or the tip of the wing flap – this is the strongest vortex. Additionally, a
“footplate vortex” is generated at the bottom of the endplate (where it meets the ground plane), and a “canard

2
 vortex” or smaller vortex might come from any small auxiliary winglets (if present) or juncture on the endplate
it.scribd.comit.scribd.com. There is also mention of a “top vortex”, likely shed from the top edge of the endplate
or the upper flapit.scribd.com. All these vortices are co-rotating (same rotation direction) and initially close to-
gether. Immediately downstream of the wing, they begin to interact strongly due to their induced velocities. The
three lower vortices (main, footplate, canard) were observed to rapidly orbit around each other and merge into a
single stronger vortex structure a short distance behind the wingit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. Meanwhile, the “top
vortex” remained somewhat separate above them. This merging behavior is exactly what vortex interaction the-
ory predicts – co-rotating vortices tend to drift toward each other and merge into one if their strengths are com-
parableit.scribd.com. Pegrum’s flow visualization confirms this “vortex merging” process in the race-car context.
• Ride Height Effects (No Wheel): A significant portion of Chapter 4 is devoted to how changing the wing’s ground
clearance (ride height h) alters the vortex system. Section 4.1.2 Effect of Ride Height compares a low ride height
case vs. a higher ride heightit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. At a moderate ground clearance (e.g. $h/c \approx 0.48$
in one case), the main vortex is very strong due to ground effect suction, and it induces the smaller vortices to
merge quickly. At a very low clearance ($h/c \approx 0.36$, closer to the ground), the interactions are even more
immediate, and the merging occurs almost right off the wingit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. Interestingly, at higher
clearance (lifting the wing further from ground, $h/c \approx 0.68$), the strength balance between the vortices
changesit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. Pegrum found that raising the wing weakened the main trailing vortex’s cir-
culation (because the ground effect boost diminishes) while strengthening the secondary vortices (footplate
and top vortices)it.scribd.comit.scribd.com. In fact, at the highest tested ride height, the previously dominant
main vortex became weaker relative to the “top vortex”it.scribd.com. This implies that at higher ride heights, the
upper vortex could overtake as the strongest structure, whereas near the ground the lower vortex is strongest
due to extra lift (a phenomenon consistent with Zhang & Zerihan’s observations of lift augmentation near
groundit.scribd.com). Another observation was that vortex positions shift with ride height only slightly – the rel-
ative positions of the cores remained similar when non-dimensionalized, except the footplate vortex moved a bit
when the wing was higherit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. However, their strengths did not scale uniformly.
• No Immediate Breakdown Observed: Importantly, even at the lowest tested ground clearance (~0.36–0.40
chord, which is low but not as extreme as 0.2), the vortex system did not exhibit vortex breakdown in the meas-
ured range. The vortices merged and remained coherent downstream. In the thesis, Pegrum notes that although
previous studies (Zerihan, Moseley, Garrood) saw breakdown below $h/c \approx 0.25$, his experiments at
moderately low $h/c$ did not show evidence of breakdownit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. This suggests a thresh-
old: there is a critical ride height (perhaps around 0.25 chord or less) at which the vortex might burst; his base-
line tests stayed just above that threshold. This is a useful design note – avoid operating the front wing too
close to the ground to keep the vortex healthy. However, as we’ll see later, when a wheel is present the flow
complexity might change this picture.
In summary, Chapter 4 establishes the baseline vortex behavior: the front wing generates multiple vortices that merge
into a strong core, whose strength and structure depend on ride height. A lower wing gives more total circulation (hence
more downforce) but risks pushing towards the conditions that cause breakdown (though none was seen for the cases
tested)it.scribd.com. Higher wing ride heights reduce vortex strength but also reduce the risk of an unhealthy vortex. All
of these findings are directly applicable – an F1 designer must balance ground effect benefits against vortex stability.
• Chapter 5: Vortex Behavior Around a Rotating Wheel
Chapter 5 presents detailed observations of a single vortex encountering a rotating wheel, isolating the physics of vortex-
wheel interaction. This was achieved by using a simplified wing model that generates essentially one primary vortex (for
example, the single-element wing with a small endplate) and guiding it past the wheel. The motivation is to understand
how a lone vortex is deflected, deformed, or weakened by the presence of the wheel’s flow field. Key insights include:
• Initial Position Matters: The path a vortex takes around the wheel depends strongly on its starting position rela-
tive to the wheelit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. Pegrum varied the vertical and lateral release point of the vortex (by
adjusting the wing or vortex generator position) and found two general outcomes. If the vortex approaches
lower down, it tends to go around the sides of the wheel (or even underneath the front part, drawn into the
wheel’s ground vortex). If it starts higher, it is deflected upward and passes over the wheel. Figure 5.1 (a plot of

3
 initial vortex positions) and subsequent analysis illustrate that a vortex released nearer the ground will see the
wheel as a large blockage and get pushed outward, whereas a higher vortex can ride over the topit.scribd.com
it.scribd.com. The wheel’s own flow plays a role: the rotating wheel produces a strong upflow in front (due to the
high pressure stagnation on the front face) and an Archimedes spiral of air around its sides. Thus a vortex ap-
proaching the wheel’s front encounters a kind of “bow wave” that can lift it. In fact, Harvey & Perry (1971) ob-
served aircraft wake vortices rising over a ground plane (a similar effect)it.scribd.com. Pegrum’s experiments
confirm that the vortex is drawn upward and around the wheel – essentially wrapping over the wheel’s shoulder
– rather than simply continuing straight. This is a critical phenomenon: it means the front-wing vortex, instead
of staying low along the floor, is likely pulled up over the wheel and sent towards the car’s centerline above the
chassis height. That can be beneficial, as it keeps the vortex (and its low-pressure core) from causing lift under
the floor, but it also means the vortex’s trajectory is radically altered by cornering around the wheel.
• Vortex Strength and Decay (“Vortex Health”): Passing a vortex around a wheel can weaken it. Chapter 5 quanti-
fies the vortex “health” by measuring the circulation and vorticity distribution before and after the wheel. For in-
stance, Fig. 5.2 shows time-averaged vorticity contours of an isolated vortex both upstream and downstream of
the wheelit.scribd.com. One finding was that the circulation of the vortex tends to decrease after interacting
with the wheelit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. The vortex core also wanders and fluctuates more in position as it
goes by the wheel. The turbulence and shear in the wheel wake likely induce extra mixing into the vortex core,
bleeding off some vorticity. Pegrum notes that stronger initial vortices (higher circulation) tend to retain a good
portion of their strength even after passing the wheel, whereas weaker vortices can be completely dissipated or
destabilized by the interactionit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. In one comparison, a “strong vortex” maintained coher-
ence albeit with some circulation loss, but a “weaker vortex” (perhaps generated at a higher ride height or lower
angle) was perturbed to the point of near breakdown downstream of the wheel. This indicates vortex robust-
ness (“health”) is partly a function of its initial strength: a robust vortex can survive the wheel’s disruption better.
The dissertation deems the changes in vortex trajectory and strength due to the wheel as central to understand-
ing the “vortex passing about a wheel” problemit.scribd.comit.scribd.com.
• Trajectory and Fluctuations: Using high-speed PIV, Pegrum also examined the instantaneous vs. time-averaged
vortex path around the wheel. The vortex does not travel in a perfectly steady path; it experiences lateral and
vertical oscillations (vortex wandering) as it moves past the wheel. The mean trajectory was measured (plots of
the vortex center positions, Fig. 5.1 and othersit.scribd.com). The data show the vortex initially moves towards
the front of the wheel, then is rapidly lifted up and to the side around the wheel’s front face, and finally trails be-
hind the wheel at a higher elevation than it started. During this process, the vortex core radius was seen to grow
(a sign of diffusion of vorticity) and the peak vorticity drop, both indications of a “less healthy” vortex after wheel
interaction. Nevertheless, in most cases the vortex remained intact (it didn’t abruptly burst into turbulence; it
decayed gradually). One interesting observation is that the wheel’s own wake contains vortices (from the top
and bottom of the tire) that can interact with the wing vortex. The wing vortex can merge with or entrain these
wheel wake vortices, complicating the downstream structure. However, Chapter 5 focused on simpler cases to
avoid too many vortex-vortex interactions at once – essentially one wing vortex versus the wheel.
In practical terms, Chapter 5’s insights suggest that front-wing vortices will be significantly deflected by the front wheels
and will lose some strength. For an aerodynamicist, this means when designing bargeboards, sidepods, and the floor
downstream, one must expect that the incoming vortex (which was strong and low near the wing) will arrive higher up
and somewhat weaker after the wheel. Ensuring the vortex stays as coherent as possible is important because it often is
used to energize flow in the downstream areas (like sealing the gap between the floor and wheel wake, or feeding the
diffuser with high-energy air). Pegrum’s finding that initial vortex strength and positioning can dictate outcome is a valua-
ble clue: designers can try to generate a vortex in an optimal position to pass the wheel (e.g. start it high enough) and
strong enough to survive. This might involve shaping the endplate or adding small strakes to control that initial release.
• Chapter 6: Flow Structure with the Full Front Wing and Wheel
Having separately understood the wing’s vortices (Chapter 4) and the basics of vortex–wheel interaction for a single vor-
tex (Chapter 5), Chapter 6 combines the two: it examines the complex vortex system of the real McLaren wing as it passes

4
the rotating wheel. This is the most realistic scenario and also the most complex, since multiple vortices are shed and
they all interact with each other and with the wheel. Key points from this chapter:
• Near-Field vs. Far-Field Structure: Just behind the front wing (near-field), we know from Chapter 4 that the wing
sheds a primary vortex (main) and secondary ones (footplate, etc.) that start merging. When the wheel is pre-
sent, this near-field process still happens, but immediately the wheel’s presence alters the merger. Pegrum ob-
served that with the wheel in place, the main and footplate vortices interact differently – instead of merging
cleanly, they are both drawn toward the wheel and remain as a pair for some distanceit.scribd.com
it.scribd.com. The “top vortex” (higher up) also interacts with the main vortex around the wheel. In essence, the
wheel “delays” or modifies the full merger of the vortices, because its flowfield tugs on them. By the time we
look downstream of the wheel (far-field), the structure consists of an entwined pair of vortices orbiting each
other behind the wheel areait.scribd.com. Eventually farther back, these may merge into one, but much later
than they would have without the wheel. Figure 6.6 in the thesis even presents an iso-surface of vorticity show-
ing the 3D shape of these vortices weaving around the wheelit.scribd.com.
• Downstream Cross-Sections: The chapter shows cross-sectional measurements at various downstream loca-
tions with the wheel. For instance, Fig. 6.2 gives non-dimensional vorticity contours just behind the wheel
it.scribd.com, and Fig. 6.5 shows total pressure maps further backit.scribd.com. These reveal that immediately
behind the wheel, the flow is dominated by two concentrated vortices (the main and footplate vortices) and the
wheel’s wake. There is a pronounced low-pressure region where these vortices resideit.scribd.com. As one
moves further downstream (e.g. 400mm, 500mm behind in the model scale), the vortices begin to merge into
one broader vortexit.scribd.com. The time-averaged results indicated that the footplate vortex weakened rela-
tive to the main vortex after passing the wheelit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. In fact, at some downstream plane,
the main vortex had effectively absorbed much of the footplate vortex’s circulation. This matches expectations
from vortex merger theory – the stronger vortex tends to cannibalize the weaker. The “top vortex” that stayed
above might remain separate or merge with the main one further back depending on strength (the thesis noted
cases where at higher ride heights, the top vortex was strongest and thus might dominate).
• Ride Height with Wheel: Chapter 6 also touches on the effect of ride height in the presence of the wheel (though
perhaps less extensively than Chapter 4). It is noted that at a moderate ride height (baseline for these tests), the
main vortex had been the strongest in the no-wheel case, but with the wheel, the interplay changed some circu-
lationsit.scribd.com. There is an implication that at different ride heights, the balance between vortices changes,
which in turn changes how they go around the wheel. For example, if the wing were extremely low (prone to
breakdown in no-wheel case), with a wheel present it might either still break down or possibly the wheel’s in-
duced upwash could alleviate breakdown by giving the vortex more space to expand upward (an interesting
thought). Pegrum’s results did not record a vortex breakdown behind the wheel for the tested heights; instead,
the vortices remained generally stable albeit weakened. The presence of the wheel, if anything, seemed to pre-
vent the vortex from staying too low (which is where breakdown would happen) by lifting it. In essence, the
wheel deflected the vortices upward and may have a stabilizing influence in that sense – but it also causes ex-
tra turbulence that can erode the vortex.
• Wheel Wake Interaction: A novel point in Chapter 6 is how the wheel’s own wake vortices interact with the
wing’s vortices. A rotating wheel’s wake contains typically a pair of counter-rotating trailing vortices (from the
top and bottom separation points)it.scribd.com. Pegrum found that the wing’s main vortex and the wheel’s top
vortex tend to merge or at least strongly interact downstreamit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. This is important for
two reasons: first, it further changes the strength of the resulting vortex (since now it’s a combination of wing
and wheel vorticity), and second, it affects the wheel wake structure and drag. The thesis suggests the wheel’s
drag can be influenced by the presence of the wing vortex systemit.scribd.com. In fact, one of the design impli-
cations is that a front wing vortex system can be used to manipulate the wheel wake to reduce drag or redirect
it away from sensitive areas. By sending a strong vortex around the wheel, designers might shrink or displace
the wheel’s wake. This concept is hinted in the conclusions where further study was suggested on how wing
vortices influence wheel wake characteristicsit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. Essentially, there is a two-way interac-
tion: the wheel affects the vortex, and the vortex affects the wheel’s downstream wake.

5
In summary, Chapter 6 paints the full picture: a complex vortex topology downstream of a front wing + wheel, consisting
of merged vortices that have been deflected upward and inward. The flow visualization and measurements underscore
how crucial it is to capture these interactions in design – a small change in wing geometry or ride height can alter which
vortex is dominant and how it navigates the wheel, which in turn can make a big difference to how air flows along the rest
of the car (for instance, into the sidepod inlets or over the floor edges).
• Chapter 7: Conclusions and Further Work
Pegrum concludes by reiterating the main findings and offering suggestions for future research. Some key conclusions
were:
• The front wing in ground effect generates a multiple trailing vortex system, and their relative strength is sensi-
tive to ride heightit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. At very low ride heights, the strongest vortex is the one near the
ground (main vortex), whereas at higher ride heights the higher vortex can become dominantit.scribd.com. This
informs setup decisions – e.g. lowering the front wing increases downforce but shifts vortex balance and could
lead to instability if taken too far.
• The behavior of a single vortex around a wheel is highly dependent on initial positionit.scribd.comit.scribd.com.
If designers can position the vortex optimally (for example, shed it a bit higher or more inboard), it will navigate
around the wheel more predictably and remain strongerit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. This could be achieved by
shaping the endplate or using dive planes to direct the vortex.
• With the wheel present, the front wing’s vortex system is dominated by the interaction of two vortices (main and
footplate) orbiting each other as they move downstreamit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. This dual-vortex structure
persists quite far behind the wheel. Thus any downstream device (barge boards, floor leading edge, diffuser) will
actually see this dual-vortex pair, not just one combined vortex, in the region behind the front wheel. Designers
might need to account for both vortex cores in those areas.
• No evidence of vortex breakdown was found in the range tested (for the combined wing+wheel cases), implying
that under typical conditions the vortices stay “healthy” (coherent) downstream of the wheelit.scribd.com
it.scribd.com. However, previous research warns breakdown can occur at more extreme conditions (lower ride
heights)it.scribd.com. Therefore, maintaining a safety margin in ride height or using vortex generators to keep
up axial momentum in the vortex could be important to avoid an unexpected downforce loss (this is especially
relevant during heavy braking when ride height momentarily drops – more on this in application below).
• The wheel wake is significantly altered by the incoming wing vortices. The research qualitatively showed that a
strong wing vortex can entrain the wheel’s wake and potentially reduce its spreadit.scribd.comit.scribd.com.
This hints that front wing design is not just about downforce, but also about managing front wheel drag and
wake – a holistic view where the wing and wheel aerodynamics are tuned together for optimal overall perfor-
mance.
Finally, Pegrum suggests further work, such as studying two vortices passing a wheel (to mimic the simultaneous main
and footplate vortex scenario in more detail)it.scribd.com, examining different wheel geometries (tread, hub details) on
the vortex behaviorit.scribd.com, and looking at the combined effect on other car components downstream (like how the
diffuser performance is affected by these vortices and wheel wake)it.scribd.comit.scribd.com. These suggestions under-
line that the front wing vortex is an integral part of the entire car’s aero ecosystem.
• Deep Dive: Vortex Physics and “Vortex Health” in F1 Aerodynamics
Vortex physics in the context of F1 is all about how vortices are generated, how they behave in ground effect, and how
they interact with other flows (like wheel wakes). We can distill a few fundamental principles from Pegrum’s work and
related research:
• Generation of Front Wing Vortices: An F1 front wing (especially with endplates and multiple flaps) produces vor-
tices primarily due to pressure differentials at the edges of surfaces. For example, the endplate of a front wing
separates high-pressure airflow (on its outboard side) from low-pressure airflow (under the wing, inboard side).
At the tip or edge of the endplate, these flows curl around and form a vortex (much like a wingtip vortex on an
airplane)it.scribd.com. Modern F1 endplates are often designed with twists and louvres to shape this vortex.
Additionally, the juncture where the flap meets the endplate (the “footplate” region near the ground) creates an-
other strong vortex as air from beneath the wing squirts outward (similar to a “vortex generator” fence effect). In

6
 Pegrum’s test, that was the footplate vortex. Sometimes teams add small vanes or “canards” on the endplate –
these can form their own vortices (e.g. the canard vortex mentioned). Thus, the front wing is essentially a con-
trolled vortex generator: it sheds vortices that are intentionally used to manage downstream airflow. As noted in
a later study by Buscariolo et al. (2019), one role of these front wing vortices is to reduce the negative impact of
the wheel wake on the carresearchgate.net – effectively, by positioning a strong vortex, the front wing can push
the wheel’s dirty air away from the car’s body.
• Ground Effect Influence: Operating near the ground intensifies vortices due to the “mirror effect.” The ground
plane causes an image vortex of opposite sign, which constrains the flow and can amplify the vorticity on the
real vortex. Also, ground effect increases wing lift (downforce for an inverted wing), which in turn strengthens
the shed circulation (by the Kutta-Joukowski relation). Pegrum’s work and earlier studies (Zhang & Zerihan)
showed that as ground clearance decreases, vortex strength grows – up to a pointit.scribd.com. However,
ground effect also can squeeze the vortex towards the floor, increasing its swirl (circulating velocity) while po-
tentially reducing axial velocity in the core (since the flow under the wing slows down near ground). This is
where vortex health can deteriorate: high swirl + low axial flow = conditions ripe for vortex breakdown. In fluid
physics terms, the vortex’s swirl parameter or swirl angle $\phi = \tan^{-1}(U_\theta/U_x)$ becomes large
it.scribd.com. When $\phi$ exceeds about $45°$, the vortex may become hydrodynamically unstable
it.scribd.com. For a front wing, this could happen if it’s run extremely close to the ground or at a very high angle
of attack – the vortex might suddenly burst into a turbulent cloud, causing a loss of suction (downforce) and a
highly unsteady wake. Designers must avoid this regime. They often do so by not going to too low of a ride
height and by ensuring the wing doesn’t stall (which would rob the vortex of axial feed). Additionally, features
like endplate strakes or footplate geometry can be tuned to keep the vortex fed with some axial flow or to en-
courage it to stay attached longer. In practice, teams know there is an optimal ride height for the front wing –
too high and you lose downforce, too low and you risk unsteady vortex behavior (which can make the car aero-
dynamically inconsistent).
• Vortex Stability (Vortex “Health”): A “healthy” vortex in this context is one that remains coherent, strong, and pre-
dictable, without breaking down or wandering excessively. What factors contribute to this? From Pegrum and
classical vortex theory:
o High Core Axial Velocity: The vortex core should ideally have a good through-flow to avoid stagnation.
For example, delta wing researchers (e.g. Leibovich 1984) found adding a small axial flow can delay
breakdown. In an F1 wing, one can’t directly add axial flow, but keeping the flow attached on the wing
helps – if the wing doesn’t massively separate, the vortex is fed by a strong shedding flow.
o Moderate Swirl: We want the vortex strong (for downforce and sealing effects) but not too strong rela-
tive to its axial content. Some devices like vortex generators or serrations can actually induce a small
axial flow or weaken the vortex a bit to keep it below the threshold. It’s a balancing act.
o Avoid Adverse Pressure Spike: If a vortex travels into an area of rising pressure, it will slow the core ax-
ial flow and can trigger breakdown (per Benjamin’s criterion). This can happen if, say, a vortex dives
toward a surface (like the ground or a body surface) where pressure is higher. F1 designers ensure the
vortex path keeps it in generally favorable pressure gradients. For instance, directing the vortex over
the wheel (which is a low pressure zone due to upwash) might be safer than letting it go under the
floor (where pressure increases in the diffuser throat).
o Turbulence and Interaction: Too much turbulence or interaction with other vortices can either merge
and strengthen a vortex or destabilize it. Co-rotating vortices merging is usually a stabilizing merge
(they become one bigger vortex). Counter-rotating interaction (like a vortex encountering another of
opposite spin) is usually catastrophic for both (they induce rapid decay). In open-wheel cars, most vor-
tices from the front wing and wheel are co-rotating in a given side of the car (the wheel wake vortices
are typically opposite rotation to the wing’s, but they stay mostly behind the wheel, while the wing’s are
inboard and co-rotating). Still, turbulence from the wheel can disrupt the vortex core coherence.
Pegrum’s observation of increased vortex wandering and circulation loss after the wheel indicates the

7
 wheel’s turbulence is a “health detractor” for the vortexit.scribd.com. Smoothly guiding the vortex, per-
haps by endplate design to shield it from wheel turbulence initially, could improve coherence.
In sum, maintaining vortex health means keeping it in a regime of strong but stable rotation, avoiding triggers of break-
down, and minimizing destructive interactions. The pay-off is significant: a healthy vortex can travel down the length of
the car, helping to keep flow attached (e.g. along the sidepod) and energizing the diffuser (by delaying separation there).
• Applying These Insights to F1 Car Design (High-Yaw, Curved Flow, and Braking Conditions)
A modern F1 car must produce consistent downforce not just in a straight line, but also while cornering (yawed flow) and
under braking (nose dive, transient conditions). Pegrum’s research, though done mostly in steady wind tunnel conditions,
offers insights that we can extrapolate to these scenarios:
• High-Yaw (Cornering) Conditions: In a corner, the car is yawed relative to the airflow. This effectively means one
side of the front wing is more “into the wind” than the other. The vortices on the outside vs. inside of the turn will
behave differently. The outside wing in a corner sees higher effective angle of attack and likely generates a
stronger vortex, while the inside wing might see reduced angle and a weaker vortex. Moreover, the airflow is
curved around the car – not only coming from the front but also with a lateral component. One side’s front-wing
vortex might be pushed directly into its wheel (the inside one might go under/side of the inside wheel), whereas
the outside one might fling outward away from the wheel. The net effect often observed (and supported by CFD
studies like Raheem et al. 2019) is that overall downforce drops in yaw and the distribution shiftsre-
searchgate.net. As yaw increases, front wing downforce can reduce significantly, partly because the inside
wing’s vortex might even break down or detach if its effective angle is too low or if it gets swallowed by the
wheel wake. Pegrum’s finding that vortex initial position is critical implies that in yaw, since the vortices start in
asymmetric positions, one might take a suboptimal route. Engineers can mitigate yaw effects by designing yaw-
friendly endplates. For instance, contemporary F1 front wing endplates often curve outward to direct the vortex
flow around the wheel in both straight and yawed conditions. The idea is to make the vortex always go around
the outside of the wheel (even in yaw) to avoid it getting trapped on the inside where it could cause lift or break
down. Also, teams sometimes run asymmetric setups for circuits with dominant turn directions to balance this.
Since yaw introduces “curved flow” (flowlines bending around the car), having strong, coherent vortices is cru-
cial – they act like guide-ropes, pulling airflow in a controlled curve instead of letting it separate chaotically. We
can infer that a car that maintains stable downforce in yaw likely has front wing vortices that remain attached
and don’t break or weaken drastically when the car yaws. Applying Pegrum’s insight: if the vortex is strong and
starts high, it can survive yaw better. So an outside wing in a turn (with typically stronger vortex) will hold up; the
challenge is the inside wing’s vortex. Designers might use additional small winglets (called “cascades” or “out-
wash fins”) on the inner portion of the endplate to create another vortex that helps the inside flow. Essentially,
managing yaw means managing asymmetry – you want to avoid a scenario where one side’s vortex is healthy
and the other side’s is dead, because that could cause a big aerodynamic imbalance (the car could suddenly
understeer or oversteer due to uneven downforce). Advanced CFD and wind tunnel with yaw plates are used to
optimize this. Pegrum’s work provides the qualitative understanding needed to guide such designs.
• Curved Flow / Crosswind: “Curved flow” can also refer to large-scale crosswinds or the flow curvature around
the vehicle path. The front wing vortices in any case cause a curvature of flow – they drag air from under the
wing upward and inward. The presence of the wheel adds a lateral cross-flow component (the vortex goes
around the wheel sideways). Pegrum cited that cross-flows inboard of the wheel are very strongit.scribd.com. In
a real car, going through a corner, the flow seen by the car’s surfaces is curving – part of the air goes around the
side of the car, part over the top. A robust vortex will anchor the curved flow pattern, whereas a weak one might
let the flow separate. For example, if a vortex stays attached over the top of the bargeboard and sidepod, it cre-
ates a low-pressure suction that helps airflow stick to those surfaces (like a lifted vortex can even help draw
airflow from under the nose up along the sidepod, improving cooling flow). If that vortex were to dissipate, the
flow might detach, causing a sudden loss of downforce on the floor or inconsistent cooling. So to handle curved
flow, an F1 design ensures that vortices are positioned and shielded in a way that they naturally follow the cur-
vature of the body. Often you’ll see turning vanes and barge boards that catch the front wing vortex and guide it
– effectively using curved surfaces to shepherd the vortex along a desired path (like along the skirt of the floor).

8
 This is informed by understanding vortex dynamics: one must align the vortex’s natural induced motion with the
car’s shape. Pegrum’s data on how vortices orbit each other and get deflected by a wheel can inform how to
place surfaces downstream to keep the vortex where you want it.
• Braking (Pitch Down and Transient Effects): Under heavy braking, an F1 car’s nose dives (front suspension com-
presses), reducing the front wing’s ride height dramatically. This can put the wing in the extreme ground effect
regime. As we learned, that risks vortex breakdown if it gets too lowit.scribd.com. It also increases the wing’s
downforce sharply (which could potentially lock wheels if tires saturate – a feedback loop engineers manage
carefully). A well-designed car will maintain stable aero balance during braking – you don’t want a huge spike in
front downforce that then suddenly vanishes if the vortex breaks down. Pegrum’s thesis suggests that at a ride
height of ~0.2 chord, breakdown was observed in prior studiesit.scribd.com. Engineers likely ensure that even
under max dive, the wing doesn’t go much below this threshold. They can do that by mechanical design (heave
stiffness, bump stops in suspension) or by aero devices like a controlled stall mechanism (some front wings are
designed to stall at very low ride height to bleed off downforce smoothly, preventing an unmanageable increase
and maybe preventing vortex breakdown by not over-strengthening it). Also, as the car slows, the wheels’ rota-
tion slows – if a wheel locks up, it becomes essentially a stationary wheel in the aero sense. Pegrum’s review of
Fackrell’s work reminds us that a non-rotating wheel produces a more disruptive wake (wider and more sepa-
rated)it.scribd.comit.scribd.com. A locked wheel in braking could therefore cause the front-wing vortex to sud-
denly experience a different flow (likely more blockage and more turbulence), which could make it break down
or at least jump upward unexpectedly. Designers can’t fully solve that (locked wheels are a driver error sce-
nario), but it underscores the need for margin in vortex stability. Vortex health under braking might be enhanced
by ensuring the vortex isn’t extremely sensitive to wheel rotation – i.e., even if the wheel were briefly not rotating,
the vortex path still goes around it cleanly. Some teams experimented with wheel fairings or covers in the past
to smooth the flow (now not allowed in F1), but currently they use the geometry of brake ducts and wheel rims
to manipulate the wake. Keeping the vortex outboard a bit (so it doesn’t get completely engulfed by the wheel
wake) can help in such transient cases.
• Maintaining Downforce in Non-Straight Conditions: Overall, to maintain stable downforce when the car is not in
a straight, level condition, the aerodynamic design must ensure robust vortex structures. From Pegrum’s work,
we glean that robustness comes from proper initial conditions (geometry) and avoiding regimes of instability.
Concretely, an F1 engineer might apply this by:
o Using endplate geometries that produce slightly weaker vortices at very low ride heights to avoid sud-
den breakdown (sometimes a slot or a gurney flap that bleeds air can do this).
o Ensuring that in yaw, the endplate and front wing elements channel air such that the vortex doesn’t
impinge on the inside of the wheel (modern outwash endplates literally push airflow outward, so in yaw
the flow still mostly goes around the outside of the wheels). This is supported by the notion of “vortex
positioning” from Chapter 5 – get the vortex start position right, and it will take the desired path around
the wheelit.scribd.com.
o Managing the wheel wake: Front wing vortices are deliberately used to divert wheel wake away from
the car’s underside. By doing so, they not only reduce drag but also prevent the dirty, turbulent wheel
wake from causing unsteady pressures under the floor. A stable vortex that consistently clears the
wheel wake means the diffuser sees a steady flow, preserving rear downforce even in yaw or during
braking. Pegrum’s suggestions to study vortex-wheel and wake interaction furtherit.scribd.com
it.scribd.com highlights how crucial this is for real car performance.
o Using simulation tools (CFD) validated by experiments like this to predict what happens in combined
scenarios (e.g. yaw + dive). The Imperial Front Wing test case used by Pegrum has since become a
benchmark for CFD (Buscariolo 2019, as noted, used it to validate a high-fidelity simulationre-
searchgate.net). This cross-validation gives confidence in predictions for conditions that are hard to
test (like transient braking while cornering).
In essence, an advanced aerodynamicist can take Pegrum’s findings as a foundational understanding: the front wing’s
vortices are powerful tools but must be kept in check. By ensuring those vortices remain strong and stable through all

9
attitudes of the car, one can design a car that is aero-consistent – meaning the aerodynamic balance and downforce
levels don’t wildly fluctuate with yaw or pitch. This translates to a car that the driver finds predictable and confidence-
inspiring in corners and under braking, which is often the hidden key to faster lap times.
• Influential References and Their Significance
Pegrum’s thesis built upon a rich body of prior research. Here we summarize a few of the most influential references and
how they underpin his work:
• Agathangelou & Gascoyne (1998)it.scribd.com: Written by F1 aerodynamicists, this SAE paper outlined funda-
mental design considerations of F1 aerodynamics. It notably quantified that ~40% of an F1 car’s drag comes
from the exposed wheels. This justified Pegrum’s focus on wheel interaction – clearly, managing wheel wake
(via vortices) could yield huge gains. They likely also discussed front wing/endplate design in broad terms, giv-
ing context that front wing vortices are deliberately used in F1 (even if details were confidential).
• Fackrell (1974) and Fackrell & Harvey (1975)it.scribd.comit.scribd.com: These are classic works on isolated
wheel aerodynamics from Imperial College. They revealed the “jetting” phenomenon and how a rotating wheel’s
flow differs from a stationary one. Pegrum extensively cites their pressure distributions and separation point
findings. This provided the baseline understanding of what flow pattern the front-wing vortex would encounter
around a wheel (e.g., expecting a high-speed jet coming out ahead of the contact patch, which Pegrum indeed
visualizedit.scribd.com). It underlines the need for a moving ground and rotating wheel in experiments – some-
thing Pegrum implemented thanks to this reference.
• Zhang & Zerihan (2003, 2004)it.scribd.comit.scribd.com: X. Zhang and J. Zerihan conducted wind tunnel studies
on double-element wings in ground effect, publishing results on how downforce increases as ground clearance
reduces, up to a point where a vortex from the flap/endoard breaks down and lift is lost. Their 2004 Journal of
Aircraft paper specifically documented edge vortex breakdown at very low ride heights. Pegrum uses their data
(like the graph of lift vs ride heightit.scribd.com and the noted breakdown at $h/c\approx0.24$) to validate that
his test range is in the safe zone but near the onset of breakdown. This reference essentially warned what to
look for in terms of vortex bursting. It’s significant as one of the few prior works directly dealing with inverted
wings near ground (mimicking F1).
• Moseley (1999)it.scribd.comit.scribd.com: Moseley’s PhD thesis was a direct precursor at Imperial, applying PIV
to F1 wing vortices. Moseley found spiral-form breakdown at very low heights and even created a schematic
(which Pegrum reproduced in fig. 2.25it.scribd.com). This gave Pegrum both methodological inspiration (use of
PIV and total pressure to map vortices) and physical insight (the type of breakdown to expect and at what con-
ditions). Moseley’s conclusion that something else must explain the flow at low clearance if not classical break-
downit.scribd.com likely influenced Pegrum to examine merging and wheel effects as alternative explanations.
• Crow & Barker (1977)it.scribd.com: This JFM paper studied vortex pairs near a ground (aircraft wake vortices).
It’s famous for describing how trailing vortices move apart and up under ground effect, eventually dissipating.
Pegrum references their observations to draw parallels with the front wing vortices behind a wheel. Essentially,
Crow & Barker provided the theoretical backbone for why co-rotating vortices (like the two from a wing) behave
the way they do near a wall. It supports his interpretation of vortex paths and merging.
• Hall (1972) and Sarpkaya (1971a)it.scribd.comit.scribd.com: These works are fundamental studies on vortex
breakdown. Hall’s Annual Review article synthesized many criteria and noted the 40°–45° swirl angle rule of
thumb for breakdown. Sarpkaya’s experiments showed how increasing swirl changes the breakdown form (e.g.,
bubble vs spiral). Pegrum relied on these to frame the concept of swirl angle and to discuss whether the vorti-
ces in his experiments were near breakdown or not. The fact that his vortices likely stayed below the critical
swirl (no breakdown seen) could be interpreted using Hall’s criterionit.scribd.com. These references bring classi-
cal fluid mechanics rigor to his analysis, ensuring his conclusions about stability aren’t just empirical but
grounded in known vortex physics.
• Jeong & Hussain (1995)it.scribd.com: While not about cars, this paper provided a clear definition of what a vor-
tex is and how to identify one quantitatively (they introduced the $\lambda_2$ criterion for vortex identification).
Pegrum used their insights in Chapter 2 when discussing how to define a vortex in complex flows. This is

10
 important because in a messy flow around a car, saying “this is a vortex” isn’t trivial. Jeong & Hussain gave him
a framework to objectively identify vortex cores in his PIV and pressure data.
• Peter Wright (2001)it.scribd.com and Katz (2006)it.scribd.com: Peter Wright’s “Formula 1 Technology” book and
Joseph Katz’s “Aerodynamics of Race Cars” (Annual Review) are comprehensive sources that place specific
phenomena in context. Wright (also an ex-F1 engineer) discusses how all components interact – for instance,
he likely mentioned front wing and wheel interaction and the concept of sending vortices along the car. Katz’s
review (2006) compiled known research and might have highlighted how little is published in open literature
it.scribd.com. Pegrum uses them for general statements and motivation, but their significance lies in providing a
sanity check: any new findings should align with the broader picture these works paint. For example, Katz
(2006) noted that motorsport aero results are scarce, reinforcing why Pegrum’s experimentally derived data is a
valuable addition to the fieldit.scribd.com.
• Fackrell & Harvey (1973,1975) and Bearman et al. (1988)it.scribd.comit.scribd.com: These address the moving
ground and detailed wheel flow structure. Bearman (1988) showed how using a moving belt changes results –
which justified Pegrum’s use of a rolling road to mimic real conditionsit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. Fackrell & Har-
vey (1975) provided the schematic (Fig. 2.28 in Pegrum’s thesis) of the flow around a rotating wheel including
the jetting flowit.scribd.comit.scribd.com. This directly influenced how he interpreted the instantaneous PIV
snapshots around the wheel – indeed he observed a shear flow under the wheel akin to Fackrell’s description
it.scribd.com. In his results, he even notes the agreement with Fackrell on wake shapeit.scribd.com.
• Chen et al. (1999) & Cerretelli and Williamson (2003)it.scribd.comit.scribd.com: These are highly relevant to vor-
tex merging. Chen et al. studied co-rotating vortices (like flapped wing tip vortices merging) and Cerretelli & Wil-
liamson explained the physical mechanism of vortex merger. Pegrum, observing vortices orbit and merge,
leaned on their work to interpret how quickly and under what conditions the front wing vortices would merge.
For instance, the distance at which two vortices merge depends on their circulation ratio and initial separation –
theories from these papers would help quantify what Pegrum saw qualitatively. It validates that what he’s see-
ing (vortices merging into one downstream) is consistent with fundamental vortex dynamics.
• Lambourne & Bryer (1962) and Harvey (1962)it.scribd.comit.scribd.com: These early works documented vortex
breakdown types and initial observations of the phenomenon. They are indirectly influential: they set the stage
for decades of breakdown research which Pegrum taps into when worrying about his vortices bursting. Lam-
bourne & Bryer’s visualization of bubble vs spiral breakdownit.scribd.com appears in his lit review, reminding us
that breakdown can look different depending on conditions – something to compare against if any weird flow
was seen in his smoke images.
• Garrood (2004)it.scribd.com: Garrood’s thesis dealt with how vortices (likely from bargeboards or the front
wing) impact the underbody/diffuser. Pegrum cites that as further work and also notes Garrood found similar
trends about breakdown vulnerability at low heightsit.scribd.com. Garrood’s significance is that it connects the
front wing vortices to downstream component performance (diffuser, etc.). It likely inspired Pegrum’s sugges-
tion to investigate the influence of these vortices and wheel wake on those componentsit.scribd.com. In other
words, Garrood extended the chain: front wing → floor/diffuser. Pegrum’s work covers front wing → wheel. To-
gether, they cover the whole path of the vortex along the car.
In conclusion, these references collectively provided Pegrum with a framework of aerodynamic knowledge: from funda-
mental vortex theory (Saffman, Batchelor, etc.) to applied race-car aerodynamics (Agathangelou, Katz, Wright) and spe-
cific prior studies of wings and wheels (Zerihan, Fackrell, Moseley). His dissertation stands on their shoulders – confirm-
ing some, clarifying others, and filling a gap by specifically examining the front wing + wheel vortex interaction experi-
mentally. The outcome is a deeper understanding of vortex flow in F1 that engineers can apply to design cars with more
stable aerodynamics in all conditions, yielding both performance (downforce/drag) and consistency (predictable han-
dling).
Sources: Pegrum, J.M. (2007). Experimental Study of the Vortex System Generated by a Formula 1 Front Wing. PhD The-
sis, Imperial College Londonit.scribd.comit.scribd.comit.scribd.comit.scribd.comit.scribd.com, and references therein
(Agathangelou & Gascoyne 1998it.scribd.com; Fackrell 1974it.scribd.com; Zhang & Zerihan 2004it.scribd.com; Hall 1972
it.scribd.com; etc.).

11
12