Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

Post

Well, everybody has a bad day. That's not drama, it's simple life. Let the one that hasn't been mad at a forum, one time or another, throw the first rock.

I know Conceptual will clear his mind quickly. He already understands that a diffuser is not worthy of our anger, no matter what others may think.

I always say the same: you have to respect the opinion of other people, no matter how moronic, imbecile and stupid they are... O:)
Ciro

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

Post

Ciro Pabón wrote:Well, everybody has a bad day. That's not drama, it's simple life. Let the one that hasn't been mad at a forum, one time or another, throw the first rock.

I know Conceptual will clear his mind quickly. He already understands that a diffuser is not worthy of our anger, no matter what others may think.

I always say the same: you have to respect the opinion of other people, no matter how moronic, imbecile and stupid they are... O:)
How close do I get to stand when I chuck the rock. I dont have that good of aim but I think if I get close enough I could get a good hit

xpensive
214
Joined: 22 Nov 2008, 18:06
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

Post

Guess I missed some excitement overnight? But stemming from someone who never posted much of a credible technical thought, I probably won't miss the originator either. Flamboyant last-words though, give him that.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

Post

flynfrog wrote:How close do I get to stand when I chuck the rock. I dont have that good of aim but I think if I get close enough I could get a good hit
Well, you probably know that the Virgin Mary was born "free of the original sin", according to catholics.

Thus, the same thing happened to Jesus when he said, in front of a crowd that was going to stone an adulterous woman: "Let the one free of sin throw the first rock". Then he said, seconds later, when a huge rock was hurled at the woman: "Mom, I wasn't talking to you!".

So, I wasn't talking to you, Flyn. :wink:
Ciro

User avatar
shir0
0
Joined: 10 Jul 2008, 13:44
Location: Acton, MA

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

Post

:lol:

I have high respect for you, Ciro. But I never knew you can walk on water or turn water into Stolichnaya...or was it Johnny Walker? :mrgreen:
"Fortunately I've got a bag with dry ice in [my suit], which I put next to my balls, so at least they stay nice and cool!"- Sebastian Vettel, 2009 Malaysian GP Friday Practice.

User avatar
ISLAMATRON
0
Joined: 01 Oct 2008, 18:29

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

Post

it is easy to walk on water... when its frozen

User avatar
shir0
0
Joined: 10 Jul 2008, 13:44
Location: Acton, MA

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

Post

ISLAMATRON wrote:it is easy to walk on water... when its frozen
I'll grant you that. :wink: But are you, in any way, proclaiming that Ciro is that cool, calm and collected so as to make water freeze so he can walk on it? c o o o o l..... 8) :mrgreen:

now, i'll let you try and explain turning water into pure, 100% Stolichnaya... careful not to let Kimi into that secret, though... :mrgreen:
"Fortunately I've got a bag with dry ice in [my suit], which I put next to my balls, so at least they stay nice and cool!"- Sebastian Vettel, 2009 Malaysian GP Friday Practice.

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country
Contact:

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

Post

xpensive wrote: I probably won't miss the originator either.
seconded , but I agree with the view that we will probably have him back one way or the other.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

xpensive
214
Joined: 22 Nov 2008, 18:06
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

Post

WB, I was just thinking, you and I have more in common than meets the eye.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"

Giblet
5
Joined: 19 Mar 2007, 01:47
Location: Canada

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

Post

Please nobody be a baby and pull a ManChild.

I still think he lurks here and is too ashamed to pop back up.

WhiteBlue, I know this isn't the case, but when you first showed up here, it happened to be around the same time that Manchild left, and I used to think you were Manchild trying to invent a new ID.

Don't worry, I know this is not true (I think).
Before I do anything I ask myself “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing. - Dwight Schrute

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

Post

Wine was OK in Jesus times. Nowadays, I bet good Jesus would use a bit of rum. Old rum to be precise. It is a work of heaven.

I think Manchild reads the forum, but he doesn't participate.

I was complaining the other day that Feliks, with his amazing designs of incredibly conceived machines, has filled some of the void left by Manchild, but not all. Everyone contributes a bit. I'd say some people likes to have around hidden geniuses that (sometimes) wants to give the world his work (and his temper ;)). What I like about Conceptual and some other members is, perhaps, that. You never know which person can have a crazy idea about a new diffuser or explain, in simple terms, how it works, because he understands.

So, please, go back to double deck diffussers, because if we don't we should move this part of the thread to the Site Announcements and Support forum (which would be unfortunate because of the optimistic name of the forum and everything... ;)).

On a second thought, we should have a thread in that very forum called "Reasons why I left the forum and what should change for me to come back - or not", where, naturally, only ex-forumers could post, so we can all learn.

That would be unique. At least I promess I will start it if nobody has started it yet (and I sincerely hope so!) and, heavens forbid, I leave some day the forum in rage. I bet that this post, if I write it some day, will be heavily edited... ;)
Ciro

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
552
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

Post

I think these Diffusers are Diffuser and Spoiler. Nobody seemed to see it that way.

This is my comparison.

Like a Turbine blade.

You have an Impulse turbine. Which works on momentum change.

Then You have a Reaction turbine which works on Primarily Pressure difference AND then momentum change.

A Reaction turbine in Reality always Has an element of impulse because of the air actually hitting the blade.

So Going back to the Double Decker diffusers. By Merely putting a Surface that is tilted towards the flow, you are creating a surface for the air to hit. So Not only pressure difference is creating the down force. But also impulse. So you get the benefit of not only more area but also some impulse.. like a little mini wing. I could imagine there is some drag to it.

This is my Simple Diagram of the Regular diffuser and then the double deck diffuser.

Image
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

xpensive
214
Joined: 22 Nov 2008, 18:06
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

Post

Ciro my man, you have actually outdone yourself this time, effin' beautiful that one. =D>
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"

User avatar
NormanBates
0
Joined: 31 Mar 2009, 00:34

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

Post

n smikle wrote:This is my Simple Diagram of the Regular diffuser and then the double deck diffuser.
I also pondered whether it could be like the spoon they don't allow anymore on the centre of the front wing, but I'm not sure how efficient that would be

on one hand, tha air hitting that mini-wing is travelling faster than the air on the upper side of the car, so it has a bigger effect, but on the other hand this may spoil the effect of the diffuser, and air in the upper section would be pushing down the flat wing in your drawing, but could be pushing up the fat wing on top, neutralizing again part of the effect

maybe someone more knowledgeable than me can sort this doubts out...

xpensive
214
Joined: 22 Nov 2008, 18:06
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers

Post

While hopping between threads discussing essentially the same thing, I shamelessly belive that my own sketchy calculations on "Importance of the diffuser?", shows how deilicate this part of the car is.

In a perfect world, to my mind anyway, is that FIA should either impose a "flat-bottom rule", as far as there is a car to measure, or make way for full-blown grund-effects with venturis, siding skirts and the whole shabang. No fans though.
kilcoo?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"

Post Reply