## Undertray downforce and heave/pitch frequencies

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
Belatti, can I make some basic observations, please, about the plots you reproduced?

First it is not clear what "ride height" means. Is it front axle, rear axle, average? If average, is the rake held constant? If average and a constant rake, then the D/F would be expected to increase as the platform moves towards the ground plane, until the airflow starts to break down. I would not expect this to happen at 13 mm. (is that a model ride height, or a full scale ride height, BTW). Overall, the red plot has much less variation with ride height than I would expect.

When executing "first cut" aeroelastic work, it is common (in the aircraft world) to assume that aero forces are as steady state, but modified by a lag-lead filter, called the Wagner function. This is based on the assumption that airflow takes time to develop after a change in condition. The approximation implies that half the D/F develops immediately, whilst the remaining half builds up fairly slowly until the full static value has been reached. When the aero "platform" is oscillated it implies that the change in D/F should be rather less than the "steady state" change, and should be delayed in time when compared with platform position.

That is the assumption I made when I analyzed the motion of a skirted ground effect vehicle, & it worked reasonably well (I thought at the time).

I can't see anything like that characteristic in the blue plot. However, if I had generated the result, I would certainly be checking my "live mass" correction algorithm, because it does look as if the model inertia forces are included (wrong sign in the live mass correction would be my first port of call).

If the live mass corrections are correct, then what mechanism would increase peak D/F dynamically, but not statically, when the platform is close to the ground plane? If you replied "flow breakdown", then why is there no evidence of flow re-attachment in the steady state results at greater platform ride heights?

I remain puzzled.
DaveW

Joined: 14 Apr 2009

Dave, its clear to me too that the article misses many things. I also understand the things you say about aeroelastic tests.

As I didnt know much about Wagner function and aero tests, I just slipped my thoughts to see what other people here thinks about them.

Maybe now the discusion should be re-aimed not into the idea of increasing DF in dynamic vs. static condition, but to reduce DF decreasing due to lags.
"You need great passion, because everything you do with great pleasure, you do well." -Juan Manuel Fangio

"I have no idols. I admire work, dedication and competence." -Ayrton Senna
Belatti

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Location: Argentina

EDIT

Belatti wrote:Maybe now the discusion should be re-aimed not into the idea of increasing DF in dynamic vs. static condition, but to minimize DF decreasing due to lags.
"You need great passion, because everything you do with great pleasure, you do well." -Juan Manuel Fangio

"I have no idols. I admire work, dedication and competence." -Ayrton Senna
Belatti

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Location: Argentina

Previous