Ground Effect Tunnel Designs

[OO7]

Groundeffect at it's best.
And I have to admit. why on earth is this not allowed in F1 ?
Let the floor design be up to the team. Should have been totally free.
So maybee laptimes 10 seconds faster in Melbourne than today......

Back in the early 90's most sanctioning bodies decided that limiting under body aero would be safer. When down force is lost due to some mechanical failure like a stuck sliding skirt, flat tire, etc. or turbulence from a leading car the effect is almost instant.

Here's one example I remember.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8XxQkXCmsU

That Porsche was created around a front diffuser, flat bottom and rear diffuser, no ground effect tunnels. The video posted shows the limitations and possible imbalance caused by unstable aero in wake turbulence with a front and rear diffuser with flat bottom design.

[NOT A TA]

Groundeffect at it's best.
And I have to admit. why on earth is this not allowed in F1 ?
Let the floor design be up to the team. Should have been totally free.
So maybee laptimes 10 seconds faster in Melbourne than today......

Back in the early 90's most sanctioning bodies decided that limiting under body aero would be safer. When down force is lost due to some mechanical failure like a stuck sliding skirt, flat tire, etc. or turbulence from a leading car the effect is almost instant.

Here's one example I remember.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8XxQkXCmsU

That Porsche was created around a front diffuser, flat bottom and rear diffuser, no ground effect tunnels. The video posted shows the limitations and possible imbalance caused by unstable aero in wake turbulence with a front and rear diffuser with flat bottom design.

Agreed, I was just answering toraabe's question about regulations concerning under body aero in general. "why on earth is this not allowed in F1 ? Let the floor design be up to the team" . Perhaps the Nissan clip would have been a better choice? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e-Zad4mFb0

[toraabe]

Groundeffect at it's best.
And I have to admit. why on earth is this not allowed in F1 ?
Let the floor design be up to the team. Should have been totally free.
So maybee laptimes 10 seconds faster in Melbourne than today......

Back in the early 90's most sanctioning bodies decided that limiting under body aero would be safer. When down force is lost due to some mechanical failure like a stuck sliding skirt, flat tire, etc. or turbulence from a leading car the effect is almost instant.

Here's one example I remember.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8XxQkXCmsU

That Porsche was created around a front diffuser, flat bottom and rear diffuser, no ground effect tunnels. The video posted shows the limitations and possible imbalance caused by unstable aero in wake turbulence with a front and rear diffuser with flat bottom design.

The same happened to Merc in le mans. This just prooves that flat bottom design is more dangerous than the previous tunnel design

[OO7]

The same happened to Merc in le mans. This just prooves that flat bottom design is more dangerous than the previous tunnel design

It does seem so. I've never seen a tunnel car 'take-off', unless it had a mechanical failure, an off or a collision resulting in it veering sideways into the wind.

[bill shoe]

This is an interesting piece:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-do-m ... plash=true

Just wanted to humbly bring this great piece to attention again. It specifically explains how a flat floor at relatively high angles can generate large and consistent levels of downforce. Consistent means that over a fairly large range of rake angles, the downforce changes almost none. It seems that the current fashionable large rake angles are about consistency more than peak downforce.

[FW17]

Could be interpreted as the low angle diffuser causes less turbulence to the air than high angle high rake angle diffusers.

also if you want closer racing move from 3 dimensional air flow to 2 dimentional airflow

[gambler]

I run a shifter on occasion, we tried a full pan nose to tail. I did great on flat, but the track had a high speed "drop off" that would fly the nose, and in a head wind you were in for a magic carpet ride. Ive seen several GTP blowovers in the same circumstances. I think there is a way around it, and may be some of the reasoning for the "tunneling". I would like to hear more about how this problem is adressed.

[OO7]

I run a shifter on occasion, we tried a full pan nose to tail. I did great on flat, but the track had a high speed "drop off" that would fly the nose, and in a head wind you were in for a magic carpet ride. Ive seen several GTP blowovers in the same circumstances. I think there is a way around it, and may be some of the reasoning for the "tunneling". I would like to hear more about how this problem is adressed.

What is a 'shifter' and what do you mean by 'we tried a full pan nose to tail'?

[flynfrog]

I run a shifter on occasion, we tried a full pan nose to tail. I did great on flat, but the track had a high speed "drop off" that would fly the nose, and in a head wind you were in for a magic carpet ride. Ive seen several GTP blowovers in the same circumstances. I think there is a way around it, and may be some of the reasoning for the "tunneling". I would like to hear more about how this problem is adressed.

What is a 'shifter' and what do you mean by 'we tried a full pan nose to tail'?

Shifter kart, I am assuming he is talking about the belly pan that attaches under the chassis.

[OO7]

I run a shifter on occasion, we tried a full pan nose to tail. I did great on flat, but the track had a high speed "drop off" that would fly the nose, and in a head wind you were in for a magic carpet ride. Ive seen several GTP blowovers in the same circumstances. I think there is a way around it, and may be some of the reasoning for the "tunneling". I would like to hear more about how this problem is adressed.

What is a 'shifter' and what do you mean by 'we tried a full pan nose to tail'?

Shifter kart, I am assuming he is talking about the belly pan that attaches under the chassis.

I see.
I assume such a pan would give the kart a flat bottom i.e it hasn't been sculpted to form a tunnel. If this is the case, I'd think that it must be run with some amount of rake to produce D/F, however this may not be sufficient when cresting a rise.

[toraabe]

IMSA 1986 race at Watkin Glen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkA7O0YjBWI

Good tight race when you could follow nose to tail .
And .. no restrictions on the venturis

Just hope that the flat bottom f1 cars soon will be history ...

[graham.reeds]

That Nissan only went airborne when it started going backwards and the rear wing and diffusers started to generate lift rather than downforce. Similar to the clips of IndyCars flipping recently.

[gambler]

Yes it was a gokart with a motorcycle engine and transmission. I removed the front part of the pan and just used a splitter on the chin , it made a big difference, and really turns in that area of the track now . I sort of thought the attention to aero detail was a little overkill but its for real.

[OO7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbRdHBhHfpM&t=0m42s