Ok, I agree. Do you have any feedback/request about the 3D models of wheels?
Ok, I agree. Do you have any feedback/request about the 3D models of wheels?
Thanks. I am a bit busy now, but I am working on a new CAD model that better simulates the deformation (you can go on with the present release, the differences are very small).
Sometimes when you are not sure about a formula, you can just check out the unit behind the numbers. You want to end up with a velocity which would be [m/s]. You have two numbers with [m³/s] (volume flow) and [m²] (surface area). This means dividing the volume flow by the area would be a good option. This is what happens to the units: [m³/s]/[m²] = [m/s], which is what you wanted. Assuming a constant density this is actually the formula you are looking for, as it implies mass conservation.etsmc wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:39 amI have a question that you guys might be able to answer or spark some conversation on.
If I crate 3 monitoring surfaces all exactly the same size if I were then to arrange them one above the other would I be correct when looking at the results that the one with the highest airflow probably has the fastest flow?
for example
surface A = 1.5m3/s
surface B = 1.8m3/s
surface C = 1.2m3/s
it would be safe to say surface B has air flowing at the fastest speed? i think i am right in saying the monitoring surface is an average over the whole surface so measuring the surface area could airspeed be calculated?
Let's say the Monitoring surfaces measure 1m2 how would we calculate the airspeed?
Yeah, give us some time to see how it works with the rest. So far the look very good.
Would be cool for someone the help out on that. If nobody wants to take over the CAD work, maybe someone can provide Matteo with the dimensions or other input?
I have a halo model from our work on the Perrin I could share.
Thanks!jjn9128 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 12:08 pmI have a halo model from our work on the Perrin I could share.
I thought I was on the right track, thanks for the clarification.LVDH wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:34 amSometimes when you are not sure about a formula, you can just check out the unit behind the numbers. You want to end up with a velocity which would be [m/s]. You have two numbers with [m³/s] (volume flow) and [m²] (surface area). This means dividing the volume flow by the area would be a good option. This is what happens to the units: [m³/s]/[m²] = [m/s], which is what you wanted. Assuming a constant density this is actually the formula you are looking for, as it implies mass conservation.etsmc wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:39 amI have a question that you guys might be able to answer or spark some conversation on.
If I crate 3 monitoring surfaces all exactly the same size if I were then to arrange them one above the other would I be correct when looking at the results that the one with the highest airflow probably has the fastest flow?
for example
surface A = 1.5m3/s
surface B = 1.8m3/s
surface C = 1.2m3/s
it would be safe to say surface B has air flowing at the fastest speed? i think i am right in saying the monitoring surface is an average over the whole surface so measuring the surface area could airspeed be calculated?
Let's say the Monitoring surfaces measure 1m2 how would we calculate the airspeed?
When doing these measurements please keep the info here in mind:
https://mantiumchallenge.com/porous-media-openfoam/
I agree! We look forward to new challenges. Next year I bet on Variante and his ability to manage vortices, then CAEdevice and JJR as usual.machin wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:06 pmYes, very interesting... it seems this could be one of the major items that will determine the next championship winner; who can best deal with the front wheel wake.
Anyone on this forum who claims to understand F1 aerodynamics needs to join up to this championship and prove it,