Not to be argumentative but this is not what I have seen through experimentation and data. I went into my research with this notion that underbody is better than wings for following because it's rammed down our throats but the evidence I would say is to the contrary. Also notice the big 3-element rear wing in the concept.
In my experience with designing, I have found this to be true as well. What causes issues is that teams bleed "mis-information" to the viewers in order to distract or just generate a buzz for what is changing.jjn9128 wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2017 4:29 pmNot to be argumentative but this is not what I have seen through experimentation and data. I went into my research with this notion that underbody is better than wings for following because it's rammed down our throats but the evidence I would say is to the contrary. Also notice the big 3-element rear wing in the concept.
Also what is 'ground effect'? People who continually call for more ground effect through a contoured or tunnel underbody also say the front wing needs to go because it is most effected by a wake - ignoring that the principal 'ground effect' for the front wing is the venturi effect same as the floor.
Is not actually contained within quotes as being a comment from Belli himself; i.e. it was written by the journalist.A key component of the new car is for it to generate most of its downforce from underneath instead of on top. This will improve racing and passing opportunities by decreasing the turbulent air that the Indy car leaves in its wake.
And as we keep telling you, ad nauseam, F1 cars are ground effect cars. The front wing is a ground effect device. The floor is a ground effect device. The car is a ground effect device. F1 CARS ARE GROUND EFFECT CARS.
If you need a hand, I am using OpenFoam for work currently (in the process of convincing the big boss to buy StarCCM) [-o< - let me know
Thank you jjn, this is an interesting topic indeed. I think it should be studied, and actually, it was studied (albeit only superficially) in the OWG study, where they measured an increase in downforce with some lateral separation, so indeed i am curious if this can happen while cornering. But as you said, asymmetry of inboard and outboard wakes and some possible side-effects of those asymmetries are worth studying imho.jjn9128 wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 12:53 pm
I'm still not sure if this answered your question?! I think the effect of cornering on wakes and subsequently the wake effect would certainly be a great topic for study and maybe even would go as far as to suggest it is something Brawn and Somerville should look into when defining the new aerodynamic rules.
Gosh. That's another interesting question. I am not sure that allowing this sort of active boundary layer control (assuming you mean this not the exhaust blown devises from a few years back) would have a "bolt-on" improvement for the wake of a current spec car - but coupled with a removal of vortex generators and strakes, especially in the diffuser region, it might have a beneficial effect. These two images are taken from Willem Toet's "How do motorsport diffusers work" article/essay. In the second case a VG of some sort is placed near the front of the floor to boost downforce, but the result is that the wake is lower 'energy'. F1 teams take this to the nth degree.
If I see high energy air exiting the floor of the car (at the most critical low ride heights), I look to find a way of using it.
Hmmm I don't think blown aerodynamics would help for the following car. The issue isn't one of flow separation - the pressure gradients on wing surfaces are reduced by the effect of Pdyn loss. I guess another supposition for that is that it is a wake turbulence effect, i.e. a change of flow state on wings, which again it isn't as boundary layers are already turbulent. Do you have any links to that proposed 2011 rule change?Ogami musashi wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2017 3:50 pmI was thinking about blown aerodynamics for the following car actually. In aerospace (especially in military aviation) there's a continuous flow of studies (since the last decade) using either mechanical (suction, jets) or electrical (plasma) means to re-attach fully detached boundary layer (even in high velocity fighter jet engines exhaust gazes) which inevitably leads to the need of re-energizing it to prevent adverse pressure gradients.
Plasma was once considered by max mosley in a , perhaps not so realistic, set of regulation that were to happen in 2011. IIRC, it had to do with the budget caps. In those set of regulations, active aero was allowed (but VG and high camber wings banned) and plasma active flow control was to be used for the following car.
Without going for plasma actuators that require a lot of power, jets or suction devices could work. Active aero would have to be implemented and as you say, i think the fear of active aero should vannish today were you actually lend the responsibility of braking to a computer...
Thank you for that. It's an interesting regulation proposal. I'm not sure how I feel about it. For one it supposes that the wake effect is 'turbulence' and all the mechanisms for combating it seem to suppose boundary layer separation. It talks about reducing drag and states that open-wheel/open-cockpit are the largest sources of drag, but doesn't offer a means of reducing those drag contributions. I like the adaptive cooling, active suspension, and adjustable aerodynamics and I also agree with it that the way to achieve laptimes isn't always through the Top Gear/Jeremy Clarkson "MOARRR POWAAARRRR" mentality, but through a considered balance of power, weight, drag and downforce.Ogami musashi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2017 1:59 pmHello,
Blown surfaces are not only for BL reattachment but can be used for direct lift (in the case of planes) just by speeding up the flows.
The 2011 framework as proposed by max mosley. However, i recalled it differently, as obvioulsy here the active flow control is meant for drag reduction. The framework was very much build in a "road relevance" context.