F92A: what do you think about it?

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
Xwang
2
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:12 am

F92A: what do you think about it?

Post by Xwang » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:52 pm

Is there something good in it conceptually speaking or was completelly wrong (both idea and execution)?
What went wrong?

Jolle
73
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: F92A: what do you think about it?

Post by Jolle » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:57 pm

They designed a nice car and then tried to be cleaver and then raised the car 12cm up and stuck an extra bottom on it... somewhere they did believe in it, because they revisited it in 96, with almost the same effect.

bill shoe
170
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:18 am
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: F92A: what do you think about it?

Post by bill shoe » Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:37 pm

Concepts that involve squeezing air between extra surfaces always seem to work worse in reality than in the wind tunnel (or in CFD). Examples are --
  • The '92 and '96 Ferraris with double-ish floors.
  • STR06 from 2011, had double-floor sidepods.
  • The recent Nissan LeMans car with long enclosed tunnels that went the full length of the car.

Xwang
2
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:12 am

Re: F92A: what do you think about it?

Post by Xwang » Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:39 pm

bill shoe wrote:
Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:37 pm
Concepts that involve squeezing air between extra surfaces always seem to work worse in reality than in the wind tunnel (or in CFD). Examples are --
  • The '92 and '96 Ferraris with double-ish floors.
  • STR06 from 2011, had double-floor sidepods.
  • The recent Nissan LeMans car with long enclosed tunnels that went the full length of the car.
Is this due to limitation in wind tunnels/CFD?

Vyssion
54
User avatar
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:40 pm

Re: F92A: what do you think about it?

Post by Vyssion » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:35 pm

Xwang wrote:
Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:39 pm
bill shoe wrote:
Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:37 pm
Concepts that involve squeezing air between extra surfaces always seem to work worse in reality than in the wind tunnel (or in CFD). Examples are --
  • The '92 and '96 Ferraris with double-ish floors.
  • STR06 from 2011, had double-floor sidepods.
  • The recent Nissan LeMans car with long enclosed tunnels that went the full length of the car.
Is this due to limitation in wind tunnels/CFD?
Limitation by way of the fact that wind tunnel testing will pretty much never be as good as on track testing due to the shear number of variables involved? Yes.
If you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it well enough.
The great thing about facts is that they are true, whether or not you believe them. - Neil deGrasse Tyson
Vyssion Scribd - Aerodynamics Papers
G&K

DiogoBrand
32
User avatar
Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 6:02 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: F92A: what do you think about it?

Post by DiogoBrand » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:43 pm

bill shoe wrote:
Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:37 pm
Concepts that involve squeezing air between extra surfaces always seem to work worse in reality than in the wind tunnel (or in CFD). Examples are --
  • The '92 and '96 Ferraris with double-ish floors.
  • STR06 from 2011, had double-floor sidepods.
  • The recent Nissan LeMans car with long enclosed tunnels that went the full length of the car.
Well... maybe not always.
Image

bill shoe
170
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:18 am
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: F92A: what do you think about it?

Post by bill shoe » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:45 am

DiogoBrand wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:43 pm
Well... maybe not always.
Nice!