I don't know of him, no.
Aero-elastics is kinda what I would call "one-step-up" from CFD. Technically speaking, what most people call aerodynamics is actually more like "aero-statics". Dynamics implies how something moves -- i.e. how "dynamic" it is -- But aeroelastics, aeroacoustics, aerothermaldyanmics, and even magnetohydrodynamics to an extent just keep adding more and more complexity to things. So yes, CFD can be used for aero-elastics, but it is usually done in a lower order method such as NASTRAN since it requires a coupled method between something structural and aerodyanmics. You can do it in full-fat CFD with a two-way FSI (fluid-structure interface) solver, but it will take a crazy amount of time to solve, since you export aero forces out of a converged solution, parse that into a structural model you have of the object, solve the structural sim, take the deflected shape, re-mesh (or morph the mesh around it), and then solve the CFD of that new shape again -- and that is just one timestep, which then gets repeated several hundred or thousand times in order to give you a "through time data set" of the aero-performance and structural positions of each node.
Testing CFD results can be done either through physical full-scale testing of the components, or wind-tunnel. Both have benefits, both have drawbacks, and both have different challenges associated with them.
By simplifying geometry, it depends on the fidelity of the sim you are wanting to do. If you are looking at a full-on "correlate to race track" performance run, then not much can be simplified out, aside from internal CAD geometry that is not exposed to airflow. Usually this means that the cell count is somewhere around the 200,000,000 mark. However, if you look at the CFD that I and @jjn9128 do for this website, that is somewhere on the order of 30-60 million cells, and so things like telemetry aeriels, DRS cables, and other kind of "small things" which exist and have an effect on the airflow, but don't really do much to the "overall flow field", can be ignored; since we are only interested in commenting as to how the regulations change the overall flow field vs. previous years.Uwe wrote: ↑20 Dec 2020, 23:13How can I simplifed geometry, if F1 has sick complex geometry?
How do you draw F1 or any car in CAD if you dont have geometry,dimensions,yout take meter -tape and meassure car?
Meassured car like this will not represent original geometry so result will for sure incorrect..
Modelling an F1 car is not an easy task, as there is just so much that goes into it. But first step is to grab the regulations, create your regulation boxes that parts must fit within, and then begin to surface up shapes that you feel fill those regions and will perform well. Then you run a sim of it, and iterate your design from there.
Perhaps I should have been a little clearer about what I meant by "complexity" in that sentence - given I placed it in quotes for a reason. Both F1 and Aircraft are complex, due to the physics that they are trying to optimise. To the layman, F1 cars have more "stuff", and so more "aero-stuff" is created, but it is all done with the same goal. For example, if you look at the flow-field behind the front left wheel, the tyre wake needs to be well managed, else it ruins the performance of all behind it. So to do that (in previous years) the Y250 vortex, vortices from the endplates, bargeboards, turning vanes, etc. were all designed so that they would exert a "force" on that type wake to shring it, and then twist it up, and then shoot it outward -- i.e. the term "outwash" that you heard a lot of the time, and part of the reason why it was harder to overtake in that outwashed dirty air.
But all those devices have the same goal - that is, to manage the wheel wake, and outwash it. So its a singular goal, and what is required to do it, is create those aero devices.
Seem's my good mate has answered this already hahahahahaha
Aerodynamics is a bit of a "trap" to be honest... It is very easy to get into, particularly as an engineering student at university where you are asked to do tutorials that are already pre-set up for you and quite easy to follow. But 90% of all those who attempt it, make the mistake of trying to run before they have even stood up, let alone walk. There is a hell of a lot of physics and maths involved, and the sky is the limit for how much you can learn. It's just not something you can pick up and slap an F1 car model into, and expect the "magic computer program" to just "handle it" for you.jjn9128 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2020, 13:19Only took a few days to get the working cad model.
We're always very upfront that we're just 2 guys (albeit well educated, incredibly intelligent, roguishly good-looking, sexually virile...) working in our free time not a team of 60-100 aerodynamicists going full time.
That isn't to say that you can't learn about aerodynamics or CFD by "doing" it -- it just means that you have to approach it with that mindset; i.e. grab an aerofoil profile from airfoiltools or something, load the points into OnShape (free web CAD program), learn to extrude a straight wing out of it, stick it into a "domain", mesh it, and solve it. From there, just poke things and see what happens or what breaks. For example, what happens if you make the cell size on the surface half as big? What happens when you add prism layers to it? What about twisting the wing up 5°? Or twisting it up 15°? What about sticking more cells behind the wing to pick up what happens to the air after it leaves the wing surface?
It requires a lot practice and just plain old trial-and-error; and I can tell you from experience, that I can very quickly look at a model and tell whether the user just googled "how to CFD" vs. someone who actually knows what they're doing. There's also just a little bit of "I just know how air moves" that comes into it... knowing what the air is likely to do, meshing to capture that behaviour, designing your surfaces to address that effect (whether positive or negative) etc.
Aerodynamics is always kinda seen as a bit of an "ivory tower" in industry, since it really is very complicated in a lot of ways that intimidate people -- even very smart people -- when you drill right down to what is actually going on at the base level of your simulations and designs.
I don't post as much as jjn does, but when I do, I try and make it count 
Perhaps it is more the fact that there is this "belief" that it is impossible to understand, and therefore doesn't warrant even trying -- but hey... not gonna lie: I quite enjoy the fact I do the stuff others say is too hard 
I have a little kinda "statement" that is used on my professional tags about just this sort of thing hehehe 
What makes turbulence difficult to predict and understand, and even moreso at the very fundamental levels, is the fact that an absolutely microscopic difference in initial conditions can have a disproportionately large effect on that cascade process. Not always, but the potential is there.
