F1technical.net

Tommy Cookers wrote:@drew
isn't the industry policy consistent with my view ?
you may be sure that their policy is wrong, but they don't think it's wrong ?

Not in my experience, like I was saying above, they dont put the aerodynamic design in a position where it can be dominant in the decisions of the final shape. Most of what you up doing is little bag of tricks, not designing a highly streamlined vehicle. I know whats possible, I've done it for competition stuff and I have friends who were involved in those sort of competitions like the X-prize. It's funny though.... I was having a chat just last night with a designer at Honda about this. They make some of the most efficient vehicles on the market.... Still designed by artists and marketeers with a little input from the technical group up until the later phases of the design (too late, I say)

Even the most streamlined cars out there today, the most efficient shapes on the market, they still were quite limited in the scope of what they could do. Car still had to be "conventional" in so many ways. Not that I fault the industry for not pursuing ultimate efficiency, they are a business, they have to make what people will buy.

Take a peak at those X-prize cars and how "conventional" they still needed to be. How they defined their efficiency. Then consider the cost difference in the development of that shape to a modern production car. I think the stuff that can be done would make the fuel efficiency of modern cars look like a joke, frankly. I dont really want to beat the horse to death, thats just what I've seen and done in my experience and I'm stick with it.

gixxer_drew wrote:The reality is that most production cars are designed with aesthetics, marketing, interior volume, all the normal compromises and most of that comes way ahead of aero. Its not unusual at all for most cars to have seen way more tunnel time for wind noise stuff than for all other types of aero. Sorry, thats just the reality of the business.

Not dissimilar for handling, tire and wheel sizes, etc.

Anyway, I'd think the main advantage to suspension-mounted aerodynamic elements would be that you wouldn't have to run outrageously high wheel rates to compromise "mechanical grip" for aero platform control. Not like you're going to make any more downforce by changing the internal resolution of forces. And... not like there's really any need for crazy downforce in road cars (more just negating high speed lift). Nor do I think you could attach directly to the suspension in road cars with all the body work. And it's not like many road cars use SLA suspensions all around. And really, the ride inputs on a road car aren't exactly severe. Quite comfortable, by design.

I'd consider emphasizing downforce on a road car negative ROI since it comes at the expense of drag, and mileage numbers are en vogue for automotive marketing these days. To Drew's point, better thing would be pushing more drag reduction.

I still say the whole concept of using racing as R&D for road relevance is completely out to lunch.

gixxer_drew wrote:

Tommy Cookers wrote:@drew
isn't the industry policy consistent with my view ?
you may be sure that their policy is wrong, but they don't think it's wrong ?

Not in my experience, like I was saying above, they dont put the aerodynamic design in a position where it can be dominant in the decisions of the final shape.

This is actually great for the development of other systems on the car. Overall this is a good thing as sovling aero problems is quite straight forward; just make a bullet shaped cockpit, while other things like emmisions, safety, power plant efficiency are much more involving.

Jersey Tom wrote:

gixxer_drew wrote:The reality is that most production cars are designed with aesthetics, marketing, interior volume, all the normal compromises and most of that comes way ahead of aero. Its not unusual at all for most cars to have seen way more tunnel time for wind noise stuff than for all other types of aero. Sorry, thats just the reality of the business.

Not dissimilar for handling, tire and wheel sizes, etc.

Anyway, I'd think the main advantage to suspension-mounted aerodynamic elements would be that you wouldn't have to run outrageously high wheel rates to compromise "mechanical grip" for aero platform control. Not like you're going to make any more downforce by changing the internal resolution of forces. And... not like there's really any need for crazy downforce in road cars (more just negating high speed lift). Nor do I think you could attach directly to the suspension in road cars with all the body work. And it's not like many road cars use SLA suspensions all around. And really, the ride inputs on a road car aren't exactly severe. Quite comfortable, by design.

I'd consider emphasizing downforce on a road car negative ROI since it comes at the expense of drag, and mileage numbers are en vogue for automotive marketing these days. To Drew's point, better thing would be pushing more drag reduction.

I still say the whole concept of using racing as R&D for road relevance is completely out to lunch.

I can imagine that, I'm guessing the tires supplied with new car sales can represent a significant portion of the business for a tire manufacturer as well.

You could get more downforce by having things direct to the suspension. Playing with the body position relative to the bits... or to the ground.

Most production cars target near zero lift that has its ups and downs the changes in tunnel instrumentation and CoP instability are annoying. I did tests that 70mph stops could be significantly shorter and wet handling much improved from even mild downforce. I thought the data would raise eyebrows... it looked more like the scene at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark

gixxer_drew wrote:Most production cars target near zero lift that has its ups and downs to me I hate the CoP instability among other things. I did tests that 70mph stops could be significantly shorter and wet handling much improved. I thought the data would raise eyebrows... it looked more like the scene at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark

Unless it's confidential, post the exact thing. If it is confidential, let us know a breakdown of the model. If the model is confidential, just give an indication as to the reasoning. You'll get a far better response if you actually back up your claims.

Saying 'down force increases braking from 70mph stops, and improves wet handling'. Means utterly nothing with no context.

As a good proportion of us are either professional engineers, or amateurs with some technical knowledge. You can afford to be fairly technical in your posts.

xxChrisxx wrote:

gixxer_drew wrote:Most production cars target near zero lift that has its ups and downs to me I hate the CoP instability among other things. I did tests that 70mph stops could be significantly shorter and wet handling much improved. I thought the data would raise eyebrows... it looked more like the scene at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark

Unless it's confidential, post the exact thing. If it is confidential, let us know a breakdown of the model. If the model is confidential, just give an indication as to the reasoning. You'll get a far better response if you actually back up your claims.

Saying 'down force increases braking from 70mph stops, and improves wet handling'. Means utterly nothing with no context.

As a good proportion of us are either professional engineers, or amateurs with some technical knowledge. You can afford to be fairly technical in your posts.

You know there are some smart people here.... and some obnoxious know it alls that cause the people that do know what they are talking about to keep their mouths shut and speaking in vague terms. Exactly why do I need to feel motivated to enlighten people who reply like you just did above? If you call yourself an Engineer and you cant work out that downforce will reduce braking distances and improve wet traction you need a new field. I reveal whatever I damn well am comfortable with that I can... if that is not welcome here I'll happily not.