Newey doubts CFD-only designs

[TauToadmiester]

Don't forget that 100% model/car testing is prohibited, at least I believe it is for 2010+, it could be for 2011+. Also only 1 tunnel per team. IIRC, only 60% models are allowed in wind tunnels from 2010 onward.

Also, aren't total wind tunnel hours limited in 2011 as well, so a huge investment in model building is possibly not worth the effort and expense, plus finding the expertise in Charlotte, NC. Charlotte is NOT a rich aerospace wind tunnel/ model building specifically area either, so much/all of the labor would have to be brought in and a 'team' formed which AFAIK, not occurred.

If USF1 is as good (relative to other new teams) as Honda's last year-2008, they should hold their head high! And look at the $$ both Honda and Toyota spent, $billions with little success, that with European design/engineering talent.

Peter W knew it would be a helluva huge effort, but being NOT an engineer, his beliefs are from others and we all talk things up, only wisdom and experience creates realistic viewpts.

Let's hope all the teams attend all the races and do not cause huge troubles for other teams during the races.

We shall see!

Perhaps there is something about the true relationship between Windshear and USF1 that is affecting this decision???

The problem with USF1 is having (or not having) a car to test. I'm sure once they have a car built they will head over to Windshear and take some measurements. For a first design, I don't think they'll be any worse for the wear being CFD-exclusive during the design process. I'm not the foremost expert on CFD, but like with any engineering tool, if you truly understand how it works and what it's strengths and limitations are then you can at least make educated evaluations of different designs. This is true of not only aerodynamics, but also strength/structural mechanics, suspension design, etc.

I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again. Computer modeling simulations, laboratory/wind tunnel testing, and track testing all have drawbacks to them. However, they all offer advantages that make up for some of the others' deficiencies, and in that sense the different methods complement each other. The whole really is greater than the sum of the parts, and the teams that are most productive in utilizing the balance of resources will bring a competitive car to the track.

[manchild]

Looks like he doubts CAD-only designs too

[xpensive]

Nah, he's got a digital ruler, see the display. That's cheating, no real engineer would ever use one of those.

[horse]

TThe ARX-01b was completely developed via CFD.

In general, I would say designing the shell for a le Mans prototype is a simpler task than a F1 car. Less extremities, shrouded wheels, all help a lot and are more closely related to road cars. Again, though, it's just the body shell that is designed in CFD, I'm sure the clever engineering went into the overall package of the ARX-01b.

I think one of the original ideas of the 2009 regulations was to reduce the importance of aerodynamics in F1 design, making CFD only approaches for feasible, but frankly that failed. I suspect, because of the people who work in F1, aerodynamics will always be a significant part of the design philosophy.

[godlameroso]

Next year not only are they ditching the DDF but making the standard diffuser 50mm shorter that's 12.5cm by 120cm or 1500cm^2 which makes next years diffusers slightly smaller than some of the second decks teams will run this year. Maybe CFD will be more effective next year as a result.

[marcush.]

the availability of windtunnels and more of 1 of those in all sizes + Huge CFD capbilities +Straightline testing did not prevent
BMW
Renault
Mclaren
Ferrari
Honda
Toyota
Williams

to build and race a bunch of --- in terms of aero in recent years .This alone should be enough to at least question the sound process of obtaining a proper aero development in todays F1 .
How can you state that doing your development without a windtunnel is a no go ,whenthe team you were working at did actually produce aerodynamic non performers
year after year with a tunnel that did not provide data you could trust...

I´m quite sure it is less how accurate or correlating the tunnel or CFD is to the real world but how bright the guy is with having a good understanding just how to design the whole thing making it easy for the air to flow where it should ,having clever ideas not only in the details but also in the overall concept. If theres no idea ,save those you have picked up in the paddock how on earth are you going to have a result in the best CFD or tunnel facilities? both are the means equivalent of a caliper or a ruler ,not brains.

[impaero]

If theres no idea ,save those you have picked up in the paddock how on earth are you going to have a result in the best CFD or tunnel facilities? both are the means equivalent of a caliper or a ruler ,not brains.

True.

However, CFD is based on what is already known about the behaviour of fluids, in the case of F1 that is air. Wind tunnels allow us to learn more and incorporate that knowledge into future CFD models. There's still a heck of a lot to learn about aerodynamics and that's not going to happen without practical experiments.

[marcush.]

I´m not convinced .
to my understanding CFD and windtunnels and the windtunnelmodel technology try to
model and emulate what is going on on track in reality.
all have their shortcomings and it seems that it takes each outfit quite a while to really be able to rely on their stream of data generated in tunnel or CFD and again
it seems to be entirely possible that something you did for years suddenly without obvious reason does not work anymore,possibly just because you have reached the outer edge of the correlation for the assumptions you have based all your calculations on .So the Numbers stack up to your theory ,but they do not represent what is really going on.
My main point is ,if those sophisticated tools do not even allow you to be in the ballpark with 100 % certainty ,you have to question if you really have a complete understanding of what is going on.
If you have little deviations from your simulation findings in track testing ,I ´d say the undertstanding is good ,if you have to go back to the drawing board in need of new parts ,the question is ,what if you drop the whole windtunnel CFD thing and just rely on stopwatch tuning.