People, I think the coanda effect has made a return...
I really can't see any reason for that bulky shelf at the back of the side pod, than as a launch point for feeding hot air from the radiators down to the tyre sauirt area.
I think its always worth pointing out that the air from the radiators is always very low energy air: it has had to pass through the radiators after all. As such you always want it to be as far away as possible from any sensitive areas such as the tyre squirt area.
I think its always worth pointing out that the air from the radiators is always very low energy air: it has had to pass through the radiators after all. As such you always want it to be as far away as possible from any sensitive areas such as the tyre squirt area.
May be a silly question, but didn't anyone try to engineer out those windcatcher radiators? And blending the cooling inside the car's skin, with all that high speed air flowing over it?
It would increase the velocity of the air in that little fold, and keep it from separating at lower speeds. In other words it would be more effective at lower speeds.
It would increase the velocity of the air in that little fold, and keep it from separating at lower speeds. In other words it would be more effective at lower speeds.
How so? It's worth remembering that there is never anything for nothing so an improvement somewhere will usually have a detrimental effect somewhere else. F1 cars are full of compromises either because of the rules or because of the physics.
It would increase the velocity of the air in that little fold, and keep it from separating at lower speeds. In other words it would be more effective at lower speeds.
How so? It's worth remembering that there is never anything for nothing so an improvement somewhere will usually have a detrimental effect somewhere else. F1 cars are full of compromises either because of the rules or because of the physics.
For the same reason you use bell mouth intakes, combination of a converging section + coanda effect. If there's any downside is that it'll make the rear wing look like it has mouse ears, and more budget from the teams. Performance wise, I don't see any downsides as the rear wing is essentially in isolation.
I think its always worth pointing out that the air from the radiators is always very low energy air: it has had to pass through the radiators after all. As such you always want it to be as far away as possible from any sensitive areas such as the tyre squirt area.
May be a silly question, but didn't anyone try to engineer out those windcatcher radiators? And blending the cooling inside the car's skin, with all that high speed air flowing over it?
In the style of the Brabham BT46? I'd be amazed if they could get sufficient heat transfer.
You talkin' to me? It's basic inlet design. You use a converging section to accelerate air, like you would on individual throttle bodies.
I’m well aware of their origin and what they are used for, just why do you think that will work right where you think it will.
Because that's the low pressure side of the wing, accelerating air lowers it's pressure, lowering the pressure in the low pressure side means more wing performance. I can't make it any simpler than that.
You talkin' to me? It's basic inlet design. You use a converging section to accelerate air, like you would on individual throttle bodies.
I’m well aware of their origin and what they are used for, just why do you think that will work right where you think it will.
Because that's the low pressure side of the wing, accelerating air lowers it's pressure, lowering the pressure in the low pressure side means more wing performance. I can't make it any simpler than that.
Your theory hinges on the wing is in isolation and it's likely not. I think you're just making things up.
I’m well aware of their origin and what they are used for, just why do you think that will work right where you think it will.
Because that's the low pressure side of the wing, accelerating air lowers it's pressure, lowering the pressure in the low pressure side means more wing performance. I can't make it any simpler than that.
Your theory hinges on the wing is in isolation and it's likely not. I think you're just making things up.
It's not a theory it's simple physics. It's obvious the rear wing will suffer detachment issues, especially at low speed. I've seen designs like that on R/C craft. Similar Re#'s similar results.
There's no bodywork in front of that section of the wing, so nothing upstream can affect it. Maybe having a rear wing less prone to stalling will ruin the downforce from bodywork behind the rear wing?
Re: 2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread
Posted: 11 Feb 2022, 17:29
by dans79
A wing in free flowing air, really has almost nothing in common with an ICE intake port!
Because that's the low pressure side of the wing, accelerating air lowers it's pressure, lowering the pressure in the low pressure side means more wing performance. I can't make it any simpler than that.
Your theory hinges on the wing is in isolation and it's likely not. I think you're just making things up.
It's not a theory it's simple physics. It's obvious the rear wing will suffer detachment issues, especially at low speed. I've seen designs like that on R/C craft. Similar Re#'s similar results.
There's no bodywork in front of that section of the wing, so nothing upstream can affect it. Maybe having a rear wing less prone to stalling will ruin the downforce from bodywork behind the rear wing?
You can’t imagine air. It doesn’t do what you think. You do this in a lot of your posts.
The new nose AM had at some point today even more so: https://i.imgur.com/76kL2qm.png
edit: ... or is it not a new nose, but just the angle, seeing it from the front rather than a bit from the top, that makes more sense really.
I see how some view it as too much Indycar and/or nostalgia, but let's be honest, isn't nostalgia part of what the rule makers wanted, 'make F1 look great again' etc?