F1technical.net

Opened in September of 2008, Windshear’s 180-mph rolling-road wind tunnel is the first of its kind in North America, and only the third rolling road wind tunnel of its scale in existence. More importantly, it is the world’s first commercially available, full-scale, rolling-road wind tunnel of its type.

Windshear operates the one-of-a-kind facility 10 hours a day, 5 days a week, with a staff of 12. The facility is available for hire to all motor sports teams and auto manufacturers,-b] providing services previously available only to top Formula 1 teams.[/b]

The wind tunnel accommodates full-scale vehicles, and provides constant airspeeds up to 180 mph, with temperatures controlled to within 1ºF. The high-tech rolling road is 10.5 feet wide by 29.5 feet long, and able to accelerate from zero to 180 mph in less than one minute. The “road” is actually a continuous stainless steel belt just one millimeter thick, and it is designed to last up to 5,000 operational hours. If a vehicle remained on the belt the entire 5,000 hours, it would “travel” approximately 300,000 to 400,000 kilometers (186,000 to 248,000 miles). During testing, “through-the-belt” sensors measure the aerodynamic down force under each tire.

bhallg2k wrote:But, please, by all means regale us in detailed stories of your visits to every wind tunnel in the world. Perhaps we'll indeed draw the same educated conclusion if you just give us a chance to share in your wealth of firsthand knowledge on the subject.

raymondu999 wrote:

hardingfv32 wrote:

bhallg2k wrote:I would say it is 100% because none of these customers can afford inferior 60% models.

As usual your logic is flawed. While it is true that an actual car will be physically more accurate than a 60% model, testing an actual car in any 'existing' 100% tunnel has no where near the accuracy of a 60% model in a 60% tunnel. That is a fact.

The fact that all the major F1 teams have 50 or 60% tunnels establishes the validity of my claim.

Brian

Why would using the physical car, in a 100% WT; be less accurate than using the 60% model in a 60% WT? You don't have to make any adjustments in the 100% set; and everything in terms of the moving object is the same; as opposed to the 60%

hardingfv32 wrote:

bhallg2k wrote:I would say it is 100% because none of these customers can afford inferior 60% models.

As usual your logic is flawed. While it is true that an actual car will be physically more accurate than a 60% model, testing an actual car in any 'existing' 100% tunnel has no where near the accuracy of a 60% model in a 60% tunnel. That is a fact.

banibhusan wrote:

hardingfv32 wrote:

bhallg2k wrote:I would say it is 100% because none of these customers can afford inferior 60% models.

As usual your logic is flawed. While it is true that an actual car will be physically more accurate than a 60% model, testing an actual car in any 'existing' 100% tunnel has no where near the accuracy of a 60% model in a 60% tunnel. That is a fact.

Come on Brian!! The whole forum is waiting for you to share your logic behind the claim that a 60% scale is more accurate than a 100% scale.

hardingfv32 wrote:

bhallg2k wrote:I would say it is 100% because none of these customers can afford inferior 60% models.

As usual your logic is flawed. While it is true that an actual car will be physically more accurate than a 60% model, testing an actual car in any 'existing' 100% tunnel has no where near the accuracy of a 60% model in a 60% tunnel. That is a fact.

The fact that all the major F1 teams have 50 or 60% tunnels establishes the validity of my claim.

Brian

hardingfv32 wrote:

bhallg2k wrote:I would say it is 100% because none of these customers can afford inferior 60% models.

As usual your logic is flawed. While it is true that an actual car will be physically more accurate than a 60% model, testing an actual car in any 'existing' 100% tunnel has no where near the accuracy of a 60% model in a 60% tunnel. That is a fact.

The fact that all the major F1 teams have 50 or 60% tunnels establishes the validity of my claim.

Brian

radosav wrote:is it posible to put F1 car on open truck that transports cars, cover it with flow-viz and drive it on highway with constant speed?

akh270 wrote:

radosav wrote:is it posible to put F1 car on open truck that transports cars, cover it with flow-viz and drive it on highway with constant speed?

That is so unbelievably stupid its genius! I mean that in a good way btw.

You could do it here in the states on, "The loneliest road in America".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_50_in_Nevada