Page 22 of 31
Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers
Posted: 08 Apr 2009, 03:22
by Ciro Pabón
Well, everybody has a bad day. That's not drama, it's simple life. Let the one that hasn't been mad at a forum, one time or another, throw the first rock.
I know Conceptual will clear his mind quickly. He already understands that a diffuser is not worthy of our anger, no matter what others may think.
I always say the same: you have to respect the opinion of other people, no matter how moronic, imbecile and stupid they are...

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers
Posted: 08 Apr 2009, 05:43
by flynfrog
Ciro Pabón wrote:Well, everybody has a bad day. That's not drama, it's simple life. Let the one that hasn't been mad at a forum, one time or another, throw the first rock.
I know Conceptual will clear his mind quickly. He already understands that a diffuser is not worthy of our anger, no matter what others may think.
I always say the same: you have to respect the opinion of other people, no matter how moronic, imbecile and stupid they are...

How close do I get to stand when I chuck the rock. I dont have that good of aim but I think if I get close enough I could get a good hit
Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers
Posted: 08 Apr 2009, 06:19
by xpensive
Guess I missed some excitement overnight? But stemming from someone who never posted much of a credible technical thought, I probably won't miss the originator either. Flamboyant last-words though, give him that.
Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers
Posted: 08 Apr 2009, 06:40
by Ciro Pabón
flynfrog wrote:How close do I get to stand when I chuck the rock. I dont have that good of aim but I think if I get close enough I could get a good hit
Well, you probably know that the Virgin Mary was born "free of the original sin", according to catholics.
Thus, the same thing happened to Jesus when he said, in front of a crowd that was going to stone an adulterous woman: "Let the one free of sin throw the first rock". Then he said, seconds later, when a huge rock was hurled at the woman: "Mom, I wasn't talking to
you!".
So, I wasn't talking to you, Flyn.

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers
Posted: 08 Apr 2009, 07:41
by shir0
I have high respect for you, Ciro. But I never knew you can walk on water or turn water into Stolichnaya...or was it Johnny Walker?

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers
Posted: 08 Apr 2009, 15:48
by ISLAMATRON
it is easy to walk on water... when its frozen
Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers
Posted: 08 Apr 2009, 16:33
by shir0
ISLAMATRON wrote:it is easy to walk on water... when its frozen
I'll grant you that.

But are you, in any way, proclaiming that Ciro is that cool, calm and collected so as to make water freeze so he can walk on it? c o o o o l.....
now, i'll let you try and explain turning water into pure, 100% Stolichnaya... careful not to let Kimi into that secret, though...

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers
Posted: 08 Apr 2009, 16:51
by WhiteBlue
xpensive wrote: I probably won't miss the originator either.
seconded , but I agree with the view that we will probably have him back one way or the other.
Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers
Posted: 08 Apr 2009, 17:17
by xpensive
WB, I was just thinking, you and I have more in common than meets the eye.
Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers
Posted: 08 Apr 2009, 17:53
by Giblet
Please nobody be a baby and pull a ManChild.
I still think he lurks here and is too ashamed to pop back up.
WhiteBlue, I know this isn't the case, but when you first showed up here, it happened to be around the same time that Manchild left, and I used to think you were Manchild trying to invent a new ID.
Don't worry, I know this is not true (I think).
Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers
Posted: 09 Apr 2009, 00:21
by Ciro Pabón
Wine was OK in Jesus times. Nowadays, I bet good Jesus would use a bit of rum.
Old rum to be precise. It is a work of heaven.
I think Manchild reads the forum, but he doesn't participate.
I was complaining the other day that Feliks, with his amazing designs of incredibly conceived machines, has filled some of the void left by Manchild, but not all. Everyone contributes a bit. I'd say some people likes to have around hidden geniuses that (sometimes) wants to give the world his work (and his temper

). What I like about Conceptual and some other members is, perhaps, that. You never know which person can have a crazy idea about a new diffuser or explain, in simple terms, how it works, because he
understands.
So, please, go back to double deck diffussers, because if we don't we should move this part of the thread to the Site Announcements and Support forum (which would be unfortunate because of the optimistic name of the forum and everything...

).
On a second thought, we should have a thread in that very forum called "
Reasons why I left the forum and what should change for me to come back - or not", where, naturally, only ex-forumers could post, so we can all learn.
That would be unique. At least I promess I will start it if nobody has started it yet (and I sincerely hope so!) and, heavens forbid, I leave some day the forum in rage. I bet that this post, if I write it some day, will be heavily edited...

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers
Posted: 09 Apr 2009, 01:28
by PlatinumZealot
I think these Diffusers are Diffuser and Spoiler. Nobody seemed to see it that way.
This is my comparison.
Like a Turbine blade.
You have an Impulse turbine. Which works on momentum change.
Then You have a Reaction turbine which works on Primarily Pressure difference AND then momentum change.
A Reaction turbine in Reality always Has an element of impulse because of the air actually hitting the blade.
So Going back to the Double Decker diffusers. By Merely putting a Surface that is tilted towards the flow, you are creating a surface for the air to hit. So Not only pressure difference is creating the down force. But also impulse. So you get the benefit of not only more area but also some impulse.. like a little mini wing. I could imagine there is some drag to it.
This is my Simple Diagram of the Regular diffuser and then the double deck diffuser.

Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers
Posted: 09 Apr 2009, 09:56
by xpensive
Ciro my man, you have actually outdone yourself this time, effin' beautiful that one. =D>
Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers
Posted: 09 Apr 2009, 10:43
by NormanBates
n smikle wrote:This is my Simple Diagram of the Regular diffuser and then the double deck diffuser.
I also pondered whether it could be like the spoon they don't allow anymore on the centre of the front wing, but I'm not sure how efficient that would be
on one hand, tha air hitting that mini-wing is travelling faster than the air on the upper side of the car, so it has a bigger effect, but on the other hand this may spoil the effect of the diffuser, and air in the upper section would be pushing down the flat wing in your drawing, but could be pushing up the fat wing on top, neutralizing again part of the effect
maybe someone more knowledgeable than me can sort this doubts out...
Re: Rule Interpretation - Double deck diffusers
Posted: 09 Apr 2009, 11:31
by xpensive
While hopping between threads discussing essentially the same thing, I shamelessly belive that my own sketchy calculations on "Importance of the diffuser?", shows how deilicate this part of the car is.
In a perfect world, to my mind anyway, is that FIA should either impose a "flat-bottom rule", as far as there is a car to measure, or make way for full-blown grund-effects with venturis, siding skirts and the whole shabang. No fans though.
kilcoo?