F1technical.net

skgoa wrote:There is something very important to be seen in the last photo: Ferrari (as well as every other team nowadays) mostly test at a slight angle. This is because the car has to work best in curves.

You mean the car relative to the rolling road? I thought they rotated the rolling road platform. Pros or cons between each method?

Brian

In that tunnel, the belt is fixed and does not yaw. The model itself yaws to different positions to simulate the car in the corner. So the tyres are sliding sideways as well which gives a more realistic contact patch.
At the same time, the pitch, roll and steer also change to mimic the position of the car on the race track. These positions are taken from a on track data logging and copied in the tunnel.
Just a shame they are having bad correlation with the full scale (model is 50-60%) and they need to use the old Toyota tunnel

Video from Williams F1 team showing their wind tunnel and 60% scale car model








[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCUQoi_RzxI&hd=1[/youtube]

Similar video from Sauber, apologies if it has been posted before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7hTnkbmodI

The scaled model shows just how good you need to be in manufacturing so that you get precise measurements.

Kiril Varbanov wrote:Similar video from Sauber, apologies if it has been posted before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7hTnkbmodI

The scaled model shows just how good you need to be in manufacturing so that you get precise measurements.

The difference between Williams and Sauber? You don't wear shoes in Saubers tunnel. Great video.

hardingfv32 wrote:

skgoa wrote:There is something very important to be seen in the last photo: Ferrari (as well as every other team nowadays) mostly test at a slight angle. This is because the car has to work best in curves.

You mean the car relative to the rolling road? I thought they rotated the rolling road platform. Pros or cons between each method?

Brian

I believe he was just referring to the car being yawed in relation to wind direction.

In the above photos, does it look like the test section is on a big turn table? Outside the windows you can see a dark round floor section.

If they yaw the car, does the rolling floor need to be rotated (yaw) too or would the wheels of the model just be just be raised off the rolling road?

Brian

I find this interesting. ¿Offtopic?

Joan Villadelprat: " I think that, perhaps, problems (About Ferrari wind tunnel) are due to external parts. These parts are affected by temperature changes."



Cheers

Not sure what the problems in the Ferrari tunnel are, but the upgrades that are coming are to introduce "moving wall" technology.

Sorry, Villadelprat also said: "The Ferrari wind tunnel and the Sauber wind tunnel are the same. But the Ferrari, for aesthetic reasons, has outer parts."

As far as I'm concerned the Sauber wind tunnel works fine. Enough said.

Cheers

I meant Lotus, sorry.

delacf wrote:Villadelprat also said: "The Ferrari wind tunnel and the Sauber wind tunnel are the same. But the Ferrari, for aesthetic reasons, has outer parts."

This is not correct. Ferrari had a power of 2.2 MW at the design stage. Sauber has 3.0 MW. That is effectively 36% more power. The Sauber tunnel is much longer and wider. Ferrari's was designed for 50% scale and Sauber's for 60%. Sauber can turn the rolling road 10% off the axis and simulate cornering. They also have more length in the chamber to simulate two cars behind each other. Ferrari cannot do that.

WhiteBlue wrote:

delacf wrote:Villadelprat also said: "The Ferrari wind tunnel and the Sauber wind tunnel are the same. But the Ferrari, for aesthetic reasons, has outer parts."

This is not correct. Ferrari had a power of 2.2 MW at the design stage. Sauber has 3.0 MW. That is effectively 36% more power. The Sauber tunnel is much longer and wider. Ferrari's was designed for 50% scale and Sauber's for 60%. Sauber can turn the rolling road 10% off the axis and simulate cornering. They also have more length in the chamber to simulate two cars behind each other. Ferrari cannot do that.

Yes, I'm Sorry. Lotus wind tunnel and Ferrari wind tunnel are the same (min. 15:15).

Spanish: http://www.cadenaser.com/deportes/audio ... dep_4/Aes/

05:40 Villadelprat

Cheers

Declaf, I do not deny that he may have said that. But unfortunately Villadelprat is WRONG. I have given the technical data to support my assertion. So if you want to take opposition you have to show the error in my data, which I bet you cannot do.

In actual fact Villadelprat himself points to another big difference between the Ferrari and the Sauber tunnel. The Ferrari tunnel is exposed to the environment and the Sauber tunnel is entirely covered by a building which will have an influence on temperature control.

In the original post it compared Sauber and Ferrari and not Lotus. I have overlooked that you changed the comparison from Sauber to Lotus. It is an easy slip to miss that switch when you focus on the technical issues. Nevertheless a comparison between Ferrari and Sauber is quite informative from an engineering point of view. I find it incredible that a team with the wealth and resources of Ferrari allows his mid field competitors and customers to pull ahead on one decisive field of engineering.

WhiteBlue wrote:In the original post it compared Sauber and Ferrari and not Lotus. I have overlooked that you changed the comparison from Sauber to Lotus. It is an easy slip to miss that switch when you focus on the technical issues. Nevertheless a comparison between Ferrari and Sauber is quite informative from an engineering point of view. I find it incredible that a team with the wealth and resources of Ferrari allows his mid field competitors and customers to pull ahead on one decisive field of engineering.

I couldn't agree with you more. It's incredible. They need a new wind tunnel for 'yesterday'. Cheers