F1technical.net

This. ^

Unfortunately there's too much politicking and self interest in F1 for any positive solution to come to fruition. The 2021 engine compromises are now showing Liberty what a vipers nest F1 really is, it's all lovey-lovey until they try to enact change which would upset the status quo, then Wolff, Abitebouel and Marchionne and co throw the all the toys out of their respective prams.

Just_a_fan wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2017, 17:52

It seems to me that the desire for lots of overtaking is as a result of a lack of understanding of what F1 is. It's like trying to make all cricket matches in to T20 games. Test matches are a very different to T20, and no less enjoyable to those who love the game.

We got DRS because of this.

I remember Schumacher and Alonso battling (around Imola in the mid 00's comes straight to mind), thrilling stuff, forgot to breathe several times. I also remember watching several Indy and WEC races, lots of passes but not one of them made me sit on the edge of my seat with excitement. I really enjoy rally, not a pass in sight, but blow me do I get all excited about it. As you say, all enjoyable but on totally different levels.

Overtaking should be possible, yes, but it shouldn't be easy. Trying to create lots of overtaking just risks removing the race craft and skill that a racing driver should, by definition, have.

.
Could not agree more. Too often I feel that people just want to see overtaking but don't seem to care so much about the race craft that it should take to pull off a quality pass.
I personally don't care about overtaking as much as the trying,, the side by side racing that may or may not result in a pass.

Awesome topic, I've not read this thread before and have enjoyed it very much from start to finish
I really enjoy this side of the forum where there's no fanboy stuff, just somewhere I can learn.

I'm not very technically minded compared to most of you but I'm learning, and have always been very much a "visual" type of person when it comes to understanding theory.
Good images added to complex text help my muddled old brain a great deal

Unfortunately jjn9128 I can't see any of the images you've posted.
Not sure if your image host has deleted them or what ?
Any ideas anyone ?

Cheers people,
Simo'

Seconded. I missed this thread first time around and also can't access the images.

This is massive, I dig the subject. Will respond soon!

Webber2011 wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2017, 05:28

Unfortunately jjn9128 I can't see any of the images you've posted.
Not sure if your image host has deleted them or what ?
Any ideas anyone ?

Cheers people,
Simo'

roon wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2017, 21:51

Seconded. I missed this thread first time around and also can't access the images.

Gosh, guys I'm so sorry. I have no idea how I missed this! For some reason I can't edit the original post to put the images back in but here is the original concept (CxS = 1.157, CzS=1.195, DF/D=1.03):

As developed a bit (CxS = 1.164, CzS=3.138, DF/D=2.70):

And some of the CFD plots:





I'm currently playing around with a concept based on a hybrid of the halo/aeroscreen/Indy screen - i.e. a reinforced screen like the aeroscreen, with constant curvature like the Indycar screen. Will post more CFD if I ever finish it (I'm using Onshape for the CAD and I'm really struggling with the surfacing - it's not doing what I want it to).

Yes, I thought it was that one jj. My design is quite similar, albeit with more complex front & rear wings and underbody. The front wing in is also narrower, equal to the inside distance between the front wheels and doesn't have the foot-plate, just end-plates that extend backwards for front wheel wake and tyre squirt control. There is a splitter under the drivers legs like we see in contemporary F1, but no side-pod flick-ups ahead of the rear wheels.

Blaze1 wrote: ↑

03 May 2018, 18:30

Yes, I thought it was that one jj. My design is quite similar, albeit with more complex front & rear wings and underbody. The front wing in is also narrower, equal to the inside distance between the front wheels and doesn't have the foot-plate, just end-plates that extend backwards for front wheel wake and tyre squirt control. There is a splitter under the drivers legs like we see in contemporary F1, but no side-pod flick-ups ahead of the rear wheels.

Heheh yeah my new car will also have a splitter, but now it has a flat floor with no step plane - I've pinched the LMP plank to enforce a minimum ground clearance of 25mm - also being domed it generates some DF if the car gets sideways. Also nicked the LMP driver leg exclusion volume (the green box) - makes the chassis harder to sculpt too much to have the sidepod undercut join the keel. This is where it gets hard - thinking of ways to limit yourself while also trying to design the best car you can


Finish your car - if you don't have access to CFD there'll undoubtedly be someone here who will run it!

Great job A question, aren't those Cp values a bit low on front and rear wings?

Vanja #66 wrote: ↑

03 May 2018, 20:47

Great job A question, aren't those Cp values a bit low on front and rear wings?

I can't work out how to plot a 2-d Cp graph but it's well below Cp=-2 on the front wing you cheeky beggar

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

03 May 2018, 22:45

Vanja #66 wrote: ↑

03 May 2018, 20:47

Great job A question, aren't those Cp values a bit low on front and rear wings?

I can't work out how to plot a 2-d Cp graph but it's well below Cp=-2 on the front wing you cheeky beggar

Hehe...