F1technical.net

Air is just like any other form of energy, the more you take out of it the less energy there is downstream.

Owen.C93 wrote:Air is just like any other form of energy, the more you take out of it the less energy there is downstream.

Air is not a form of energy.

Adding a vortex to the air is not taking energy out of the air, it's taking energy out of the car, in the form of drag, and adding it to the air in the form of movement.

beelsebob wrote:

Owen.C93 wrote:Air is just like any other form of energy, the more you take out of it the less energy there is downstream.

Air is not a form of energy.

Adding a vortex to the air is not taking energy out of the air, it's taking energy out of the car, in the form of drag, and adding it to the air in the form of movement.

That's merely a question of your chosen inertial frame. Follow the car and the kinetic energy in the air is as clear as day. Vortices can contain concentrations of kinetic energy but much of that is "borrowed" from potential energy at their cores. Overall they're a loss of energy from the free stream, energy which is transmitted to the body which shed them unless the engine works equally hard pushing the car in the opposite (forwards) direction.

___ wrote:

beelsebob wrote:

Owen.C93 wrote:Air is just like any other form of energy, the more you take out of it the less energy there is downstream.

Air is not a form of energy.

Adding a vortex to the air is not taking energy out of the air, it's taking energy out of the car, in the form of drag, and adding it to the air in the form of movement.

That's merely a question of your chosen inertial frame. Follow the car and the kinetic energy in the air is as clear as day. Vortices can contain concentrations of kinetic energy but much of that is "borrowed" from potential energy at their cores. Overall they're a loss of energy from the free stream, energy which is transmitted to the body which shed them unless the engine works equally hard pushing the car in the opposite (forwards) direction.

No, air doesn't give energy. We all might percept air as the flowing force over the car, but it's actually the car slicing through the air. In a wind tunnel you are in fact correct.

It's interesting to see that red bull creates a vortice right in front of the inside of the endplate. I have a feeling they use the vortex at higher speed to perhaps stall the rear wing endplates to reduce drag.

turbof1 wrote: No, air doesn't give energy....

How about head or tail wind then?

George-Jung wrote:

turbof1 wrote: No, air doesn't give energy....

How about head or tail wind then?

Irrelevant to the discussion.

beelsebob wrote:

George-Jung wrote:

turbof1 wrote: No, air doesn't give energy....

How about head or tail wind then?

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Why is it irrelevant?

A car with head-wind will produce more downforce and therefor more drag.
A car with tail-wind will produce less downforce and therefore less drag.

Air in movement is full of energy, you only need to look at a sailboat.

George-Jung wrote:Why is it irrelevant?

A car with head-wind will produce more downforce and therefor more drag.
A car with tail-wind will produce less downforce and therefore less drag.

Air in movement is full of energy, you only need to look at a sailboat.

It's irrelevant because it's not what the discussion is about. Yes, headwinds and tailwinds are air molecules with some kinetic energy, but that does not mean that aerodynamics works by "taking energy out of the air". By far the majority (to the point it's irrelevant to discuss anything else) of the energy used to generate downforce comes from the engine of the car. The idea that you "take energy out of the air" by moving a wing through it is a complete misnomer. Instead, actually, you add energy to the air in the form of heat, and movement.

Following cars have trouble not because the car in front has "taken all the energy out of the air", but instead, because the air is doing all kinds of weird things that the aerodynamicist did not expect. The aerodynamicist designed the car with air flowing in a reasonably uniform way, mostly from the front of the car in mind. They did not (and can not) design the car with air moving in all kinds of crazy unpredictable swirly patterns in mind.

So again. You do not "take energy out of the air" by driving through it. You add energy, and disturb it.

Don't get me wrong I am not trying to be a smarta.s.s.,
But as you know energy is never lost, so when the kinetic energy of a head-wind hits the front wing of the RB10,
where does it end up?

George-Jung wrote:Don't get me wrong I am not trying to be a smarta.s.s.,
But as you know energy is never lost, so when the kinetic energy of a head-wind hits the front wing of the RB10,
where does it end up?

Good question. I think ultimately in the track as heat. But I could be wrong.

George-Jung wrote:Don't get me wrong I am not trying to be a smarta.s.s.,
But as you know energy is never lost, so when the kinetic energy of a head-wind hits the front wing of the RB10,
where does it end up?

The car is close to a flying plane in this situation. The headwind or tailwind is irrelevant to the plane dynamics, on it's own, it is just the medium where it flies. A car will have lower speed in a headwind, so that's where your energy goes.
In fact, when you talking about kinetic energy you have to specify your reference frame.

George-Jung wrote:Don't get me wrong I am not trying to be a smarta.s.s.,
But as you know energy is never lost, so when the kinetic energy of a head-wind hits the front wing of the RB10,
where does it end up?

Both in the track, as heat, and in the air, just in a less uniform distribution.

beelsebob wrote: Both in the track, as heat, and in the air, just in a less uniform distribution.

But than, plz correct me if I am wrong, you could say that the car has taken some energy out of the air and transferred it into the track?

turbof1 wrote: No, air doesn't give energy....

And than this should be incorrect?

George-Jung wrote:

beelsebob wrote: Both in the track, as heat, and in the air, just in a less uniform distribution.

But than, if i am correct, you could say that the car has taken some energy out of the air and transferred it into the track?

No the car took energy out of itself, burned fuel, and transferred this to the track through friction. Essentially the interaction between air and car is one of action and reaction: the car pushes the air away, with the counterforce pushing the car into the track.

I'll be splitting this discussion later on. For now, feel free to continue in this topic.

George-Jung wrote: But than, plz correct me if I am wrong, you could say that the car has taken some energy out of the air and transferred it into the track?

A little off-topic and splitting hairs: the oxygen in the air is an essential part of the combustion in the engine.