2022 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Hoffman900]

Reminds me of mid 1990's CART cars:

[godlameroso]

Your theory hinges on the wing is in isolation and it's likely not. I think you're just making things up.

It's not a theory it's simple physics. It's obvious the rear wing will suffer detachment issues, especially at low speed. I've seen designs like that on R/C craft. Similar Re#'s similar results.

There's no bodywork in front of that section of the wing, so nothing upstream can affect it. Maybe having a rear wing less prone to stalling will ruin the downforce from bodywork behind the rear wing?

You can’t imagine air. It doesn’t do what you think. You do this in a lot of your posts.

Air behaves very predictably, it does pretty much what I think it does, maybe you just don't understand, and it causes you to get defensive. You do this in a lot of your posts.

[Hoffman900]

It's not a theory it's simple physics. It's obvious the rear wing will suffer detachment issues, especially at low speed. I've seen designs like that on R/C craft. Similar Re#'s similar results.

There's no bodywork in front of that section of the wing, so nothing upstream can affect it. Maybe having a rear wing less prone to stalling will ruin the downforce from bodywork behind the rear wing?

You can’t imagine air. It doesn’t do what you think. You do this in a lot of your posts.

Air behaves very predictably, it does pretty much what I think it does, maybe you just don't understand, and it causes you to get defensive. You do this in a lot of your posts.

It does not. Because it doesn't, this is why still in 2022 everyone from F1 teams to Boeing / Airbus still struggle with correlation between CFD / wind tunnel / and real life. Sure, you can guess on a macro level, but imaging what radiused velocity stacks will do in the inside corner of the wing is a huge stretch.

While not an aerodynamicists, a retired PhD aerodynamicists friend likes to walk around the paddock at historic events and point out that "air doesn't do that" on a lot of cars. This from an era when they were just imagining what air was doing or even rudimentary wind tunnel work.

My defense comes from wanting good, sound technical information shared on this site, and positioning your imagination as physics is not it, and I think it's totally fair to call you out on it, so others who don't know, learn fact from fiction.

[dans79]

Air behaves very predictably, it does pretty much what I think it does, maybe you just don't understand, and it causes you to get defensive. You do this in a lot of your posts.

Teams spend tens of millions on wind tunnels, CFD servers, and an army of aerodynamicists and engineers specifically because it doesn't behave predictably.

[michl420]

Is the outside bottom of the floor on the reference plan or higher? (Or you can call it the outside fence of the venturi tunnels)

[godlameroso]

You can’t imagine air. It doesn’t do what you think. You do this in a lot of your posts.

Air behaves very predictably, it does pretty much what I think it does, maybe you just don't understand, and it causes you to get defensive. You do this in a lot of your posts.

It does not. Because it doesn't, this is why still in 2022 everyone from F1 teams to Boeing / Airbus still struggle with correlation between CFD / wind tunnel / and real life. Sure, you can guess on a macro level, but imaging what radiused velocity stacks will do in the inside corner of the wing is a huge stretch.

While not an aerodynamicists, a retired PhD aerodynamicists friend likes to walk around the paddock at historic events and point out that "air doesn't do that" on a lot of cars. This from an era when they were just imagining what air was doing or even rudimentary wind tunnel work.

My defense comes from wanting good, sound technical information shared on this site, and positioning your imagination as physics is not it, and I think it's totally fair to call you out on it, so others who don't know, learn fact from fiction.

Enlighten us then. Somehow an F1 car violates the laws of physics and diverging subsonic ducts don't slow down air?

[Hoffman900]

Air behaves very predictably, it does pretty much what I think it does, maybe you just don't understand, and it causes you to get defensive. You do this in a lot of your posts.

It does not. Because it doesn't, this is why still in 2022 everyone from F1 teams to Boeing / Airbus still struggle with correlation between CFD / wind tunnel / and real life. Sure, you can guess on a macro level, but imaging what radiused velocity stacks will do in the inside corner of the wing is a huge stretch.

While not an aerodynamicists, a retired PhD aerodynamicists friend likes to walk around the paddock at historic events and point out that "air doesn't do that" on a lot of cars. This from an era when they were just imagining what air was doing or even rudimentary wind tunnel work.

My defense comes from wanting good, sound technical information shared on this site, and positioning your imagination as physics is not it, and I think it's totally fair to call you out on it, so others who don't know, learn fact from fiction.

Enlighten us then.

I can't. I don't have the resources to (and you don’t, and the people who do clearly haven’t used it), but thanks for the petty downvote

Let's call a duck a duck. According to your profile, you're an engineer, you can't just make stuff up without expecting to get called out on it.

[godlameroso]

It does not. Because it doesn't, this is why still in 2022 everyone from F1 teams to Boeing / Airbus still struggle with correlation between CFD / wind tunnel / and real life. Sure, you can guess on a macro level, but imaging what radiused velocity stacks will do in the inside corner of the wing is a huge stretch.

While not an aerodynamicists, a retired PhD aerodynamicists friend likes to walk around the paddock at historic events and point out that "air doesn't do that" on a lot of cars. This from an era when they were just imagining what air was doing or even rudimentary wind tunnel work.

My defense comes from wanting good, sound technical information shared on this site, and positioning your imagination as physics is not it, and I think it's totally fair to call you out on it, so others who don't know, learn fact from fiction.

Enlighten us then.

I can't. I don't have the resources to, but thanks for the petty downvote

Let's call a duck a duck. According to your profile, you're an engineer, you can't just make stuff up without expecting to get called out on it.

I'm not making anything up, physics are physics, all subsonic fluid will accelerate when it flows through a convergent duct. Please explain how F1 cars suddenly are not subject to fluid dynamics?

Look at the 2014-2018 front wings, the outwash tunnels.



First it converges on the first two elements, then it diverges. Even being in ground effect, the converging area made the outwash tunnels work better, because it speeds up the leading edge flow. The underfloor tunnels accelerate airflow by converging first. You should ask your Ph.D friend and get back to us with his thoughts.

[Hoffman900]

I’m not arguing about what a converging duct does, I’m arguing that suggesting it needs to be in that spot is incrediblty difficult to suss out.

Anyway, let’s move on. Have to make more coffee because there will be a Mclaren to pick apart next.

[dans79]

I'm not making anything up, physics are physics, all subsonic fluid will accelerate when it flows through a convergent duct. Please explain how F1 cars suddenly are not subject to fluid dynamics?

What you have written is not strictly correct. A pressure differential must occur for the velocity to increase. In the case of an ICE, The piston is creating a substantial vacuum/sucking and thus a pressure differential.

[Hoffman900]

I'm not making anything up, physics are physics, all subsonic fluid will accelerate when it flows through a convergent duct. Please explain how F1 cars suddenly are not subject to fluid dynamics?

What you have written is not strictly correct. A pressure differential must occur for the velocity to increase. In the case of an ICE, The piston is creating a substantial vacuum/sucking and thus a pressure differential.

Velocity stacks in an ICE are a flow conditioner more than anything, it’s about minimizing losses where atmosphere or a larger volume of air, as it enters a duct. They are also not to be seen in isolation, and they are just a visible portion of the duct that starts at the valve seat and ends at the stack. This doesn’t even get to the wave parts of it.

[dans79]

Velocity stacks in an ICE are a flow conditioner more than anything, it’s about minimizing losses where atmosphere or a larger volume of air, as it enters a duct. They are also not to be seen in isolation, and they are just a visible portion of the duct that starts at the valve seat and ends at the stack. This doesn’t even get to the wave parts of it.

I'm very aware, I was just trying to keep my response as simple as possible!

[Hoffman900]

Velocity stacks in an ICE are a flow conditioner more than anything, it’s about minimizing losses where atmosphere or a larger volume of air, as it enters a duct. They are also not to be seen in isolation, and they are just a visible portion of the duct that starts at the valve seat and ends at the stack. This doesn’t even get to the wave parts of it.

I'm very aware, I was just trying to keep my response as simple as possible!

Totally, I was just elaborating for those reading who don’t know.

[PlatinumZealot]

People, I think the coanda effect has made a return...

I really can't see any reason for that bulky shelf at the back of the side pod, than as a launch point for feeding hot air from the radiators down to the tyre sauirt area.

I think its always worth pointing out that the air from the radiators is always very low energy air: it has had to pass through the radiators after all. As such you always want it to be as far away as possible from any sensitive areas such as the tyre squirt area.

Compare the 2008 Ferrari to the 2008 Renault or Mclaren. The designers would know how they would manage this air. I wouldn't say it is low energy either at this stage. It's slower velocity but also hotter. We will just have to wait and see how its used.

[PlatinumZealot]

Because that's the low pressure side of the wing, accelerating air lowers it's pressure, lowering the pressure in the low pressure side means more wing performance. I can't make it any simpler than that.

Your theory hinges on the wing is in isolation and it's likely not. I think you're just making things up.

It's not a theory it's simple physics. It's obvious the rear wing will suffer detachment issues, especially at low speed. I've seen designs like that on R/C craft. Similar Re#'s similar results.

There's no bodywork in front of that section of the wing, so nothing upstream can affect it. Maybe having a rear wing less prone to stalling will ruin the downforce from bodywork behind the rear wing?

You sure have some new theories on fluid mechanics...

I am left a bit dizzy by some of them! Hehe