Underside for maximum downforce?

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
User avatar
jjn9128
769
Joined: 02 May 2017, 23:53

Re: Underside for maximum downforce?

Post

Uwe wrote:
19 Dec 2020, 10:44
left picture has short narrow section,right has long narrow section..

Narrow section I call part of underside wich is close to the ground..

Which option produce max downforce?


https://images.pexels.com/photos/623270 ... =650&w=940
Depends how well you can seal the flow from ingress at the sides. Theoretically a longer throat should maintain the lowest pressure for longer, assuming the same ground clearance. The early "ground effect" cars had wing shaped undersides the more they developed they got a flat section in the middle of the car. Then its a consideration about centre of pressure and whether there is any stall of the duct.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2019, 10:05
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: Underside for maximum downforce?

Post

Uwe wrote:
19 Dec 2020, 12:43
Stu wrote:
19 Dec 2020, 10:46


You need to think in three dimensions and (almost) treat the front of the car as a separate entity to the rear (but not at the expense of the rear!).
The position and shape/size of the ‘throat’ will determine the sensitivity of the downforce generated and the CoP location.
The design of the inlet will determine the potential of the system, and the outlet the efficiency of the system.

Does throat section must be curved or straight?
Wherse is center of pressure of underside,at throat?

So if I want to load front and back part equal,then I must put throat in the middle?
What I think....
Your front downforce needs to very stable fore/aft (so is best suited as a separate, shorter Venturi).
The main section still needs to be stable, but as it operates over a much larger section is exhibits huge forces on the suspension system. Great care needs to be taken over the section reduction to the throat so as not to create a blockage and stall the whole system at maximum suspension travel. You then ‘trim’ the rear downforce with a small wing to cater for the fore/aft CoP position movement through the operation of the car.

If you want to see how it was made to work in F1 check out the early 80’s cars from Brabham or Williams. These used a small front wing as an aero ‘trimming’ tool.
If you want to see how it was made to work on full-bodied vehicles the best examples that I can think of are the Jaguar XJ14R and Peugeot 905b. They had what look like front wings, but are actually operated as front ventures (much like LMP1 Porsche/Audi/Toyota), but designed to work with proper rear Venturi rather than a flat floor and diffuser (which has a huge change in CoP).
You want the intake throat to be fully profiled (like the underside of an aero foil) and about twice the area of the throat section. This section needs to be approx the same length as height. You then need to expand after the throat section (this will be 2-3 times the length of the entry). IF you avoid any sharp edges at the throat you will be able to expand this section quicker (the Coanda effect) and maximise the volume of the rear section.
The throat section needs to be reasonably short (no less than the height of the throat, no more than the height of the entrance) and positioned in front of the vehicle CoG.
This will get you a good starting point.
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

Just_a_fan
591
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: Underside for maximum downforce?

Post

toraabe wrote:
19 Dec 2020, 09:57
Zynerji wrote:
19 Dec 2020, 07:14
Just_a_fan wrote:
19 Dec 2020, 01:45
Be worth looking at history too. The sports car prototypes often struggled to get the expected performance with growing diffuser size. Took them a while to figure out how to get it all working. Bigger doesn't automatically mean better.
I believe the trick they found was increasing the mass airflow helped most.
Ross Brawn and John Piper who designed the xjr14 came up with a very clever idea on how to seal the floor. They put a flap between the front and rear tyres. This can be traced to the new f1 cars on sealing the floor. Same idea...
Tony Southgate did that a few years before on the XJR9(?).
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

toraabe
12
Joined: 09 Oct 2014, 10:42

Re: Underside for maximum downforce?

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
19 Dec 2020, 16:57
toraabe wrote:
19 Dec 2020, 09:57
Zynerji wrote:
19 Dec 2020, 07:14


I believe the trick they found was increasing the mass airflow helped most.
Ross Brawn and John Piper who designed the xjr14 came up with a very clever idea on how to seal the floor. They put a flap between the front and rear tyres. This can be traced to the new f1 cars on sealing the floor. Same idea...
Tony Southgate did that a few years before on the XJR9(?).
Tnx 👍

Dynamicflow
16
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 17:16
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Underside for maximum downforce?

Post

Uwe wrote:
19 Dec 2020, 10:44
left picture has short narrow section,right has long narrow section..

Narrow section I call part of underside wich is close to the ground..

Which option produce max downforce?


https://images.pexels.com/photos/623270 ... =650&w=940
The one on the right, provided you can keep the flow attached to the diffuser surface.

Uwe
Uwe
1
Joined: 18 Dec 2020, 13:40

Re: Underside for maximum downforce?

Post

Dynamicflow wrote:
19 Dec 2020, 20:28
Uwe wrote:
19 Dec 2020, 10:44
left picture has short narrow section,right has long narrow section..

Narrow section I call part of underside wich is close to the ground..

Which option produce max downforce?


https://images.pexels.com/photos/623270 ... =650&w=940
The one on the right, provided you can keep the flow attached to the diffuser surface.
So wing shape underside is not so good option?
I allways think modern F1 flat underside is because tehnical regulation not to maximise donwforce?

User avatar
jjn9128
769
Joined: 02 May 2017, 23:53

Re: Underside for maximum downforce?

Post

Dynamicflow wrote:
19 Dec 2020, 20:28
Uwe wrote:
19 Dec 2020, 10:44
left picture has short narrow section,right has long narrow section..

Narrow section I call part of underside wich is close to the ground..

Which option produce max downforce?


https://images.pexels.com/photos/623270 ... =650&w=940
The one on the right, provided you can keep the flow attached to the diffuser surface.
Even 80s F1 cars were playing with VGs at the kick of the diffuser or in Renault's case exiting the exhausts there.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

Dynamicflow
16
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 17:16
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Underside for maximum downforce?

Post

Uwe wrote:
19 Dec 2020, 22:02
Dynamicflow wrote:
19 Dec 2020, 20:28
Uwe wrote:
19 Dec 2020, 10:44
left picture has short narrow section,right has long narrow section..

Narrow section I call part of underside wich is close to the ground..

Which option produce max downforce?


https://images.pexels.com/photos/623270 ... =650&w=940
The one on the right, provided you can keep the flow attached to the diffuser surface.
So wing shape underside is not so good option?
I allways think modern F1 flat underside is because tehnical regulation not to maximise donwforce?
You wanted an answer for which of the two designs you had shown would give the 'maximum' downforce - the one on the right will do that. It is just one variable and in reality there are other variables that you look into as well when designing a race car underbody. Pitch sensitivity is one of them.

Current F1 underbodies are not only flat, they also have a step to avoid them being run too close to the ground. Remove the step and run them closer to the ground and you will generate a lot more down-force compared to a slightly curved floor with a similar diffuser outlet and total plan floor area. It will, however, be a lot more pitch sensitive and the drivers may not enjoy the abundance of down-force when it keeps shifting under hard braking and attitude changes - you want consistent and predictable down-force, not severe changes especially when you hit a bump.

User avatar
Zynerji
110
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 16:14

Re: Underside for maximum downforce?

Post

Why platform control is everything in F1...

User avatar
FW17
168
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: Underside for maximum downforce?

Post

Not sure if the sections drawn will be any good.

The sportscar have a much wider cockpit so the throat area cannot be placed there as in a single seater car.

Porsche solved the issue by having the air coming in from just behind the front wheels.

Dont know how other majors such as Toyota gtp, Jaguar and Peugeot did it.

Uwe
Uwe
1
Joined: 18 Dec 2020, 13:40

Re: Underside for maximum downforce?

Post

FW17 wrote:
21 Dec 2020, 05:29
Not sure if the sections drawn will be any good.

The sportscar have a much wider cockpit so the throat area cannot be placed there as in a single seater car.

Porsche solved the issue by having the air coming in from just behind the front wheels.

Dont know how other majors such as Toyota gtp, Jaguar and Peugeot did it.
this is road car ,we are making him race car..

User avatar
FW17
168
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: Underside for maximum downforce?

Post

Image

Air was fed from behind the front wheels, not much in terms of skirts or vortex generators