Smooth bodywork

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
multisync
multisync
0
Joined: 18 Oct 2009, 13:23
Location: GB

Smooth bodywork

Post

Forgive me if this is repeating but in the water it is found that a sharks skin -with it's V shaped ridges- has a highly beneficial effect on it's swimming.

However I note on this site somewhere that Renault are meticulous in making sure all irregularities are removed on the bodywork prior and post painting.

Has a 'shark skin' effect been considered and dismissed is it just not practical?
Last edited by multisync on 19 Oct 2009, 23:39, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
greenpower dude reloaded
6
Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 20:03
Location: Portsmouth, UK

Re: Smooth bodywork

Post

I looked in to this a while back and it would seem that yes it does make a +ve difference, in the right circumstances..

Basically, if you are looking to control air, you don't want to shark skin it. In this instance with F1 it is always about pushing the air here, persuading it there so it's not of any benefit to racing cars on the whole.

The electric cars I deal with (40mph cars, no need for DF) it may well prove beneficial we've just never had chance to test it. Too many other things to deal with.

I suspect the difference would be very minimal when compared to a high finish waxed finish.
______________________________________

Mystery Steve
Mystery Steve
3
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 07:04
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA

Re: Smooth bodywork

Post

I've never seen shark skin up close, but I assume it has a texture similar to dimples on a golf ball? If so, it would be useful to trip the boundary layer on a bluff body to reduce the turbulent wake (this is why a dimpled golf ball flies farther than a non-dimpled ball). However, F1 cars are not quite bluff bodies, they are more streamlined. Could be useful in front of a duct so that the boundary layer is smaller and the duct doesn't have stick out as high. I've heard of people using things like tape to do this.

User avatar
machin
162
Joined: 25 Nov 2008, 14:45

Re: Smooth bodywork

Post

I watched a program once which had some road-cycle clothing which was similar to the Speedo Fast-skin ("Shark-skin")... i.e. a textured clothing designed to cut down wind resistance... If I remember correctly they varied the texture of the clothing in different areas to "control" the flow of air across the cyclist's body....
COMPETITION CAR ENGINEERING -Home of VIRTUAL STOPWATCH

multisync
multisync
0
Joined: 18 Oct 2009, 13:23
Location: GB

Re: Smooth bodywork

Post

Mystery Steve wrote:I've never seen shark skin up close, but I assume it has a texture similar to dimples on a golf ball? If so, it would be useful to trip the boundary layer on a bluff body to reduce the turbulent wake (this is why a dimpled golf ball flies farther than a non-dimpled ball). However, F1 cars are not quite bluff bodies, they are more streamlined. Could be useful in front of a duct so that the boundary layer is smaller and the duct doesn't have stick out as high. I've heard of people using things like tape to do this.

Not quite dimples but here is a pretty good explanation of it and the effect

http://www.sharkskincoating.com/newse.asp?newsid=239

User avatar
greenpower dude reloaded
6
Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 20:03
Location: Portsmouth, UK

Re: Smooth bodywork

Post

haven't watched or read this yet but thought it may be of interest in here http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/22/myth ... pling-mpg/
______________________________________

User avatar
qw56q
0
Joined: 13 Mar 2009, 21:39

Re: Smooth bodywork

Post

greenpower dude reloaded wrote:haven't watched or read this yet but thought it may be of interest in here http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/22/myth ... pling-mpg/
Yea but, a golf ball is not a aerodynamic shape the dimples help reduce a wake:
Image

but a streamlined shape creates a very small wake anyway, and i bet that the dimples would disrupt air in a generally unhelpful way.

Image

autogyro
autogyro
53
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 15:03

Re: Smooth bodywork

Post

qw56q wrote:
greenpower dude reloaded wrote:haven't watched or read this yet but thought it may be of interest in here http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/22/myth ... pling-mpg/
Yea but, a golf ball is not a aerodynamic shape the dimples help reduce a wake:
Image

but a streamlined shape creates a very small wake anyway, and i bet that the dimples would disrupt air in a generally unhelpful way.

Image
The dimples would probably keep the boundary layer attached to a dimpled wing of low speed high lift section, up to a higher angle of attack than without dimples. This could improve/ reduce the stalling speed. Probably dimples on the rear upper surface.
I think the dimples would have a negative effect on a thinner laminar flow or sonic aerofoil section.

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Re: Smooth bodywork

Post

Mystery Steve wrote:I've never seen shark skin up close...
That's because you have not read this thread: Inspiration From Nature???. There you go, true shark skin (all the notes in white letters scribbled over the picture are pure science fiction, written by me):

Shark skin, coloured by a Ferrari fan, I guess. Are those little Ferrari F1 noses?
Image

I wouldn't call that dimples. I believe (yeah, I know somebody will correct me) that the flow regime is different (viscosity is higher in water, so Reynolds number is different). So, in air, I think that the skin has to be considerably rougher than the one used in swimming. In the end, you don't notice they exist: they don't look like shark skin nor like dimples.

Ferrari serrated Gurney Flap, posted by the millionth time
Image

I also posted recently in a thread by Green Power Dude Reloaded a picture about the Ferrari cockpit shield around 2003, also with the same kind of serrated Gurney Flap. You have to look closely to notice it.

... it's the little thing with holes in front of the steering wheel
Image

In that same thread somebody suggested to GPDR to use vortex generators around the cockpit entrance of his Green Powered car, if I remember well. I did not understand all what GPDR and the fella said, but they also seemed to agree on something that didn't looked like golf balls, there were more like entire winglets.

Some aircraft, with similar speeds (and thus Reynolds numbers) to the ones of F1 cars have used the concept, for example, the Junkers J-I, like this:

Junkers J-I sole surviving airplane. Top speed: 170 kph, the same exact aerodynamic regime of Toro Rosso, Force India and McLaren, all of them Junkers in a sense
Image


Now, is this kind of skin sensitive to yaw? I bet.

Vortex generators in airplanes (that have little aerodynamic yaw) are there to delay stall, like this (link to image courtesy of Dave Killens):

Dave explained to us that you shouldn't allow a bunch of little snakes with arrow shaped heads to dance on top of your wing, I think
Image

... and of course that's nothing critical in Formula One cars. So, the problem, I think, would be to find a skin that's corrugated but it's insensitive to yaw, something that the Junkers wing corrugations seem unable to do.

For example, look at this row of black things on the dropped trailing edge of this airplane:

Image

Seem pretty similar to winglets to me. Check this two huge winglets on top of the wing, for example (yeah, also vortex generators):

Image

So, I'd say that the shark skin is there (in a sense), only that the bumps are so large that we don't see them.

Finally, I conccur with qw56q. We posted some time ago and not so long ago this image, a little more specific (it could help to clarify qw56q post, if needed):

The squares to the right of the images represents drag: the white one represents the drag because of low pressure at the back of the shape, the black one represents the skin drag of the shape
Image

As you can see, when you have an aerodynamic shape, like a wing, the pressure drag is very small. So, if you put dimples on top, you don't "get back" enough "wake energy" from the increase in drag caused by a rougher skin. This only works for blunt objects (or for wings in stall, which have a low back pressure).

Of course, if you have a blunt enough car, you can put some VGs on top of it, but, as I said, the bumps are large, like this:

Image

Now, if your car is a piece of old junk, you could start to test your own designs, like this:

True shark skin: is this the future of Formula One?
Image
Ciro

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Smooth bodywork

Post

The winglets on the plane wing, i think they call them turbulators, it forces the flow to go to turblent flow much quicker to delay separation. Laminar flow is easier to separate. The turbulators have to be placed strategically and there has to be a limited amount so as not to increase drag too much.
But what you say about the shark skin is true; It works better for water which is more viscous. I think it will produce too much friction on a plane wing or F1 car.

Now for a yaw independent application, you need something that has the same shape in all directions about the yaw axis and has the same paths in between.
For Sure!!

kreuzberg
kreuzberg
0
Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 02:00

Re: Smooth bodywork

Post

On this weeks Mythbusters they tested a car with golf ball dimples over it and found it to reduce fuel consumption by 11% over its normal configuration

Mystery Steve
Mystery Steve
3
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 07:04
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA

Re: Smooth bodywork

Post

kreuzberg wrote:On this weeks Mythbusters they tested a car with golf ball dimples over it and found it to reduce fuel consumption by 11% over its normal configuration
It was also a Ford Taurus, which is a bluff body shape with a fairly large wake. The flow is mostly streamlined in F1, and the wake/vortices/whatever trailing the car is more a result of pressure differences on the different surfaces that aren't equalized when reintroduced to free stream.

BreezyRacer
BreezyRacer
2
Joined: 04 Nov 2006, 00:31

Re: Smooth bodywork

Post

Mystery Steve wrote:
kreuzberg wrote:On this weeks Mythbusters they tested a car with golf ball dimples over it and found it to reduce fuel consumption by 11% over its normal configuration
It was also a Ford Taurus, which is a bluff body shape with a fairly large wake. The flow is mostly streamlined in F1, and the wake/vortices/whatever trailing the car is more a result of pressure differences on the different surfaces that aren't equalized when reintroduced to free stream.
Keep in mind here that we're talking only about drag reduction here, in regards to dimpling, VGs, etc. Of course an F1 not about reduced drag, and really the wake of an F1 car is what makes diffusers work so well. Therefore reducing the wake may have the effect of reducing downforce on something like an F1 car. The Mythbusters show was really very well done, and the results were clear. Personally I consider the Taurus to be pretty aero clean for a 4-5 seat passenger car.

I did recommend VGs in the electronic car post to reduce the aero drag on the helmet roll hoop area, as well as some VGs where the body tapers down towards the tail. It appears, after the Mythbusters testing that dimpled bodywork, especially towards the rear of the body would be a substantial drag reducer. I would say probably more effective than the body VGs I proposed, though a VG ahead of the helmet roll hoop area is still a good idea because it reduces drag at a height above the surface of the bodywork.

But remember we're talking drag reduction with Vgs and dimpling, whereas we're far far more concerned with reliable downforce in F1.

Mystery Steve
Mystery Steve
3
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 07:04
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA

Re: Smooth bodywork

Post

BreezyRacer wrote:Personally I consider the Taurus to be pretty aero clean for a 4-5 seat passenger car.
It's not bad for a passenger car, but it's still punching a good-sized hole through the air. Definitely larger than F1. I'm kind of curious to see some smoke trail testing on that car now that I've seen the MythBusters episode. If they didn't dumb down the show so much they probably could have arranged to have that done themselves.

I don't have any actual data to back anything up, but my intuition (as an aeronautical engineer) is that it wouldn't be as useful in F1. Like I mentioned before it could useful for controlling local flow so that inlets are more effective. Could also be interesting on the bottom of the front wing since they have huge upwash effects when trailing another car, decreasing the induced angle of attack. If they could use the dimples to keep the flow attached and keep from stalling the wing at higher angles of attack when they're in clean air, they may be able to maintain a reasonable amount of downforce when following another car and the effective angle of attack decreases. Something tells me that someone in F1 has probably looked into the concept, but maybe not. Who knows?

BreezyRacer
BreezyRacer
2
Joined: 04 Nov 2006, 00:31

Re: Smooth bodywork

Post

Hey Steve. You're from Dayton Ohio? I'm just down the road in Cincinnati.

Anyways, not to dispute your intuition, but I would argue that the wake from an F1 car is far greater than a passenger car, due the the wake from the rear wings. Of course in F1 we harness that wake to use it to power the diffuser and it creates more downforce, our goal in F1.

I have a great pic of an RB5 climbing up Au Rouge and you can see the size and strength of the upshoot wake via the heat distortion in the pic. It's massive.

Anyways, good to talk with a local!