New way to uncap engine regs, but maintain performance..

[Giblet]

Is not all of Manor's data calculated from the 3d model that resides in the computer? A calculator doesn't have an internal model of the car and it's simulation data.

If using all CFD, maybe straight line tests would suffice for a new team to see how well their design holds up in the real world.

EDIT: I don't think it would be as accurate obviously, but maybe if the team saves on the whole wind tunnel thing it could work out if they spend extra on simulation software and the people/flops to run it.

[xxChrisxx]

Nope, you can only validate if the car works and wins, anything else with or without a wind tunnel is a guess.
There is far to much b--ll==t baffles brains in F1 aerodynamics.

I'm really trying to remain patient here as you clearly have no clue as to how computers and simulation are used. Simulation is the one area I really do feel confident in, as it's something i've specialised in.



I shall attempt to explain it as simply as possible.

Lets take a standard aerofoil/wing.

If we put it in the wind tunnel we KNOW what happens to the air as it flows round it, becuase we can measure it. By putting pitot probes around it we can measure the pressure distibution of the air.

If we put it in the compuer, we can use calcualtions to model the air. Obviously after the simulation has finished, if the computer says we get the same distibustion of pressure, then we know the model is correct and functioning.

If it returns an incorrect presure distibution, then you know the model has calculated something incorrectly. Without the wind tunnel data you wouldnt konw if these answers were correct or not.

Comparing simulated data to real world measurements is called validation.


After a model is validated and verified to be working correctly, you can then make changes to the model to see the effect it will have on the air. You don't need to revaidate every model so long as you don't make large changes.

This is the dangerous thing about CFD, and FEA. It has the ability to produce sensible looking answers, too sensible to tell if somethings gone wrong by eye.

[autogyro]

Is not all of Manor's data calculated from the 3d model that resides in the computer? A calculator doesn't have an internal model of the car and it's simulation data.

If using all CFD, maybe straight line tests would suffice for a new team to see how well their design holds up in the real world.

EDIT: I don't think it would be as accurate obviously, but maybe if the team saves on the whole wind tunnel thing it could work out if they spend extra on simulation software and the people/flops to run it.

The point I am making is that if all the data is on Manor's 3D model on computer, then this proves there is no longer a need for wind tunnels and that it is an easy matter to restrict downforce and control aerodynamics, (including rear turbulence etc) through the regulations. In other words the technology has reached it's peak within the F1 framework and no longer demands any major interest or financial investment.

[xxChrisxx]

Is not all of Manor's data calculated from the 3d model that resides in the computer? A calculator doesn't have an internal model of the car and it's simulation data.

If using all CFD, maybe straight line tests would suffice for a new team to see how well their design holds up in the real world.

EDIT: I don't think it would be as accurate obviously, but maybe if the team saves on the whole wind tunnel thing it could work out if they spend extra on simulation software and the people/flops to run it.

The point I am making is that if all the data is on Manor's 3D model on computer, then this proves there is no longer a need for wind tunnels and that it is an easy matter to restrict downforce and control aerodynamics, (including rear turbulence etc) through the regulations. In other words the technology has reached it's peak within the F1 framework and no longer demands any major interest or financial investment.

The 3D geometry may be on the computer. But unless the calculations modelling the air are correct, then it's all for nought.

[autogyro]

I to have used simulation with computers on many things.
However with the time that has gone by, playing with F1 aerodynamics both in simulation and reality, the amount of data now on computer should by this time, negate the need to 'check' everything you do on wings etc.
If it is not, then I can only conclude that the job has not been done well enough and a lot of money has been wasted.

My opinion is that the FIA should finely control aerodynamic design, 'good' aerodynamic designers should be recognized by the swift, non wind tunnel and computer based methods they use to gain good results and the rest not so good aerodynamics's should be sent back to playing with model aeroplanes.

[xxChrisxx]

I to have used simulation with computers on many things.
However with the time that has gone by, playing with F1 aerodynamics both in simulation and reality, the amount of data now on computer should by this time, negate the need to 'check' everything you do on wings etc.
If it is not, then I can only conclude that the job has not been done well enough and a lot of money has been wasted.

My opinion is that the FIA should finely control aerodynamic design, 'good' aerodynamic designers should be recognized by the swift, non wind tunnel and computer based methods they use to gain good results and the rest not so good aerodynamics's should be sent back to playing with model aeroplanes.

You don't have a clue what is involved with simulation. That much is quite obvious. Not only that, but you especially have no idea how and when CFD can be used reliably.


You are entitled to your opinions, but that is all they are. Unfounded, ill informed and incorrect.

[Giblet]

I am amazed sometimes at your continued and constant pleasantness towards other people, and how you never take a condescending tone in your comments.

It really makes it fun to discuss things with you.

[xxChrisxx]

I am amazed sometimes at your continued and constant pleasantness towards other people, and how you never take a condescending tone in your comments.

It really makes it fun to discuss things with you.

I can't stant bullshit, I have absolutely no patience for it what so ever. I realise some people may be simply misinfomed, and be unwittingly spreading misinformation.


Unless you acutally do simulations and are familiar with the processes that go into it, it's difficult to describe just how stunningly wrong it sounds for someone to say 'we don't need to validate the model' as validation is THE most important part.

This is basically what auto is saying when he wants to get rid of wind tunnels.


Now, you could theoretically run 1 scaled windtunnel test at the start of the year, and then do development work from there. At least then you have a simulation you can have some confidence in. In also depends on accuracy needed, F1 teams need high accuracy, so would need to redo wind tunnel tests as the car evoloves over the season.

[autogyro]

My most interesting aerodynamic project Chris was studying the videos of wool tufts on a light autogyro rotor and comparing these results and the full set of aerodynamic tests done at RAE Bedford on the 'Concorde' rigs, with the incorrect computer data for the blades done recently by Glasgow University for the CAA at huge cost to the tax payer.
Even so, it was their 'incorrect' data that was used to establish the 'Still today' incorrect flight rules within which light autogyros are awarded permits to fly by the CAA. They still have nobody in their organization who know how an autogyro works.
The people I am involved with in this, have even been asked officially by the CAA, if we want to develop a new set of autogyro flight rules, AT OUR EXPENSE.
So please do not tell me that all aerodynamic designers do the job properly, they obviously do not, even in official positions of importance.
The autogyro in question was awarded a full C of A when we had a proper Ministry of Aviation in this country, run by proper engineers, so there is absolutely no doubt.

[autogyro]

So you see Chris I do know just a little about aerodynamics, I have even risked my life flying on my calculations.
Does that come under your valuation terms.
Have you ever done so?

[xxChrisxx]

My most interesting aerodynamic project Chris was studying the videos of wool tufts on a light autogyro rotor and comparing these results and the full set of aerodynamic tests done at RAE Bedford on the 'Concorde' rigs, with the incorrect computer data for the blades done recently by Glasgow University for the CAA at huge cost to the tax payer.
Even so, it was their 'incorrect' data that was used to establish the 'Still today' incorrect flight rules within which light autogyros are awarded permits to fly by the CAA. They still have nobody in their organization who know how an autogyro works.
The people I am involved with in this, have even been asked officially by the CAA, if we want to develop a new set of autogyro flight rules, AT OUR EXPENSE.
So please do not tell me that all aerodynamic designers do the job properly, they obviously do not, even in official positions of importance.
The autogyro in question was awarded a full C of A when we had a proper Ministry of Aviation in this country, run by proper engineers, so there is absolutely no doubt.

In fact this story is PERFECT for showing my point about just how vital validation is.

You say that the computer data was wrong that has been calculated. You know this becuase you did a real world test and you know your data was correct. It didnt correlate with the computer.

This means their model was doing something wrong. If you didn't compare it, there would be nothing to say how correct or incorrect the calcualted data would be.

I never said you didn't know about aerodynamics. I said you know sod all about SIMULATION.



I'd be happy to chat with you about simulations I have done, if you'd like. I'm not going to post it in here as we've derailed this thread enough. I mainly use FEA to do component design and 'solid stuff'. I only have limited expereince in CFD.

[autogyro]

I was going to post a long technical diatribe on this but I do not think it is needed.
Everyone can see that F1 aero designers should by now have sufficient data to design cars without wind tunnels.
If they cannot, then they have not done the job properly.
Just like Glasgow University with the rotor blades.

[autogyro]

Yes sorry Chris.
Reducing cooling was the thread.

[xxChrisxx]

I was going to post a long technical diatribe on this but I do not think it is needed.
Everyone can see that F1 aero designers should by now have sufficient data to design cars without wind tunnels.
If they cannot, then they have not done the job properly.
Just like Glasgow University with the rotor blades.

This will be the last off topic post from me.


This isnt always the case.

Do you remember the time that Honda build that dreadful car (I think it was 07 after they got the Japenese guy in who did bikes to head the aero dept)? They designed that car using data gathered from CFD and wind tunel data.

All the data they had told them they were doing the correct thing. However they got no correlation between the air flow at teh track and in the simulations and wind tunnel. this mean the aero was a pig.

The designers can only go off what they know, it's not their fault they built a pig of a car. It was the fault of the wind tunnel people not providing accurate flow conditions for data capture.

The only way to be 100% sure you aero is right is to actually run the proper car. (Testing a proper car is hugely expensive). The next cheapest option is wind tunnels (that ususally offer a high degree of fidelity to track conditions). The cheapest and fastest options is simulation. However it's by far the least reliable, you need to compare it to something reliabe to make sure its doing the correct thing.

A new car requires a new validation. You can gather all the dta you can form the past to help make a high fidelity model, but ultimately you need to test the real thing.

It is a practical impossibility to make a perfect computer model, especialy using current techniques and computing power. Short of the best spuercomputer and weeks of run time.



EDIT: Mods i've made a thread in off topic on simulation, I didn't put it in aero + chasssi becuase it's not really relevent to F1. Could you please shift all relevent posts there to stop clogging this thread up. Apologies for the inconvenience.

[Conceptual]

I see where both of you are coming from, and since this is my thread, I say that it is OK to deviate, since people have already agreed that the OP was not in line with what they want to see, so it simply CANNOT work...

Anyways,

Chris, if there was an empty simulation space calibrated with a 100% scale wind tunnel, could it not be possible to eliminate the tunnel entirely? I know that the largest deviation between the tunnel and the sim is the turbulence modelling, and I feel that when the code is developed to run fractal turbulence modelling on the GPU processors of the CPU based CFD farms, that it will be able to come with 99.99% accuracy with double precision calculations. The current technology DOES exist, but no one is using it...

Autogyro,

I understand what you are saying, but the Chicken DID come from an egg. You cannot have a perfect simulator without calibration to a real world windtunnel. Anything else is simply guess work, and as you pointed out, may or may NOT be correct.

It is my hope that it will get to the point that someone does some design software that is like the Spore creator, where you can design individual parts (from basic shapes + custom refinement), run the FEA on the GPU accelerated video cards, and assemble the entire project on the computer, then tunnel test it in CFD, also using the GPU's.

Then, you can have the option to set rules for optimizing, and let the computer do a few thousand iterations to find the best solution.


Too bad that at that point, every team will be running cars that are within 99.99% copies of each other, and will end up with a spec series...

But anyways, that is my dream!

PS: If anyone is interested in actually Programming a sim like this, I may be able to come up with a few thousand (10k+) budget to get it working, so PM me!