Innovo 2012 F1 Car - Tozza Mazza and JordanGP

[Sonic59]

2 Tozza Mazza. If u want gain some real aerodynamic performance for your car then concentrate on front wing/front tyres interaction. CDF will be useful there to understand how flow goes around.
Calculation rear wing in CDF in fact useless. Rear wing deals with relatively "clean" air. So it would be far more accurate to calculate forces using traditional aerodynamics rather than CDF.

[ringo]

you are kidding right?

[Tozza Mazza]

2 Tozza Mazza. If u want gain some real aerodynamic performance for your car then concentrate on front wing/front tyres interaction. CDF will be useful there to understand how flow goes around.
Calculation rear wing in CDF in fact useless. Rear wing deals with relatively "clean" air. So it would be far more accurate to calculate forces using traditional aerodynamics rather than CDF.

Whilst CFD around the front wing and tyres would give us a valuable flow map of the car, but as of current we don't have the time to finish the front wing, as the design is complex and needs tweaking. Also, due to regulations being so tight, there is little that can be changed to fit front wing flow.

I disagree with your statement about the rear wing. The rear end CAN be simulated to give usable results, although obviously this will change when the whole car is there.

[Sonic59]

Whilst CFD around the front wing and tyres would give us a valuable flow map of the car

What CFD you use? It would be very hard to get a correct flow map around whole car without supercomputer. So dont even try. It would be good if u can simulate at least fornt wing/front tyres interaction.

Also, due to regulations being so tight, there is little that can be changed to fit front wing flow.

Using vortex generators is a good idea. Its the first thing u should check with CFD: how the vortex spreads over wheel, what result on pressure distribution it has.
Then check out deflecors. They also increase tyre performance.

I disagree with your statement about the rear wing. The rear end CAN be simulated to give usable results, although obviously this will change when the whole car is there.

About a year ago I made a little research about validation results of CFD simulation in SolidWorks FlowSimulation. I took standard 2d airfoil and compared results with real life data. Error was between 10 and 60%. I also checked other CFD results. Even the best of them have 5-10% accuracy. The problem is that results are unstable. Accuracy varies depending on many factors. This means u can not design a car basing on CFD. You can check something like interaction, but in general try to use as much traditional methods as possible. The best, of course, is wind tunnel.

[godlameroso]

You know, now that GPU's are able to do physics calculations as dedicated processors, I have a feeling that CFD will become more and more do-able by people without Supercomputer clusters. Heck, the rise of cloud computing along with this, is pretty much going to change the game.

Some F1 teams have in-house programmers constantly refining the algorithms for their CFD analysis software. Seriously, people just sit and do tests in the wind tunnel, and try to write code to simulate the results they get. What a cool job is that; that you get to do things; like say, study vorticity in a state of the art wind tunnel, and try to describe the fluid interaction by means of an algorithm.

[Sonic59]

You know, now that GPU's are able to do physics calculations as dedicated processors, I have a feeling that CFD will become more and more do-able by people without Supercomputer clusters. Heck, the rise of cloud computing along with this, is pretty much going to change the game.

Some F1 teams have in-house programmers constantly refining the algorithms for their CFD analysis software. Seriously, people just sit and do tests in the wind tunnel, and try to write code to simulate the results they get. What a cool job is that; that you get to do things; like say, study vorticity in a state of the art wind tunnel, and try to describe the fluid interaction by means of an algorithm.

You right. But u talking about research that will give results in future. And I'm talking about building effective car now.

[Tozza Mazza]

We've ran an analysis on the rear end of the car (diffuser & Rear wing (including beam wing)) , and we were wondering, what should pressure and velcoity be like, for flow coming through the diffuser.

Thanks.

[godlameroso]

Probably as high as possible. More importantly, is the coke bottle shape after the airbox and sidepods, as this determines the position of the trailing wake vortex of the car itself. If you get the shape just right, you can create a trailing wake vortex that literally siphons air from the diffuser. The stronger the trailing wake vortex the greater the effect. The shape of the body is essential to creating the TWV.

If you can't use simple shapes, then try to make them "organic", it takes a designer to intuit what lines are the most efficient. You can spout formulas and principles all day long, and still miss the mark. It's all about getting the angles that cause the least resistance. Look at the RB7 and tell me the rear end doesn't resemble a Tetrahedron. In nature this is the most efficient polyhedron, and coincidentally one of the most aerodynamic shapes.

[Tozza Mazza]

Probably as high as possible. More importantly, is the coke bottle shape after the airbox and sidepods, as this determines the position of the trailing wake vortex of the car itself. If you get the shape just right, you can create a trailing wake vortex that literally siphons air from the diffuser. The stronger the trailing wake vortex the greater the effect. The shape of the body is essential to creating the TWV.

If you can't use simple shapes, then try to make them "organic", it takes a designer to intuit what lines are the most efficient. You can spout formulas and principles all day long, and still miss the mark. It's all about getting the angles that cause the least resistance. Look at the RB7 and tell me the rear end doesn't resemble a Tetrahedron. In nature this is the most efficient polyhedron, and coincidentally one of the most aerodynamic shapes.

Thanks, will take that in mind.

The sidepods are still in the design phase. We're looking at a double floor pod, using a slight U design. I'll be thinking very very carefully about this area now!!

The RB7 is quite a deceptive car. I think, after measuring out some pictures, that it has the lowest tub possible (Bar the V nose 'ridges', and will hardly have any changes to make for 2012, compared to Mclaren and Ferrari, who will have to rethink there tub design completely.

It's sidepods, and how they interact with the whole car must be a massive reason as to why the car is SO good!

[CottrellGP]

Nice car

[MIKEY_!]

Tozza, i think the general idea with the RBR sidepods is they there is so much space between them and the beam wing / diffuser. This makes the rear end aero more efficient. Williams tried a similar thing with their extra low gearbox.

[godlameroso]

If that was all there was to it, Williams should be a top 10 team not fighting off the Lotuses

[CottrellGP]

@ godlameroso do you build your own f1 car ?

[godlameroso]

I'm not a manufacturer, I'm a validations engineer.

[Tozza Mazza]

If that was all there was to it, Williams should be a top 10 team not fighting off the Lotuses

Agreed, will be looking at how best to create the vortex!