Here's the velocity plot:
and here's the flow on the diffuser's surface. It seems that the velocity is very low on the concave part.
I am not sure, but th fact is that the design need a lot of work.Tozza Mazza wrote:Interesting stuff.
I reckon you could get the concave diffuser up to the DF levels of the convex one, with much lower drag!
It's an automated process. You enter the needed expressions and the software gives you the net downforce and drag.marekk wrote:@DRCosa: how do you calculate net downforce ?
Maybe yes.hardingfv32 wrote:For F1, could this arrangement be an attempt to move the DF levels forward?
Brian
That exact shape is modeled in this paper on intake diffusers.hardingfv32 wrote:To get some idea of the complexity of the subject you propose, review this article on a F1 intake diffuser.
Design Optimization of a Two-Dimensional Subsonic
Engine Air Intake
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~nwb/lectures/Ae ... 23-118.pdf
Brian
So let's add something to this confusion, babble and opinion we've made in diffuser thread:Tozza Mazza wrote:Very little info out there on the web, and pictures of Diffuser profiles are hard to come about.
Which shape is best for the aerodynamics of the diffuser, and why?
There was some info in the diffuser confusion thread, but it was so clogged up with babble and opinion I couldn't make sense of it.
I have had similar results. That's why i found the shape counter intuitive.DRCorsa wrote:
CONVEX (TRADITIONAL) DIFFUSER
Downforce: 546N
Drag: 85N
CONCAVE DIFFUSER
Downforce: 394N
Drag: 47N
The air velocity was 50m/s (180kph)
First of all, we see that the drag with the concave diffuser is alost half!
Downforce is less but this could be improved with more development.
Looking at the static pressure images, i would say that for the traditional diffuser the pressure is more evenly distributed along the length of the diffuser, while on the concave one, the negative pressure is more "concentrated" on its front (horizontal) part.
Your thoughts?
I believe that the rules allow(ed?) for a radius at the transition but it is quite limited in size. Some teams just used the radius as a nice smooth transition between horizontal floor and angled diffuser. I think it was Ferrari who first turned the radius around so that it created a concave transition. This has the benefit of increasing the volume of the diffuser, reducing the effective angle of the diffuser thus giving an effective increase in diffuser length. Overall it gave an increase in L/D.scarbs wrote:The transistion between flat floor and diffuser is often more complex than a simple kink. Teams will often fit steps or rounded sections at the transistion. this detailing I imagine is to get the flow to attach to the steepest part of the diffuser, in a similar way to a gurney at the trailing edge of a flap.