Vodafone McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes

[Pup]

Dear God. What exactly are you bending that with? As in, what's that round cylindrical thing at the bottom?

Martini shaker. *hic*

[raymondu999]

Brings a whole new meaning to "Shaken, not stirred"

[Pup]

I should specify, an empty martini shaker - just in case someone wants to repeat my experiment.

[Ferraripilot]

How dare you make a post that makes sense. Bravo.


To add to this, I believe thermal dynamics will work slightly different with an F1 engine's exhaust velocities. I suspect not radically different but I can forsee air attachment not being as consistent.

[Shrieker]

Fun with the kitchen torch... ...
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/j ... haust1.png
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/j ... haust2.png
I'd say they can turn that exhaust wherever they want. It's science!

Ahh...That's the stuff !

[hardingfv32]

[quote="Pup"]Fun with the kitchen torch... :twisted: ...

I hate to rain on your parade, but you have not demonstrated what is required by the current F1 rule. The rules clearly state that a 3 deg angle must be formed at the base of the exhaust pipe outlet. The first picture, while not an F1 rule representative experiment, shows no bending. In the second picture the cylinder clearly is higher than the outlet, in clear violation of the F1 rules.

Also, the cylinder is not a curved floor channel as seen on the McLaren. I have stated why I do not think the Coanda effect works with a curved floor channel. Do you have any research mentioning the Coanda Effect in curved tubing?

Are you up for discussing my points?

Brian

[Shrieker]

Good reply Brian, from what I know (VERY little) I'm tempted to say combined aero forces may not necessitate the cylinder (the shaker you mean, surely ) to be at the same level as the exit flow to attach itself to the curved aero surface.

[Pup]

Are you up for discussing my points?

No - patience exceeded. Go find a textbook, or at least read the wikipedia page or something. Jeesh.

[hardingfv32]

I'm tempted to say combined aero forces may not necessitate the cylinder to be at the same level as the exit flow to attach itself to the curved aero surface.

I would disagree. The air flow over the body is within 10 deg of parallel of the exhaust flow. I assume our goal to downward exhaust flow. This flow also has a boundary layer and unknown flow quality coming around the side pod. A best you have 3-5 inches after the exhaust pipe opining to force the exhaust downward onto the channel floor. You are trying to push down a high velocity exhaust flow, at its highest levels, with an ambient air flow of questionable quality and strength. It is not going to happen.

Brian

[volarchico]

Are you up for discussing my points?

No - patience exceeded. Go find a textbook, or at least read the wikipedia page or something. Jeesh.

I agree with Pup here. If you want to dispute the Coanda effect, go to the local library (or your own bookshelf if you've already taken those courses) and read about it. The concept is feasible.

Is that exactly what is happening and does the flow perfectly follow the cutouts in the McL et.al's exhaust body work? Probably not the whole story, but it's a good starting point.

[Richard]

Surely the exhaust plume flares after it has left nozzle to fill the channel?

Also even if it does not fill the channel, the thin layer of ambient air between the exhaust pipe and the channel will be accelerated by the exhaust plume just like the EBD?

Then the flow is attached and there will be some sort of coanda effect to fill the space behind the side pod?

[hardingfv32]

If you want to dispute the Coanda effect

To say that I challenged the Coanda Effect is just a careless (biased?) interpretation of all my statements. I can safely say, based on what has been posted, that I done more research on this subject than most of those posting.

My statement is clear: You can not make the Coanda Effect function under the 2012 F1 rule set. I have stated clear reasons which you are free to challenge.

Brian

[shelly]

brian, I think that we are not sharing the same basic ideas. If I find a good article on coanda effect with reference to round jets, I will post the link and we will start from that.
I have some doubts to iron ou about coand for myself; for example I remember reading somewhere that the classic example of the spoon being attracted to the tap water is wrong.

In the mentime, let me draw your attention to one thing: why do both mclaren and ferrari sport a convex ramp after the mandated circular exit of the exhaust pipe?
On the f2002 of 10 years ago that ramp was straight...

On the F2002 though they were trying to aim the gasses just above the suspension arms; on the current McLaren and Ferrari they're trying to aim it at the floor.

That exactly what I was pointing at, for which Pup has given a nice demo.
If there is a convex suface there, then there is the aim to make the plume follow that curve.
Great pictures Pup!

[Pup]

Just for the record, I'm not trying to ignore Brian or dismiss his question. And I know what he's arguing, but I don't know of any reason why that would be true. In fact, at the end of the day we've got the car in front of us that's obviously working, so it's sort of like arguing that the sun doesn't shine.

[hardingfv32]

nice demo???

But not on point when discussing the Coanda Effect as implemented under the 2012 F1 rule set. Not even close to relevant.

"If there is a convex surface there, then there is the aim to make the plume follow that curve"

Yes, but research what is required to make this happen. What are the 'positioning' requirements for the flow and curved surface. Can't be done under the F1 rules.

Brian