aero spoil distance

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
User avatar
vis
0
Joined: 16 Jun 2006, 14:56
Location: Monza

aero spoil distance

Post

Just to have a clarification...

Can some of you expert aerodynamicists state what is the minimum distance where aero spoiling occurs?

I think is directly proportional on speed and aero load, so in Monza leading car with little aero load should be quite neutral on trailing car aero, at least at the distance being from Alonso to Massa.

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Post

Wake turbulence is determined by countless factors, and how the trailing car is position can matter too. If it's directly behind, or just to the side, can have a major impact. How much the lead car generates downforce, velocity, and distance are probably the main parameters in determining wake turbulence and it's effects.
Air is invisible, and since we can't see it, it goes almost unnoticed by most apart from it's effect on cars behind. In the aviation industry, the FAA recommends a four mile separation between aircraft to minimize wake turbulence.

kilcoo316
kilcoo316
21
Joined: 09 Mar 2005, 16:45
Location: Kilcoo, Ireland

Re: aero spoil distance

Post

vis wrote:Can some of you expert aerodynamicists state what is the minimum distance where aero spoiling occurs?
How long is a piece of string mate?

Its impossible to stick a distance on it.


Just on the aircraft wakes, apparently the A380 will need a 10 mile clearance! [Although that could be yet more groundless negative hype coming from supporters of a certain seattle based business]

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

Post

I do not believe the aerodynamic load infuences that much the wake length. In some other thread, the comment from kilcoo316 was that the effect from the rear wheels it is perhaps more important (it makes perfect sense to me: they move at twice the speed of the car). You can see, from the drawing posted in the features section of this site, that after two car lengths the wake is still expanding.

Image
Ciro

User avatar
vis
0
Joined: 16 Jun 2006, 14:56
Location: Monza

Post

Talking about airplanes,
if trailing plane follow leader in his wake, loses all of its lift and eventually stalls?

bh
bh
0
Joined: 24 May 2005, 23:00

Post

The wake is a big spinning vortex off each wingtip. Generally you hit part of one of those and it causes the airplane to roll with it. I've hit wake turbulence from a Learjet in a Cessna and it was just a bunch of bouncing around, much like bad weather.

kilcoo316
kilcoo316
21
Joined: 09 Mar 2005, 16:45
Location: Kilcoo, Ireland

Post

vis wrote: if trailing plane follow leader in his wake, loses all of its lift and eventually stalls?
No, it mainly just causes unsteady loading, although if your directly behind the leader you will suffer from downwash and a reduction in effective angle of attack (lift). You won't stall though.

Puma
Puma
0
Joined: 08 Sep 2006, 20:02

Re: aero spoil distance

Post

vis wrote:Just to have a clarification...

Can some of you expert aerodynamicists state what is the minimum distance where aero spoiling occurs?

I think is directly proportional on speed and aero load, so in Monza leading car with little aero load should be quite neutral on trailing car aero, at least at the distance being from Alonso to Massa.
It is possible, due to the low-downforce Monza settings, that the wake was large enough to affect Massa. That being said, if Massa isn't man enough to handle all the factors that go into a race, perhaps he needs to take up sewing instead of racing. It would seem that this falls under the heading of 'occupational hazard' and 'quit 'yer b!tching'.

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Post


mcdenife
mcdenife
1
Joined: 05 Nov 2004, 13:21
Location: Timbuck2

Post

I think is directly proportional on speed and aero load, so in Monza leading car with little aero load should be quite neutral on trailing car aero, at least at the distance being from Alonso to Massa.
Dont know. as kilcoo said how long is a piece of string. However it has been reported that it appears all the drivers had agreed on acceptable distances between each other during qualifying but that Alonso never got anywhere near them hence the reason why most, if not all, the drivers felt his penalty was ridiculous. If this is so, then the minimum distance where aero spoiling occurs becomes a moot point, no?
Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regards to matters requiring thought. The less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them; while on the other hand, to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgement upon anything new. - Galileo..

The noblest of dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.

manchild
manchild
12
Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 10:54

Post

Mosley said to Brundle that Alonso "impeeded" Massa only in Parabolica. Isn't that even stranger than "impeeding" on straight? I mean when Massa was entering Parabolica Alonso was exiting so Massa's car wasn't behind Alonso's in a way that Alonso's car could distrub aerodynamics of Massa's car at all. Cars were to distant and not in same trajectory/line/angle!

theSuit
theSuit
0
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 10:02

Post

Well, the turbulence is going to in the air throught which Alonso drove, isn't it? So unless he took another of road excursion, where else would the wake be but around the line?
And a high speed corner is were the car would suffer most from the turbulence.