The Ultimate Racing Car

[MIKEY_!]

i like that a lot

[andylaurence]

There's an interesting article in the current Racecar Engineering magazine which gives the advantages in downforce and aero efficiency that could be had from shrouding the wheels of a single seater....

My latest take on the concept (with cleaner air to the rear wing courtesy of a canopy over the driver):-

Great minds think alike. I emailed the author of the article to ask him whether he'd considered a closed canopy and how much difference it'd make. I also suggested a multi-element front wing rather than front wheel covers.

[Sombrero]

The best thing in 1993 after the WSCC cancellation would have been to take the WSC 3.5L regulation for... F-1. This old Jaguar XJR-14 (1991-1992) looks better than any F-1 or LMP ever since...

[mzivtins]

For ultimate race car, why would we have front wings or rear wings? i would love to see the downforce creating devices (read: wings) mounted to the un-sprung sections of a car, since effective downforce has to work through suspension, so removed that barrier altogether would be amazing!

I would make everything total loss, so a lovely engine that would have peak power so high it would only last one weekend, and i love the idea previously mentioned about using a turbine for on-tap pressure for the turbo... or even better what ferrari invented years ago... turbo compounding

If you could move the 'wings' away from the centreline of the car, it would leave such a nice amount of good air for your nose/floor

[skgoa]

But you don't want to have unnecessary weight on your unsprung parts. You want them to be as compliant as possible.

[Jersey Tom]

But you don't want to have unnecessary weight on your unsprung parts. You want them to be as compliant as possible.

Putting them on the sprung mass requires extremely high spring rates for platform control.

[olefud]

But you don't want to have unnecessary weight on your unsprung parts. You want them to be as compliant as possible.

Aero down force has no mass. The only added mass would be the rather minimal aero structure Jim hall's early Chaparrals. Granted that some of the early suspension-mounted wings were a bit flimsy.

[skgoa]

You do realize that downforce is a force acting down on the car?

[allstaruk08]

"Aero down force has no mass" surely that isn't true as downforce wouldn't increase as speed increases if that was the case

[flynfrog]

You do realize that downforce is a force acting down on the car?

and how do you think that force reacts through the tires?

[thisisatest]

downforce has force but not mass. so the suspension will be able to react quickly and upset the sprung mass less than one with high unsprung mass.
it would be interesting to analyze how the car would handle curbing. if the curb forces the wing in an upward trajectory quickly enough, would its effective AoA be enough to stall the wing? and how quickly will it recover?
how would rebound damping be set up, if for chassis motions the damper needs to control a relatively light spring, and for wheel motions relative to the direction of travel it needs enough resistance to control a very hard spring (hundreds of pounds of downforce)?

[allstaruk08]

"downforce has force but not mass." so downforce produces mass but has no mass? (just trying to understand since im pretty inexperienced with aero subjects)

[hollus]

F=m*a
Think about that formula for a while.
Mass creates force (through gravity, downwards).
Force can occur independently of the mass involved.

[Tommy Cookers]

"downforce has force but not mass." so downforce produces mass but has no mass? (just trying to understand since im pretty inexperienced with aero subjects)

in principle, downforce is not to be regarded as without mass under these dynamic conditions (ie working the suspension)

there will be an equivalent inertial 'added mass', it is calculable

with air it will be very small, not so with eg water eg in the case of a hydrofoil

BTW the varying AofA looks interesting, there could even be lift

[allstaruk08]

i think i get it. like the theory that a formula 1 car could go upside down, if downforce created mass it would drop? but the downforce is creating a force greater than the mass of the car so the car would (theoretically) stick to the ceiling? is that right