The driver completely shuts off the throttle as he nears a turn on
a relatively flat surface...say at worst heading into Tosa at Enzo....
*With differentials, gearing, crosswinds, tire pressures etc.
sort of put to the side for the moment.*****
How much speed roughly would the car lose due to the aerodynamics,
(front/rear wing...diffuser, bargeboards, etc. etc. etc.)with the
throttle abruptly shut-off. In other words...would the modern
F1 car, with so much emphasis on aeros almost come to a standstill without...throttle being applied?
I realize there is a simple mathematics answer in here, in relation to
angle of each wing/aero, weight of the car, firmness/roundness of
tires, (did I say simple?)...etc. etc.
Either way it's been awhile since my brain was forced to work that
hard...
70 mph (112 km/h) is a very low speed, the deceleration releasing the throttle, at that speed, is mainly dependant by tyre rolling resistance, aero drag only would require lot of space to stop the car.
Anyway, assume a very simple model with just drag and tyre rolling resistance (I see that you want just aero but let’s make things a bit more interesting)
Drag = 0.5 rho v^2 S Cd. Rho is density, Cd is the coefficient of drag based on a reference area S is the reference area, anyway you should consider more correctly S * Cd as a single figure (i.e. when you hear the advertising “Cd for our car is world record 0.25” the data is totally useless because you don’t know how they measured it)
For tyre rolling resistance, typically the relationship used is Force = (A + B v^2) * N where A and B are two coefficients depending by the tyre and N is the vertical load.
It’s quite easy to make a small program to simulate what you want to using some educated guesses for the variables, I did it a while ago, here a few results :
Assume a setup allowing to reach 320 km/h, if the driver releases throttle at top speed, without touching the brake pedal you have (between brackets the result if tyre rolling resistance is zero) :
320 – 300 km/h in 0.64 s (0.72) and 55 m. (62)
320 – 200 km/h in 5.07 s (5.72) and 354 m. (400)
320 – 100 km/h in 17.8 s (20.7) and 846 m. (978)
320 – 0 km/h in 97.8 s (-) and 1595 m. (-)
Peak acceleration = –10.95 m/s2 = -1.11 g. (– 9.65 m/s2 = -0.98 g.)
320-0 without rolling resistance is obviously meaningless, as I already said, under 100 km/h drag is so low that the car would require ages to stop.
Just to add another aero setup, if the top speed now is 350 km/h you have :
350 – 300 km/h in 1.71 s (1.96) and 154 m. (177)
350 – 200 km/h in 7.47 s (8.55) and 543 m. (622)
350 – 100 km/h in 23.7 s (28.3) and 1171 m. (1382)
350 – 0 km/h in 111.4 s (-)and 2038 m. (-)
Peak acceleration = –10.02 m/s2 = -1.02 g. (–8.715 m/s2 = -0.88 g)
Obviously consider the approximations in the variables so use it just as a reference.
I used to be able to think in these terms...still understand most of it.
Jog the old memory...
Thanks Reca. The answer came out as I expected it would.
Just nice to have it put into terms of science and/or it's so
complex that anyone who would argue would first have to be in
possesion of a brain.
If anyone else wants to add further...wouldn't hurt my feelings.
