Some info on the R18 (old one) wind tunnel data
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsnov10.html
You do realize that the standard units for anything scientific is the metric system and not the imperial.Speed_Demon wrote:I only ever seen this formula in metric measurements??? Does anybody have one in standard units (sq/ft. , lbs)?
rscsr wrote:You do realize that the standard units for anything scientific is the metric system and not the imperial.Speed_Demon wrote:I only ever seen this formula in metric measurements??? Does anybody have one in standard units (sq/ft. , lbs)?
But nonetheless you can just get it yourself.
1m=3.28084ft
1kg=2.20462lbs
so with this you can "replace" every meter and kg in the formula and you get the factor you have to multiply the result of your units to get the real result. (7.233 in this case, because the result is [m*kg/s²]=[3.28ft*2.20lbs/s²]=[7.233*ft*lbs/s²]=[N])
True as how it would interact with the vehicles body would affect the result. The only standard formula I've seen, "racecar aerodynamics book" was lift lbs = .00256 *CL*wing area (sq.ft.)*mph(squared)..it seemed to simplified as it didn't have a factor for the air density or AoA. I guess the formula assumed standard atomospheric conditions at sea level and that the cl was at that angle (from a CL/alpha graph)?elpelucas wrote:It is based on purely experimental values, there is no way to determine downforce unless using a CFD solver / wind tunnel.
N, or at (an incorrect) stretch kg, seem most common. Except in the US, of course.Speed_Demon wrote:Most sports car downforce #s in magazines are given in lbs. so I wanted to keep it lbs for comparison sake.