Hello I'm doing a research on aerodynamics! Please HELP ME!!

[button]

Aerodynamics

Aerodynamics in Formula 1 is often described as a black art, the real secret to success on the track. Head of Aerodynamics Mark Gillan explains that the answer is blowing in the wind.

First and foremost, aerodynamics is the science of manipulating and making use of air flow. In Formula 1, high speeds mean the air is a formidable force and it can be used to the car’s advantage, as well as presenting an obstacle to speed.

Put simply, the bigger the frontal area of an object, the more wind resistance it will encounter, so a bigger object will travel slower than a smaller object with the same amount of power to propel it.

As always in Formula 1, things are not that simple. Downforce complicates matters, because wind resistance can be used to improve a car’s performance, if the forces are transferred in the right way to provide extra grip around corners.

AERODYNAMICS: THE LIFE-COSTING FACTOR!

Over the years aero dynamics has been a very important aspect.
In fact it has been the life essence of formula 1, not only in recent years
It has helped teams win races, championship’s and contrustor’s it has also took many life’s, from F1 people , track marshall’s and also the innocent spectators. Is aerodynamics truly determined in Formula 1 or is it truly a black art which is life-costing?

My Name is Vijay Rao and I am from Lim Kok Wing University College in Malaysia. I am doing a research on Aerodynamics Problems (fatality and safety) in FORMULA 1. Please fill in these questionnaires so that I could complete my research and to come out with a conclusion based on your information’s. THANK YOU










1. Over the years there were many tragedies occurred in GP’s around the world and also till date. Do you think that in most of the tragedies aerodynamics has played a big role? Please elaborate:





2. Is aerodynamic failure is a part of the cause of ayrton senna’s death and does aerodynamic failure also play’s a role in Robert Kubica of BMW Sauber’s recent horrific crash in Canadian GP in July 2007?




3. What are the real aerodynamic problems, teams are dealing with today and why is that? Please elaborate:






4. In recent years wind tunnels and computational Fluid Dynamics has become very important in aerodynamics research & development. Has both of this factors been effective in race research & development and safety research & development or it has only been effective in race development only? Please explain:





5. Please explain on how things were and how they went in this four different Formula 1 era’s and with four different aerodynamic packages, whether it was safe or life threatening and whether it was safe for the people around the car, and your opinion on all of this cars aerodynamic packages and which one do you think is the safest till date? Please elaborate:

a) 1950's-1960's













b)1960's-1980's
















c)1980's-2000's


















d)2000's-till date












6. To conclude this topic what is your opinion on the current aero-package and will the aerodynamic issue in F1 be a more life saving than life costing?












THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!!!!!!

[scarbs]

That's a lot of basic questions for someone choosing to write on the subject? Here's some pointers but you have a lot research to do to follow this up.

Scarbs...


1. Over the years there were many tragedies occurred in GP’s around the world and also till date. Do you think that in most of the tragedies aerodynamics has played a big role? Please elaborate:
I don’t see that except in a few specific cases (e.g. Senna) Aerodynamics contribute directly to accidents. However as Aero makes the cars faster you could say that it is a secondary factor. But to counter that argument in the 60’s 70’s the lack of knowledge of aero made the cars unstable at high speed and probably contributed as a secondary cause of an accident.

2. Is aerodynamic failure is a part of the cause of ayrton senna’s death and does aerodynamic failure also play’s a role in Robert Kubica of BMW Sauber’s recent horrific crash in Canadian GP in July 2007?
Senna’s crash was never conclusively proven, but the consensus is that the car grounded as it approached tamburello, due to the tyres being low on pressure from the safety car period. The design across the underfloor at the time was flat, thus if ground clearance was reduced then it is possible for the diffuser to choke and stall, dramatically reducing downforce. So we can say that the one of the causes of the accident was aero. Subsequent rules changes created the plank and stepped floor to prevent the diffuser choking.
As I recall Kubica crash started with him avoiding another car and running wide, the ensuing crash was worsened by the fact that the car flipped up over the kerb making the initial impact with the wall awkward and reducing the effectiveness of the nose cone (in fact it flew off). As the car jumped a kerb I am not sure if this was a aero factor or simply the physics of a fast moving car hitting a small ramped object(the kerb). I don’t see aero considerations as a cause of his accident.

3. What are the real aerodynamic problems, teams are dealing with today and why is that? Please elaborate:
The main issues for a team with aerodynamics is making the car produce less drag for the given amount of downforce, balanced with the car making that downforce at different attitudes. i.e. different ride heights, roll\yaw angles and with the wheels steered.
The aero issues in F1 for the FIA are two fold: the look of the car and the more important issue of sensitivity to allow overtaking.

4. In recent years wind tunnels and computational Fluid Dynamics has become very important in aerodynamics research & development. Has both of this factors been effective in race research & development and safety research & development or it has only been effective in race development only? Please explain:
I am not aware of any directly safety related aero tests, most of the recent work has been focussed around overtaking. The FIA did carry out safety tests on Sports prototypes after the Mercedes blow-overs at Le Mans in the nineties.

5. Please explain on how things were and how they went in this four different Formula 1 era’s and with four different aerodynamic packages, whether it was safe or life threatening and whether it was safe for the people around the car, and your opinion on all of this cars aerodynamic packages and which one do you think is the safest till date? Please elaborate:

a) 1950's-1960's
Very little aero knowledge, teams aimed for low drag the notion of downforce wasn’t understood. Thus cars were unstable at high speed and lacked any aero grip.
b)1960's-1980's
As Cars developed wings the first issue was mechanical frailty in which they were attached to the cars. Suspension mounted wings were banned and teams took time to return to chassis mounted wings. Still knowledge of aero was limited and the cars were not stable.
By the seventies things improved to the point where ground effects were introduced. This gave the cars huge downforce, by were particularly sensitive to damaged skirts and\or riding kerbs. Also the general aerofoil shape of the cars made blow-overs possible, the accidents and death\injury to the Ferrari drivers (1982) were so severe due to the shape of the car. Equally cornering speeds were too high for the cars and track Jochen Mass’ French GP (Ricard) accident was so extreme due to high cornering speeds form the aero.
The flat bottom rules of the mid eighties improved things as downforce was lower and there was more knowledge of aero from wind tunnel testing
c)1980's-2000's
As the teams knowledge of aero grew things got to a difficult phase where the flat bottom cars and active technologies increased speed and sensitivity. The 1994 rules banned active but had not countered the sensitivity issue. Many accidents ensued and the rules started to reduce downforce from stepped floors, smaller wings and diffusers.
This lead to the problem of overtaking (well partly contributed to it) where cars are creating aggressive upwashes and turbulent wakes. This poor onset flow with its reduced energy really stops the aero of the following car from working, making the close following of another car through a turn impossible.

6. To conclude this topic what is your opinion on the current aero-package and will the aerodynamic issue in F1 be a more life saving than life costing?
F1 aero needs to be simplified and de-sensitised. I do not agree with moveable aero to create this. The wing and diffuser plan areas are too small and the angles of attack too steep. This makes the aero too aggressive. We need to return to large draggy wings, with low angles of attack. Both to reduce downforce (but not drag) and flatten out the upwash. The pre-occupation with the media on the influence of bargeboards and smaller aero parts is wrong, is the bigger picture that needs addressing.

[checkered]

My Name is Vijay Rao and I am from Lim Kok Wing University College in Malaysia. I am doing a research on Aerodynamics Problems (fatality and safety) in FORMULA 1. Please fill in these questionnaires so that I could complete my research and to come out with a conclusion based on your information’s. THANK YOU

Hi Vijay, that's

potentially a very challenging subject. I don't know what you mean by research, exactly (assignment, course, paper, project, thesis?), and thus can't really tell what kind of information really is applicable to your task at hand. Is this questionnaire in F1Technical somehow the backbone of your research or do you expect to expand on this? There are certainly very different perspectives to take. And these would of course depend on the field of study you're in.

If it's strictly the cars' aerodynamics and the correlations of developments thereof with accidents (malfunctions, controllability, performance, etc.) you might even want to interview a seasoned aerodynamicist with lots of experience in F1. They're bound to have the best insight into what phenomena have taken them by surprise in an adverse way over the years. By extension everything else has a secondary effect, all the way to things like kerb design and weather conditions.

I'm not going to answer your questions specifically. Scarbs did an excellent job, clearly a lot of effort (and needless to say knowledge and experience), and I don't know what and how I could by my own merit add to that in my own words. What I can suggest are a few resources where you could wean information for qualitative and quantitative analysis if you want to add to F1Technical messageboard's voluntary contribution.

1) FIA Institute for Motor Sport Safety (link)

The objective of the FIA Institute is to promote improvements in the safety of motor sport by supporting and disseminating the results of research; supporting training of officials, circuit and race personnel in safety procedures, practices and the use of equipment; supporting the protection of participants, officials and members of the public at international motor sport events and monitoring motor sport safety trends in order to identify research and regulation priorities.

An extensive website featuring lots of publications, some of which you may find useful. Potentially contacts to be interviewed.

2) A Study by the FIA: Circuits and Safety Department, Atlas F1 (Autosport) (link)

This document indicates the development of Formula One racing and the corresponding increase in the number of race incidents, over the period 1963-99, in which unprecedented advances in the application of technology and aerodynamics to the cars produced remarkable potential for increasing performance. It shows for each period considered the continuous action taken by the FIA and the Formula One Teams in developing and applying measures to progressively contain the consequences of accidents, latterly achieving levels of risk which are minimal for participants and negligible for spectators.

Safety developments vs. accidents at a glance. Very informative and compact.

3) Wikipedia: List of Formula One fatal accidents (link)

This is a list of Formula One fatal accidents, which consists of all the drivers who have died during a FIA World Championship race weekend, or elsewhere while driving a Formula One car. It does not include track marshals and other race attendees. 45 drivers have died in this fashion, 32 during a World Championship race weekend, 9 during a test session and 4 during a non-championship Formula One event.

Not really the absolute best source to refer in academic work, but a good starting point to evaluate examples if you want to do case studies of specific well known accidents.

I trust that when your research is finished you'll publish it here or post a link, if possible.

[zac510]

I hope you don't have the preconceived belief that aerodynamics causes these accidents.

[Tom]

1. Over the years there were many tragedies occurred in GP’s around the world and also till date. Do you think that in most of the tragedies aerodynamics has played a big role? Please elaborate:

No tradgedies in formula one have been caused by aerodynamics (thats like saying do you think gravity is the biggest cause of fatalities in skydivers) what causes the fatalities is quite simply the people who engineered the components didn't understand enough about it, the designers cut corners to save weight or the team owners cut costs.

2. Is aerodynamic failure is a part of the cause of ayrton senna’s death and does aerodynamic failure also play’s a role in Robert Kubica of BMW Sauber’s recent horrific crash in Canadian GP in July 2007?

It is widly accepted that Senna's crash was caused by the car bottoming out on the ground due to low tyre pressure. Kubica's crash was caused by contact with another vehicle at extremely high speeds.

3. What are the real aerodynamic problems, teams are dealing with today and why is that? Please elaborate:

Teams are dealing with trying to create enough aerodynamic downforce (grip) to keep the car on the road at high speeds without compramising the strict regulations enforced by the FIA.

4. In recent years wind tunnels and computational Fluid Dynamics has become very important in aerodynamics research & development. Has both of this factors been effective in race research & development and safety research & development or it has only been effective in race development only? Please explain:

The teams own wind tunnels and CFD development should have nothing to do with the car safety, the sports governing body have their own research department to keep the aerodynamic regulations as safe as possible.

5. Please explain on how things were and how they went in this four different Formula 1 era’s and with four different aerodynamic packages, whether it was safe or life threatening and whether it was safe for the people around the car, and your opinion on all of this cars aerodynamic packages and which one do you think is the safest till date? Please elaborate:

a) 1950's-1960's

Aerodynamics in this era were basic, far more of the companys efforts being put towards a good engine and chassis. Up until the end of the decade the cars aerodynamics were barely considered beyond keeping the engine cool. Safety was of very little importance with many drivers not even wearing seatbelts. Stirling Moss at first refused to wear a helmet.

b)1960's-1980's

This is a big time period, at the start of the 60s designers started thinking about keeping the cars low to avoid unwanted drag and keep the weight low. All though their is evidence of little flip ups on cars as early as the Lotus 25 it wasn't till the late 60s that aerofoils and real wings started appearing on the cars. Some drivers and spectators were killed when the struts supporting the wings failed causing the cars to lose control, although the factor of safety on those struts wasn't comparable to those of modern cars. Aerodynamic grip became very much the way forward in the late 70s with Lotus introducing 'ground effects' in 1978. This was the most dangerous aerodynamic influence as under certain conditions the cars could become significantly aeroborne. For this reason the device was banned in the sport.

c)1980's-2000's

Another big time period; Flat bottoms became the norm in the 80s, combined with vulnerable active suspension these were considered dangerous as the cars would bottom out alot. Aerodynamics became much simpler in the last decade and alot safer than ever before.

d)2000's-till date

No accident has occured due to anything other than catastrophic component failure, which can affect any part of the car. (see Hamilton, Nurburgring qualifying)

6. To conclude this topic what is your opinion on the current aero-package and will the aerodynamic issue in F1 be a more life saving than life costing?

Without aerodynamics no driver in F1 would ever reach the third turn. To suggest that current aero regs do anything other than save lives is proposterus.

[Tom]

Its very hard to complete that questionare accurately as you don't define exactly what you mean by aerodynamics. Anything that moves inside the earths aptmosphere (unless its in a vacum) is subject to aerodynamics. It is as much a part of life as gravity, waves and rain. Each of these have caused many deaths, far more than aerodynamics in formula 1.

Without meaning to sound the least bt rude, how much do you actually know about either F1 or Aerodynamics?

[Ciro Pabón]

Long questionnaire, short answer for question 1:

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Re ... 02-01.html

When I have time (around November 2017) I'll tackle the other questions.

Anything that moves inside the earths aptmosphere...

I guess Tom is ruling out the "ineptmosphere"...

[SZ]

vijay;

this reads more or less like a survey that you're hoping others will answer, and that you'll be able to use these answers to constitute an assignment. in other words:

- you're hoping others will do the work for you
- you're about to pull your answers from a particularly unsubstantiated source

if you hand any of this in as part of an assignment, i'd personally hope your lecturer/supervisor/tutor crucifies you.

from the aerodynamics end, you either have a limited understanding/limited ability to synthesise pertinent road vehicle aerodynamics issues and race vehicle accidents, or you have a good understanding/ability with the topic and a poor ability to communicate it. i'd suggest you work on appreciating that first and foremost, aerodynamics doesn't kill. take zac510's advice on this. impact following an accident might, but aerodynamics does not kill. if you want to focus on how or why aerodynamic forces can lead to an undesirable situation on road or track, you need to study up on aerodynamic and general vehicle stability; particularly the interactions between the two. some back-of-the-envelope calcs will give you some rough indicators of what key parameters you need to watch for, e.g. vehicle speed, Cg, COP, etc (i won't list the rest). some further research on your own part will quickly get you some situations which may likely lead to accidents given other prevailing factors.

there are many, many books and research papers on this. many are freely available on the net. google, google scholar, and whatever else online resources your university has.

if you want to be really cluey to show you can structure your research, you might use a structures, predictive failure tool to try and tag some quantitative element, e.g. a FMEA.

then you might try to synthesize this knowledge in terms of what's pertinent to F1 (or any other racing class). you might draw on aerodynamic test procedures in F1 that reflect elements of vehicle stability.

finally you might come back to the community here with a bunch of factors that you think might lead to a particular kind of accident - which include key factors involving aerodynamic forces as you'd have researched - and you might ask around for some accidents in the past in F1 or other disciplines that match those critera to consider as examples that you'd analyze with your newly developed knowledge.

done properly - and by that i mean researched properly too - that'd be a significant assignment for a subject in a penultimate-to-final year undergraduate course. it is a lot of work. if you want something easier to structure, you might choose a single accident in recent times in any motorsport discipline that involved aerodynamic factors, and then deconstruct that. a few come to mind immediately, but so does the notion that they're a few clicks away from you without me (or anyone else) prompting you - so try yourself.

the real brilliance in any engineering student isn't in regurgitating others' information, but to develop their own genius in synthesizing as much.