Is Aerodynamic Design influenced by the Animal Kingdom?

[godlameroso]

....
Better aerodynamically is a stretch, maybe in a specific fixed condition sure.
....

Indeed, birds are aerodynamically better suited to flying than F1 cars are. Who could have imagined.

What argument are you making now? Originally you started with stating F1 cars use aerodynamic appendages that are found on birds. You showed several pictures of birds and cars with similar looking shapes on them but that clearly serve different purposes. You were shown evidence to the contrary and you have still not provided anything to back up your claims. What do you want? Discussion would require more than you making blind assertions without evidence.

The only studies are for fixed wings done in the 80's, and CFD is difficult to do due to the complexity of their wings, so good luck with that. I haven't seen any compelling evidence to counter my claims.

And since I know you guys are a little short on imagination, here I inverted this image to show more than a passing resemblance to a diffuser. You can even see the low pressure "lifting" the feathers.



Obviously a few differences, due to it's large wingspan relative to it's body (1.4m) this golden eagle doesn't need a concave diffuser, a convex one works just fine, also the feathers reduce separation. In this image the bird has just picked up a 1kg fish and is flying off with it.

More interesting is the curve from the bird's body to it's wing tips, it's almost like it's exploiting the "infinity wing" principle. In that the path the air takes maximizes surface area of the control surfaces. The diffusers on F1 cars take a similar path spilling on either side of the central section and taken on a curve via the keels in the diffuser. The longer path increases the surface area virtually.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8BufOqfZlE

[Vanja #66]

godlameroso, there are differences and similarities in bird feathers and diffuser, but not the way you imagine it. Bird feathers bend because of wingtip vortex, diffuser ends are bent to enhance the vortices in it. Also to energize the flow on diffuser trailing edge and give it a bit more juice.

If I remember it correctly, Red Bull introduced arched front wing design in 2010. Ever since then this shape is used more and more on every F1 car. There are structural and aerodynamic benefits to it, as we know. Was Newey's crew inspired by birds? Could be. But it makes more sense to me that everything else after that is inspired by this initial design.

[johnny comelately]

Is there Braille available for the against camp?

[godlameroso]

Haters gonna hate. I've been on this planet long enough to see truth really does go through 3 stages, ridicule, violent opposition, and it being seen as self evident. Some of us are getting to stage 2 now.

[Just_a_fan]

Doubtful about -ve "14G", J-a-f - but certainly back in the day - the WWII Hawker Tempest fighter was also built to hack a +ve 14G "max loading" too - to preserve the pilot, even if he'd momentarily 'blacked out'.

& FWIW, the R-B race planes carry G-telemetry which disqualify the pilot who exceeds the rules set G-factor..

Source of the loading figures: http://airrace.redbull.com/en_US/article/planes

[Just_a_fan]

Obviously a few differences, due to it's large wingspan relative to it's body (1.4m) this golden eagle doesn't need a concave diffuser, a convex one works just fine, also the feathers reduce separation. In this image the bird has just picked up a 1kg fish and is flying off with it.

More interesting is the curve from the bird's body to it's wing tips, it's almost like it's exploiting the "infinity wing" principle. In that the path the air takes maximizes surface area of the control surfaces. The diffusers on F1 cars take a similar path spilling on either side of the central section and taken on a curve via the keels in the diffuser. The longer path increases the surface area virtually.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8BufOqfZlE

The eagle doesn't need a "diffuser" at all, and indeed does not have one. It has a streamlined body, yes, but that streamlining isn't to generate lift, it's to reduce drag.

F1 diffusers are shaped the way they are because of the rules. They have a lower central section with raised side sections because the rules effectively require it to be so. If there was no stepped underside rule in F1, the cars would all have flat bottoms with full width diffusers just as they used to. Where on your eagle would that structure be found?

[Just_a_fan]

Haters gonna hate. I've been on this planet long enough to see truth really does go through 3 stages, ridicule, violent opposition, and it being seen as self evident. Some of us are getting to stage 2 now.

When are you going to get to stage 3?

[godlameroso]

Haters gonna hate. I've been on this planet long enough to see truth really does go through 3 stages, ridicule, violent opposition, and it being seen as self evident. Some of us are getting to stage 2 now.

When are you going to get to stage 3?

Been there for a few years waiting on ya'll.

[godlameroso]

Obviously a few differences, due to it's large wingspan relative to it's body (1.4m) this golden eagle doesn't need a concave diffuser, a convex one works just fine, also the feathers reduce separation. In this image the bird has just picked up a 1kg fish and is flying off with it.

More interesting is the curve from the bird's body to it's wing tips, it's almost like it's exploiting the "infinity wing" principle. In that the path the air takes maximizes surface area of the control surfaces. The diffusers on F1 cars take a similar path spilling on either side of the central section and taken on a curve via the keels in the diffuser. The longer path increases the surface area virtually.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8BufOqfZlE

The eagle doesn't need a "diffuser" at all, and indeed does not have one. It has a streamlined body, yes, but that streamlining isn't to generate lift, it's to reduce drag.

F1 diffusers are shaped the way they are because of the rules. They have a lower central section with raised side sections because the rules effectively require it to be so. If there was no stepped underside rule in F1, the cars would all have flat bottoms with full width diffusers just as they used to. Where on your eagle would that structure be found?

The whole bird is aero surfaces. Still waiting on some radical bit of info I'm not already painfully aware of from your end. Or even something factually correct

Bird aero surfaces are concerned with flow control. They're active surfaces and whose lift and drag coefficients are varied according to the situation. When a white tail eagle picks up a small deer it's not concerned with drag but maximum lift.

[Just_a_fan]

They're active surfaces and whose lift and drag coefficients are varied according to the situation.

And as has been pointed out already, F1 cars are not active and their lift and drag coefficients don't vary according to the situation (DRS excepted).

If F1 cars were allowed to be active, they wouldn't make them look like eagles...

[godlameroso]

They're active surfaces and whose lift and drag coefficients are varied according to the situation.

And as has been pointed out already, F1 cars are not active and their lift and drag coefficients don't vary according to the situation (DRS excepted).

If F1 cars were allowed to be active, they wouldn't make them look like eagles...

Of course not, you act like I don't know that F1 cars are designed around boxes. Yes I'm aware the shapes allowed are constrained by things like the transmission and suspension, and driveshafts, and tires and uprights and legality boxes. Then it basically constrains parts on the cars to similar Re# to most bird wings. Except you're not trying to make downforce with one part of the car but with the car as a whole, much like birds have feathers that operate at different Re# than the wing as a whole.

I will agree with you that birds aren't the only inspiration for shapes on F1 cars, but disagree with the claim that they're not at all. For instance, the outwash tunnels on most front wings, I'm stumped on that to find any form in nature that mimics that, maybe some aquatic lifeform. The little flick ups on the floor behind the sidepod endplates remind me of a sting-ray.

[PhillipM]

Apart from those flickups are there to take advantage of the massive flow of air pushed out of the way by the sidepods and bargeboards...

As has already been said, you can't just assume something that looks similar is performing anything like the same function.
Jaffa Cakes look a bit like wheels but I ain't gonna bolt them on my car.

[3jawchuck]

....
I will agree with you that birds aren't the only inspiration for shapes on F1 cars, but disagree with the claim that they're not at all.
....

I think the majority of people here wouldn't argue that (is anybody?) Nature gives inspiration to many engineering fields, that's well documented.

You don't seem to be arguing that nature can influence aerodynamic development though. You seem to be arguing that birds etc. are better at aerodynamics than the people who develop F1 cars (the "bird brained" designers as you called them). This is laughably obviously not the case, as has been pointed out to you numerous times.

The only proof you have ever posted are images of parts of various creatures that look similar to aerodynamic appendages on certain F1 cars. You don't explain or justify these comparisons and refuse to prove what you claim with flippancy. Remember, you're the one making the claim, it is your job to prove said claim.

[Vyssion]

Just to add to the animal influences, don't these look a lot like louvres...?

[godlameroso]

Just to add to the animal influences, don't these look a lot like louvres...?

https://imgur.com/HlazxnX.png

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f8/80/7e ... e7e73f.jpg

Yep Alonso's title wining car had them on the side pods as well