On the fifth day of testing at Jerez de la Frontera, Williams F1 Team driver Kazuki Nakajima was the fastest man on track with a lap time of 1:17.494. McLaren's Heikki Kovalainen clocked a fastest lap of 1:17.933.
only where there is bodywork directly above it i believe - extra areas of floor that are outside the footprint of the bodywork are allowed to not be flat.vall wrote:do I se correctly that the corners of the floor are curved up? Especially, on the front side of the cut. Is that legal? Isn't the floor supposed to be flat?
If they are still using paint & birdcages at this late stage then IMO there CFD modelling/simulation software that they use to design new parts is still not programmed correctly. Fundamentally they don’t appear to understand and be able to model the cars aero performance and the interaction of the various components. McLaren are supposed to redesign every new part for there cars every 20 minutes. At the moment they seem to be designing ‘blind’ with the new aero parts leaving the factory with a lot of crossed fingers that they will improve the cars performance.natef1 wrote:McLaren back to their old tricks
It's only flow visulisation, i dont think it means they have severe problems... It means they want to see what the air is doing around the car.vall wrote:Macca improved a bit, but from the paint one can say that they still have severe problems and the new parts again did not work quite as expected?
Either that or they are not testing components together hence they paint/oil to determine/predict how the components will interact when they are all on the car. I dont this will happen till thursday when they have the track to themselves and which may be private so there may not be any photos. This means we probably wont see their definitive package till Oz.Fundamentally they don’t appear to understand and be able to model the cars aero performance and the interaction of the various components.
But surely that’s what CFD is supposed to do for the aero guys. They should be able to see the airflow on their monitors, alter the shape of the diffuser, rear wing, etc and observer how the flow changes.mcdenife wrote:Either that or they are not testing components together hence they paint/oil to determine/predict how the components will interact when they are all on the car. I dont this will happen till thursday when they have the track to themselves and which may be private so there may not be any photos. This means we probably wont see their definitive package till Oz.Fundamentally they don’t appear to understand and be able to model the cars aero performance and the interaction of the various components.
It'll be a combination of boundary conditions being incorrect and simple modelling limitations. Mainly boundary conditions - I would suspect the tyre deformations as its the big change from last year to this.Shaddock wrote:I’m no expert with CFD, but I’m guessing that they will have to reprogram this software once they work out which aero factor(s) they have missed out of the their aero model or which part of the algorithm they need to re factor so this becomes a reliable tool once more.
Well yes, they will see the airflow on their monitors but that is just the design phase and if it was that simple, there will be no need for testing. They still need to test how the part a) behaves in service and b) how it interacts with other components etc.But surely that’s what CFD is supposed to do for the aero guys. They should be able to see the airflow on their monitors, alter the shape of the diffuser, rear wing, etc and observer how the flow changes.
yeap, this is it. What I do not understand is that last few years they had the best aero package, so the CFD worked. The CFD code doesn't really care what you plug into it. One should be able to model accurately the flow on any surface, of course if it is not very complex. It seems to me that this year with the simplified bodywork, CFD should give more accurate results. Last year there were all these ugly wing, winglets, appendices, etc. which to me should runnign make CFD more unreliable? But, I am not an expert. Should someone with the knowledge comment on the differences to run CFD now and previous years?But surely that’s what CFD is supposed to do for the aero guys. They should be able to see the airflow on their monitors, alter the shape of the diffuser, rear wing, etc and observer how the flow changes.
Possibly the same explanation with Brawn Gp doubters and Lewis Hamilton followers: non-comparable as in different weight, day, car ie..Moanlower wrote:I wonder what explanation the Piquet critasters will have now...
Unfortunately, no, it really, really, really cares what you put into it.vall wrote:The CFD code doesn't really care what you plug into it.
Its all in the boundary conditions you use.vall wrote: Should someone with the knowledge comment on the differences to run CFD now and previous years?
Maybe some part of the software algorithm is out of its operating limits, similar to Hooke's law due to the comprehensive rule changes. The bird cage and the paint experiments still emphasise the fact that they don’t trust what they are seeing on the monitors back in the office.vall wrote:yeap, this is it. What I do not understand is that last few years they had the best aero package, so the CFD worked. The CFD code doesn't really care what you plug into it. One should be able to model accurately the flow on any surface, of course if it is not very complex. It seems to me that this year with the simplified bodywork, CFD should give more accurate results. Last year there were all these ugly wing, winglets, appendices, etc. which to me should runnign make CFD more unreliable? But, I am not an expert. Should someone with the knowledge comment on the differences to run CFD now and previous years?But surely that’s what CFD is supposed to do for the aero guys. They should be able to see the airflow on their monitors, alter the shape of the diffuser, rear wing, etc and observer how the flow changes.
Me feeling is that the car has some fundamental problems that make the whole package not working. Not that mechanical, aero, etc., taken individually are bad, but rather when put together the package doesn't work. I may be wrong
Mmm... this made me think about how wind tunnels work. Please note that I am severely allergic to labs, and that I'm no engineer, so I've never been told how these things are supposed to be.kilcoo316 wrote:* the tyres in a tunnel are independent of the chassis aero loading - so the teams control how they react through the stings.
