Concave Vs Convex?

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
Lightspeedrt
Lightspeedrt
0
Joined: 08 May 2010, 13:18

Re: Concave Vs Convex?

Post

http://db.tt/xdQe0VHM
http://db.tt/sAqJwNvI
http://db.tt/9nMzVFcH
http://db.tt/YHqjMQu2
http://db.tt/TFIIqQJ6

Okay guys, thankyou very much for all your help. We competed in the National Finals last week and came 3rd overall, won Best Portfolio and Fastest Qualifying lap (1.085 car time 0.126 Reaction)

This was the design we used, im curious to know your guys thoughts, as we did not win we have 8 months to prepare for next comp, i will post any rule changes when i find out but until then im pretty sure all is the same.

Thoughts?

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Re: Concave Vs Convex?

Post

can we see some more angles like head on and also the rear of the car.

Lightspeedrt
Lightspeedrt
0
Joined: 08 May 2010, 13:18

Re: Concave Vs Convex?

Post

Image
Image
Image

Not the best renders but shows the shapes.

The idea of the bell shaped front is to try and reduce flow seperation. THoughts?

User avatar
MIKEY_!
7
Joined: 10 Jul 2011, 03:07

Re: Concave Vs Convex?

Post

No curved hub caps??? I thought those were the best.

Lightspeedrt
Lightspeedrt
0
Joined: 08 May 2010, 13:18

Re: Concave Vs Convex?

Post

Curved Hub Caps? Why would they be better than flat?

kilcoo316
kilcoo316
21
Joined: 09 Mar 2005, 16:45
Location: Kilcoo, Ireland

Re: Concave Vs Convex?

Post

Erm?

I take it the rules prevent you lengthening the wheelbase and placing the tank down between the wheels?


Drag is directly proportional to frontal cross section area. :)


I would also investigate splitters that don't extend to the full height of the wheels if you are not permitted to cover the wheels. OK, you'll get some friction from the counter-rotating wheel, but it should be less than from the stagnated pockets your creating with the full height surround.

Probably terminating 2/3rds the way up or so - but that number is a bit of a guess.


Oh and I'm sure this is so obvious you've looked at it - why are the wheels so big? Smaller wheels = smaller packaging problem!

Lightspeedrt
Lightspeedrt
0
Joined: 08 May 2010, 13:18

Re: Concave Vs Convex?

Post

1. Yes, the canister is almost as low as possible, wheelbase is also about as large as possible.

2. You speak of stagnated pockets? What are these? Is this referring to pressure pockets?

3. Wheels are as small as possible

kilcoo316
kilcoo316
21
Joined: 09 Mar 2005, 16:45
Location: Kilcoo, Ireland

Re: Concave Vs Convex?

Post

Using Mikey's image:

Image


There will be a stagnated pocket after the splitter and before the wheel - at the top. It is always going to exist to some degree - your job is to make it as small as possible.

If the splitter only extended to about 2/3rds wheel height, you'd minimise this.


Do the rules restrict you to 1 canister? Could you use 2 canisters in-line with the wheels?

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Re: Concave Vs Convex?

Post

That bubble is better than an uncovered wheel. The spinning wheel has much more drag.

Light Speed Why do you float the canister like that. If you were to smooth the rest of the body into it you would have a lot less area for separation.

kilcoo316
kilcoo316
21
Joined: 09 Mar 2005, 16:45
Location: Kilcoo, Ireland

Re: Concave Vs Convex?

Post

A spinning wheel with partial splitter (as compared to the current full height splitter) may have higher skin friction drag than the full height solution.


However, in my experience that is substantially smaller than the pressure drag caused by a stagnation pocket.

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Re: Concave Vs Convex?

Post

The stagnation pocket will form a rotating bubble much like a pickup bed this will help reduce the drag.

Image

kilcoo316
kilcoo316
21
Joined: 09 Mar 2005, 16:45
Location: Kilcoo, Ireland

Re: Concave Vs Convex?

Post

Not quite the same - (1) because there is a downstream surface to act on, this region of stagnant flow will also cause (somewhat) corresponding forces to act on the wheel and (2) the reduced drag of a vertical cut is in comparison to that of a 'fast-back' car, which induces significant longitudinal vortices emanating from the region of the 3/4 panels (see the likes of the Ahmed body).

Lightspeedrt
Lightspeedrt
0
Joined: 08 May 2010, 13:18

Re: Concave Vs Convex?

Post

Ok heres some CFD images of the car.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image



I have redone the car to blend the canister into the body more like you said flyn.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image



Im still a bit weary of the idea of directing airflow into the rotation of the wheel kilcoo, surely a small region of stagnant flow is better than the drag caused by directing into a rotating wheel?

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Re: Concave Vs Convex?

Post

Lightspeedrt wrote:Ok heres some CFD images of the car.
snip..
Im still a bit weary of the idea of directing airflow into the rotation of the wheel kilcoo, surely a small region of stagnant flow is better than the drag caused by directing into a rotating wheel?

Lightspeed why not humor Kilcoo and the rest of us watching run a sim with both ideas this is what the project is really about.

I would stretch the canister out to the side pods as well eliminating the tunnel in there. Might start to have a weight issue though.

Lightspeedrt
Lightspeedrt
0
Joined: 08 May 2010, 13:18

Re: Concave Vs Convex?

Post

True :D i will run simulations on each when i get time probably late next week.

Stretching the canister all the way out would definitely create a weight issue, in your professional opinions, is this design better? Do you like the kick in the side pod?