Model Scale - Windtunnels and Windshear

[strad]

http://www.windshearinc.com/services/se ... m#Services

Opened in September of 2008, Windshear’s 180-mph rolling-road wind tunnel is the first of its kind in North America, and only the third rolling road wind tunnel of its scale in existence. More importantly, it is the world’s first commercially available, full-scale, rolling-road wind tunnel of its type.

Windshear operates the one-of-a-kind facility 10 hours a day, 5 days a week, with a staff of 12. The facility is available for hire to all motor sports teams and auto manufacturers,-b] providing services previously available only to top Formula 1 teams.[/b]

The wind tunnel accommodates full-scale vehicles, and provides constant airspeeds up to 180 mph, with temperatures controlled to within 1ºF. The high-tech rolling road is 10.5 feet wide by 29.5 feet long, and able to accelerate from zero to 180 mph in less than one minute. The “road” is actually a continuous stainless steel belt just one millimeter thick, and it is designed to last up to 5,000 operational hours. If a vehicle remained on the belt the entire 5,000 hours, it would “travel” approximately 300,000 to 400,000 kilometers (186,000 to 248,000 miles). During testing, “through-the-belt” sensors measure the aerodynamic down force under each tire.

[elFranZ]

Did anyone notice the photos they posted on twitter today??? Looks like an F2006 with this seasons's livery, parked between human's car. Strange timing...

[hardingfv32]

But, please, by all means regale us in detailed stories of your visits to every wind tunnel in the world. Perhaps we'll indeed draw the same educated conclusion if you just give us a chance to share in your wealth of firsthand knowledge on the subject.

Now, now, only stating the facts. View then at your pleasure.

Brian

[amouzouris]

I would say it is 100% because none of these customers can afford inferior 60% models.

As usual your logic is flawed. While it is true that an actual car will be physically more accurate than a 60% model, testing an actual car in any 'existing' 100% tunnel has no where near the accuracy of a 60% model in a 60% tunnel. That is a fact.

The fact that all the major F1 teams have 50 or 60% tunnels establishes the validity of my claim.

Brian

Why would using the physical car, in a 100% WT; be less accurate than using the 60% model in a 60% WT? You don't have to make any adjustments in the 100% set; and everything in terms of the moving object is the same; as opposed to the 60%

How can a MODEL be more accurate than using an ACTUAL CAR??? the actual car is what you race so even if the model car is closer to the cad drawings...the car is what you race with..so full scale would be more accurate...i would prefer doing straight line tests than the tunnel though..it is the most accurate and you wouldn't have to fly the car to the US to carry out the test..

[banibhusan]

I would say it is 100% because none of these customers can afford inferior 60% models.

As usual your logic is flawed. While it is true that an actual car will be physically more accurate than a 60% model, testing an actual car in any 'existing' 100% tunnel has no where near the accuracy of a 60% model in a 60% tunnel. That is a fact.

Come on Brian!! The whole forum is waiting for you to share your logic behind the claim that a 60% scale is more accurate than a 100% scale.

[banibhusan]

I know its off-topic and on its way to the bin sooner than later, but till then enjoy it.

The basic difference between Alonso's and Massa's performance in the F2012:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u ... o|en&hl=en

[PhantomPoster]

I can confirm that:

Mercedes (From Honda),
Williams,
Sauber (from BMW),



have full size tunnels. I believe some only test at 50%, not the maximum 100%.

I belive McLaren, Ferrari and Red Bull do not have full size tunnels.

[Jersey Tom]

I would say it is 100% because none of these customers can afford inferior 60% models.

As usual your logic is flawed. While it is true that an actual car will be physically more accurate than a 60% model, testing an actual car in any 'existing' 100% tunnel has no where near the accuracy of a 60% model in a 60% tunnel. That is a fact.

Come on Brian!! The whole forum is waiting for you to share your logic behind the claim that a 60% scale is more accurate than a 100% scale.

I'm certainly curious.

[FakeAlonso]

I would say it is 100% because none of these customers can afford inferior 60% models.

As usual your logic is flawed. While it is true that an actual car will be physically more accurate than a 60% model, testing an actual car in any 'existing' 100% tunnel has no where near the accuracy of a 60% model in a 60% tunnel. That is a fact.

The fact that all the major F1 teams have 50 or 60% tunnels establishes the validity of my claim.

Brian

Brian are you sure??

Craig Scarborough ‏ @ScarbsF1
@thebestbrew Full scale with a real car can uncover issues not seen on the model. the 4:1 ratio is from the Resource Restriction Agreement

[Randomness]

I would say it is 100% because none of these customers can afford inferior 60% models.

As usual your logic is flawed. While it is true that an actual car will be physically more accurate than a 60% model, testing an actual car in any 'existing' 100% tunnel has no where near the accuracy of a 60% model in a 60% tunnel. That is a fact.

The fact that all the major F1 teams have 50 or 60% tunnels establishes the validity of my claim.

Brian

That is simply not true. The Bernoulli equation is used to allow for the testing of smaller scale testing but it is not as accurate as a 100% model, although the difference is known to be less than 1%. This is a method used by EVERYBODY who's ever used a wind tunnel ever from NASA to F1. Because aerodynamically testing rocket wings and plane wings required scaled down models.

And following that, using smaller scale models with a slower wind speed isn't as accurate as a 100% model because wherever there is surface friction between anything and a flow of air, a boundary layer exists, and it exists on every surface which essentially "changes" the shape of the vehicle. This is because the air is effectively stagnant. Google what a boundary layer is. This is why 60% models are less reliable. Because the boundary layers have a larger effect because the object is smaller.

[FakeAlonso]

Guys I have a crazy idea or question. Is it possible before the preseason testing after the team has finished the project in CFD to make a 100% scale and test the car the very first time? Because if we look at Ferrari it appears that the moment they went on the track they realized the car was not that good, and maybe they could have avoided these surprise by trying first a 100% scale???

Any ideas or comment?

[radosav]

is it posible to put F1 car on open truck that transports cars, cover it with flow-viz and drive it on highway with constant speed?

[akh270]

is it posible to put F1 car on open truck that transports cars, cover it with flow-viz and drive it on highway with constant speed?

That is so unbelievably stupid its genius! I mean that in a good way btw.

You could do it here in the states on, "The loneliest road in America".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_50_in_Nevada

[radosav]

is it posible to put F1 car on open truck that transports cars, cover it with flow-viz and drive it on highway with constant speed?

That is so unbelievably stupid its genius! I mean that in a good way btw.

You could do it here in the states on, "The loneliest road in America".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_50_in_Nevada

thank you , is it legal? does FIA has rules how to transport the car? i mean it is long way from barcelona to maranello, and lots of highwavs.

[marcush.]

it is quite astonishing that 50 or 60%models are more accurate than highly developped CFD calcs ....when a tunnel cannot account for thermal effects of the car ...
Has any team track heating in their belts in the tunnel or maybe overhead sunlight to investigate ambient variables?