Ferrari test Anvil wing

It would depend on the density of points.

If you used a 'mesh' of points 1.00" apart, it wouldn't be that computationally intensive - in a 10-inch cubic area, that would be 1000 points. But of course if you increase the mesh density to 0.100" then you've increased the number of points to 1 million points. Increase the density to 0.010" and it's a billion points. But you don't need to try every combination - you can use a less dense mesh, see which point set works the best, then take that model and increase resolution and re-run the numbers, etc. You can also put some intelligence into the program so it doesn't take a brute-force approach - i.e. you take a starting model and adjust it in a given direction. If each adjustment in a given direction makes it worse each time, then you stop going down that path and instead move in the other direction.

I am sure it's hugely computationally intensive and would require supercomputer level power, but didn't BMW recently buy an impressive supercomputer?

I tend to think that in 10 or 20 years from now, we will look back at F1 cars of today and laugh at the silly appendages and wings they used to use to make them aerodynamically efficient.

 

Its a strange thing this aero stuff, what you would imagine, is a computer would come up with the answer like the plane A380.

I see Mclaren have now got the bull horns attached in Jerez, It must be annoying, if you come up with a tweak in the aero department, then some one copies it, and could get it working better, with there money spent, afterall it's out there plain to see.

 

Yep - Supposedly one of the biggest in the world, at least outside of the NSA. My understanding is that they chose this route rather than another wind tunnel and it's pretty much dedicated to CFD. The computing horsepower is there, it's interpretation that's the problem...... In this sense, airplanes are much easier - They're not (hopefully!) interacting with anything else (the road, other cars, kerbs etc) and ergo can be modeled relatively "easily".

I'm sure the aero nerds would like nothing more than to take the road out of the equation - It can really screw up their models.......

Cheers,
Ian

 

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=205982

 

Err, wherein the consensus was (pretty much) that the system was legal..... At least for now.

 

I remember reading an article a few years back about a partnership between the Renault F1 team and Boeing. It was some sort of technology sharing venture on aerodynamics and carbon fiber technologies (production, etc).

As I recall, the article was about the dissolution of this partnership, which was done by Boeing. When asked why, their response was that aerodynamics in F1 were so rudimentary and at such a low level, and that Boeing was so far in advance in terms of understanding aerodynamics, that there was nothing they could learn from F1, and it would end up being a one-way technology transfer, which they weren't interested in. They said a similar thing about CF production - that they were at a level so far beyond F1, that there was nothing to be gained.

Given that, it seems that there is probably major ground to be made up in the future. I've often found that when a solution starts to get exceedingly complex, if you step back and review what you've done, you usually discover that you have made some fundamental mistakes or chosen the wrong root path to follow, and all the "add-ons" that you've created are really just trying to compensate for an underlying bad design.

I wonder if that's the case in F1. We see all these wings and winglets, barge boards, horns, fins and vents and I wonder if there isn't a fundamentally better shape for the bodywork where the right amount of downforce could be added to the car in the right places with a much more optimized fundamental shape.

It will be very interesting to see an F1 car in 20 years and compare it with today. I suspect we'll look back on these days with bemusement about our understanding of aero, the way we look back today at cars from the 80's.

 

If the new rules for 2009 supposedly cut the aero as much as they are rumored to I don't think we'll have to wait as long as twenty years to see the cars take a drastic change. With stricter rules on all those damn wings and winglets and whatnot shooting out of the car the teams will be forced to focus on the actual body design of the car more than the little bits everywhere. The FIA has always been trying to slow the cars down 12 cylinder to 10 cylinder to 8 cylinder, but the teams keep fighting back and getting back to the quicker laptimes within a few years so I'd think that they'd be able to get back most of what they lost in aero in a few years with the design that they use for the body of the car.

IMO the biggest thing that puts F1 behind aircraft companies in terms of aerodynamics understanding is the fact that they have to focus on more than just aerodynamics. Aircraft depend on movable control surfaces while the cars obviously depend on steering and the contact patch of the tyres.

 

LOL

 

Interestingly, the wingelts aren't always there for downforce, but moreover there to direct the air around the car and into certain areas. The funny thing is, looking at the Mazda Furai or their entire Nagare concept, the cars look like they have similar ways of directing the air flow without the need of appendages. For instance look at the front wheel arches of the Furai, and you can almost see where the air is supposed to go. Not directly related to F1, but i see a definate evolution to some sort of fluid flow like that.

 

As long as they dont look like this..
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Unlike F1, Boeing doesn't have technical regulations to worry about when designing aircrafts. So I can understand how their level of technology is far more advanced than racing cars.
F1 is at the top of motor sport but at the same still relatively held back due to regulations. Ever since the introduction of the idea of having aerodynamics help the car lap faster, the technical regulations have been there to help keep the sport relatively safe for the drivers and slow the cars down. There have been numerous banned technologies in formula one in the past 30 years. It would be interesting to see just how fast the cars would be without limiting regulations.
Like fastback33 said, the winglets aren't necessarily there to produce downforce. The FIA regulates how much downforce the cars are able to generate. There's no doubt that teams are able to hit that figure easily with the basic body shape of the car. Specially when you think about how each previous car generates more downforce than it's successor. The winglets come into play to help move the air around in the most efficient way to various areas of the car to help control the handling dynamics past simple wing-angle adjustments.
Each year the cars lose downforce but become more effecient in how they manipulate the air flow around the car.

I personally have never liked the direction the cars took since the introduction of the "shark nose" back in the early 90s. Everyone saw how dominating Benetton was and copied their design, basically. I've always liked the low-to-the-ground, angular cars of the late 80s.

 

A billion point static model isn't hard. A billion point *optimizing* model? No, I don't think that would work. You are asking for a CFD simulation on billions (trillions, really) of designs.

 

Back in the day, we rented wind tunnels by the day. When we had done all the designers BS bits, often they wouold ask if anyone else wanted to try anything. Many March nose shapes came about from the mechanics idea, "stick a bit of aluminium on there", presto more downforce! Even at the track we would try bigger and bigger flaps and things with no idea why they worked, but if they did they became a production part for the next race (at an inflated price of course). Speed costs money remember and that was Messrs Herd and Mosely's criteria.

 

+1

However, Renault and Boeing! I'm not surprised that didn't work out...... Renault and Airbus, maybe.......

For sure, on the rare occasions I scan "jobs" at autosport.com they're looking for aerospace people, preferably with CFD knowledge. But claiming F1 guys are "way behind" doesn't ring true to me.

As always, my 02c,
Cheers,
Ian

 

+1 Been there, done that.

But, we added a bucket load of drag at the same time. F1 is now generating awesome downforce without adding significant drag. It's all about "clean airflow", and these "flicks & flacks" and "sharks fins" are doing that. [For better or worse is a different Q of course.]

I have a suspicion we'll all look back at today (with rose tinted specs of course) as the "height of the aero era".

I loved the "turbo era" and the "skirts era" btw.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Remember Ferrari also have a wind tunnel, so we don't really know since when they've been analysing that piece...