McMurtry Speirling

[Just_a_fan]

Are you seriously saying it sucks JAW? I know your hate towards anything electric will never allow you to enjoy this sort of masterpieces, but saying it sucks is too much even for you

I think it's the styling he thinks sucks (and I wonder if that insult is intended as a pun). And he may have a point - it looks to be excessively styled, so much so that I can't believe that all of those details are purely aerodynamically driven. It looks like someone has built themselves a scale model of a Batmobile.

The performance can't be argued with - and J.A.W. doesn't argue with the performance, only the styling.

[gruntguru]

The shape of the car is no doubt a result of optimising for fan-car function. I guess if you set out to design the ultimate sucker-car you probably end up with styling that also sucks - to JAW at least.

[J.A.W.]

The shape of the car is no doubt a result of optimising for fan-car function. I guess if you set out to design the ultimate sucker-car you probably end up with styling that also sucks - to JAW at least.

To be fair g.g., the Jim Hall Chaparral fan-car of ~1/2 a century back also 'sucked' style-wise, even compared to its
stable-mate CANAM machines, in being a basic wedge-nosed brick - as 'function-over-form' - per 100% race dynamics.


By contrast however, the McM-S car is so heavily stylized, it clearly has no excuse for such an excessively 'toy-like'
OTT 'faux-Batmobile' presentation - an overt appearance choice which cannot help but draw attention away from
its irrefutable on-track driving dynamics - just as J_a_F. has correctly pointed out, in his previous post, above yours.

[Andres125sx]

It´s awesome the level of engineering in this forum, some people only need a quick view to understand the hugely complex aerodynamics of any modern car, and can even rate it


As exposed in some videos in this thread, it´s designed to reduce drag as much as possible, since it does not need to create DF with wings, winglets, floor, flaps, etc. the only purpose of the bodywork is reducing drag.

In other words, the aerodynamics and styling has a purpose, even if some engineers around here think there´s no excuse for its bodywork

[J.A.W.]

I was referring to those highly questionable (aesthetic-wise) add-ons, which appear to be of no use other than 'looks',
(including wings/etc, given the adjustable suction) but of course, if any design-engineer can provide a reasoned/
cogent functional-performance based rationale for the 'toy look', other than trying a 'Hollywood' - then hey,
by all means - jump on in here...


Hollywood; (Image as as primary driver):



Versus,

Wedge-brick (Chaparral #66) CANAM race-engineering; (Clearly - a no ah.. 'frills', style-wise - machine):

[Andres125sx]

F1 and LMP engineers must be complete ignorantes then



What do you see so different to assume they're just trying a Hollywood?

[J.A.W.]

How many of those are 'fan cars' which actively suck, & do not require those wing/aero add ons?

[Stu]

The reason for the wings is fairly adequately explained in the video link at the start of the thread.
Initially designed as a track day car, following feedback from pro-level drivers the wing boosts stability at high cornering speeds.
The bodywork was initially designed for low drag (relying on the suction for grip).
Suction can be run at max from 0mph.

[Andres125sx]

How many of those are 'fan cars' which actively suck, & do not require those wing/aero add ons?

I told you some posts back...

As exposed in some videos in this thread, it´s designed to reduce drag as much as possible, since it does not need to create DF with wings, winglets, floor, flaps, etc. the only purpose of the bodywork is reducing drag.

But you didn´t bother to watch the video to inform yourself, and keep repeating the aero work is not needed, as if you know anything about aerodynamics or the work behind the Speirling, wich obviously you don´t

Pleast stop thrasing the thread JAW

[johnny comelately]

How many of those are 'fan cars' which actively suck, & do not require those wing/aero add ons?

I told you some posts back...

As exposed in some videos in this thread, it´s designed to reduce drag as much as possible, since it does not need to create DF with wings, winglets, floor, flaps, etc. the only purpose of the bodywork is reducing drag.

But you didn´t bother to watch the video to inform yourself, and keep repeating the aero work is not needed, as if you know anything about aerodynamics or the work behind the Speirling, wich obviously you don´t

Pleast stop thrasing the thread JAW

Is that "trashing" or "thrashing" ?

[J.A.W.]

How many of those are 'fan cars' which actively suck, & do not require those wing/aero add ons?

I told you some posts back...

As exposed in some videos in this thread, it´s designed to reduce drag as much as possible, since it does not need to create DF with wings, winglets, floor, flaps, etc. the only purpose of the bodywork is reducing drag.

But you didn´t bother to watch the video to inform yourself, and keep repeating the aero work is not needed, as if you know anything about aerodynamics or the work behind the Speirling, wich obviously you don´t

Pleast stop thrasing the thread JAW

"Thrasing"?

If you'd only "bother" to watch the vid, you'd learn that the wing isn't required, since the level of suction on call
is variable... & how is it you still refuse to grasp the concept of 'style over substance'? Nor is any proof offered
that the 'Hollywood' styling approach is actually "reducing drag", since for sure, a wing & faux diffuser - won't.

But if "you know anything about aerodynamics" - you'd likely be noting the same objections - not emotive "thrasing".

[J.A.W.]

The reason for the wings is fairly adequately explained in the video link at the start of the thread.
Initially designed as a track day car, following feedback from pro-level drivers the wing boosts stability at high cornering speeds.
The bodywork was initially designed for low drag (relying on the suction for grip).
Suction can be run at max from 0mph.

Sadly the video commentary is amateurish, Stu - case in point - it is claimed later on during the vid that downforce via
suction is variable, so the wing isn't required, & it can also be seen (in wet airflow) - the 'diffuser' - is non-functional.

[Andres125sx]

How many of those are 'fan cars' which actively suck, & do not require those wing/aero add ons?

I told you some posts back...

As exposed in some videos in this thread, it´s designed to reduce drag as much as possible, since it does not need to create DF with wings, winglets, floor, flaps, etc. the only purpose of the bodywork is reducing drag.

But you didn´t bother to watch the video to inform yourself, and keep repeating the aero work is not needed, as if you know anything about aerodynamics or the work behind the Speirling, wich obviously you don´t

Pleast stop thrasing the thread JAW

"Thrasing"?

If you'd only "bother" to watch the vid, you'd learn that the wing isn't required, since the level of suction on call
is variable... & how is it you still refuse to grasp the concept of 'style over substance'? Nor is any proof offered
that the 'Hollywood' styling approach is actually "reducing drag", since for sure, a wing & faux diffuser - won't.

But if "you know anything about aerodynamics" - you'd likely be noting the same objections - not emotive "thrasing".

Any wing is required on any car JAW?

Now creating DF while trying to reduce drag as much as possible is a Hollywood?

Ok, then any modern car is doing a Hollywood. Curious that you only say it with this car...

[J.A.W.]

^ All you have to do Andres, is look at the winged Chaparral # 1, in the same photo as the fan/suction # 66 car,
both utilize air-pressure downforce, one being pushed down, the other is pulled down, how do you not get that?

[Stu]

The reason for the wings is fairly adequately explained in the video link at the start of the thread.
Initially designed as a track day car, following feedback from pro-level drivers the wing boosts stability at high cornering speeds.
The bodywork was initially designed for low drag (relying on the suction for grip).
Suction can be run at max from 0mph.

Sadly the video commentary is amateurish, Stu - case in point - it is claimed later on during the vid that downforce via
suction is variable, so the wing isn't required, & it can also be seen (in wet airflow) - the 'diffuser' - is non-functional.

Totally agree on the diffuser.

The big take-away from the video that I found was the tiny size of the suction area.
If doing something similar I would mount the suction ‘collector’ from the hubs/lower wishbones (such that only the wheels tyres saw the load), allowing for more refined body control.

When I was at Uni I investigated the possibility of shaping wheel rim spokes for extraction, which could be ducted to a sealed section at either axle. Downside was that it would be totally speed sensitive (although nowadays they could be wirelessly controlled to reduce that sensitivity - or even close them off). A bigger downside was the lack of a wind-tunnel….
CFD wasn’t an option, the internet hadn’t yet been made public & email communication was limited to educational & research establishments.