Hoffman900 wrote: ↑23 Mar 2023, 00:10
You can’t discuss the wheel wake strategy of those two because the whole model is geometrically wrong.
Aerodynamics is entirely dependent on what came before and outwash, mid wing is entirely dependent on the front wing, nose shape, and the suspension arm geometry, and THEN you can discuss sidepods, which the geometry of which is not correct either, because it can’t be without being in the team.
And all this assumes the CFD correlated to begin with.
I’m not hating at all, but people don’t know any of this or ignore this to make their points, and they have been going on a year since Vanja posted his analysis last year too, but I know it got the site traffic. The guy is enthusiastic about the topic, and that’s great, but he should know better.
I can run gas pressure engine simulations of an F1 engine too, but it’s all a guess and I know better than attempting to do that or share that information.
This is fundamental engineering best practices.
I wrote and deleted this 3-4 times before I decided to post it in the end. I'm honestly sick and tired of having my work pissed on repeatedly. This work is intended for a large community of people interested in learning more about F1 and aero in general, students who are making their first steps towards race car aero and CFD. If there was anything remotely similar to this 10-12 years ago (when I was making my first steps towards details of race car aero), I would have genuinely killed for a chance to take a look at this. Am I an idiot for taking my personal time to model all of this, do 10-15 CFD runs before I'm happy with results and post it for free for everyone? You think I always have 40-50 hours a week of free time to do something like this?
It's especially disturbing that you and others keep making same false pretences by accusing me (or others) of trying to put this stuff out as actual car aero, pressure distribution and what not. I have no doubt about ill intentions any more, since everything I and others wrote today about disclaimers is ignored completely and the lies just keep going!
Anyway, let's get to some debunking!
You can’t discuss the wheel wake strategy of those two because the whole model is geometrically wrong.
This strikes me the most as coming from someone who actually understands next to nothing about the influence of basic shapes on aerodynamic behaviour of any object. Am I wrong? (I know I am and I know how much you know, btw) Are W14 slimpods going to generate more (any, actually!) outwash than AMR23 that has the most aggressive outwash undercut of any car (there's even a photo from Bahrain that demonstrates front tyre smoke after lockup going into coke bottle zone on W14)? Why can't anyone discuss the basics of this behaviour based on sidepod geometry alone? Do you need to see team's CFD results before you accept their sides generate a lot of outwash?
Anyone with any shred of decent aero experience understood right away what the AM team is doing with outwash, with underbite inlet, with deep waterslide and a big side wall leading towards mouse hole... I literally learned nothing from these two CFD results, but I didn't do them for myself.
Aerodynamics is entirely dependent on what came before and outwash, mid wing is entirely dependent on the front wing, nose shape, and the suspension arm geometry, and THEN you can discuss sidepods, which the geometry of which is not correct either, because it can’t be without being in the team.
Wow, I am a new man! I had no freakin idea upstream and downstream elements affect each other! So I guess we also need CFD from the team to tell us mid wing is generating downwash and a strong vortex, right? No --- way, no, we absolutely can't make an observation on it and put fort some rough CFD results aligned with a logical conclusion... No no, no way the vortex will travel downstream, expand and have some interaction with the rear tyre... No, we need Mercedes CFD results before we can discuss this!
And all this assumes the CFD correlated to begin with.
Yeah, I used CFD for the first time a year ago and posted the first result I came up with...
I’m not hating at all, but people don’t know any of this or ignore this to make their points, and they have been going on a year since Vanja posted his analysis last year too, but I know it got the site traffic. The guy is enthusiastic about the topic, and that’s great, but he should know better.
The only one ignoring other's points are you right now (big shout to a few more, they will recognise themselves), you made yourself quite clear ignoring the disclaimers and pressing on despite of them being pointed out a number of times. Site traffic? Steven made this site almost 25 years ago, had shitload of offers to sell it and earn big money and you're talking about site traffic?!? The ads you see on it pay the hosting and that's it... That's some nerve you got there!
Also, I want to return to the notorious "5% more drag on launch-spec W13" statement I made a year ago. CFD was made on rough launch-spec geometry, but the team admitted to excess drag right after the Bahrain Q. I know how a number of fans felt about it, no matter how much I repeated I was making a point about Ferrari not being a high-drag car. And now in Bahrain FP3 W14 had two versions of rear wing making the big wing (from W13 launch) 6kmh slower. Again, FP3, so how much was the engine turned down? How much drag difference is 318 to 312 kmh top speed for the same car with the same power settings at the same time? 5%? 6%? 7%? 10%? Feel free to make a guess, but it's not a small difference in any case. Was it mostly down to rear wing? Evidently... Was I wrong about those 5% last year?
So finally, pretty please with a cherry on top - stop making stuff up and stop pissing on my work.
Love and kisses,
V