Aston Martin AMR23

[AR3-GP]

It’s not about not enjoying it, it’s about people still quoting it a year later as if it’s fact. I enjoy it, but I know it’s technically wrong.

It’s entertainment, not tech.

exactly its entertainment, does it bother you that much ?

Yes because it’s going to be quoted as fact in technical discussions like last year’s exercises was.

If information was not published in fear of being misinterpreted or otherwise misappropriated, the world would be in big trouble

I think that if you find yourself in a discussion where someone has misinterpreted and over-extrapolated the meaning of the "AMR23-like" sidepod simulation, then you should attempt to correct the "abuser" on the spot, not blame the source of the information.

[hollus]

While I think these models are fun and illustrative, calling them the W14 and AMR23 is misleading. They aren’t either cars and you are likely missing a lot of things that will effect either flow fields, in addition to CFD being inherently wrong (without a ton of correlation work in the wind tunnel and on track).

Yes because it’s going to be quoted as fact in technical discussions like last year’s exercises was.

You call it a “cfd analysis of sidepod designs” without selling it as an analysis of the W14 and AMR23.

It sounds like I’m arguing semantics, but I’m not.

Hoffman, this is what, literally, is said in that video:

In this video we've taken the W14 sidepod philosophy and the AMR23 sidepod philosophy with an ISO wing, ISO rear suspension and ISO floor...
(to) Try and understand if we can come with some interesting aero mechanisms that are going on on these cars. But before... disclaimer... aerodynamics is complex and one might not fully know what is going on until/unless we see the cars and CFD from the teams themselves, which is pretty much impossible. But as aerodynamicist... it is our job to speculate and our job to try...

What more disclaimer can one do!?

[Hoffman900]

While I think these models are fun and illustrative, calling them the W14 and AMR23 is misleading. They aren’t either cars and you are likely missing a lot of things that will effect either flow fields, in addition to CFD being inherently wrong (without a ton of correlation work in the wind tunnel and on track).

Yes because it’s going to be quoted as fact in technical discussions like last year’s exercises was.

You call it a “cfd analysis of sidepod designs” without selling it as an analysis of the W14 and AMR23.

It sounds like I’m arguing semantics, but I’m not.

Hoffman, this is what, literally, is said in that video:

In this video we've taken the W14 sidepod philosophy and the AMR23 sidepod philosophy with an ISO wing, ISO rear suspension and ISO floor...
(to) Try and understand if we can come with some interesting aero mechanisms that are going on on these cars. But before... disclaimer... aerodynamics is complex and one might not fully know what is going on until/unless we see the cars and CFD from the teams themselves, which is pretty much impossible. But as aerodynamicist... it is our job to speculate and our job to try...

What more disclaimer can one do!?

https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/co ... utm_term=1

CFD Analysis (1/3) : W14 vs AMR23 Sidepod Aero Comparison in Collaboration with Vanja from F1 Technical

This video speaks about the aerodynamic differences between the W14 and the AMR23 Sidepods for iso front wing , floor , diffuser and rear wing. (Yes, we know the car is an aerodynamic ecosystem)

The aero mechanisms discussed are :

1) Outwash on the front floor edge due to sidepod Undercut

2) Front Wheel Wake management Strategy by the AMR23 and W14

3) Differences in Aero Philosophy w.r.t air being delivered to the rear part of the car.

2) Effect of the W14 'MidWing' and Box shape Sidepod

Check out the video on Youtube if you are interested in knowing more : [W14 vs AMR 23 Sidepod Analysis](

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.

[ringo]

It literally says so few posts above...

I honestly can't roll my eyes hard enough. Is every attempt to put forward something illustrative and useful in trying to demystify anything about F1 aero condemned to bucket loads of pointless comments and endless string of cr@p trying to disprove everything about it? What exactly is the problem with me doing these simulations and presenting results?

Anyone who doesn't like it is free to ignore it, I'm not gonna post a 10k-character-long disclaimer every time I discuss this so you might as well ignore it altogether or block my posts and be done with it.

XOXO

V

Yep it's still better than nothing. It's indicative about certain features so the more the better.

photobucket has crashed so i cannot find my cfd from years gone by. But what i did at the time was just build sections of the car in different philosophies and compare them.

I hope I can contribute with little pieces because my head is older now and I got lazy.
But I will try.
The regs seem more complex too. I open the regs to read the other day and they made no sense. And i usually buils the regulatory volumes first before i shape the f1 model.

[Vanja #66]

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

[Vanja #66]

Yep it's still better than nothing. It's indicative about certain features so the more the better.

photobucket has crashed so i cannot find my cfd from years gone by. But what i did at the time was just build sections of the car in different philosophies and compare them.

I hope I can contribute with little pieces because my head is older now and I got lazy.
But I will try.
The regs seem more complex too. I open the regs to read the other day and they made no sense. And i usually buils the regulatory volumes first before i shape the f1 model.

The more the better! Be sure to check out these articles, it will help, even if the rule set mentioned there is outdated..

https://www.f1technical.net/features/22245

[continuum16]

Without wanting to get into semantic arguments about specific posts or people; and maybe it’s just me; but there should be an inherent understanding from any of us on here that anything presented on this forum is a theory. It is not a statement of fact. I don’t think it’s a stretch that most engineers (and especially academics) would argue that no model is ever perfect, no matter who the creator, what level of detail it involves, or how generally accepted it is. I don’t think anyone has claimed to know the exact patterns of airflow around a given car, the exact suspension geometries and design principles of a given car, etc. The best we can all do is speculate.

Even the teams have to just speculate as to why things work or why things don’t. Hell, we even have photographic evidence that actual F1 teams sometimes browse this forum. They’re probably doing what we’re doing; speculating about why one team has this feature, or breaking down comparison pictures from what our eyes can see, and discussing it relatively constructively. It’s pretty likely that some journalists or presenters also get information from this forum as well. If they’re good at their job, they present it as a theory rather than fact; if they claim it as fact that is more akin to bad journalism, not bad engineering, and is a separate debate not for this topic.

By default, we’re all speculating because at the end of the day that’s what any of us can do. And to those who have the ability, time, and/or resource to propose theories and follow them up with any kind of data or relevant life experience, that is above and beyond, and is appreciated.

[hollus]

I think I need to pick on on a point raised off-forum:

This should be in the aero concept thread, not the car thread. Presenting it in the car thread is misleading because it is NOT the AMR23.

Short answer: wrong, this model’s CFD interpretation fits perfectly well in this thread.

I believe I speak for official forum policy if I say “All models are wrong, some models are useful” and highlight that this type of CFD on this type of model is not only OK but encouraged in the car thread. (I know I sometimes make guidance too concrete).
What is that part trying to achieve, is literally, analyzing the car.
So, if it analyzes specifics of this car, it belongs in the car thread. If it is generic, then the general aero thread might be better. This has AMR sidepods (this thread) with generic floor and other stuff. The effect of said sidepods is on-topic, and yes, will always be imprecise and speculative, that should be a given.

I think we all had our say in this matter? I am letting it all stay, I believe it is important to have such debate in public sometimes.

Now please, back on topic.

[F1doc]

Finally a top down photo of the AMR23. I'm interested in how long Adrian Newey was looking at this on the Jeddah grid and what he was thinking.

[Vanja #66]

So the waterslide surface is converging a lot, becomes a line basically? Makes sense, to provide better internal flow from radiators to louvres and rear outlet

[CriXus]

Hey, Vanja is possible to tell where the higher drag of AMR23 comes from if you compare it to RB19? Is it just the bigger rear wing or something else?

[vorticism]

https://mobile.twitter.com/AstonMartinF ... 74/photo/1

Finally a top down photo of the AMR23. I'm interested in how long Adrian Newey was looking at this on the Jeddah grid and what he was thinking.

+1



I zoomed and enhanced offline and the shadowed areas reveal nothing. The only thing I'm half expecting to see is that maybe there's an undercut within the valley there. This photo inconclusive in that regard.

Sidenote: What we have here is essentially, RB sidepod with a groove in it. What does this give? Vanja I look forward to your eventual written article. My take so far: Logically, the drop in cross sectional area increases, necessarily, mass flow through the region, which is downsloped and aimed directly at the floor edge/diffuser wall, like in the RB.

[Vanja #66]

Hey, Vanja is possible to tell where the higher drag of AMR23 comes from if you compare it to RB19? Is it just the bigger rear wing or something else?

Rear wing probably the most. Bigger airbox and sidepods second most. Front wing and front tyres as a group are hard to judge, no idea if any car has more or less drag there.

Sidenote: What we have here is essentially, RB sidepod with a groove in it. What does this give? Vanja I look forward to your eventual written article. My take so far: Logically, the drop in cross sectional area increases, necessarily, mass flow through the region, which is downsloped and aimed directly at the floor edge/diffuser wall, like in the RB.

That specific area is very interesting to see after the CFD. I promised Shub I won't share more details for now, but it's an interesting area for both external and internal flow for sure

[aray]

[wesley123]

How do the fences change the airflow?