General aero discussions

[vas_04614]

Interesting that cars can run at only 180kph in wind tunnels



Looks like its difficult to test suspension behaviours over kerbs etc

[mzso]

I know floviz has been used to correlate with aero at the factory.
Has anyone thought of such idea , it's more dynamic and real time with the visualisation of the flow with the car ie during long straights, high speed and slow speed turns. Cameras can be set below the chassis to see the under flow.

https://i.imgur.com/aQmXeLA.jpeg


if red smoke is visible on prying rival teams and photogrpahers , i suppose IR/flir camera to image warm air ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0wu-1OaFJ8

Definite no to warm-air. It's invisible to thermal cameras. All videos like this are fake. Notice how the fake flatulence is actually the coldest part of the image, by far.
Smoke should work fine, but I guess they don't want everyone to see exactly how the air flows.
My best idea in regard should be some smoke that's clear in normal light and only clear in UV or IR. But teams would quickly pick up on it and get appropriate cameras.

[AR3-GP]

test

@Vanja #66

There is some speculation that it may be possible for the DRS open state to trigger stall elsewhere on the car.

Would it be possible (if you have time) to model a DRS open wing state on that AMR-like model you have already done, just to see if there could be any interaction at all between the DRS flap when it is open, and any another part of the car like the beam wing?

[Vanja #66]

There is some speculation that it may be possible for the DRS open state to trigger stall elsewhere on the car.

Would it be possible (if you have time) to model a DRS open wing state on that AMR-like model you have already done, just to see if there could be any interaction at all between the DRS flap when it is open, and any another part of the car like the beam wing?

This is related to RB19 and single element beam wing. The comment there is that the DRS is causing stall of the beam wing, reducing drag. Two points:

1) to simulate this effect and say with any decent amount of certainty "this is/is not/ happening" we'd need exact car geometry and more computing power than I have available
2) I don't think there's anything there, RB18 had single element beam wing in Baku last year, it wasn't faster than other cars on straights. Its a low drag chassis combined with low drag rear wing in Jeddah.

Lets not forget, Ferrari was -2kmh on all straights except final one, so either worse ERS or simply very different ERS strategy (maybe they could have been -3-4kmh on all straights). And Ferrari had a double beam wing...

[AR3-GP]

There is some speculation that it may be possible for the DRS open state to trigger stall elsewhere on the car.

Would it be possible (if you have time) to model a DRS open wing state on that AMR-like model you have already done, just to see if there could be any interaction at all between the DRS flap when it is open, and any another part of the car like the beam wing?

This is related to RB19 and single element beam wing. The comment there is that the DRS is causing stall of the beam wing, reducing drag. Two points:

1) to simulate this effect and say with any decent amount of certainty "this is/is not/ happening" we'd need exact car geometry and more computing power than I have available
2) I don't think there's anything there, RB18 had single element beam wing in Baku last year, it wasn't faster than other cars on straights. Its a low drag chassis combined with low drag rear wing in Jeddah.

Lets not forget, Ferrari was -2kmh on all straights except final one, so either worse ERS or simply very different ERS strategy (maybe they could have been -3-4kmh on all straights). And Ferrari had a double beam wing...

I would say there might still be something which is either obvious or is not obvious in the data but I trust your judgement and certainly cannot do it myself (yet )

Would it be possible for you to determine how flap size and angle effects the DRS efficiency? Currently RB gains the most speed between DRS open and DRS closed and this is independent of the beam wing, which doesn't move. Can this be trivially attributed to the size and angle of the DRS flap?

That would make a great CFD study I think. Is RB's DRS flap and shape solely responsible for the additional 5km/h they are gaining over the likes of Ferrari who don't get as much? Could we prove this with CFD? I feel like we can.

[BlueCheetah66]

I find it surprising how much conviction certain people (Gary Anderson) are talking about Red Bull's 'triple DRS'. There is literally zero way this early in the season for anyone outside of the Red Bull Aerodynamics team to know if they have some way of stalling the diffuser and beam wing using the DRS.

[AR3-GP]

I find it surprising how much conviction certain people (Gary Anderson) are talking about Red Bull's 'triple DRS'. There is literally zero way this early in the season for anyone outside of the Red Bull Aerodynamics team to know if they have some way of stalling the diffuser and beam wing using the DRS.

Not saying that Gary is correct, but this phenomenon of the RB has been in place since the first race of 2022 so there's been ample time for discovery.

[organic]

I find it surprising how much conviction certain people (Gary Anderson) are talking about Red Bull's 'triple DRS'. There is literally zero way this early in the season for anyone outside of the Red Bull Aerodynamics team to know if they have some way of stalling the diffuser and beam wing using the DRS.

Not saying that Gary is correct, but this phenomenon of the RB has been in place since the first race of 2022 so there's been ample time for discovery.

Yes... but Ferrari gradually closed up on RB's straight-line performance last year and at Baku had equal performance on the straights and substantially better cornering performance in quali trim and similar/same performance in corners in the race. This was the single beam wing and low downforce rear-wing - the same combo they used in Saudi Arabia 2023 which has prompted this Triple DRS discussion. Ferrari could not match RB at the beginning of '22 in this respect but some changes to their wing levels brought about essentially immediately and they could. So to me it seems obvious the advantage of RB doesn't come from a unique trick if other teams could match it a long time ago. Additionally, we saw RB particularly far ahead in the first few races of 2022 when they were always topping the speedtrap data, but by the end of '22 it was often not the case.

What more easily explains this phenomenon is that RB have a low drag overbody concept in terms of tyre wake management etc. and are able to run lower wings due to their underbody performance being class of the field. RB had by far the most advanced-looking underbody at the beginning of '22 and whose features were subsequently copied by many, if not all, teams; it would follow therefore for RB to still have the most advanced underfloor considering this is likely where a lot of their development has gone, given there are very few visible overbody changes compared to even the early 2022 RB18. Occam's razor

I will entertain Gary for a second: suppose this trick did exist since the beginning of 2022, it must mean RB could figure out this trick out and make it work perfectly without any real world data of the new cars. And yet, since then not one other team can understand the same idea enough to implement it despite the wealth of data that is now available. Sounds unlikely to me

[AR3-GP]

I find it surprising how much conviction certain people (Gary Anderson) are talking about Red Bull's 'triple DRS'. There is literally zero way this early in the season for anyone outside of the Red Bull Aerodynamics team to know if they have some way of stalling the diffuser and beam wing using the DRS.

Not saying that Gary is correct, but this phenomenon of the RB has been in place since the first race of 2022 so there's been ample time for discovery.

Yes... but Ferrari gradually closed up on RB's straight-line performance last year and at Baku had equal performance on the straights and substantially better cornering performance in quali trim and similar/same performance in corners in the race.

I would not say Ferrari matched RB on the straights in Baku. I showed the telemetry from the qualy laps here with DRS open.



RB has always gone beserk when the DRS is open. They were doing higher top speeds in Monza with a much larger wing than the dinner plate Ferrari once the wing was open.

[AR3-GP]

I find it surprising how much conviction certain people (Gary Anderson) are talking about Red Bull's 'triple DRS'. There is literally zero way this early in the season for anyone outside of the Red Bull Aerodynamics team to know if they have some way of stalling the diffuser and beam wing using the DRS.

Not saying that Gary is correct, but this phenomenon of the RB has been in place since the first race of 2022 so there's been ample time for discovery.

I will entertain Gary for a second: suppose this trick did exist since the beginning of 2022, it must mean RB could figure out this trick out and make it work perfectly without any real world data of the new cars. And yet, since then not one other team can understand the same idea enough to implement it despite the wealth of data that is now available. Sounds unlikely to me

I also don't buy Gary's theory because this phenomenon occurs no matter what rear wing RB use and no matter what beam wing they use. It's not just single element beam wing where we see it.

[organic]

Not saying that Gary is correct, but this phenomenon of the RB has been in place since the first race of 2022 so there's been ample time for discovery.

Yes... but Ferrari gradually closed up on RB's straight-line performance last year and at Baku had equal performance on the straights and substantially better cornering performance in quali trim and similar/same performance in corners in the race.

I would not say Ferrari matched RB on the straights in Baku. I showed the telemetry from the qualy laps here with DRS open.

https://i.postimg.cc/ZK8LwGP9/image.png

RB has always gone beserk when the DRS is open. They were doing higher top speeds in Monza with a much larger wing than the dinner plate Ferrari once the wing was open.

those are good points. It does undermine my position somewhat

Not saying that Gary is correct, but this phenomenon of the RB has been in place since the first race of 2022 so there's been ample time for discovery.

I will entertain Gary for a second: suppose this trick did exist since the beginning of 2022, it must mean RB could figure out this trick out and make it work perfectly without any real world data of the new cars. And yet, since then not one other team can understand the same idea enough to implement it despite the wealth of data that is now available. Sounds unlikely to me

I also don't buy Gary's theory because this phenomenon occurs no matter what rear wing RB use and no matter what beam wing they use. It's not just single element beam wing where we see it.

Yes I think that's the most robust rebuttal:

If it is to do with stalling with DRS, how can it be possible to activate with every combination of RW/BW for RB and yet not discovered even by fluke by a single other team? These are at odds in my head

Other teams not having it suggests it's sensitive to me.. surely then something so sensitive shouldn't be tuneable to a very wide window of operating conditions

[Vanja #66]

Would it be possible for you to determine how flap size and angle effects the DRS efficiency? Currently RB gains the most speed between DRS open and DRS closed and this is independent of the beam wing, which doesn't move. Can this be trivially attributed to the size and angle of the DRS flap?

This can be done, but there's nothing specific regarding numbers we could take from those simulations. When it comes to rock-solid numbers, we'd need exact wing geometries including aerofoils. To observe them in isolation would also not be 100% correct, but it would be fairly close (under assumption teams indeed do whatever they can to minimise negative effects on rear wing performance).

We can make two general statements that would apply to any design (since all teams use fairly similar DRS flap aerofoils - very small camber and reasonable overall thickness):

- bigger planform surface of the flap yields better DRS drag reduction
- bigger flap angle with DRS closed yields better DRS drag reduction

I believe these two are well known facts However, it is not so trivial to determine the exact influence of these two attributes (planform and angle) and this is probably unique for every team. So it could be that slightly bigger or smaller (say, up to 5% difference) planform on one car, assuming the same angle, yields the same drag reduction. What Ferrari had in early 2022 was not slightly smaller flap, it was clearly significantly smaller than RB. Same for new W14 wing.

What we are forgetting, when looking at top speed numbers in Q (since DRS in race can and is skewed by slipstream) is that RB very likely has less drag on front wing, and I'd say a lot less drag. Not only is the frontal area bigger, it's safe to assume pressure difference is bigger overall on Ferrari wing (since centre section has a very big AoA), so a double effect there.

[AR3-GP]

Would it be possible for you to determine how flap size and angle effects the DRS efficiency? Currently RB gains the most speed between DRS open and DRS closed and this is independent of the beam wing, which doesn't move. Can this be trivially attributed to the size and angle of the DRS flap?

This can be done, but there's nothing specific regarding numbers we could take from those simulations. When it comes to rock-solid numbers, we'd need exact wing geometries including aerofoils. To observe them in isolation would also not be 100% correct, but it would be fairly close (under assumption teams indeed do whatever they can to minimise negative effects on rear wing performance).

We can make two general statements that would apply to any design (since all teams use fairly similar DRS flap aerofoils - very small camber and reasonable overall thickness):

- bigger planform surface of the flap yields better DRS drag reduction
- bigger flap angle with DRS closed yields better DRS drag reduction

I believe these two are well known facts However, it is not so trivial to determine the exact influence of these two attributes (planform and angle) and this is probably unique for every team. So it could be that slightly bigger or smaller (say, up to 5% difference) planform on one car, assuming the same angle, yields the same drag reduction. What Ferrari had in early 2022 was not slightly smaller flap, it was clearly significantly smaller than RB. Same for new W14 wing.

What we are forgetting, when looking at top speed numbers in Q (since DRS in race can and is skewed by slipstream) is that RB very likely has less drag on front wing, and I'd say a lot less drag. Not only is the frontal area bigger, it's safe to assume pressure difference is bigger overall on Ferrari wing (since centre section has a very big AoA), so a double effect there.

I understand your point about the front wings but the front wing doesnt answer the point of why the difference between DRS open and closed is so large on the RB. Front wing is the same whether the DRS is open or closed so I don’t think it adds to this discussion. I’m just asking if one could prove trivially in one of your existing AMR and Merc models that DRS power comes purely from flap angle and camber.

You previously suggested that the DRS flap has no interaction with the beam wing, or the diffuser when debunking any stalling mechanism of the RB. But then now you say we can’t model the DRS drag reduction in isolation because the rest of the car matters.

If the rest of the car matters then does this not prove my point? Either the wing is interacting with other parts of the car, from which one might be able to detect it in a cp plot, or it’s not and thus just opening the wing on any model you have already would be sufficient, regardless of the accuracy of the features.the blockage is roughly correct. RB DRS efficiency isn’t a small statistical anomaly, it’s a big margin thus I feel there is plenty of room for error in the modeling while still being able to study it.

The basic question is whether or not you can replicate the RB DRS effect (+23km/h) on a generic non-RB F1 car with trivial changes to flap angle and camber. In doing so you either prove it’s as trivial as you say, or it’s not and it’s much deeper. After all, why has no other team come up with this idea to do what RB have done of it’s so trivial to implement?

[Vanja #66]

When it comes to rock-solid numbers, we'd need exact wing geometries including aerofoils. To observe them in isolation would also not be 100% correct, but it would be fairly close (under assumption teams indeed do whatever they can to minimise negative effects on rear wing performance).

I understand your point about the front wings but the front wing doesnt answer the point of why the difference between DRS open and closed is so large on the RB. Front wing is the same whether the DRS is open or closed so I don’t think it adds to this discussion. I’m just asking if one could prove trivially in one of your existing AMR and Merc models that DRS power comes purely from flap angle and camber.

You previously suggested that the DRS flap has no interaction with the beam wing, or the diffuser when debunking any stalling mechanism of the RB. But then now you say we can’t model the DRS drag reduction in isolation because the rest of the car matters.

If the rest of the car matters then does this not prove my point? Either the wing is interacting with other parts of the car, from which one might be able to detect it in a cp plot, or it’s not and thus just opening the wing on any model you have already would be sufficient, regardless of the accuracy of the features.the blockage is roughly correct. RB DRS efficiency isn’t a small statistical anomaly, it’s a big margin thus I feel there is plenty of room for error in the modeling while still being able to study it.

Actually, I did say we can observe rear wing in isolation for a very decent result When I say 100%, I mean 99% is not good enough As far as I know, from a member here who worked in an F1 team, they generally aim for 1 downforce/drag point (roughly 99.85%) correlation between WT and CFD to approve the design for manufacture. Maybe top teams look for even better correlation, not sure...

[AR3-GP]

When it comes to rock-solid numbers, we'd need exact wing geometries including aerofoils. To observe them in isolation would also not be 100% correct, but it would be fairly close (under assumption teams indeed do whatever they can to minimise negative effects on rear wing performance).

I understand your point about the front wings but the front wing doesnt answer the point of why the difference between DRS open and closed is so large on the RB. Front wing is the same whether the DRS is open or closed so I don’t think it adds to this discussion. I’m just asking if one could prove trivially in one of your existing AMR and Merc models that DRS power comes purely from flap angle and camber.

You previously suggested that the DRS flap has no interaction with the beam wing, or the diffuser when debunking any stalling mechanism of the RB. But then now you say we can’t model the DRS drag reduction in isolation because the rest of the car matters.

If the rest of the car matters then does this not prove my point? Either the wing is interacting with other parts of the car, from which one might be able to detect it in a cp plot, or it’s not and thus just opening the wing on any model you have already would be sufficient, regardless of the accuracy of the features.the blockage is roughly correct. RB DRS efficiency isn’t a small statistical anomaly, it’s a big margin thus I feel there is plenty of room for error in the modeling while still being able to study it.

Actually, I did say we can observe rear wing in isolation for a very decent result When I say 100%, I mean 99% is not good enough As far as I know, from a member here who worked in an F1 team, they generally aim for 1 downforce/drag point (roughly 99.85%) correlation between WT and CFD to approve the design for manufacture. Maybe top teams look for even better correlation, not sure...

Sorry I misread the original post. I guess I’m on Melbourne time…

Still I just find it a bit unfulfilling when the paddock and media seem flabbergasted by RB’s DRS gain if it were to be so trivial as to just changing the flap angle and camber. I don’t know the explanation, but if it was really this simple, why are the other teams surprised? Why wouldn’t they imitate this design?