Golden ratio present in F1 design?

[SectorOne]

It´s quite fascinating to see it so much in nature but one thing that surprised me is that Aston Martin essentially bases their whole cars around the golden ratio.



Is it a common thing in F1 in terms of the regulations or maybe the shape of aerodynamic parts?

[Callum]

I wouldn't have thought so. The complete overriding aspect is performance. If the shape of parts decided by supercomputer has the golden ratio I would believe it only to be coincidental.

[Pup]

I've been told that F1 prefers ellipses.

I'd assume that if you could find golden sections on the cars that it would be entirely coincidental, or perhaps evidence of the inherent beauty of nature.

I'm an architect and I tend to use golden section proportions when I can. But I'll let you in on a bit if a secret: most of it is bs. It's pretty easy to find or fudge golden section proportions onto any existing design, provided there's enough stuff to draw extension lines to.

Most classical architecture used direct geometric proportions, and most of what we define as classical orders never really existed in the architecture they claim to represent. That's to say, I'm a fan of the golden section, but it isn't the end-all of beauty.

[xpensive]

With a bit of good will, I guess you can find the 1.618 ratio in most things in life, just as 3.1415 is with us everywhere?

[Pup]

Just eyeballing it, but it looks like the McLaren 'swoosh' to your left might be based on some golden ratio goodness. Wonder if those curves are catenary.

As for the cars themselves, I have often wondered how the starting point is determined. In the shape of a tapering wing or sidepod or whatever, someone has to scribble a line down to start - is it random, intuitive, or what?

[SectorOne]

I've been told that F1 prefers ellipses.

I'd assume that if you could find golden sections on the cars that it would be entirely coincidental, or perhaps evidence of the inherent beauty of nature.

I'm an architect and I tend to use golden section proportions when I can. But I'll let you in on a bit if a secret: most of it is bs. It's pretty easy to find or fudge golden section proportions onto any existing design, provided there's enough stuff to draw extension lines to.

Most classical architecture used direct geometric proportions, and most of what we define as classical orders never really existed in the architecture they claim to represent. That's to say, I'm a fan of the golden section, but it isn't the end-all of beauty.

Interesting, cool to hear that are aware of it when you are working.

It´s so apparent in nature, like sunflowers, pinapple, a Galaxy spiral, A regular wave, your own finger etc that maybe there´s more to it then just a measurement that just happens to be nearly everywhere you look in our universe.
I think what interests me is that Nature came up with this as a mathematically efficient solution rather then humans having invented it.

I think the main reason for the thread was if it was used aerodynamically like for example the shape of the sidepods/engine cover at it´s lowest base, as if you would take a crayon and draw the sidepods on the floor itself.

Edit: i would like to hear that Newey uses it alot but i have no idea

[beelsebob]

I wouldn't have thought so. The complete overriding aspect is performance. If the shape of parts decided by supercomputer has the golden ratio I would believe it only to be coincidental.

I certainly wouldn't. I'd bet it would have a deep seated mathematical reason why it was so.

[beelsebob]

I've been told that F1 prefers ellipses.

ROFL

I'm an architect and I tend to use golden section proportions when I can. But I'll let you in on a bit if a secret: most of it is bs. It's pretty easy to find or fudge golden section proportions onto any existing design, provided there's enough stuff to draw extension lines to.

Heh, I'm really glad you said that – here was me sat here thinking "wow, some of the sections drawn there are pretty arbitrary"... Take for example the section drawn between front of doors, mid doors and wheel well. I was thinking "why wouldn't you draw that between front of doors, mid of doors, and rear of doors (and just happen to use a different point on the diagonal of the middle doors). Similarly, notice that the section for the size of the wheel arch and the overhang at the rear uses an entire different point on the wheel arch to the above section, despite corresponding to the front of the rear wheel arch.

[Pebblestone]

Hi,

This is my first post so here it goes. I made a quick exercise with the W05 trying to see if I could spot Fibonacci proportions (golden ratio) on the new 2014 cars.

I'm was surprised to see that this year's lovely Mercedes nose hook fits in a Fibonnaci triangular grid


The height of the W5 also fits the rectangular grid:


When I have more time, I'll try this same exercise using a front view of a few none cones

EDIT: I needed to redo the 1st image since the grid was not locked to proportions.

[Pebblestone]

The nose tip of the MP4-29 gets a passing grade

[beelsebob]

Rofl, I don't think I need to say any more.

[megz]

So too the suspension components at the front - at least from this angle.

[Pebblestone]

The C33 nose and fw have a perfect ratio

[beelsebob]

Holy ****!

[bidong]

=D> =D>

http://f.cl.ly/items/3h1t1I1O2O400R2J0E ... errari.jpg

Holy ****!