Reminds me of mid 1990's CART cars:
Air behaves very predictably, it does pretty much what I think it does, maybe you just don't understand, and it causes you to get defensive. You do this in a lot of your posts.Hoffman900 wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 17:32You can’t imagine air. It doesn’t do what you think. You do this in a lot of your posts.godlameroso wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 17:21It's not a theory it's simple physics. It's obvious the rear wing will suffer detachment issues, especially at low speed. I've seen designs like that on R/C craft. Similar Re#'s similar results.Hoffman900 wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 17:16
Your theory hinges on the wing is in isolation and it's likely not. I think you're just making things up.
There's no bodywork in front of that section of the wing, so nothing upstream can affect it. Maybe having a rear wing less prone to stalling will ruin the downforce from bodywork behind the rear wing?
It does not. Because it doesn't, this is why still in 2022 everyone from F1 teams to Boeing / Airbus still struggle with correlation between CFD / wind tunnel / and real life. Sure, you can guess on a macro level, but imaging what radiused velocity stacks will do in the inside corner of the wing is a huge stretch.godlameroso wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 17:50Air behaves very predictably, it does pretty much what I think it does, maybe you just don't understand, and it causes you to get defensive. You do this in a lot of your posts.Hoffman900 wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 17:32You can’t imagine air. It doesn’t do what you think. You do this in a lot of your posts.godlameroso wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 17:21
It's not a theory it's simple physics. It's obvious the rear wing will suffer detachment issues, especially at low speed. I've seen designs like that on R/C craft. Similar Re#'s similar results.
There's no bodywork in front of that section of the wing, so nothing upstream can affect it. Maybe having a rear wing less prone to stalling will ruin the downforce from bodywork behind the rear wing?
Teams spend tens of millions on wind tunnels, CFD servers, and an army of aerodynamicists and engineers specifically because it doesn't behave predictably.godlameroso wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 17:50Air behaves very predictably, it does pretty much what I think it does, maybe you just don't understand, and it causes you to get defensive. You do this in a lot of your posts.
Enlighten us then. Somehow an F1 car violates the laws of physics and diverging subsonic ducts don't slow down air?Hoffman900 wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 18:05It does not. Because it doesn't, this is why still in 2022 everyone from F1 teams to Boeing / Airbus still struggle with correlation between CFD / wind tunnel / and real life. Sure, you can guess on a macro level, but imaging what radiused velocity stacks will do in the inside corner of the wing is a huge stretch.godlameroso wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 17:50Air behaves very predictably, it does pretty much what I think it does, maybe you just don't understand, and it causes you to get defensive. You do this in a lot of your posts.Hoffman900 wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 17:32
You can’t imagine air. It doesn’t do what you think. You do this in a lot of your posts.
While not an aerodynamicists, a retired PhD aerodynamicists friend likes to walk around the paddock at historic events and point out that "air doesn't do that" on a lot of cars. This from an era when they were just imagining what air was doing or even rudimentary wind tunnel work.
My defense comes from wanting good, sound technical information shared on this site, and positioning your imagination as physics is not it, and I think it's totally fair to call you out on it, so others who don't know, learn fact from fiction.
I can't. I don't have the resources to (and you don’t, and the people who do clearly haven’t used it), but thanks for the petty downvotegodlameroso wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 19:07Enlighten us then.Hoffman900 wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 18:05It does not. Because it doesn't, this is why still in 2022 everyone from F1 teams to Boeing / Airbus still struggle with correlation between CFD / wind tunnel / and real life. Sure, you can guess on a macro level, but imaging what radiused velocity stacks will do in the inside corner of the wing is a huge stretch.godlameroso wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 17:50
Air behaves very predictably, it does pretty much what I think it does, maybe you just don't understand, and it causes you to get defensive. You do this in a lot of your posts.
While not an aerodynamicists, a retired PhD aerodynamicists friend likes to walk around the paddock at historic events and point out that "air doesn't do that" on a lot of cars. This from an era when they were just imagining what air was doing or even rudimentary wind tunnel work.
My defense comes from wanting good, sound technical information shared on this site, and positioning your imagination as physics is not it, and I think it's totally fair to call you out on it, so others who don't know, learn fact from fiction.
I'm not making anything up, physics are physics, all subsonic fluid will accelerate when it flows through a convergent duct. Please explain how F1 cars suddenly are not subject to fluid dynamics?Hoffman900 wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 19:08I can't. I don't have the resources to, but thanks for the petty downvotegodlameroso wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 19:07Enlighten us then.Hoffman900 wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 18:05
It does not. Because it doesn't, this is why still in 2022 everyone from F1 teams to Boeing / Airbus still struggle with correlation between CFD / wind tunnel / and real life. Sure, you can guess on a macro level, but imaging what radiused velocity stacks will do in the inside corner of the wing is a huge stretch.
While not an aerodynamicists, a retired PhD aerodynamicists friend likes to walk around the paddock at historic events and point out that "air doesn't do that" on a lot of cars. This from an era when they were just imagining what air was doing or even rudimentary wind tunnel work.
My defense comes from wanting good, sound technical information shared on this site, and positioning your imagination as physics is not it, and I think it's totally fair to call you out on it, so others who don't know, learn fact from fiction.
Let's call a duck a duck. According to your profile, you're an engineer, you can't just make stuff up without expecting to get called out on it.
What you have written is not strictly correct. A pressure differential must occur for the velocity to increase. In the case of an ICE, The piston is creating a substantial vacuum/sucking and thus a pressure differential.godlameroso wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 19:18I'm not making anything up, physics are physics, all subsonic fluid will accelerate when it flows through a convergent duct. Please explain how F1 cars suddenly are not subject to fluid dynamics?
Velocity stacks in an ICE are a flow conditioner more than anything, it’s about minimizing losses where atmosphere or a larger volume of air, as it enters a duct. They are also not to be seen in isolation, and they are just a visible portion of the duct that starts at the valve seat and ends at the stack. This doesn’t even get to the wave parts of it.dans79 wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 19:35What you have written is not strictly correct. A pressure differential must occur for the velocity to increase. In the case of an ICE, The piston is creating a substantial vacuum/sucking and thus a pressure differential.godlameroso wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 19:18I'm not making anything up, physics are physics, all subsonic fluid will accelerate when it flows through a convergent duct. Please explain how F1 cars suddenly are not subject to fluid dynamics?
I'm very aware, I was just trying to keep my response as simple as possible!Hoffman900 wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 19:37Velocity stacks in an ICE are a flow conditioner more than anything, it’s about minimizing losses where atmosphere or a larger volume of air, as it enters a duct. They are also not to be seen in isolation, and they are just a visible portion of the duct that starts at the valve seat and ends at the stack. This doesn’t even get to the wave parts of it.
Totally, I was just elaborating for those reading who don’t know.dans79 wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 19:46I'm very aware, I was just trying to keep my response as simple as possible!Hoffman900 wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 19:37Velocity stacks in an ICE are a flow conditioner more than anything, it’s about minimizing losses where atmosphere or a larger volume of air, as it enters a duct. They are also not to be seen in isolation, and they are just a visible portion of the duct that starts at the valve seat and ends at the stack. This doesn’t even get to the wave parts of it.
Compare the 2008 Ferrari to the 2008 Renault or Mclaren. The designers would know how they would manage this air. I wouldn't say it is low energy either at this stage. It's slower velocity but also hotter. We will just have to wait and see how its used.LegendaryM wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 11:36I think its always worth pointing out that the air from the radiators is always very low energy air: it has had to pass through the radiators after all. As such you always want it to be as far away as possible from any sensitive areas such as the tyre squirt area.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 04:00People, I think the coanda effect has made a return...
I really can't see any reason for that bulky shelf at the back of the side pod, than as a launch point for feeding hot air from the radiators down to the tyre sauirt area.
You sure have some new theories on fluid mechanics...godlameroso wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 17:21It's not a theory it's simple physics. It's obvious the rear wing will suffer detachment issues, especially at low speed. I've seen designs like that on R/C craft. Similar Re#'s similar results.Hoffman900 wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 17:16Your theory hinges on the wing is in isolation and it's likely not. I think you're just making things up.godlameroso wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 17:14
Because that's the low pressure side of the wing, accelerating air lowers it's pressure, lowering the pressure in the low pressure side means more wing performance. I can't make it any simpler than that.
There's no bodywork in front of that section of the wing, so nothing upstream can affect it. Maybe having a rear wing less prone to stalling will ruin the downforce from bodywork behind the rear wing?