You are aware of next year's rule changes, right? Of course they aren't absolutely guaranteed to produce closer racing, but collectively they seem like they'll have that effect. Much less downforce and less disturbed air behind cars, which should make it easier to follow through fast corners, slick tires, KERS and so forth. 2009 should be a great season.
You are aware of next year's rule changes, right? Of course they aren't absolutely guaranteed to produce closer racing, but collectively they seem like they'll have that effect. Much less downforce and less disturbed air behind cars, which should make it easier to follow through fast corners, slick tires, KERS and so forth. 2009 should be a great season.
yep im aware of it, and yea it should be a BIG improvement on what we have to put up with now...
i mean who the hell says
no slicks
but pile on the downforce, "we need to slow the cars down and make it "SAFER" <<<------
anyone who has raced a DF effected car in RL or even in LFS FFS can tell you that if that DF is taken away for what ever reason you got problems!!..but yea it will make a big difference, but some of these tracks they have on the F1 calender are a joke!, just like the one this week end, whats the point???????? thats like having a 4 track scalectric and saying to ya mates "i have a awsome idiea!!! lets put all 4 cars on 1 lane!!!"..
I don't think 2009 will be better, even if the aero-passing issue is reduced. Because it's a huge shake up of the rules, I suspect the spread of pace will be bigger, with larger gaps between the teams. This will mean less action (unless a car is out of position).
I predict 2010, once everyone has developed their ideas a bit more to be closer.
just rewatched the first pit stops
massa first
hamilton one lap later
glock 2 laps after massa
kovalainen 3 laps after massa
and alonso and räikkönen 4 laps after massa
have fun working out what that is in terms of weight and laptimes
massa first
hamilton one lap later
glock 2 laps after massa
kovalainen 3 laps after massa
and alonso and räikkönen 4 laps after massa
have fun working out what that is in terms of weight and laptimes
I dont get it, asides from a few absolutely ropey circuits like this one, Spain, and anything signed by Tilke, F1 has been delivering a fair amount of on track action - there's been some cracking races this year. I think a lot of people moan about "the lack of overtaking in F1" do so because they aren't paying attention any more. Or maybe my view is clouded as i'm still enthusiastic after all these years?
nah i came back after not watching any f1 for over 10 years (i think 96 was the last year i watched regularly) and so far its been relatively exciting to watch... finally a bit of oversteer and even one of the tilke tracks (hockenheim) delivered
Let's count then. Out of the 11 races held to date 4 were on Tilke tracks and 2 were on the other "ropey" tracks. That's already more than 50% sent to the bin by the above. Should we count the other flukes? :P
I'm not that optimistic. Creating DF by using the concept of Circulation, as F1 cars and airplanes do, will always create a wake that causes problems for the cars behind. It doesn't matter if the car is low DF or high DF, the following car won't be able to stay close.
The Venturi Effect on the other hand produces no such physically inherent wake.
Currently the only series I know of that uses the Venturi Effect is GP2 (you can tell by the skirts on the bottom of the sidepods).
Now anyone who follows other racing series than F1 will know where the best single seater racing takes place...
Having said that, I do think that F1 isn't that bad ATM, compared for example to F3 or DTM, TC ban has made a big difference in terms of creating opportunities from bad exits.
the venturi effect as used in cars should be describeable via the circulation
Well, last time they allowed f1 teams to exploit ground effect freely they kinda went overboard with it. Do we have figures on how much downforce gp2 cars generate using ground effect and how much f1 cars do?
Hmm, you sure about that? I understood them as two fundamentally different concepts. One relies on creating an upwash of air while the other one creates a sucking effect due to low pressure under the car.
the effect always relies on creating a pressure differential between the underside and the topside
in other words the venturis under the car wouldnt have any effect if the pressure on the top wasnt greater and thus the airspeed on top of the car lower than in the venturi => circulation
in other words the venturis under the car wouldnt have any effect if the pressure on the top wasnt greater and thus the airspeed on top of the car lower than in the venturi => circulation
Looks like you're right that a pure Venturi undertray still causes circulation. But I think it's true that a Venturi underfloor will achieve the pressure differential while creating much less upwash than a wing. And less upwash means less vortices. But does this mean the Venturi causes more or less circulation? (I never could figure out those pesky vector integrals)
Well you have to consider Kutta–Joukowski which is:
Force/Width = Circulation * Velocity * Density
the velocity and the airdensity obviously doesnt matter in this case so well leave that out.
This leaves us with
Force/With ~ Circulation
which means that, as the underbody usually isn't completely taken up by the venturi, since theres the driver, the engine and lots of other useless heavy bits, that need to be seated low, like wishbones, making the aero guys life miserable, the width or span of the profile tends to be smaller than that of a wing, which can easily cover the entire width of the car.
So to get the same amount of force the circulation needs to be larger.
However there's a difference.
Wings usually feed from air, that goes over the car, and pull (more so than push) it upwards to create downforce.
Venturis on the other hand take the air, that produces the force, from the frontal area of the car, that would otherwise, on its own, push that air away, creating a vacuum at the tail. So for one you cut away quite a bit of the front of the car and let that air stream under the car and come out at the back at road level, right where the trailing cars front wing/venturi-intake would be.
What's more is, that often the diffusers of venturis are built in such a way, that the hot exhaust gases from the engine feed into them. From my understanding, the idea here is to energise and thus speed up the otherwise intentionally slow stream at the diffusor, which then, through equilibrium conditions, forces the air in the venturis slimmest bits to speed up even more; sort of like the way you can make stars explode by collapsing their photons waveforms millions of years later.
Force/Width = Circulation * Velocity * Density
the velocity and the airdensity obviously doesnt matter in this case so well leave that out.
This leaves us with
Force/With ~ Circulation
which means that, as the underbody usually isn't completely taken up by the venturi, since theres the driver, the engine and lots of other useless heavy bits, that need to be seated low, like wishbones, making the aero guys life miserable, the width or span of the profile tends to be smaller than that of a wing, which can easily cover the entire width of the car.
So to get the same amount of force the circulation needs to be larger.
However there's a difference.
Wings usually feed from air, that goes over the car, and pull (more so than push) it upwards to create downforce.
Venturis on the other hand take the air, that produces the force, from the frontal area of the car, that would otherwise, on its own, push that air away, creating a vacuum at the tail. So for one you cut away quite a bit of the front of the car and let that air stream under the car and come out at the back at road level, right where the trailing cars front wing/venturi-intake would be.
What's more is, that often the diffusers of venturis are built in such a way, that the hot exhaust gases from the engine feed into them. From my understanding, the idea here is to energise and thus speed up the otherwise intentionally slow stream at the diffusor, which then, through equilibrium conditions, forces the air in the venturis slimmest bits to speed up even more; sort of like the way you can make stars explode by collapsing their photons waveforms millions of years later.
Don't know about GP2, but the Panoz DP01 used in CCWS last year generated 60% using ground effect according to this Wikipedia article.
Thats a very wise observation Tristan. But less Aero means Honda have a chance right? "The cars aero package isn't working properly" (words of Jenson Button iirc talking about his Honda F1 Car)
And Shotglass, your Signiture doesn't make sense. The word 'won' has been written in the wrong context.
ok ok ok i give up .... can we start discusing what hamilton is like infront of the media again,, i know where i am with that.. 
Don't forgot ground effect downforce was what effectively killed Aryton Senna, because his tyre pressure was too low after the safety car period, and his car bottomed out, losing most of its downforce in doing so.
Nice. Who needs boring car analogies?
Concerning the rest of your post I guess the question I'm asking is if Kutta–Joukowski can fully explain the downforce from a Venturi undertray or if it only describes true airfoils. Perhaps time to start going through those CFD tutorials I've been wanting to do for ages now...
But if that wasn't the real reason then banning them was just a knee jerk reaction that got us to where we are today.
it does because its the same as bernoulli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutta%E2%80%93Joukowski_theorem
cfd tutorials? got a few links?
2008 Formula1 Magyar Nagydij Discussion *SPOILERS*
(195 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG