|
well, if the tunnels extend further foward into the undercarriage, a larger AOA can be achieved. The volume isn't necessarily reduced, depending on the shape of the tunnels vs. the shape of the diffuser. Furthermore, the downforce created by the tunnels will bring the CoP closer to vehicle center.
|
This popped up on a FB page about prototypes and such, not sue if it would be better to transplant the info into its own thread or put it into this one. But NACA ducts vs Scoops:
NACA Duct vs. Scoops | Ivanitski |
So has anyone wondered why the designers of a supercar that isn't bound by homologation regs opted for a spoiler and winglets instead of a main wing element?
http://roa.h-cdn.co/assets/14/49/128...rrari-fxxk.jpg |
Their marketing department said it looked cool.
|
Visibility out of the rear view mirror?
|
The rear diffuser looks too steep to work as well. Maybe it is just built to have fun in.
|
Rear hatch/engine cover wouldn't clear the wing?
|
1 Attachment(s)
Wing vs spoiler. I'll just leave this here for discussion. (blue is turbulent, red laminar)
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1417916571 |
Blue is not turbulent. Red is not laminar. And those are two different generations of cars with two very different front ends.
Red is stagnant. Blue is rapid. |
According to the article it says red is laminar. But it wasn't the most technically written aero discussions.
Wings/Spoilers: You're probably doing it wrong. I was looking more at the comparison of spoiler vs wing which the change in front end shouldn't effect to much. |
Originally Posted by Leafy
(Post 1187561)
Their marketing department said it looked cool.
Originally Posted by SchmoozerJoe
(Post 1187564)
Visibility out of the rear view mirror?
Originally Posted by Supe
(Post 1187589)
Rear hatch/engine cover wouldn't clear the wing?
What reasoning could they have? I haven't seen the under tray, but I would guess it's using ground effects to full advantage. The old F1 cars that ran ground effects still ran a large rear wing element. Is it possible that, with advanced CFD, Ferrari has found that ditching the wing and optimizing the chassis as an air foil can actually make more downforce? Or, what I think is more likely, have they found a middle ground where there is a little less down force, but a lot less drag?
Originally Posted by cyotani
(Post 1187593)
Wing vs spoiler. I'll just leave this here for discussion. (blue is turbulent, red laminar)
|
Originally Posted by mx5autoxer
(Post 1187603)
This has nothing to do with aero. Its all about NASCAR regs that were introduced to slow the cars down to make them more safe.
If I recall correctly NASCAR kept the spoiler because the wing caused lift if the car span out and was traveling backwards increasing the likelyhood of a flip. But for our cars we still have the option to run either. |
On an F1 car, upwards of 50% of the downforce can come from the underbody/diffuser, and that is with significant limitations on what they can do. An unrestricted car built around the most effective floor/tunnels their engineers dream up could produce incredible downforce without the use of relatively high-drag elements like conventional wings.
-Ryan |
Ferrari isnt going to sell a car to the public that makes the majority of its downforce from under effects. Its exceptionally dangerous, see the lotus 79; kerbing, dips, and other surface imperfections were a good way to find yourself spinning off into the armco after loosing the majority of your downforce. Its the reason limits got put on under body aero in F1 back then.
|
I said "could" ;)
|
Originally Posted by Leafy
(Post 1187638)
Ferrari isnt going to sell a car to the public that makes the majority of its downforce from under effects. Its exceptionally dangerous, see the lotus 79; kerbing, dips, and other surface imperfections were a good way to find yourself spinning off into the armco after loosing the majority of your downforce. Its the reason limits got put on under body aero in F1 back then.
As for its diffuser geometry; it's very likely its throat expansion geometry is well sorted via CFD and wind-tunnel. It's probably much more laminar than it looks from that picture. |
Originally Posted by Ryephile
(Post 1187704)
Given that any FXXK buyer will only be allowed to drive it on approved racetracks under the close supervision of Ferrari's support crew, I tend to agree with ThePass that it's likely the majority of the downforce is going to be from the underbody. Dangerous isn't part of the equation, because Ferrari probably said so. :fael: As such, it'll be sooner rather than later we see pics of totalled FXXK's because they hit a bump.
As for its diffuser geometry; it's very likely its throat expansion geometry is well sorted via CFD and wind-tunnel. It's probably much more laminar than it looks from that picture. |
Re: FXX K Aero
Re: FXX K Aero
The front of the car is dominated by a twin-profile spoiler and a larger splitter, which is 30 mm lower, with a gap in its centre. This design is an application of the concepts developed to improve aero balance in the GT category of the WEC, which Ferrari has won for three consecutive years. Two pairs of vertical elements, an endplate and, externally, a dive plane, together with vertical fins channel the air towards the car’s flanks, generating a longitudinal vortex that creates a localised depression. This in turn sucks the wake from the wheels to the outside of the aerodynamic underbody. Along with the side skirts that extend out from the sills, the vortex helps isolate the airflow from the underbody to boost its efficiency. The solutions on the rear of the car are highly sophisticated, too. The tail section is now higher and the mobile spoiler extends further for a total increase in extension of 60mm when fully deployed. A vertical fin and a small wing each side of the tail act as guide vanes in the low drag configuration and boost the spoiler’s efficiency in the high downforce one. This system also creates considerable downforce at the rear of the car, allowing the use of an extreme diffusion volume for the rear diffuser which optimises air extraction from the underbody. The section of the flat underbody just ahead of the rear wheels is also exploited to the full to generate downforce thanks to the reduced pressure in the wheel arch guaranteed by the direct connection to the rear of the car by a by-pass duct. The result is a 50% improvement in downforce in the low drag configuration and a 30% improvement in the more aggressive downforce configuration, resulting in a figure of 540 kg at 200 km/h. |
Why if not regulated would you not go with active aero or something like an Aeromotions active wing?
Aeromotions | makers of the world's finest carbon fiber wings and spoilers. |
Well it's not very TOP SECRET now is it!!! :facepalm:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:21 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands