When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I think the time attack car style vents are more for an aggressive look rather than ideal flow.
The opposite is likely true. Modern top-flight TA teams employ very high-end aerodynamicists, the same guys who are working on LMP1H and F1 cars. TA rules allow those aero guys to go nuts, which means the designs you see on some TA cars are 100% optimized for performance. With F1 or LMP1, every aspect of the car is dictated by the ruleset or by BOP or homologation rules, and it may not be ideal for performance as a result.
In short, be careful with assumptions based on modern race cars (DTM, LMP, F1) unless you have a thorough understanding of the rules which affect the area of the car you're studying.
The opposite is likely true. Modern top-flight TA teams employ very high-end aerodynamicists, the same guys who are working on LMP1H and F1 cars. TA rules allow those aero guys to go nuts, which means the designs you see on some TA cars are 100% optimized for performance. With F1 or LMP1, every aspect of the car is dictated by the ruleset or by BOP or homologation rules, and it may not be ideal for performance as a result.
In short, be careful with assumptions based on modern race cars (DTM, LMP, F1) unless you have a thorough understanding of the rules which affect the area of the car you're studying.
Probably one of the most correct statements made on this forum.
I agree to a point... the massive wings, under body work etc all mean the TA cars can generate massive downforce but they aren't optimised like a F1 car. Yes F1 have limitations and lots of thems however that just means they have to do far more with the surfaces they have to work with.
F1 Aero is a crazy balance of generating downforce whilst creating minimal turbulence so that the next aero further down the car still works as intended. They even use tyre deflection as part of their aero calcs. The louvers on an F1 car will have had 100's if not 1000's of hours to get them perfect.
The TA cars I've seen have no where near this level of design. They can counter drag by adding more power and add more downforce easily by upping the wing size.
If you look closely at the Ferrari louvers they are recessed at the start and step up and out of the surrounding body. These vents are cooling multiple systems and so they will be flowing massive amounts of air over the body with the end goal of not disrupting the flow over the rear wing. I bet this stepping has a good effect on the exiting air flow speed and turbulence or it wouldn't be there.
The TA car looks like something made out of folded metal. Where it's function looks like it's there to remove as much air as posible regardless of the effect on drag.
For our cars it hardly matters. But if I'm borrowing a look I know which form of motorsport I'll reference.
^Not sure if serious since it's well known the Mercedes engine is making substantially more power than the others on the grid, even the other cars with Mercedes engines since they have to develop their own tune and use of the KERS/TERS.
F1 Aero is a crazy balance of generating downforce whilst creating minimal turbulence so that the next aero further down the car still works as intended.
....and we go from one of the better statements to one that is absolutely backwards.....
one of the biggest problems in F1 over the past few years is that the cars are too aero dependant and the cars behind lose the aero which is why passing is relatively difficult in F1.
To the point that theyve had to inteoduce artificial measures like DRS and the hybrid systems.
The car following an F1 car gets absolutely fucked in terms of aero.
....and we go from one of the better statements to one that is absolutely backwards.....
one of the biggest problems in F1 over the past few years is that the cars are too aero dependant and the cars behind lose the aero which is why passing is relatively difficult in F1.
To the point that theyve had to inteoduce artificial measures like DRS and the hybrid systems.
The car following an F1 car gets absolutely fucked in terms of aero.
Not the cars behind it. But the aero further along the same car.
^Not sure if serious since it's well known the Mercedes engine is making substantially more power than the others on the grid, even the other cars with Mercedes engines since they have to develop their own tune and use of the KERS/TERS.
What I'm saying is, drawing a conclusion that one duct design is superior when another duct is shaped completely different is not necessarily the most accurate way to determine things, both are built to the same rule set and optimized for their own aero package.
What I'm saying is, drawing a conclusion that one duct design is superior when another duct is shaped completely different is not necessarily the most accurate way to determine things, both are built to the same rule set and optimized for their own aero package.
That's correct.
Furthermore, one of the big appeals of F1 is that it's a constant development.
What's cutting edge on Monday is not all the rage on Wednesday. Teams are trying to extract the most potential through science and trial/error.
^Not sure if serious since it's well known the Mercedes engine is making substantially more power than the others on the grid, even the other cars with Mercedes engines since they have to develop their own tune and use of the KERS/TERS.
That's a fallacy as well.
Mercedes doesn't make 'substantially' more power.
Mercedes makes a little bit more power.
What Mercedes has is a clever lean burn system on their engines that allows them to start the race with considerably less fuel than their opponents. This is why they absolutely must qualify ahead of their competitors so they can 'turn down' the engine once they are in control of the race.
Those vents are in a relatively low pressure area on the car, so a raised vent won't cause an aero penalty. The design may help create a vacuum-effect where the outside air pulls the heat out of the engine bay. [/QUOTE]
The Merc vents are very interesting too, but I'd place them in the same category of design as the Ferrari vents. They are placed in a different position so are shaped accordingly where perhaps the turbulent flow from the vents have less impact on other aero or where there would already be compromised flow. Interestingly, there is a small but noticeable indent in the side of the chassis immediately after the vents to allow for the additional airflow.
There has been a trend over time for the vents in F1 to get narrower and longer with larger spacings. I think it helps keep the impact from the exiting air to as smaller volume as possible rather than spreading it over a larger area. Of course it could also have something to do with packaging, location and many other variables.
For anyone interested in F1 development, I found an awesome package of papers about the Honda F1 development. http://www.f1-forecast.com/pdf/F1-Fi...1-SP2e_all.pdf
It's 376 pages of technical review papers from 2003 through to 2009. Just some light reading for anyone interested in this stuff!
Last post about F1 stuff from me. Here is a good article that summarises the various F1 vents. I know they changed the body work depending on the track requirements but there are lots of other good pics in this article.
The one that really drew my attention was the McLaren vent. Note how it has a raised leading edge to direct the airflow up and over the vent, as well as a recessed indent in the bodywork behind to create space for the exiting airflow.
I find aero discussions interesting but I don't get why people are so offended by different concepts and ideas. I think it's a good thing to have different opinions. Anyway, I'm going to have a play with my design and see how that works out.
The opposite is likely true. Modern top-flight TA teams employ very high-end aerodynamicists, the same guys who are working on LMP1H and F1 cars. TA rules allow those aero guys to go nuts, which means the designs you see on some TA cars are 100% optimized for performance.
At the same time, most TA designs are far from optimal due to their lack of resources. These teams generally only have a part time aerodynamicist and don't have the budget/time for real world validation of every aspect of their designs. Combine that with a completely open rule book and it's pretty unlikely any particular component is highly optimized or the ideal solution.
I understand what you're saying about keeping rules in mind when looking at LMP and F1 designs but time attack designs have their own issues.
Another thing to remember about vents and anything else on an F1 car - nothing is designed to work just on their own.
Everything works in concert with other components and theories.
You cannot compare an air vent somewhere on the path of airflow without knowing the complete theory.
F1 cars use Koanda effect and other crazy theories as part of the norm.
Originally Posted by Madjak
Last post about F1 stuff from me. Here is a good article that summarises the various F1 vents. I know they changed the body work depending on the track requirements but there are lots of other good pics in this article.
The one that really drew my attention was the McLaren vent. Note how it has a raised leading edge to direct the airflow up and over the vent, as well as a recessed indent in the bodywork behind to create space for the exiting airflow.
I find aero discussions interesting but I don't get why people are so offended by different concepts and ideas. I think it's a good thing to have different opinions. Anyway, I'm going to have a play with my design and see how that works out.
12-21-2016, 09:28 PM
2
