2010 Formula One season [Huge update on page one]
Posted by madotter
DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chet Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > i still think Wirth is crazy for designing his
> car
> > using only CFD. Its too early just yet!
>
> Nick Ovey - Qualified Aerodynamicist.
>
> CFD's more reliable than a wind tunnel, and a lot
> easier to iterate a design with. And miles
> cheaper. Wirth have invested *heavily* in
> simulation over the past five years, on both the
> design and driver sides, indeed the current Acura
> LMP1 car was designed in this manner. They know
> what they're doing even if it does make for a "wtf
> are they doing" type headline when unknowledgeable
> journos get hold of the story
CFD more reliable?? Well, no its really not otherwise why would anyone need a windtunnel? CFD is a prediction tool. As Honda and Mclaren have so easily shown, both the windtunnel and the CFD can be quite very wrong. Because its so cheap CFD can potentially offer a better understanding of a system making it easier to develop because of the shear number of changes you can make within a short time period.
From speaking to a number of qualified engineers (with thousands of windtunnel and CFD hours) on the subject of CFD I get the impression that it is very much a tool for research/development and prediction and used in conjunction with a windtunnel, the windtunnel is used for validation to varify the results.
I understand the facilities Wirth has at his disposal, and the work he has previously done, including the latest Acura and the one before using CFD. Major difference between that car and an F1 car is the open-wheels. Though turbulence and wake structures are becoming easier to model with greater accuracy you'd be a brave man to fully rely on your CFD. Im sure you can imagine the difficulties in such a process when you add some yaw and rotating wheels!
Whats worse is that if they encounter a problem then they only have one source of information of which to get results, their CFD. So until they straight-line test, or worse track test they may not even know there is a fundemental issue with the car. And if their CFD says everything is perfect then how do you find the problem?
CFD is a fantastic tool, its amazing! Its huge, and I will agree, for simulating alot of different enviroments it can be more reliable than a windtunnel, but an F1 is totally different. I still see CFD as a research tool and the windtunnel is still king for designing a winning car. Aswell as improvments in CFD windtunnel design has also massivley improved, and although there are the obvious limitations such as not being able to simulate the boundary conditions in say a cross wind, the windtunnel rules. The process of design, CAD, CFD test it, if its good, rapid prototype and chuck it in the tunnel is still unbeatable IMO.
> Have to bear in mind that the 1997 Stewart was the
> first car to be designed entirely within CAD,
> there certainly wasn't the computing power
> available for CFD back then.
It also might be interesting to know the last F1 car Wirth got his hands on was the CDG wing idea I believe. His team had a go at it, put it in the windtunnel and what do you know? Totally different to thier CFD results. What I heard was causing the mismatch in results was in fact the 4 black things supporting the car
!
"It is clear that wind tunnels have become a significant tool in the design and development of modern day Formula One cars and although computational methods (CFD) are improving at a rapid pace, they are still very much a supplement to the experimental work in a wind tunnel and are unlikely to replace what can be achieved in a wind tunnel for many years to come." - Jon Tomlinson
"A race car is one of the most difficult environments to conduct CFD tests in, with the down near fixed ground surface, the rotating wheels and the rather messy aerodynamic geometry of a Formula One car" - Patrick Head
edit - one crucial thing I forgot to mention...
Its a huge misconception that some engineer plugs some equations into a computer does some clever stuff and bam you have CFD. Its very important to remember the guy at the end of the computer who setups the enviromental nad boundary conditions for the CFD to run with. CFD is very much user dependent and we know how wrong we can all be!
Oh, and the lack of track testing will also be crucial....
Nick is playing a big risk, and IMO right now the technology is not here to make it work JUST in CFD. Maybe in a few years but not at this stage and there are few who would disagree with me im sure.
edit again - I think he's crazy but what has he got to lose? Also F1 does need to move away from windtunnels, and this could be a big step.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2009 12:41AM by chet.
-------------------------------------------------------
> chet Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > i still think Wirth is crazy for designing his
> car
> > using only CFD. Its too early just yet!
>
> Nick Ovey - Qualified Aerodynamicist.
>
> CFD's more reliable than a wind tunnel, and a lot
> easier to iterate a design with. And miles
> cheaper. Wirth have invested *heavily* in
> simulation over the past five years, on both the
> design and driver sides, indeed the current Acura
> LMP1 car was designed in this manner. They know
> what they're doing even if it does make for a "wtf
> are they doing" type headline when unknowledgeable
> journos get hold of the story
CFD more reliable?? Well, no its really not otherwise why would anyone need a windtunnel? CFD is a prediction tool. As Honda and Mclaren have so easily shown, both the windtunnel and the CFD can be quite very wrong. Because its so cheap CFD can potentially offer a better understanding of a system making it easier to develop because of the shear number of changes you can make within a short time period.
From speaking to a number of qualified engineers (with thousands of windtunnel and CFD hours) on the subject of CFD I get the impression that it is very much a tool for research/development and prediction and used in conjunction with a windtunnel, the windtunnel is used for validation to varify the results.
I understand the facilities Wirth has at his disposal, and the work he has previously done, including the latest Acura and the one before using CFD. Major difference between that car and an F1 car is the open-wheels. Though turbulence and wake structures are becoming easier to model with greater accuracy you'd be a brave man to fully rely on your CFD. Im sure you can imagine the difficulties in such a process when you add some yaw and rotating wheels!
Whats worse is that if they encounter a problem then they only have one source of information of which to get results, their CFD. So until they straight-line test, or worse track test they may not even know there is a fundemental issue with the car. And if their CFD says everything is perfect then how do you find the problem?
CFD is a fantastic tool, its amazing! Its huge, and I will agree, for simulating alot of different enviroments it can be more reliable than a windtunnel, but an F1 is totally different. I still see CFD as a research tool and the windtunnel is still king for designing a winning car. Aswell as improvments in CFD windtunnel design has also massivley improved, and although there are the obvious limitations such as not being able to simulate the boundary conditions in say a cross wind, the windtunnel rules. The process of design, CAD, CFD test it, if its good, rapid prototype and chuck it in the tunnel is still unbeatable IMO.
> Have to bear in mind that the 1997 Stewart was the
> first car to be designed entirely within CAD,
> there certainly wasn't the computing power
> available for CFD back then.
It also might be interesting to know the last F1 car Wirth got his hands on was the CDG wing idea I believe. His team had a go at it, put it in the windtunnel and what do you know? Totally different to thier CFD results. What I heard was causing the mismatch in results was in fact the 4 black things supporting the car
!"It is clear that wind tunnels have become a significant tool in the design and development of modern day Formula One cars and although computational methods (CFD) are improving at a rapid pace, they are still very much a supplement to the experimental work in a wind tunnel and are unlikely to replace what can be achieved in a wind tunnel for many years to come." - Jon Tomlinson
"A race car is one of the most difficult environments to conduct CFD tests in, with the down near fixed ground surface, the rotating wheels and the rather messy aerodynamic geometry of a Formula One car" - Patrick Head
edit - one crucial thing I forgot to mention...
Its a huge misconception that some engineer plugs some equations into a computer does some clever stuff and bam you have CFD. Its very important to remember the guy at the end of the computer who setups the enviromental nad boundary conditions for the CFD to run with. CFD is very much user dependent and we know how wrong we can all be
!Oh, and the lack of track testing will also be crucial....
Nick is playing a big risk, and IMO right now the technology is not here to make it work JUST in CFD. Maybe in a few years but not at this stage and there are few who would disagree with me im sure.
edit again - I think he's crazy but what has he got to lose? Also F1 does need to move away from windtunnels, and this could be a big step.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2009 12:41AM by chet.
Im astounded you'd sit and think I said they're wrong.. perhaps read what I said. I disagreed with CFD being more reliable (a broad word at that) but offered sound reasoning and left it open for discussion from either Nick or Sim. Dont twist my words to suit you Dave. I posted that hoping for discussion...
To sum things up for yourself because you didnt read, it would be very dangerous to trust JUST CFD without the use of a windtunnel to validate results.
Now you dont need to a degree to me thats common sense. Right or wrong?
I'd like to expand a little and provide another addvantage of CFD, incompressible flows are easier to model and predict correct? And thankfully for the teams flow within the underbody only starts to reach speeds of compressibility at around 200mph (car speed not flow speed). So thankfully it wont get too complicated involving compressible and imcompressible fluids. So it does make it a little easier. Im sure Nick or Sim could correct or confirm that.
Aside from that, the two quotes I offered above were from qualified F1 engineers with experience (you might have heard of one, Patrick Head I think his name is??) and frankly, id take thier word over a graduates (no offense to Nick or Sim). Aswell as that like I said ive spoken to numerous people with thousands of hours of CFD and windtunnel experience who come to the same conclusion.
All I wanted was contribution from both sides to an interesting discussion Dave. I'd appreciate it if you could contribute something useful rather than, 'you wrong because they've studied it.' As far as subsonic incompressible flow ive learnt quite abit. To further learn I would need to self read then do a post-grad on it. "They've studied it" is not an argument in this case. I wont claim its as much as Nick or Sim because I dont know what they do now (regarding jobs or post-grad). However it does mean I deserve more of an argument than 'you wrong because they've studied it'.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
To sum things up for yourself because you didnt read, it would be very dangerous to trust JUST CFD without the use of a windtunnel to validate results.
Now you dont need to a degree to me thats common sense. Right or wrong?
I'd like to expand a little and provide another addvantage of CFD, incompressible flows are easier to model and predict correct? And thankfully for the teams flow within the underbody only starts to reach speeds of compressibility at around 200mph (car speed not flow speed). So thankfully it wont get too complicated involving compressible and imcompressible fluids. So it does make it a little easier. Im sure Nick or Sim could correct or confirm that.
Aside from that, the two quotes I offered above were from qualified F1 engineers with experience (you might have heard of one, Patrick Head I think his name is??) and frankly, id take thier word over a graduates (no offense to Nick or Sim). Aswell as that like I said ive spoken to numerous people with thousands of hours of CFD and windtunnel experience who come to the same conclusion.
All I wanted was contribution from both sides to an interesting discussion Dave. I'd appreciate it if you could contribute something useful rather than, 'you wrong because they've studied it.' As far as subsonic incompressible flow ive learnt quite abit. To further learn I would need to self read then do a post-grad on it. "They've studied it" is not an argument in this case. I wont claim its as much as Nick or Sim because I dont know what they do now (regarding jobs or post-grad). However it does mean I deserve more of an argument than 'you wrong because they've studied it'.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Twist your words? I didn't even quote your words.
> How could I twist them otherwise? Don't deflect
> from my point.
You said I said someone who was qualified was wrong.
Point out where I said that like you claimed.
> I posted that hoping for discussion...
>
> Did you hell. You started the discussion because
> of your love of aerodynamics and the idea that you
> actually know enough about it to have an opinion
> over the people who are qualified.
lol. my initial post was out of common sense regarding the idea of only CFD. My second post in reply to you was for open discussion to hear what others had to say about it. I know I do not know enough to have an opinion over someone who is fully qualified, but I know enough to voice an opinion. For you to tell me outright that i am wrong without providing factual evidence rather than opinion I would very much interested to know how well qualified you are regarding this subject.
> Just FYI, Patrick Head stepped down from his
> design position 5 years ago and is now a manager
> of the engineering section, not a designer or
> engineer. His input to the cars has been minimal
> since 2004, when Frank Williams effectively told
> him he was stepping down.
So his years of experience (far more valuable than any degree or "qualification" means nothing? He's still a key figure. Just because he's stepped down does not mean to say he has magically forgot everything he knew.
His quote also does
> nothing to back-up anything you have said, or
> posted. He simply states that CFD is a difficult
> environment to conduct tests in. He didn't mention
> any sort of comparison to wind tunnel testing.
It explains the very basics of the difficulties of using CFD
> The quote from Jon was based well over a year ago
> now, and finally posted on the new Williams site a
> few months later (it was in Autosport/Racecar
> engineering). I'm sure your familiar with Moores
> law, and the systems which Nick Wirth has invested
> in which have brought CFD technology to the stage
> where it is far more useable, so I won't bore you
> with the details of those.
Ofc CFD is far more useable. At any level but the reason I bought in that quote was because the current F1 teams will not be too far behind (if at all) the technology Wirth has. If there were more to had with CFD then you can gaurantee an F1 team will find it and if teams are still reliant on Windtunnels despite all the advances made I think that says alot.
Just to quote myself for clarification...
"easier to develop because of the shear number of changes you can make within a short time period."
I mean to the car. Not to the test conditions.
The opposite applies with the test conditions. In a windtunnel you could change pitch yaw, whatever in minutes and get readable results in seconds. In CFD it takes alot longer to the same.
> The only reason this non-usage of the wind tunnel
> is "news" is because journos love a good story,
> and to a general fan the headline "Wirth won't be
> using wind tunnels" sounds amazing, because it's
> right up there with anything Simon Gillette says
> about the future of Donington Park. The same
> headlines appeared when Stewart announced the
> first CAD only F1 car. "The systems aren't ready",
> etc, etc. Same as this. And of course that car
> turned out to be a complete failure. Wait, that
> ain't right.
Dont compare Stewarts step into the digital world to this.
What they did was use digital drawings so to ease manufacturing rather than having to manually code the machines based on their drawings. CFD is totally different to CAD or CAM.
> It isn't news. It isn't new technique. It has been
> used to design successful racing cars and the area
> has gone under extensive development in the past 2
> years.
My main point about this whole thing still has not been answered and as far as I am aware you disagree.
So...
Do you think its wise to go full steam ahead and design a car only using CFD without the aid of a windtunnel?? My opinion was right now no! My opinion of why Wirth isnt using a tunnel? Money.
In 6-10 years yes the windtunnel will see alot less or even zero activity regarding design and development of an F1 car.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
-------------------------------------------------------
> Twist your words? I didn't even quote your words.
> How could I twist them otherwise? Don't deflect
> from my point.
You said I said someone who was qualified was wrong.
Point out where I said that like you claimed.
> I posted that hoping for discussion...
>
> Did you hell. You started the discussion because
> of your love of aerodynamics and the idea that you
> actually know enough about it to have an opinion
> over the people who are qualified.
lol. my initial post was out of common sense regarding the idea of only CFD. My second post in reply to you was for open discussion to hear what others had to say about it. I know I do not know enough to have an opinion over someone who is fully qualified, but I know enough to voice an opinion. For you to tell me outright that i am wrong without providing factual evidence rather than opinion I would very much interested to know how well qualified you are regarding this subject.
> Just FYI, Patrick Head stepped down from his
> design position 5 years ago and is now a manager
> of the engineering section, not a designer or
> engineer. His input to the cars has been minimal
> since 2004, when Frank Williams effectively told
> him he was stepping down.
So his years of experience (far more valuable than any degree or "qualification" means nothing? He's still a key figure. Just because he's stepped down does not mean to say he has magically forgot everything he knew.
His quote also does
> nothing to back-up anything you have said, or
> posted. He simply states that CFD is a difficult
> environment to conduct tests in. He didn't mention
> any sort of comparison to wind tunnel testing.
It explains the very basics of the difficulties of using CFD
> The quote from Jon was based well over a year ago
> now, and finally posted on the new Williams site a
> few months later (it was in Autosport/Racecar
> engineering). I'm sure your familiar with Moores
> law, and the systems which Nick Wirth has invested
> in which have brought CFD technology to the stage
> where it is far more useable, so I won't bore you
> with the details of those.
Ofc CFD is far more useable. At any level but the reason I bought in that quote was because the current F1 teams will not be too far behind (if at all) the technology Wirth has. If there were more to had with CFD then you can gaurantee an F1 team will find it and if teams are still reliant on Windtunnels despite all the advances made I think that says alot.
Just to quote myself for clarification...
"easier to develop because of the shear number of changes you can make within a short time period."
I mean to the car. Not to the test conditions.
The opposite applies with the test conditions. In a windtunnel you could change pitch yaw, whatever in minutes and get readable results in seconds. In CFD it takes alot longer to the same.
> The only reason this non-usage of the wind tunnel
> is "news" is because journos love a good story,
> and to a general fan the headline "Wirth won't be
> using wind tunnels" sounds amazing, because it's
> right up there with anything Simon Gillette says
> about the future of Donington Park. The same
> headlines appeared when Stewart announced the
> first CAD only F1 car. "The systems aren't ready",
> etc, etc. Same as this. And of course that car
> turned out to be a complete failure. Wait, that
> ain't right.
Dont compare Stewarts step into the digital world to this.
What they did was use digital drawings so to ease manufacturing rather than having to manually code the machines based on their drawings. CFD is totally different to CAD or CAM.
> It isn't news. It isn't new technique. It has been
> used to design successful racing cars and the area
> has gone under extensive development in the past 2
> years.
My main point about this whole thing still has not been answered and as far as I am aware you disagree.
So...
Do you think its wise to go full steam ahead and design a car only using CFD without the aid of a windtunnel?? My opinion was right now no! My opinion of why Wirth isnt using a tunnel? Money.
In 6-10 years yes the windtunnel will see alot less or even zero activity regarding design and development of an F1 car.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Nick: CFD's more reliable than a wind tunnel
Chet: CFD more reliable?? Well, no its really not.
It is for say a wing or simple objects but ask someone with years of experience in F1 with CFD and they will tell you no.
CFD is more accurate for simple things, debatable for something as complex as an F1 car.
I thought common sense would prevail and that I would not need to explain myself for that... Obviously not. I question whether I should explain that but I figured your use your brain.
Nope. Now who is twisting words? Don't fall into that trap chet. His years of experience are now 5 years out of date. In computer, engineering, and aerodynamic terms, that is an astounding time frame. Patrick Head is now a manager, not an engineer.
Wait so in these 5 years he has not learnt anything new regarding racecar design or aerodynamics??
yes he's a f*cking manager but he's not shut off from the operation! As a manager its his job to not fall behind or let anyone fall behind. He will know the latest technology he will know the latest idea's and theorys. To think the opposite is just plain ignorant!
Wirth has invested huge amounts of time and money into CFD, well more than any F1 team has reported doing so.
Reported doing so... Interesting words. I wouldnt believe it for a second. They know the potential of CFD so will be constantly modelling and adjusting thier own codes for their car. I highly doubt he is that far ahead of the others. It is something we can only speculate on.
Manor isn't short of money. What other reason could there be, other than Wirth actually knowing what his systems are capable of?
I didnt say they were short of money! I just said money. We could only ponder the cost of building a windtunnel model then several iterations of it to work in a windtunnel. He is just spending his money elsewhere.
I said it before, I see as a step in the right direction. Because of all the enviro and cost shite windtunnels do need go (though one wonders the carbon footprint of Nick's machines seeing as though they'd be as powerful as god). I think he is brave for doing this, and as ever with something new it does take someone brave, however my point still stands IMO its too early and other than two shrouded wheeled cars which were quick though not the best I think its too early to say byebye to the windtunnels.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Chet: CFD more reliable?? Well, no its really not.
It is for say a wing or simple objects but ask someone with years of experience in F1 with CFD and they will tell you no.
CFD is more accurate for simple things, debatable for something as complex as an F1 car.
I thought common sense would prevail and that I would not need to explain myself for that... Obviously not. I question whether I should explain that but I figured your use your brain.
Nope. Now who is twisting words? Don't fall into that trap chet. His years of experience are now 5 years out of date. In computer, engineering, and aerodynamic terms, that is an astounding time frame. Patrick Head is now a manager, not an engineer.
Wait so in these 5 years he has not learnt anything new regarding racecar design or aerodynamics??
yes he's a f*cking manager but he's not shut off from the operation! As a manager its his job to not fall behind or let anyone fall behind. He will know the latest technology he will know the latest idea's and theorys. To think the opposite is just plain ignorant!
Wirth has invested huge amounts of time and money into CFD, well more than any F1 team has reported doing so.
Reported doing so... Interesting words. I wouldnt believe it for a second. They know the potential of CFD so will be constantly modelling and adjusting thier own codes for their car. I highly doubt he is that far ahead of the others. It is something we can only speculate on.
Manor isn't short of money. What other reason could there be, other than Wirth actually knowing what his systems are capable of?
I didnt say they were short of money
! I just said money. We could only ponder the cost of building a windtunnel model then several iterations of it to work in a windtunnel. He is just spending his money elsewhere.I said it before, I see as a step in the right direction. Because of all the enviro and cost shite windtunnels do need go (though one wonders the carbon footprint of Nick's machines seeing as though they'd be as powerful as god). I think he is brave for doing this, and as ever with something new it does take someone brave, however my point still stands IMO its too early and other than two shrouded wheeled cars which were quick though not the best I think its too early to say byebye to the windtunnels.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
I thought common sense would prevail and that I would not need to explain myself for that... Obviously not. I question whether I should explain that but I figured your use your brain.
Getting a bit testy now that I pointed out what you claimed never happened? Sorry for pointing out your error. Don't take your frustration out on me.
Wait so in these 5 years he has not learnt anything new regarding racecar design or aerodynamics??
Sorry, I didn't say that. Words. Twisted. Don't do. I feel like we've covered this base recently. I also didn't say he hadn't kept up. But keeping up with developments and being a practising aerodynamacist is 2 different things.
Reported doing so... Interesting words. I wouldnt believe it for a second.
Not overly interesting words. What is interesting is your choice of what to believe. You don't believe it because nobody was reported in doing so. But you do chose to believe the opposite despite...nobody being reported in doing so. I guess you are happy to just pick and chose bits of quotes and discussions to try and justify you claiming one of the leading motorsport designers is wrong.
I didnt say they were short of money! I just said money.
Very good. And I said they aren't short of money. You also don't have to build wind tunnels, hiring them is a long tested and proven way of developing the cars. Whilst it isn't an ideal solution, it is considerably cheaper. Clearly isn't too much use if they are opting to not even do that.
other than two shrouded wheeled cars which were quick though not the best
They were the best cars in the class, and best cars built to the same regulations. What more can be asked for?
Again, I side with Wirth. He has proven he knows what he is doing, and just because some sensationalist headlines have come along it doesn't mean the systems are suddenly not as good as proven. Edit: I can see this going round in circles lots and lots, so don't be surprised if I get a tad bored with replying with the usual "I'm going with Nick Wirth".
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2009 02:41PM by DaveEllis.
Getting a bit testy now that I pointed out what you claimed never happened? Sorry for pointing out your error. Don't take your frustration out on me.
Wait so in these 5 years he has not learnt anything new regarding racecar design or aerodynamics??
Sorry, I didn't say that. Words. Twisted. Don't do. I feel like we've covered this base recently. I also didn't say he hadn't kept up. But keeping up with developments and being a practising aerodynamacist is 2 different things.
Reported doing so... Interesting words. I wouldnt believe it for a second.
Not overly interesting words. What is interesting is your choice of what to believe. You don't believe it because nobody was reported in doing so. But you do chose to believe the opposite despite...nobody being reported in doing so. I guess you are happy to just pick and chose bits of quotes and discussions to try and justify you claiming one of the leading motorsport designers is wrong.
I didnt say they were short of money
! I just said money.Very good. And I said they aren't short of money. You also don't have to build wind tunnels, hiring them is a long tested and proven way of developing the cars. Whilst it isn't an ideal solution, it is considerably cheaper. Clearly isn't too much use if they are opting to not even do that.
other than two shrouded wheeled cars which were quick though not the best
They were the best cars in the class, and best cars built to the same regulations. What more can be asked for?
Again, I side with Wirth. He has proven he knows what he is doing, and just because some sensationalist headlines have come along it doesn't mean the systems are suddenly not as good as proven. Edit: I can see this going round in circles lots and lots, so don't be surprised if I get a tad bored with replying with the usual "I'm going with Nick Wirth".
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2009 02:41PM by DaveEllis.
What Nick Wirth is doing here is smart and innovative, not crazy. CFD is not only more reliable than a windtunnel, it'll be much more cost-effective, and there's a lot less practically to go wrong with it. It'll also be able to work in much more detail on the aero than a windtunnel would.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2009 04:15PM by EC83.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2009 04:15PM by EC83.
chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It also might be interesting to know the last F1
> car Wirth got his hands on was the CDG wing idea I
> believe. His team had a go at it, put it in the
> windtunnel and what do you know? Totally different
> to thier CFD results. What I heard was causing the
> mismatch in results was in fact the 4 black things
> supporting the car!
>
re the point about problems due to the tyres,
i'm wondering if the change in regulations may have tipped the balance on this a bit.
i'll confess the only aerodynamics i've ever studied is hypersonics and that was few years ago(so i apologise for any glaring mistakes in advance)
but one of the issues i recall was that of sudden changes of flow direction resulting in compression or expansion.
in hypersonics this is all tide up with shockwaves but i'm guessing some related effect also occurs a lower speeds
my point is that previously you would have had a similar situation to this with the grooved tyres.
treating the tyre as a rotating cylinder(way overly simple i know but it'll do for illustrating the point), then head on the air flow is not going to be disturbed equally across the radius of the tyre because of the grooves. You're then also faced with the problem of how these differences in disturbance interact with each other and the whole problem balloons in size
then if the tyre is not head on to the flow, (eg if the car is turning), then i guess you're going to get something analogus to the shockwave problem as the airflow changes direction across the tyre (going up and down with the grooves).
My point is that i would have thought that with the switch back to slicks, this would simplify the problem a bit as the effects would be come more uniform across the tyre (so its just very very complex instead of horrendously horribly very complex
)
i wonder if something along these lines has contributed to Wirth thinking he can do it?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2009 04:36PM by marwood82.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It also might be interesting to know the last F1
> car Wirth got his hands on was the CDG wing idea I
> believe. His team had a go at it, put it in the
> windtunnel and what do you know? Totally different
> to thier CFD results. What I heard was causing the
> mismatch in results was in fact the 4 black things
> supporting the car
!>
re the point about problems due to the tyres,
i'm wondering if the change in regulations may have tipped the balance on this a bit.
i'll confess the only aerodynamics i've ever studied is hypersonics and that was few years ago(so i apologise for any glaring mistakes in advance)
but one of the issues i recall was that of sudden changes of flow direction resulting in compression or expansion.
in hypersonics this is all tide up with shockwaves but i'm guessing some related effect also occurs a lower speeds
my point is that previously you would have had a similar situation to this with the grooved tyres.
treating the tyre as a rotating cylinder(way overly simple i know but it'll do for illustrating the point), then head on the air flow is not going to be disturbed equally across the radius of the tyre because of the grooves. You're then also faced with the problem of how these differences in disturbance interact with each other and the whole problem balloons in size
then if the tyre is not head on to the flow, (eg if the car is turning), then i guess you're going to get something analogus to the shockwave problem as the airflow changes direction across the tyre (going up and down with the grooves).
My point is that i would have thought that with the switch back to slicks, this would simplify the problem a bit as the effects would be come more uniform across the tyre (so its just very very complex instead of horrendously horribly very complex
)i wonder if something along these lines has contributed to Wirth thinking he can do it?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2009 04:36PM by marwood82.
Getting a bit testy now that I pointed out what you claimed never happened? Sorry for pointing out your error. Don't take your frustration out on me.
lol. The statement CFD is more reliable is MAJOR generalisation. I simply elaborated on how yes it can be, but also how it cant. It was not an error thankyou very much! The error was generalising the concept of CFD being more reliable.
But keeping up with developments and being a practising aerodynamacist is 2 different things.
You said he now had a role of a mananager right? As a manager part of his job is to make sure he knows what the people under him are doing. By that he will be keeping up with everything everyone below him knows.
leading motorsport designers is wrong.
They were the best cars in the class, and best cars built to the same regulations. What more can be asked for?
right... They had no real competition!! And when they did, they lost!
So let's take a look at Wirth's recent success. ALMS Champion against 0 competition. At events which include real competition the car loses. Slower than the Oreca's in the race at Petit. Flattered by a lack of competition during the season. I loved the idea of the larger front tyres. Awesome idea and very innovative but when the car had real competition we got a good gauge on it and it wasnt great. They also did test and validate the car in the windtunnel. I fully expect the same to happen with the F1 car, but if not as what seems to be proposed then surley thats too big a risk right now?
Yet you still misunderstand. When did I say he was wrong like you suggest, the subject of twisting words again. You like to think your absent of it but clearly you are not. I said he's brave! And IMO I think it could be the wrong decision. At the same time it could work out very well for him. But never once did I say he or anyone was wrong.
As ever it goes in circles with us. In this case you fail to read what I have said, you claim I said things I did not and you clearly do not understand what I am trying to get across from my first post. It becomes impossible to hold a good discussion with you at times. granted it works both ways.
What Nick Wirth is doing here is smart and innovative, not crazy. CFD is not only more reliable than a windtunnel, it'll be much more cost-effective, and there's a lot less practically to go wrong with it. It'll also be able to work in much more detail on the aero than a windtunnel would.
Read above. More reliable to a point. After that to say its more reliable is impossible to tell. If that were the case then why hasnt every F1 team abandoned the apparent unreliable windtunnels?
Cost effective, yes.
Alot less to go wrong?
No. IMO opposite. With CFD a human user defines all of the test parameters that come automatically with a rolling road windtunnel. Your CFD results depend heavily on human user input more so than a windtunnel. Note I said input, not output.
[www.ten-tenths.com]
[www.pistonheads.com]
and...
[www.symscape.com]
edit - lessons learnt being the most relevant section.
A couple similar short discussions to this very one. Some good input.
marwood82 - good point about the grooves and an interesting read. ive only recently been dipping my toe into supersonic and hypersonic stuff latley.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2009 06:50PM by chet.
lol. The statement CFD is more reliable is MAJOR generalisation. I simply elaborated on how yes it can be, but also how it cant. It was not an error thankyou very much
! The error was generalising the concept of CFD being more reliable.But keeping up with developments and being a practising aerodynamacist is 2 different things.
You said he now had a role of a mananager right? As a manager part of his job is to make sure he knows what the people under him are doing. By that he will be keeping up with everything everyone below him knows.
leading motorsport designers is wrong.
They were the best cars in the class, and best cars built to the same regulations. What more can be asked for?
right... They had no real competition!! And when they did, they lost!
So let's take a look at Wirth's recent success. ALMS Champion against 0 competition. At events which include real competition the car loses. Slower than the Oreca's in the race at Petit. Flattered by a lack of competition during the season. I loved the idea of the larger front tyres. Awesome idea and very innovative but when the car had real competition we got a good gauge on it and it wasnt great. They also did test and validate the car in the windtunnel. I fully expect the same to happen with the F1 car, but if not as what seems to be proposed then surley thats too big a risk right now?
Yet you still misunderstand. When did I say he was wrong like you suggest, the subject of twisting words again. You like to think your absent of it but clearly you are not. I said he's brave! And IMO I think it could be the wrong decision. At the same time it could work out very well for him. But never once did I say he or anyone was wrong.
As ever it goes in circles with us. In this case you fail to read what I have said, you claim I said things I did not and you clearly do not understand what I am trying to get across from my first post. It becomes impossible to hold a good discussion with you at times. granted it works both ways.
What Nick Wirth is doing here is smart and innovative, not crazy. CFD is not only more reliable than a windtunnel, it'll be much more cost-effective, and there's a lot less practically to go wrong with it. It'll also be able to work in much more detail on the aero than a windtunnel would.
Read above. More reliable to a point. After that to say its more reliable is impossible to tell. If that were the case then why hasnt every F1 team abandoned the apparent unreliable windtunnels?
Cost effective, yes.
Alot less to go wrong?
No. IMO opposite. With CFD a human user defines all of the test parameters that come automatically with a rolling road windtunnel. Your CFD results depend heavily on human user input more so than a windtunnel. Note I said input, not output.
[www.ten-tenths.com]
[www.pistonheads.com]
and...
[www.symscape.com]
edit - lessons learnt being the most relevant section.
A couple similar short discussions to this very one. Some good input.
marwood82 - good point about the grooves and an interesting read. ive only recently been dipping my toe into supersonic and hypersonic stuff latley.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2009 06:50PM by chet.
Get it right, I didnt @#$%& up, the only @#$%& up I had was expecting you'd use your head. It was claimed CFD was more reliable/accurate (whatever), and for simulating say a wing on its own then yes it perhaps is more reliable but for something as complex as an F1 car that is not the case with reliability or accuracy. I felt I did not need to mention or explain that because I thought you had some common sense to recognize the very basics and very obvious!!! as I said before to say CFD is more accurate is by far a massive generalisation. Right or wrong? Of course its right!
They out qualified oreca but for the most part the oreca lapped quicker than both acuras.
I dont think Acura did anything wrong, they beat the poor competition they had but the success of the Acura is an overstatement given the competition they had. It does not make it any less of a victory I know but you have to wonder how they'd have fared against the R15,908 and RS sypder. I have no faults with the car because its a masterpeice. Perhaps more so under skin.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
They out qualified oreca but for the most part the oreca lapped quicker than both acuras.
I dont think Acura did anything wrong, they beat the poor competition they had but the success of the Acura is an overstatement given the competition they had. It does not make it any less of a victory I know but you have to wonder how they'd have fared against the R15,908 and RS sypder. I have no faults with the car because its a masterpeice. Perhaps more so under skin.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Sorry. I assumed you meant what you posted, rather than meant what you didn't post. I'll be sure to read what you don't post next time.
No the fault is mine. Next time I shall not assume you have an ounce of intelligence and explain even the simplist of things rather than having rely on you to use you head
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
No the fault is mine. Next time I shall not assume you have an ounce of intelligence and explain even the simplist of things rather than having rely on you to use you head
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Most teams do go straight from CFD to track with developments now. Honda for instance did alot of that last year
That's made possible because they can easily correlate that data with the windtunnel data. And if as suggested this car will never see a windtunnel then theres no benchmark which to correlate or check with. Thats my whole point about this.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
That's made possible because they can easily correlate that data with the windtunnel data. And if as suggested this car will never see a windtunnel then theres no benchmark which to correlate or check with. Thats my whole point about this.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.