2010 Formula One season [Huge update on page one]
Posted by madotter
chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read above. More reliable to a point.
So CFD is more reliable than a windtunnel? :P
By the way, at no point did I say windtunnels are unreliable. Don't put words in my mouth.
> 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.
Both techniques depend on human input, and since a session in a windtunnel involves the input of more people than the running of a computer programme does, the potential for human error is naturally greater, hence the greater practical potential for things to go wrong with the windtunnel process.
Now who should've read above?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read above. More reliable to a point.
So CFD is more reliable than a windtunnel? :P
By the way, at no point did I say windtunnels are unreliable. Don't put words in my mouth.
> 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.
Both techniques depend on human input, and since a session in a windtunnel involves the input of more people than the running of a computer programme does, the potential for human error is naturally greater, hence the greater practical potential for things to go wrong with the windtunnel process.
Now who should've read above?
Yeah, I'd almost forgotten about Di Grassi. I'd be interesting to see him in F1 next year and see how he copes, he seems to be fairly good.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2009 04:24PM by EC83.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2009 04:24PM by EC83.
EC83 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chet Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Read above. More reliable to a point.
>
> So CFD is more reliable than a windtunnel? :P
An Alfa is reliable... to a certain degree or point in its life, but a BMW is far more reliable past the point the Alfa starts becoming a mess. Once CFD passes say the 50,000 mile mark a windtunnel becomes a much safer bet. Poor analogy I know
!!!
For simple things it takes less work with CFD to get reliable readings than with a windtunnel, however with complex things it takes less work for a windtunnel to be more reliable than CFD. CFD is more reliable if you look at a single aspect. Not the whole picutre
!
> By the way, at no point did I say windtunnels are
> unreliable. Don't put words in my mouth.
>
Appologies for that.
>
> Both techniques depend on human input, and since a
> session in a windtunnel involves the input of more
> people than the running of a computer programme
> does, the potential for human error is naturally
> greater, hence the greater practical potential for
> things to go wrong with the windtunnel process.
> Now who should've read above?
The human side of CFD requires more input than a windtunnel. GIGO! Windtunnels require more maintence but on the most part much of that maintenence is ensuring the ideal flow conditions are achieved, in which the windtunnel has various devices to aid that.
With a windtunnel you naturally get as close to as real boundary conditions as you would in real-life and you can very easily (far more than CFD) adjust various aspects of the windtunnel to get the ideal conditions in a short time. Say such as at different attitudes (pitch, roll, yaw, rideheight). For CFD that kind of process takes a long time (you need to solve for one pitch angle, another, then another, and so on...). Windtunnel results are pretty much realtime. Much of the windtunnel work done by teams is mapping aero at different attitudes whereas the CFD is mostly testing various parts then possibly shoved into the tunnel. Best of both worlds i guess one for research one for validation. Using CFD to quickly model an update and see how it runs, then use the windtunnels realtime data gathering to map the aero and correlate. An hours run in the windtunnel testing different settings of say yaw could take days to solve in CFD. But essentially the windtunnel will give you the conditions, however with CFD you have to model the conditions. The way I see it theres alot more chance for human error to occur with CFD as it requires signifcantly more data input from the user. However we do not need to mention the idea of a incorrectly calibrated windtunnel.
As you'd expect the reliability of CFD depends on cost, and how much time you want to spend on things and at this stage I guess the limiting factor is time. Especially when despite a higher cost you could get results from a tunnel relativley quickly. Motorsport is analysis, results and application. All these needs to happen in a very short time. An example a guy I used to live with in the first year completed his placement at the then Honda last year. He said the one thing that amazed him was how he would be asked to draw something on computer, it would get a quick CFD run, a prototype would be made, then in the windtunnel to validate what they saw on computer, then to the track all within a week.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
-------------------------------------------------------
> chet Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Read above. More reliable to a point.
>
> So CFD is more reliable than a windtunnel? :P
An Alfa is reliable... to a certain degree or point in its life, but a BMW is far more reliable past the point the Alfa starts becoming a mess. Once CFD passes say the 50,000 mile mark a windtunnel becomes a much safer bet. Poor analogy I know
!!!For simple things it takes less work with CFD to get reliable readings than with a windtunnel, however with complex things it takes less work for a windtunnel to be more reliable than CFD. CFD is more reliable if you look at a single aspect. Not the whole picutre
!> By the way, at no point did I say windtunnels are
> unreliable. Don't put words in my mouth.
>
Appologies for that.
>
> Both techniques depend on human input, and since a
> session in a windtunnel involves the input of more
> people than the running of a computer programme
> does, the potential for human error is naturally
> greater, hence the greater practical potential for
> things to go wrong with the windtunnel process.
> Now who should've read above?
The human side of CFD requires more input than a windtunnel. GIGO
! Windtunnels require more maintence but on the most part much of that maintenence is ensuring the ideal flow conditions are achieved, in which the windtunnel has various devices to aid that.With a windtunnel you naturally get as close to as real boundary conditions as you would in real-life and you can very easily (far more than CFD) adjust various aspects of the windtunnel to get the ideal conditions in a short time. Say such as at different attitudes (pitch, roll, yaw, rideheight). For CFD that kind of process takes a long time (you need to solve for one pitch angle, another, then another, and so on...). Windtunnel results are pretty much realtime. Much of the windtunnel work done by teams is mapping aero at different attitudes whereas the CFD is mostly testing various parts then possibly shoved into the tunnel. Best of both worlds i guess one for research one for validation. Using CFD to quickly model an update and see how it runs, then use the windtunnels realtime data gathering to map the aero and correlate. An hours run in the windtunnel testing different settings of say yaw could take days to solve in CFD. But essentially the windtunnel will give you the conditions, however with CFD you have to model the conditions. The way I see it theres alot more chance for human error to occur with CFD as it requires signifcantly more data input from the user. However we do not need to mention the idea of a incorrectly calibrated windtunnel.
As you'd expect the reliability of CFD depends on cost, and how much time you want to spend on things and at this stage I guess the limiting factor is time. Especially when despite a higher cost you could get results from a tunnel relativley quickly. Motorsport is analysis, results and application. All these needs to happen in a very short time. An example a guy I used to live with in the first year completed his placement at the then Honda last year. He said the one thing that amazed him was how he would be asked to draw something on computer, it would get a quick CFD run, a prototype would be made, then in the windtunnel to validate what they saw on computer, then to the track all within a week.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Appologies for that.
No worries.
An Alfa is reliable... to a certain degree or point in its life, but a BMW is far more reliable past the point the Alfa starts becoming a mess. Once CFD passes say the 50,000 mile mark a windtunnel becomes a much safer bet. Poor analogy I know !!!
Nah, I see what you're getting at. The windtunnel is still arguably better in some areas, CFD has now overtaken it in others.
It should also be pointed out that the simpler and cleaner aero that's on the cars now should help play to the strengths of CFD much more than the complicated aero that the cars had before 2009.
So, optimising the car designs has got to the stage where the processes have mixed and matched the best aspects of the two, rather than relying on windtunnels alone. In years to come, the constant improvement in CFD will eventually make it unquestionably superior to windtunnels, even in the areas where it might not be right now. So, to come back to my original point, what Nick Wirth is doing is very smart because he's stealing a march on his competitors by investing a lot of time and effort now in a technology which will be the future of F1 car design. Short term pain for long term gain. Whether it's a bit too early yet or not, time will tell, but kudos to him for trying a new approach.
No worries.
An Alfa is reliable... to a certain degree or point in its life, but a BMW is far more reliable past the point the Alfa starts becoming a mess. Once CFD passes say the 50,000 mile mark a windtunnel becomes a much safer bet. Poor analogy I know !!!
Nah, I see what you're getting at. The windtunnel is still arguably better in some areas, CFD has now overtaken it in others.
It should also be pointed out that the simpler and cleaner aero that's on the cars now should help play to the strengths of CFD much more than the complicated aero that the cars had before 2009.
So, optimising the car designs has got to the stage where the processes have mixed and matched the best aspects of the two, rather than relying on windtunnels alone. In years to come, the constant improvement in CFD will eventually make it unquestionably superior to windtunnels, even in the areas where it might not be right now. So, to come back to my original point, what Nick Wirth is doing is very smart because he's stealing a march on his competitors by investing a lot of time and effort now in a technology which will be the future of F1 car design. Short term pain for long term gain. Whether it's a bit too early yet or not, time will tell, but kudos to him for trying a new approach.
I think computing power is the limiting thing for CFD atm and patience!
CFD is perfect for optimisation of aerofoils. Something F1 teams spend alot of time on. F1 teams dont choose a NACA aerofoil, they make their own then optimize to a degree thats crazy and mind numbing!
The cleaner aero I guess may have helped things but the level of detail is as ever increasing.
As ive said previously in the thread I think Nick is brave, and I admire what he's doing and it takes a brave man to make a big step.
Thing is my point still stands. Without any comparison or validation data via a windtunnel he is taking a big risk and at F1 level it could hurt big time. With limited track testing he pretty much has been right first time out and if that is the case then well done! He will be setting the standard for the future... However I fully expect him to spend some time in the windtunnel with his car.
its interesting how here we have two teams USF1 and Manor at opposite ends. USF1 banging on about the windshear tunnel, apparently one of the most advanced in the world for automotive use whilst Manor will not use one. Then im still the skeptic about USF1 and whether or not they will make it to the grid come Bahrain.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
CFD is perfect for optimisation of aerofoils. Something F1 teams spend alot of time on. F1 teams dont choose a NACA aerofoil, they make their own then optimize to a degree thats crazy and mind numbing!
The cleaner aero I guess may have helped things but the level of detail is as ever increasing.
As ive said previously in the thread I think Nick is brave, and I admire what he's doing and it takes a brave man to make a big step.
Thing is my point still stands. Without any comparison or validation data via a windtunnel he is taking a big risk and at F1 level it could hurt big time. With limited track testing he pretty much has been right first time out and if that is the case then well done! He will be setting the standard for the future... However I fully expect him to spend some time in the windtunnel with his car.
its interesting how here we have two teams USF1 and Manor at opposite ends. USF1 banging on about the windshear tunnel, apparently one of the most advanced in the world for automotive use whilst Manor will not use one. Then im still the skeptic about USF1 and whether or not they will make it to the grid come Bahrain.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
EC83 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, I'd almost forgotten about Di Grassi. I'd be
> interesting to see him in F1 next year and see how
> he copes, he seems to be fairly good.
Yes, Renault should have considered giving him a drive in the last few races to see how he would go.
X (@ed24f1)
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, I'd almost forgotten about Di Grassi. I'd be
> interesting to see him in F1 next year and see how
> he copes, he seems to be fairly good.
Yes, Renault should have considered giving him a drive in the last few races to see how he would go.
X (@ed24f1)
Wow, that would almost be entirely unexpected.
Interlagos and Abu Dhabi are seemingly working out a deal to switch places at the end of the calendar:
[www.autoblog.com]
[www.autoblog.com]
I'd love Interlagos to be back as the final race next year. Atmosphere, character, and it's on TV at a perfect time for the parts of the world that really care about F1.
that sounds more promising, hopefully he takes the pay cut and goes to mclaren. with his payout from Ferrari, he will still be paid probably more than before anyway.
X (@ed24f1)
X (@ed24f1)
yup! its a win win for kimi really! I would say Mclaren are a very safe bet for next year. They looked dead in the water with a good number of shotgun wounds early season yet they are now as bouncy as before! Probably my Lewis side coming out here but i'd say alots down to him!
btw, random bit of news or info and I guess perhaps obvious to some but someone i know is working at Marston Aerospace, they make the radiators/heat exchangers/pretty much most cooling relating items including piping work for all F1 teams amazingly. (just last week LdM visted them!)
For obvious reasons they are not given engine data but just data so they can design and make a radiator sufficient enough. I guess it's more praise for Mercedes and Mclaren, apparently they have smallest oil and water radiators but also smallest heat exchanger for gearbox, closley followed by FI and Brawn :p. I guess we can simply deduce what a great job Mercedes have done, and also credit to Mclaren! Like I said, I guess alot would know that infomation but then its nice to get a direct confirmation.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
btw, random bit of news or info and I guess perhaps obvious to some but someone i know is working at Marston Aerospace, they make the radiators/heat exchangers/pretty much most cooling relating items including piping work for all F1 teams amazingly. (just last week LdM visted them!)
For obvious reasons they are not given engine data but just data so they can design and make a radiator sufficient enough. I guess it's more praise for Mercedes and Mclaren, apparently they have smallest oil and water radiators but also smallest heat exchanger for gearbox, closley followed by FI and Brawn :p. I guess we can simply deduce what a great job Mercedes have done, and also credit to Mclaren! Like I said, I guess alot would know that infomation but then its nice to get a direct confirmation.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.