*** The official Formula One 2015-16 off season thread ***
Discussion
CraigyMc said:
In F1 terms, it's probably not all that tiny. I was wondering about this too. Any specialists on here care to weigh in?
Boundary layer stuff is beyond me but I know it's important.
Some discussion here:Boundary layer stuff is beyond me but I know it's important.
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4...
Hilarious arguing elsewhere on the internet about the colour of the Red Bull. Some say it's dark blue, others that it's black.
Worth remembering that Movie Stars and their costumiers have long been aware that a midnight blue (much darker than Navy) dinner jacket is preferable on-screen. It photographs darker than black.
I'm not bothered about the colour, just loathe matt finish on all cars.
Worth remembering that Movie Stars and their costumiers have long been aware that a midnight blue (much darker than Navy) dinner jacket is preferable on-screen. It photographs darker than black.
I'm not bothered about the colour, just loathe matt finish on all cars.
deadslow said:
prey tell why?
I think it show weak, rather than strong overall brand control. If you are a top brand you can afford to be selective with how you both present and manage the end to end brand identity. Ferrari is the peak example of that with Philip Morris. Just because sponsor has cash does not mean that they will be allowed to place an identity on a car.Clearly the stronger your own identity, the more control you have, and the fussier you can be.
Some cars ending up looking like they have driven through a US shopping mall and picked up every brand ID going and it looks awful. Better to have a car with 2-3 well placed brands and then build an ecosystem around them, controlling carefully who they contribute to your desired market message.
Clearly the further down the grid you go, the less fussy you can be as a team, but in RBs case, given their backing, I am pretty sure that it is choice rather than a lack of sponsor options.
Vaud said:
deadslow said:
prey tell why?
I think it show weak, rather than strong overall brand control. If you are a top brand you can afford to be selective with how you both present and manage the end to end brand identity. Ferrari is the peak example of that with Philip Morris. Just because sponsor has cash does not mean that they will be allowed to place an identity on a car.Clearly the stronger your own identity, the more control you have, and the fussier you can be.
Some cars ending up looking like they have driven through a US shopping mall and picked up every brand ID going and it looks awful. Better to have a car with 2-3 well placed brands and then build an ecosystem around them, controlling carefully who they contribute to your desired market message.
Clearly the further down the grid you go, the less fussy you can be as a team, but in RBs case, given their backing, I am pretty sure that it is choice rather than a lack of sponsor options.
Munter said:
Can you make a Matt surface with less friction that a gloss one? Tiny margins all add up etc.
I've wondered if using a dimpled surface, like a golf ball would have benefits on some areas of an F1 car, certainly a golf ball with dimples travels much further than one without would. Gareth1974 said:
Munter said:
Can you make a Matt surface with less friction that a gloss one? Tiny margins all add up etc.
I've wondered if using a dimpled surface, like a golf ball would have benefits on some areas of an F1 car, certainly a golf ball with dimples travels much further than one without would. Munter said:
Gareth1974 said:
Munter said:
Can you make a Matt surface with less friction that a gloss one? Tiny margins all add up etc.
I've wondered if using a dimpled surface, like a golf ball would have benefits on some areas of an F1 car, certainly a golf ball with dimples travels much further than one without would. Wouldn't be surprised to see the car (or most of it) polished for the first test...
Gareth1974 said:
I've wondered if using a dimpled surface, like a golf ball would have benefits on some areas of an F1 car, certainly a golf ball with dimples travels much further than one without would.
I believe the purpose of the dimples is to cause the ball to fly straighter rather than further. Rather like the rifling puts a spin on a bullet. Munter said:
Gareth1974 said:
Munter said:
Can you make a Matt surface with less friction that a gloss one? Tiny margins all add up etc.
I've wondered if using a dimpled surface, like a golf ball would have benefits on some areas of an F1 car, certainly a golf ball with dimples travels much further than one without would. "A ball moving through air experiences two major aerodynamic forces, lift and drag. Dimpled balls fly farther than non-dimpled balls due to the combination of these two effects
First, the dimples on the surface of a golf ball cause the boundary layer on the upstream side of the ball to transition from laminar to turbulent. The turbulent boundary layer is able to remain attached to the surface of the ball much longer than a laminar boundary and so creates a narrower low-pressure wake and hence less pressure drag. The reduction in pressure drag causes the ball to travel farther.
Second, backspin generates lift by deforming the airflow around the ball, in a similar manner to an airplane wing. This is called the Magnus effect."
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff