Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
flemke said:
100 IAN said:
E65Ross said:
It would be interesting if they were to design camera "wing mirrors" where there was a small screen in that corner by the A-pillar where you usually look for the mirror....
I wonder how many mph that would gain
Like a Ferrari FXX you mean?I wonder how many mph that would gain
Was that thing whacked up in someone's garden shed?
flemke said:
100 IAN said:
E65Ross said:
It would be interesting if they were to design camera "wing mirrors" where there was a small screen in that corner by the A-pillar where you usually look for the mirror....
I wonder how many mph that would gain
Like a Ferrari FXX you mean?I wonder how many mph that would gain
Was that thing whacked up in someone's garden shed?
thegreenhell said:
flemke said:
100 IAN said:
E65Ross said:
It would be interesting if they were to design camera "wing mirrors" where there was a small screen in that corner by the A-pillar where you usually look for the mirror....
I wonder how many mph that would gain
Like a Ferrari FXX you mean?I wonder how many mph that would gain
Was that thing whacked up in someone's garden shed?
dom9 said:
Why is everyone obsessing about frontal area (yes, I understand CdA)? It is but one, manageable, component!
See Porsche GT1:
They apparently spent extensive time in the wind tunnel developing those mirrors.
That was twenty years ago.See Porsche GT1:
They apparently spent extensive time in the wind tunnel developing those mirrors.
The point being discussed was whether the BP23, the measurable objective of which may be Vmax, could use cameras instead of external mirrors.
The frontal area of those wing mirrors on the GT1 would certainly have reduced its theoretical Vmax, but in 1996 there was no alternative.
I have read that when Jaguar established the XJ220's Vmax, which at the time was a record for a road car, they removed the wing mirrors.
flemke said:
Hard to believe that such a small lens required such a large shroud around it - not exactly minimising frontal area!
Was that thing whacked up in someone's garden shed?
You could say that, a Mr E Ferrari of Modena I believe. He had quite a big shed in his garden, oh and he built a track so he could test his car, quite a Petrol Head!Was that thing whacked up in someone's garden shed?
100 IAN said:
flemke said:
Hard to believe that such a small lens required such a large shroud around it - not exactly minimising frontal area!
Was that thing whacked up in someone's garden shed?
You could say that, a Mr E Ferrari of Modena I believe. He had quite a big shed in his garden, oh and he built a track so he could test his car, quite a Petrol Head!Was that thing whacked up in someone's garden shed?
Wasn't he the guy who said that the only thing that mattered in a car was the engine?
flemke said:
That was twenty years ago.
The point being discussed was whether the BP23, the measurable objective of which may be Vmax, could use cameras instead of external mirrors.
The frontal area of those wing mirrors on the GT1 would certainly have reduced its theoretical Vmax, but in 1996 there was no alternative.
I have read that when Jaguar established the XJ220's Vmax, which at the time was a record for a road car, they removed the wing mirrors.
Yes, it was 20yrs ago. And those wing mirrors increased the Vmax because the alternative was less aerodynamic, despite having a smaller frontal area. Larger won the day. They managed the airflow better.The point being discussed was whether the BP23, the measurable objective of which may be Vmax, could use cameras instead of external mirrors.
The frontal area of those wing mirrors on the GT1 would certainly have reduced its theoretical Vmax, but in 1996 there was no alternative.
I have read that when Jaguar established the XJ220's Vmax, which at the time was a record for a road car, they removed the wing mirrors.
The point being discussed long since disappeared with chat about frontal area, which is far too simplistic when discussing wing mirrors because smaller does not always mean higher Vmax.
Vmax will be increased with many, many aerodynamic adjustments, one of which would be the loss of wing mirrors. If cameras are legal then it is almost certain they will be smaller than mirrors and potentially lower drag. However, it may well depend on the housing design, which was my point. They still need to 'stick out' and some effort will need to be put into their design to ensure they're not just a flight of fancy.
So, could BP23 have cameras, as the question apparently now is? Yes. I can put cameras on pretty much anything. Even my dog. She's not, however, aerodynamic. She does, however, have a verified GPS Vmax.
flemke said:
I have read that when Jaguar established the XJ220's Vmax, which at the time was a record for a road car, they removed the wing mirrors.
As well as taping up the shut lines and removing the wiper and fiddling with the rev limiter, on at least one record attempt the same can be said of the F1 - 
dom9 said:
flemke said:
That was twenty years ago.
The point being discussed was whether the BP23, the measurable objective of which may be Vmax, could use cameras instead of external mirrors.
The frontal area of those wing mirrors on the GT1 would certainly have reduced its theoretical Vmax, but in 1996 there was no alternative.
I have read that when Jaguar established the XJ220's Vmax, which at the time was a record for a road car, they removed the wing mirrors.
Yes, it was 20yrs ago. And those wing mirrors increased the Vmax because the alternative was less aerodynamic, despite having a smaller frontal area. Larger won the day. They managed the airflow better.The point being discussed was whether the BP23, the measurable objective of which may be Vmax, could use cameras instead of external mirrors.
The frontal area of those wing mirrors on the GT1 would certainly have reduced its theoretical Vmax, but in 1996 there was no alternative.
I have read that when Jaguar established the XJ220's Vmax, which at the time was a record for a road car, they removed the wing mirrors.
The point being discussed long since disappeared with chat about frontal area, which is far too simplistic when discussing wing mirrors because smaller does not always mean higher Vmax.
Vmax will be increased with many, many aerodynamic adjustments, one of which would be the loss of wing mirrors. If cameras are legal then it is almost certain they will be smaller than mirrors and potentially lower drag. However, it may well depend on the housing design, which was my point. They still need to 'stick out' and some effort will need to be put into their design to ensure they're not just a flight of fancy.
So, could BP23 have cameras, as the question apparently now is? Yes. I can put cameras on pretty much anything. Even my dog. She's not, however, aerodynamic. She does, however, have a verified GPS Vmax.
I can see how those mirrors might have been superior to the standard mirrors of the time on the 993, even though the 993's mirrors were smaller.
I can also see how the GT1 mirrors might have been aerodynamically superior to no mirrors at all, not in terms of Vmax but in terms of managing the airflow and helping to generate more overall downforce.
However, relative to no mirrors at all (which in any case was not an option for Porsche as the GT1 racing car required a homologated road car basis), it is hard to see how Vmax would have been higher with the mirrors.
Do you have any documentation or source that you could share to enlighten us?
hurstg01 said:
flemke said:
I have read that when Jaguar established the XJ220's Vmax, which at the time was a record for a road car, they removed the wing mirrors.
As well as taping up the shut lines and removing the wiper and fiddling with the rev limiter, on at least one record attempt the same can be said of the F1 - flemke said:
dom9 said:
flemke said:
That was twenty years ago.
The point being discussed was whether the BP23, the measurable objective of which may be Vmax, could use cameras instead of external mirrors.
The frontal area of those wing mirrors on the GT1 would certainly have reduced its theoretical Vmax, but in 1996 there was no alternative.
I have read that when Jaguar established the XJ220's Vmax, which at the time was a record for a road car, they removed the wing mirrors.
Yes, it was 20yrs ago. And those wing mirrors increased the Vmax because the alternative was less aerodynamic, despite having a smaller frontal area. Larger won the day. They managed the airflow better.The point being discussed was whether the BP23, the measurable objective of which may be Vmax, could use cameras instead of external mirrors.
The frontal area of those wing mirrors on the GT1 would certainly have reduced its theoretical Vmax, but in 1996 there was no alternative.
I have read that when Jaguar established the XJ220's Vmax, which at the time was a record for a road car, they removed the wing mirrors.
The point being discussed long since disappeared with chat about frontal area, which is far too simplistic when discussing wing mirrors because smaller does not always mean higher Vmax.
Vmax will be increased with many, many aerodynamic adjustments, one of which would be the loss of wing mirrors. If cameras are legal then it is almost certain they will be smaller than mirrors and potentially lower drag. However, it may well depend on the housing design, which was my point. They still need to 'stick out' and some effort will need to be put into their design to ensure they're not just a flight of fancy.
So, could BP23 have cameras, as the question apparently now is? Yes. I can put cameras on pretty much anything. Even my dog. She's not, however, aerodynamic. She does, however, have a verified GPS Vmax.
I can see how those mirrors might have been superior to the standard mirrors of the time on the 993, even though the 993's mirrors were smaller.
I can also see how the GT1 mirrors might have been aerodynamically superior to no mirrors at all, not in terms of Vmax but in terms of managing the airflow and helping to generate more overall downforce.
However, relative to no mirrors at all (which in any case was not an option for Porsche as the GT1 racing car required a homologated road car basis), it is hard to see how Vmax would have been higher with the mirrors.
Do you have any documentation or source that you could share to enlighten us?
Sway said:
Not answering for Dom (as I don't know the answer!) - but isn't it at least theoretically possible that the mirror cowls were shaped so that whilst they added to the frontal area, they effectively managed to divert airflow away from drag creating surfaces downstream?
Could be, although you'd want the air to reattach by the time it got to the rear wing. This was a racing car, on which a meaningful degree of downforce would have been crucially important. Also, those apertures at the front of the rear wings require a large volume of airflow.I don't know the answer either, but it is counter-intuitive, which is why I asked for clarification. My amateur guess is that the point was that the GT1 mirrors allowed for greater Vmax than the contemporary 993 mirrors did, even though the GT1 mirrors had more frontal area.
Animal said:
For some reason I really wan tot know what it is!
LOL - 23mph cross country 
to be fair - the GPS only pings every 10secs so it could be higher... Not bad for a Lab (albeit a small, fit one).hurstg01 said:
As well as taping up the shut lines and removing the wiper and fiddling with the rev limiter, on at least one record attempt the same can be said of the F1
Exactly this - Taping shutlines makes a difference, especially at high speed. Imagine what a well designed wing mirror can do. Radiators and cooling ducts etc can be a nightmare...And then there is the underbody etc.flemke said:
Are you saying that the GT1 wing mirrors increased the Vmax above what it would have been with no mirrors at all?
I can see how those mirrors might have been superior to the standard mirrors of the time on the 993, even though the 993's mirrors were smaller.
I can also see how the GT1 mirrors might have been aerodynamically superior to no mirrors at all, not in terms of Vmax but in terms of managing the airflow and helping to generate more overall downforce.
However, relative to no mirrors at all (which in any case was not an option for Porsche as the GT1 racing car required a homologated road car basis), it is hard to see how Vmax would have been higher with the mirrors.
Do you have any documentation or source that you could share to enlighten us?
I feel like you're being a bit obtuse here, Flemke. There is no situation where 'no wing mirrors' is an option (really): Road cars must have them, race cars must have them. Cameras will still need to 'stick out'. Now, they're small enough that they could be on thin wing sections with a camera 'bullet' on the end, which may be optimum.I can see how those mirrors might have been superior to the standard mirrors of the time on the 993, even though the 993's mirrors were smaller.
I can also see how the GT1 mirrors might have been aerodynamically superior to no mirrors at all, not in terms of Vmax but in terms of managing the airflow and helping to generate more overall downforce.
However, relative to no mirrors at all (which in any case was not an option for Porsche as the GT1 racing car required a homologated road car basis), it is hard to see how Vmax would have been higher with the mirrors.
Do you have any documentation or source that you could share to enlighten us?
The point made was that wing mirrors contribute to drag, which is of course true, but can be optimised.
Cameras may replace mirrors but will still be there and still contribute to drag, as any external appendage would. But that's a much better solution for drag, right? However, what country is going to allow a car to be homologated for the road with thin, carbon blades sticking out? I'd guess none. So that won't be the solution. For pedestrian safety; you'll end up with something fairly bluff/ blunt that can be pushed back, fairly flush, with the door, when you hit the postman on his bike.
One solution you get to is something similar to the FXX, posted. Although better than say the wing mirror on my BMW it's not perfect from an aerodynamic point of view, though it's difficult to know what the airflow looks like in that location. My point is that there may well be an aerodynamic solution, benefitting Vmax, where you don't need the extra weight and complexity of cameras, screen, wiring etc over a piece of glass.
It's not the clearest picture but the point of the Porsche GT1 is that they absolutely did not have to look like that (look at its peers) and there were many, many other shapes of wing mirror housing that could have been applied to suit the regs. My understanding is that Porsche chose to create a fairly large 'bullet' where thickest part of the 'bullet' wasn't even the mirror (it's difficult to see). They created something with a higher frontal area because it had lower drag. In order to control the flow and wake behind the glass, it was quite long as well, which is why it looks so odd. Usually a longer object has more drag because it has more surface friction of the air passing over it but the airflow is easier to control, behind it giving a potential net gain in drag reduction.
So, yes, it was a lower drag solution, which is why they didn't just use 993 mirrors. I'll try and find the article as it was 20yrs+ ago and may have been a bit pre-internet (at least for me) and may have appeared in Race Car Engineering or alike. We used it as an example for my post-grad.
Sway said:
Not answering for Dom (as I don't know the answer!) - but isn't it at least theoretically possible that the mirror cowls were shaped so that whilst they added to the frontal area, they effectively managed to divert airflow away from drag creating surfaces downstream?
This-ish. Yes, you could also use them to divert some flow, if you were clever. Simply though: What's more 'aerodynamic' a piece of A4 paper held up in the wind (front on, like a fairly standard wing mirror) or a tear drop/ wing shape with the same frontal area facing into the wind? Or how much bigger could the cross section of the tear drop shape be before it was 'as bad' as the 'blunt' sheet of A4?
Nasa explain it better
I've gone on a bit but the point is; what is aerodynamically best whilst retaining a mirror (function) probably isn't going to get past any safety regs and there is plenty you can do with a glass mirror though I would always agree you can package a camera smaller (thus lower drag, for a given shape).
The discussion about frontal area is moot as you can place a mirror and shape a mirror to effectively not be a part of that calculation (frontal silhouette), like in the GT1 example (fairly inboard in terms of overall width and much, much bigger than would be obvious from a drag reduction perspective).
thegreenhell said:
That's as fast as Usain Bolt over 100m.
Indeed - she's a bit of a weapon and, sadly, the forest creature population has suffered as a result. I may tape her ears back and go for a record. Will leave the tail free as I think that may be helping fill the wake Anyway; apologies for all the diversions today! I probably could have just posted the NASA screen grab to make my point, which was really in response to doing calcs based purely on frontal area.
I take it back - just checked GPS data and it is 28mph!! Generally 20+ mph if it pings when she's after squirrels/ rabbits/ foxes/ deer
Edited by dom9 on Thursday 5th October 14:15
Rear view cameras don't need to stick out - they can be mounted in the rear panel like a reversing camera, although as far to the side as possible to ensure a decent field of view. They would need to have some kind of cleaning function, however, as any fixed reversing camera gets covered in road film after a couple of miles....
RedRob67 said:
Rear view cameras don't need to stick out - they can be mounted in the rear panel like a reversing camera, although as far to the side as possible to ensure a decent field of view. They would need to have some kind of cleaning function, however, as any fixed reversing camera gets covered in road film after a couple of miles....
What about blind spots, either side of you? Cameras can go anywhere, physically, no one is suggesting otherwise, but I'm guessing they will be legislated to have at least as good a field of vision as a wing mirror does now, if they replace them.
That will likely mean that they have to go in pretty similar positions or be numerous (but combined, if that makes sense). They can't be too close to the body or you won't see directly to the side or behind you (hence perhaps you have both side and back on the same screen?).
Many cars have rear facing cameras already and come from the factory as such, but we still have wing mirrors - genuine question (relating to my first point) - Why?
Anyway - all of this was premised on the basis that a car with small, flat wing mirrors may produce more drag than one with larger, bullet shaped mirrors, despite the latter having a larger frontal area.
We can go back to the F1
Edited by dom9 on Thursday 5th October 16:15
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff