F1 car Vs aircraft aerodynamics
Discussion
Interesting article here: http://archive.evaluationengineering.com/archive/a...
It seems that an F1 car has to deal with two massive problems that aircraft don't. The first is close proximity with the ground, which have massive and fundemental effects. The second is that F1 cars are mainly dealing with turbulent airflows whilst aircraft are mainly dealing with laminar airflows.
The main problem that F1 cars don't have to deal with is shock waves. But then most aircraft don't either.
A commercial aircraft is aerodynamically quite simple. It is usually an aluminium tube with a NACA airfoil section wing bolted on. You could write a computer program to design them for you based on inputted criteria. The main area of development seems to be the wing fuselage fairing and Whitcomb winglets.
Obviously military aircraft are far more complex, but how many new models are introduced each year?
In F1 we have 10 new designs each year. All based on lots of knowledge and experience and all destined to go into combat regularly throughout the year. Many military aircraft designs have never been tested in combat. During the year the F1 car design is honed continuously, I once read that it works out at one modification for each car every 20 minutes that the season lasts. Many hundreds of millions of pounds are thrown at this every year. And the vast majority of it goes on aerodynamics.
Another thing to remember is CFD, computational fluid dynamics. Each F1 team has one of the most powerful computers in use on the planet. They run some very clever software that simulates their F1 car inside the computer. They can then make designs and changes to the designs and race them, all inside the computer. These computers are running 24/7.
CFD and aero at McLaren: http://www.linksheaven.com/2006/09/f1-mclaren-a-te...
Renault CFD: http://www.forumula1.net/2007/f1/f1-news/renaults-...
BMW CFD: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-...
Ferrari CFD
Nothing gets in the wind tunnel until it has been designed and optimised in the computer using CFD.
F1 also has the best people. The top F1 aero experts must earn ten times more than they would in aerospace. So F1 can pick and choose.
Another thing worth considering. Just how many wind tunnels are in use in the UK doing aerospace work and how many are there doing motorsports work? And how many hours a year are those respective wind tunnels working?
From the McLaren article above: The equivalent of a new Eurofighter design every year, one of the most powerful supercomputers in Britain, a team of mathematicians working on game theory to provide optimum strategies, the best engineers in the worlds of aerodynamics and mechanical engineering and their work being scrutinised by 600 million people every weekend. All these factors come together at McLaren, one of the leading teams in the engineering hothouse that is Formula 1.
It seems that an F1 car has to deal with two massive problems that aircraft don't. The first is close proximity with the ground, which have massive and fundemental effects. The second is that F1 cars are mainly dealing with turbulent airflows whilst aircraft are mainly dealing with laminar airflows.
The main problem that F1 cars don't have to deal with is shock waves. But then most aircraft don't either.
A commercial aircraft is aerodynamically quite simple. It is usually an aluminium tube with a NACA airfoil section wing bolted on. You could write a computer program to design them for you based on inputted criteria. The main area of development seems to be the wing fuselage fairing and Whitcomb winglets.
Obviously military aircraft are far more complex, but how many new models are introduced each year?
In F1 we have 10 new designs each year. All based on lots of knowledge and experience and all destined to go into combat regularly throughout the year. Many military aircraft designs have never been tested in combat. During the year the F1 car design is honed continuously, I once read that it works out at one modification for each car every 20 minutes that the season lasts. Many hundreds of millions of pounds are thrown at this every year. And the vast majority of it goes on aerodynamics.
Another thing to remember is CFD, computational fluid dynamics. Each F1 team has one of the most powerful computers in use on the planet. They run some very clever software that simulates their F1 car inside the computer. They can then make designs and changes to the designs and race them, all inside the computer. These computers are running 24/7.
CFD and aero at McLaren: http://www.linksheaven.com/2006/09/f1-mclaren-a-te...
Renault CFD: http://www.forumula1.net/2007/f1/f1-news/renaults-...
BMW CFD: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-...
Ferrari CFD
Nothing gets in the wind tunnel until it has been designed and optimised in the computer using CFD.
F1 also has the best people. The top F1 aero experts must earn ten times more than they would in aerospace. So F1 can pick and choose.
Another thing worth considering. Just how many wind tunnels are in use in the UK doing aerospace work and how many are there doing motorsports work? And how many hours a year are those respective wind tunnels working?
From the McLaren article above: The equivalent of a new Eurofighter design every year, one of the most powerful supercomputers in Britain, a team of mathematicians working on game theory to provide optimum strategies, the best engineers in the worlds of aerodynamics and mechanical engineering and their work being scrutinised by 600 million people every weekend. All these factors come together at McLaren, one of the leading teams in the engineering hothouse that is Formula 1.
As you've just said, aeronautical and automotive aerodynamics are different fields of study.
I happen to be an automotive engineering student, and my department is dedicated to aeronautical and automotive engineering. In the first couple of years, most modules are shared.
Aerodynamics isn't one of them as the two disciplines are quite different.
I happen to be an automotive engineering student, and my department is dedicated to aeronautical and automotive engineering. In the first couple of years, most modules are shared.
Aerodynamics isn't one of them as the two disciplines are quite different.
AlpineWhite said:
As you've just said, aeronautical and automotive aerodynamics are different fields of study.
I happen to be an automotive engineering student, and my department is dedicated to aeronautical and automotive engineering. In the first couple of years, most modules are shared.
Aerodynamics isn't one of them as the two disciplines are quite different.
Indeed I'm an Aero student and we shared much with the Automotive guys except the aerodynamics. I happen to be an automotive engineering student, and my department is dedicated to aeronautical and automotive engineering. In the first couple of years, most modules are shared.
Aerodynamics isn't one of them as the two disciplines are quite different.
Much of it does cross over, but the boundary layer caused by the ground and the air in contact with it makes all kinds of fun for those whose job it is to keep stuff on the ground. We haven't got to worry about any of that nonsense!
zac510 said:
If an F1 wing stalls the car doesn't fall out of the sky.
Thanks, I've made a note and hopefully it'll come up in my exam on Thursday...Anyway if it stalls it's the pilots fault, nuffink to do with us guv
On the other hand if an F1 wing stalls then there's no more Mr. Downforce either...
AlpineWhite said:
Thanks for the insight.
hehe sorry, I probably should have elaborated. In nic's study of aerodynamics, how much do you take into account the performance of the wing across the wide range of pitch, yaw and roll? ie you want the stall points as far away as possible to make the plane safely flyable across different weather, weights, etc. A stalling F1 wing would not be ideal but the consequences wouldn't be as serious.Duke of Rothesay said:
Another thing to remember is CFD, computational fluid dynamics. Each F1 team has one of the most powerful computers in use on the planet. They run some very clever software that simulates their F1 car inside the computer. They can then make designs and changes to the designs and race them, all inside the computer. These computers are running 24/7.
CFD and aero at McLaren: http://www.linksheaven.com/2006/09/f1-mclaren-a-te...
Renault CFD: http://www.forumula1.net/2007/f1/f1-news/renaults-...
BMW CFD: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-...
Ferrari CFD
Nothing gets in the wind tunnel until it has been designed and optimised in the computer using CFD.
F1 also has the best people. The top F1 aero experts must earn ten times more than they would in aerospace. So F1 can pick and choose.
Another thing worth considering. Just how many wind tunnels are in use in the UK doing aerospace work and how many are there doing motorsports work? And how many hours a year are those respective wind tunnels working?
From the McLaren article above: The equivalent of a new Eurofighter design every year, one of the most powerful supercomputers in Britain, a team of mathematicians working on game theory to provide optimum strategies, the best engineers in the worlds of aerodynamics and mechanical engineering and their work being scrutinised by 600 million people every weekend. All these factors come together at McLaren, one of the leading teams in the engineering hothouse that is Formula 1.
1. The F1 teams aren't even in the top 500 list of computing power (at least the last published list), so to state that "most powerful computers on the planet" is an outright lie, at least with the current data - they were (according to the article) in the list briefly a few years back.CFD and aero at McLaren: http://www.linksheaven.com/2006/09/f1-mclaren-a-te...
Renault CFD: http://www.forumula1.net/2007/f1/f1-news/renaults-...
BMW CFD: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-...
Ferrari CFD
Nothing gets in the wind tunnel until it has been designed and optimised in the computer using CFD.
F1 also has the best people. The top F1 aero experts must earn ten times more than they would in aerospace. So F1 can pick and choose.
Another thing worth considering. Just how many wind tunnels are in use in the UK doing aerospace work and how many are there doing motorsports work? And how many hours a year are those respective wind tunnels working?
From the McLaren article above: The equivalent of a new Eurofighter design every year, one of the most powerful supercomputers in Britain, a team of mathematicians working on game theory to provide optimum strategies, the best engineers in the worlds of aerodynamics and mechanical engineering and their work being scrutinised by 600 million people every weekend. All these factors come together at McLaren, one of the leading teams in the engineering hothouse that is Formula 1.
2. On the aerodynamics, I don't doubt the complexity, but the Eurofighter (or any plane for that matter) has slightly more complex problems to deal with than "just" going round a track as quick as possible.
I would never deny the ability of the engineers and engineering involved - my father worked on avionics at BAe years back, and I had a good friend/colleague a few years back who was a gifted engineer and knew CFD backwards (John, where are you now?).
clonmult said:
2. On the aerodynamics, I don't doubt the complexity, but the Eurofighter (or any plane for that matter) has slightly more complex problems to deal with than "just" going round a track as quick as possible.
What evidence do you have for this?Perhaps you have worked as an aerodynamacist in both industries?
Duke of Rothesay said:
clonmult said:
2. On the aerodynamics, I don't doubt the complexity, but the Eurofighter (or any plane for that matter) has slightly more complex problems to deal with than "just" going round a track as quick as possible.
What evidence do you have for this?Perhaps you have worked as an aerodynamacist in both industries?
This is where I think you are struggling
elster said:
Duke of Rothesay said:
clonmult said:
2. On the aerodynamics, I don't doubt the complexity, but the Eurofighter (or any plane for that matter) has slightly more complex problems to deal with than "just" going round a track as quick as possible.
What evidence do you have for this?Perhaps you have worked as an aerodynamacist in both industries?
This is where I think you are struggling
Duke of Rothesay said:
clonmult said:
2. On the aerodynamics, I don't doubt the complexity, but the Eurofighter (or any plane for that matter) has slightly more complex problems to deal with than "just" going round a track as quick as possible.
What evidence do you have for this?Perhaps you have worked as an aerodynamacist in both industries?
There is plenty of evidence for what clonmult says. Think about it, a Eurofighter has to cope with G forces which make F1 G's look tiny (the only place you'll get more g is in a space shuttle), while staying in the air (hence the amazing computing power), being able to hit targets on the ground and possibly in the air, and may need to be able to avoid incoming fire. As it's been mentioend countless times before, if the aero on a fighter jet isn't right, you die, compared to in an F1 car, which would be a bit twitchy.
dpbird90 said:
There is plenty of evidence for what clonmult says. Think about it, a Eurofighter has to cope with G forces which make F1 G's look tiny (the only place you'll get more g is in a space shuttle), while staying in the air (hence the amazing computing power), being able to hit targets on the ground and possibly in the air, and may need to be able to avoid incoming fire. As it's been mentioend countless times before, if the aero on a fighter jet isn't right, you die, compared to in an F1 car, which would be a bit twitchy.
I think you're weighting the argument there a bit.A bit twitchy? Does this count as 'a bit twitchy'?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKMp5LBiafY
dpbird90 said:
IIRC you were arguing about this on another thread. Just GIVE UP AND ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG!
There is plenty of evidence for what clonmult says. Think about it, a Eurofighter has to cope with G forces which make F1 G's look tiny (the only place you'll get more g is in a space shuttle), while staying in the air (hence the amazing computing power), being able to hit targets on the ground and possibly in the air, and may need to be able to avoid incoming fire. As it's been mentioend countless times before, if the aero on a fighter jet isn't right, you die, compared to in an F1 car, which would be a bit twitchy.
Unlike some earlier posters you are obviously completely ignorant on the subject. There is plenty of evidence for what clonmult says. Think about it, a Eurofighter has to cope with G forces which make F1 G's look tiny (the only place you'll get more g is in a space shuttle), while staying in the air (hence the amazing computing power), being able to hit targets on the ground and possibly in the air, and may need to be able to avoid incoming fire. As it's been mentioend countless times before, if the aero on a fighter jet isn't right, you die, compared to in an F1 car, which would be a bit twitchy.
Try reading the articles I linked to for a start.
Alright you twitchy twunt. Want an argument about aerodynamics (why though FFS?) I'll happily oblige.
Aircraft aerodynamics are far more complex than F1. Why? Because an F1 car has to do one thing. Go as fast around a track as possible. The actual speed range that the aero has to work in is very small. Yes it's all fiddly and made complex, but it's basic job is simple.
Aircraft have to cope with enormous changes in speed, configuration weight, balance, weather conditions and they have to last for donkeys years.
Look at how crap an F1 car becomes when there is a strong crosswind. If an aircraft worked like that they'd be crashing every 5 minutes.
F1 aero is a totally different science even though the fundamental principles are the same. Lift, drag, aspect ratio's etc, but the fact a car is in "ground effect" changes things again. Aircraft have to deal with this too, but only for a very short period buring takeoff and landing. Most of the time they are in free airflow.
F1 is about fiddling/optimising and making tiny gains in a relatively limited range. Aircraft aerodynamics don't need to be mucked about with to such a close degree, though what an aircraft has to do means that the aerodynamics have to be right. They aren't about simple performance, but about safety and longevity.
When you start looking at the aerodynamics of supersonic aircraft and especially in the transonic speed range, then frankly F1 aero is mickey mouse.
Aircraft aerodynamics are far more complex than F1. Why? Because an F1 car has to do one thing. Go as fast around a track as possible. The actual speed range that the aero has to work in is very small. Yes it's all fiddly and made complex, but it's basic job is simple.
Aircraft have to cope with enormous changes in speed, configuration weight, balance, weather conditions and they have to last for donkeys years.
Look at how crap an F1 car becomes when there is a strong crosswind. If an aircraft worked like that they'd be crashing every 5 minutes.
F1 aero is a totally different science even though the fundamental principles are the same. Lift, drag, aspect ratio's etc, but the fact a car is in "ground effect" changes things again. Aircraft have to deal with this too, but only for a very short period buring takeoff and landing. Most of the time they are in free airflow.
F1 is about fiddling/optimising and making tiny gains in a relatively limited range. Aircraft aerodynamics don't need to be mucked about with to such a close degree, though what an aircraft has to do means that the aerodynamics have to be right. They aren't about simple performance, but about safety and longevity.
When you start looking at the aerodynamics of supersonic aircraft and especially in the transonic speed range, then frankly F1 aero is mickey mouse.
GreenV8S said:
zac510 said:
A stalling F1 wing would not be ideal but the consequences wouldn't be as serious.
I'd have thought that stalling an F1 wing is likely to have far more serious consequences in terms of injury and financial loss.Edited by profstoff on Sunday 17th May 17:21
IforB said:
Alright you twitchy twunt. Want an argument about aerodynamics (why though FFS?) I'll happily oblige.
Aircraft aerodynamics are far more complex than F1. Why? Because an F1 car has to do one thing. Go as fast around a track as possible. The actual speed range that the aero has to work in is very small. Yes it's all fiddly and made complex, but it's basic job is simple.
Aircraft have to cope with enormous changes in speed, configuration weight, balance, weather conditions and they have to last for donkeys years.
Look at how crap an F1 car becomes when there is a strong crosswind. If an aircraft worked like that they'd be crashing every 5 minutes.
F1 aero is a totally different science even though the fundamental principles are the same. Lift, drag, aspect ratio's etc, but the fact a car is in "ground effect" changes things again. Aircraft have to deal with this too, but only for a very short period buring takeoff and landing. Most of the time they are in free airflow.
F1 is about fiddling/optimising and making tiny gains in a relatively limited range. Aircraft aerodynamics don't need to be mucked about with to such a close degree, though what an aircraft has to do means that the aerodynamics have to be right. They aren't about simple performance, but about safety and longevity.
When you start looking at the aerodynamics of supersonic aircraft and especially in the transonic speed range, then frankly F1 aero is mickey mouse.
Duke of Rothesay, you just got ownedAircraft aerodynamics are far more complex than F1. Why? Because an F1 car has to do one thing. Go as fast around a track as possible. The actual speed range that the aero has to work in is very small. Yes it's all fiddly and made complex, but it's basic job is simple.
Aircraft have to cope with enormous changes in speed, configuration weight, balance, weather conditions and they have to last for donkeys years.
Look at how crap an F1 car becomes when there is a strong crosswind. If an aircraft worked like that they'd be crashing every 5 minutes.
F1 aero is a totally different science even though the fundamental principles are the same. Lift, drag, aspect ratio's etc, but the fact a car is in "ground effect" changes things again. Aircraft have to deal with this too, but only for a very short period buring takeoff and landing. Most of the time they are in free airflow.
F1 is about fiddling/optimising and making tiny gains in a relatively limited range. Aircraft aerodynamics don't need to be mucked about with to such a close degree, though what an aircraft has to do means that the aerodynamics have to be right. They aren't about simple performance, but about safety and longevity.
When you start looking at the aerodynamics of supersonic aircraft and especially in the transonic speed range, then frankly F1 aero is mickey mouse.
dpbird90 said:
IforB said:
Alright you twitchy twunt. Want an argument about aerodynamics (why though FFS?) I'll happily oblige.
Aircraft aerodynamics are far more complex than F1. Why? Because an F1 car has to do one thing. Go as fast around a track as possible. The actual speed range that the aero has to work in is very small. Yes it's all fiddly and made complex, but it's basic job is simple.
Aircraft have to cope with enormous changes in speed, configuration weight, balance, weather conditions and they have to last for donkeys years.
Look at how crap an F1 car becomes when there is a strong crosswind. If an aircraft worked like that they'd be crashing every 5 minutes.
F1 aero is a totally different science even though the fundamental principles are the same. Lift, drag, aspect ratio's etc, but the fact a car is in "ground effect" changes things again. Aircraft have to deal with this too, but only for a very short period buring takeoff and landing. Most of the time they are in free airflow.
F1 is about fiddling/optimising and making tiny gains in a relatively limited range. Aircraft aerodynamics don't need to be mucked about with to such a close degree, though what an aircraft has to do means that the aerodynamics have to be right. They aren't about simple performance, but about safety and longevity.
When you start looking at the aerodynamics of supersonic aircraft and especially in the transonic speed range, then frankly F1 aero is mickey mouse.
Duke of Rothesay, you just got ownedAircraft aerodynamics are far more complex than F1. Why? Because an F1 car has to do one thing. Go as fast around a track as possible. The actual speed range that the aero has to work in is very small. Yes it's all fiddly and made complex, but it's basic job is simple.
Aircraft have to cope with enormous changes in speed, configuration weight, balance, weather conditions and they have to last for donkeys years.
Look at how crap an F1 car becomes when there is a strong crosswind. If an aircraft worked like that they'd be crashing every 5 minutes.
F1 aero is a totally different science even though the fundamental principles are the same. Lift, drag, aspect ratio's etc, but the fact a car is in "ground effect" changes things again. Aircraft have to deal with this too, but only for a very short period buring takeoff and landing. Most of the time they are in free airflow.
F1 is about fiddling/optimising and making tiny gains in a relatively limited range. Aircraft aerodynamics don't need to be mucked about with to such a close degree, though what an aircraft has to do means that the aerodynamics have to be right. They aren't about simple performance, but about safety and longevity.
When you start looking at the aerodynamics of supersonic aircraft and especially in the transonic speed range, then frankly F1 aero is mickey mouse.
He doesn't know what he is talking about.
Duke of Rothesay said:
dpbird90 said:
IforB said:
Alright you twitchy twunt. Want an argument about aerodynamics (why though FFS?) I'll happily oblige.
Aircraft aerodynamics are far more complex than F1. Why? Because an F1 car has to do one thing. Go as fast around a track as possible. The actual speed range that the aero has to work in is very small. Yes it's all fiddly and made complex, but it's basic job is simple.
Aircraft have to cope with enormous changes in speed, configuration weight, balance, weather conditions and they have to last for donkeys years.
Look at how crap an F1 car becomes when there is a strong crosswind. If an aircraft worked like that they'd be crashing every 5 minutes.
F1 aero is a totally different science even though the fundamental principles are the same. Lift, drag, aspect ratio's etc, but the fact a car is in "ground effect" changes things again. Aircraft have to deal with this too, but only for a very short period buring takeoff and landing. Most of the time they are in free airflow.
F1 is about fiddling/optimising and making tiny gains in a relatively limited range. Aircraft aerodynamics don't need to be mucked about with to such a close degree, though what an aircraft has to do means that the aerodynamics have to be right. They aren't about simple performance, but about safety and longevity.
When you start looking at the aerodynamics of supersonic aircraft and especially in the transonic speed range, then frankly F1 aero is mickey mouse.
Duke of Rothesay, you just got ownedAircraft aerodynamics are far more complex than F1. Why? Because an F1 car has to do one thing. Go as fast around a track as possible. The actual speed range that the aero has to work in is very small. Yes it's all fiddly and made complex, but it's basic job is simple.
Aircraft have to cope with enormous changes in speed, configuration weight, balance, weather conditions and they have to last for donkeys years.
Look at how crap an F1 car becomes when there is a strong crosswind. If an aircraft worked like that they'd be crashing every 5 minutes.
F1 aero is a totally different science even though the fundamental principles are the same. Lift, drag, aspect ratio's etc, but the fact a car is in "ground effect" changes things again. Aircraft have to deal with this too, but only for a very short period buring takeoff and landing. Most of the time they are in free airflow.
F1 is about fiddling/optimising and making tiny gains in a relatively limited range. Aircraft aerodynamics don't need to be mucked about with to such a close degree, though what an aircraft has to do means that the aerodynamics have to be right. They aren't about simple performance, but about safety and longevity.
When you start looking at the aerodynamics of supersonic aircraft and especially in the transonic speed range, then frankly F1 aero is mickey mouse.
He doesn't know what he is talking about.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff