#F1

[@f1aerodynamicist]

If you would like to take the first step into F1 aerodynamics , check out my course on Udemy. www.udemy.com/course/formula-1-aerodynamics/?referralCode=526FE430BE7CC668A2FF

[@henryjohn2218]

couple years ago, making videos about f1 was so risky that, f1 people would ask youtube to remove the videos. now its insane that we are discussing almost every bit of the f1 cars in details in youtube. it amazing.

[@brendonharipersad4513]

Would be interesting to see a sim of how the underfloor flow structures work (eg can use pics of the underfloor of last year's cars)

[@f1aerodynamicist]

Yup.. definitely , it's something I look forward to doing

[@rolandotillit2867]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/i6LQaICIndSfjac It's been done.

[@jgbains]

Glad to see smart people does exist as f1 fans not just drama and hate

[@juhakivekas2175]

Very interesting. Since you have been involved with a top F1 team can you tell whether the F1 teams run the CFDs as RANS or time steps averaged? The latter requires so much more resources and time that I think it is very tempting to limit at least in the first evaluation phase to RANS. However, I dont believe for a second that you will get good numbers for dynamic derivatives (yaw, roll and pitch) without doing it the hard because e.g. the wakes oscillate so strongly, sometimes in a rather chaotic way and it is questionable if you can get a RANS math average right a situation like that. Also the underbody flow is quite a challenge in those situations. Also on the same line, we know that CFD is not always very reliable at the proximity of separation and F1 is at many places running close to separation. How do the deciding engineers typically trust CFD in those situations? And a third consideration, again related to the same subject: There seems to be a strong utilization of longitudinal vortices aka free vortices, which then leads to questioning vortex burstdown prediction - which is another topic where CFD is not very good at - partly due to the local grid cell size demands but also due to scaling and turbulence models. I wonder if Adrian Newey had only wind tunnel or CFD which one would he stick to? I think if it was an airplane I would opt for the CFD but for a race car a steel rolling road wind tunnel with at least 50% scale and below 5% blockage. But having said that to build a proper state of the art wt for F1 would cost about 50 mill whereas you can set a single multi core CFD station with less than 5 000 and license (100 000+, unless you are willing to use opensource grid program, CFD and post process). (You probably figured out that Im a professional aerodynamicist - with 35 years experience mostly in WT but also CFD, also as the manager of a uni aero lab. 1988 I did my individual special assignment in aero about the modelling of porposing motion of a race car. Also did my master’s about race car design. But in my professional career no F1 experience although I have been involved with quite a many racing applications from lightweight structures to suspension design to aero. I used to be quite passionate about these things but Now Ive grown up :))))

[@rolandotillit2867]

LBM is the future.

[@rolandotillit2867]

Separation bubbles are not a bad thing per-se. Air will just flow around the separation bubble, furthermore, because it's air flowing around air, the skin friction is severely reduced. In the second part, you see how the water slides create a separation bubble, and the air flows around that separation bubble with almost no energy loss. This gives plenty of high speed air to the suction side of the rear wing. Separation bubbles are just virtual bodywork, and highlights the fact that what the air sees isn't what your eyes see. It's doesn't take CFD eyes to understand that high stagnation pressure tends to steer airflow, meteorologists have known this for a long time. High pressure troughs and cold fronts often steer hurricanes. The same thing happens with F1 cars, and airplanes. The cold fronts that come from the American mid west, will commonly pull Hurricanes northward, and the high pressure troughs in the Bermudas keep Hurricanes from migrating Northward and instead head towards the Carribean, where barometric pressure is a little lower. The sidepods in the AMR23 exploit this to keep plenty of high energy air hitting the rear wing suction side at all times. The waterslides create a separation bubble, which acts as virtual bodywork and air rides on top of that bubble friction free, towards the rear wing suction side.

[@f1aerodynamicist]

Now that mechanism is something I definitely did not think about . Great shout there

[@nesmio7378]

Ayyyyyy another Lands up video LETS GOOOO! LETS LAND UP!

[@f1aerodynamicist]

Hahah 🤣, Another one , landing later this week 🙃

[@nesmio7378]

@@f1aerodynamicist You mean, landing up next week?

[@f1aerodynamicist]

@@nesmio7378 yup, touch down , touch down

[@rolandotillit2867]

Here's another crazy idea, what about using the edge wing to reduce downforce from the floor. Use the floor stays and brackets as a counter lever system, so as the edge wing is loaded and deflects down, it lifts up the throat of the diffuser. This way you can have your diffuser as low as possible at low speeds so it works in low speed corners, then at speed it raises to minimize bouncing and drag. The edge wing is allowed to deflect 8mm, and an 8mm change at the diffuser throat is HUGE in terms of downforce and drag.

[@f1aerodynamicist]

I like the idea , but there is an inherent limitation , in high speed corners the limitation is rear downforce so you'd pretty much mess your high speed performance. Also the diffusers are more sensitive to change in geometry in high speeds+yaw than at low speeds +yaw. So it might not be a good compromise. But hey use it for Monaco

[@romeocruz1986]

s/o to you guys, cool to see vanja as well 👍

[@f1aerodynamicist]

Thank mate

[@carisi2k11]

This video I think confirms my ideas on f1technical about how the W13/14 has serious issues around front tyre wake and other aero weaknesses near the front and inside of the rear wheels.

[@brendonharipersad4513]

Very insightful and enjoyable!! Would love to see other F1 cars analyzed.

[@f1aerodynamicist]

Thank you 😊

[@Jay-nk6dm]

an interesting future video idea could be how does AMR go forward with reducing drag? they seem to have a similar-ish concept to redbull, yet the drag levels of the cars are virtuall opposite. what structures from the current redbull could be adopted to reduce drag?

[@robertbalu8001]

Indy style rear "fenders" :D

[@bernieharperyt]

Can you model adding water slides to the W14 sidepods? I suspect the shoulder waterslides too could be optimized to power the beam wings. this could increase yaw downforce while allowing slightly less rear wing angle. Win-win?

[@TheOzzyOzan]

why do you think they deleted the old "shark fin" structures that used to be on the cars?

[@ehsnils]

In my opinion they are good in a straight line but would cause turbulence over the rear wing when cornering.

[@adamwhitworth1275]

Didn't they change the rules to stop them?

[@ehsnils]

To me it would be an advantage to not have as much downforce on the outer side of the car and more on the inner side when cornering since the outer side wheels still gets more load due to the center of gravity being above the road surface and therefore putting more load on those wheels. Of course you don't want to get lift on the outer side, just maximize the downforce on the inner side while cornering to try to get an equal load on all tires to minimize tire wear. The side pods can basically be seen as "wings" themselves that adds downforce in addition to the front and rear wings. The trench design on the upper side seems to be more to keep the air at a constant velocity maintaining a neutral pressure on the top side while the outer side of the pod as a bulge forces the air to have a higher velocity causing a lower pressure and generating downforce. At least that's how I see that the side pod design works on the AMR23 and others with a similar design. The W14 don't have this at all and that design could even be generating lift rather than downforce. It seems like the tires aren't turned in the pictures, and that could also cause some differences in the result. After all this is an interesting subject when you try to figure out the differences and it would be interesting to see if Mercedes do some radical changes to their side pods soon.

[@f1aerodynamicist]

I agree with you, but bear in mind that the results are not conclusive

[@giovanni7062]

It makes no sense that the velocity scene is capped at 50m/s

[@f1aerodynamicist]

Why ? Doesn't it make sense, we are running a low-med speed sim

[@giovanni7062]

@@f1aerodynamicist Ok you are simulating the car at 50m/s but that doesn’t mean that it’s the maximum value for the velocity By capping the scale on the scene you are arbitrarily leaving out informations

[@f1aerodynamicist]

@@giovanni7062 I see what you mean , maybe I'll try n cap to it max vel next time to see if I get a good viz

[@ehsnils]

​@@giovanni7062 50m/s is 180km/h, which seems to be the average corner speed, and that's what's most interesting in this case. Fairmont hairpin at Monaco has about 14m/s, and this aerodynamic wouldn't really matter there. Tire stickiness would be more important. Parabolica has about 90m/s, and that's almost straight line speed and can basically be seen as a straight track. So I see that the speed in this simulation is fine and what we do look at is the difference between two cars.

[@fam.hunger5244]

​​@@giovanni7062 you are aware that wind tunnel testing in F1 is also limited by regulations to 50m/s? So are F1 Windtunnels also senseless? Ridiculous comment, that only proves cluelessness.