| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Justin Martin
Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Posts: 328
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
However, some of the technologies developed in the wings ARE now being applied to composite aircraft. Such as the Wave spar... ingenious way to create a full span spar, meanwhile super light.
They are also pushing aerodynamic limits in terms of Reynold's numbers range. For instance, the way they are using exhaust, or Dual-DRS openings to stall a portion of the wing. or using the W duct/Fduct to increase downforce on the front wing. This has been used a few times in the Aerospace world to increase upper surface flow, allowing large aircraft (737) to take off 70% quicker. The device was design to use engine bleed air to increase the upper surface flow, increasing the low pressure on top of the wing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tim Doll
Joined: 18 Jul 2001
Posts: 2643
Location: United States, Washington,
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Martin wrote: | However, some of the technologies developed in the wings ARE now being applied to composite aircraft. Such as the Wave spar... ingenious way to create a full span spar, meanwhile super light.
They are also pushing aerodynamic limits in terms of Reynold's numbers range. For instance, the way they are using exhaust, or Dual-DRS openings to stall a portion of the wing. or using the W duct/Fduct to increase downforce on the front wing. This has been used a few times in the Aerospace world to increase upper surface flow, allowing large aircraft (737) to take off 70% quicker. The device was design to use engine bleed air to increase the upper surface flow, increasing the low pressure on top of the wing. |
Justin
Upper surface blowing to get better takeoff/landing performance was used on the Boeing YC-14 in the 1970's - Boeing was so impressed with the capability that after the government cancelled that program, they leased the prototype airplane back from the Air Force to continue testing it. The blown defuser is only 'new technology' in the automotive world, not the aerospace world. There are various other aero tricks that have been tried using engine bleed or exhaust to enhance wing lift over the last 50 years. None have 'stuck' because the benefits didn't outweigh their costs.
You don't see things like upper surface blowing on commercial aircraft because it's noisy, increases weight and fuel burn, and tends to result in high maintenance (it may show up on military aircraft - which was what the YC-14 was going to be - as they have different priorities relative to commercial).
Yes, some of the composite development the F1 teams have done has shown up in the aerospace world, but the last decade or two of aero development in F1 has little if any relevance to anything outside F1.
Tim
_________________
Standard disclaimer - I'm FREE - No longer affiliated with any organization, I can say whatever I darn well please!.
Everett, Washington |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Martin
Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The YC14 was using the engine thrust ti create a surrounding vaccum effect. What they experimented in the late 80's and early 90's were LE vents using bleed air from the engines, which ended up being way more efficient.
I wasn't saying F1 technologies were being used in aerospace (besides the wave spar), I am more so saying that it is the first AUTOMOTIVE use of aerospace technologies. Just how race cars in general were the first to adapt seat belts from the aero-world....
Although there are useless technologies in F1, we can say the same about EVERYTHING... including NASCAR, NASA, so on... when was the last time a "lifting" body was applied to anything? The shuttle in a way used the technology, but it was hardly a lifting body. Yet they still experiment to find value in technology. The technology that makes it through, sooner or later develops into usable technology in the aerospace or automotive industry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim White
Joined: 21 Jul 2001
Posts: 994
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason Bane wrote: | | Best part of F1 by far is the technology...........http://www.f1technical.net/.......<-------porn for me........ |
Awesome website! I'm going to need to put my thinking cap on to read some of those blogs!!
Wanna make your head spin?
Try following this one:
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=14748
I can't even pronounce the damn word  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joseph hollinger
Joined: 12 Sep 2002
Posts: 9483
Location: United States, California, san francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Martin wrote: |
Although there are useless technologies in F1, we can say the same about EVERYTHING... including NASCAR, NASA, so on... when was the last time a "lifting" body was applied to anything? The shuttle in a way used the technology, but it was hardly a lifting body. Yet they still experiment to find value in technology. The technology that makes it through, sooner or later develops into usable technology in the aerospace or automotive industry. |
I'm not sure that anyone would argue that NASCAR is any more relevant that F1. But NASA? The guys largely credited with making integrated circuits practical for everyone else? Or revolutionizing weather forecasting? Or countless other technologies (conveniently listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies)? That's not even a close call.
_________________
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. -- Winston Churchill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Martin
Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joseph, if you read the context I said there are many experimented technologies, some make it, and some do not.
Nasa has many technologies that never lead to anything else... Such as the Nasa Oblique wing, and/or lifting body technology. Millions were dumped into it, and it turns out that the Shuttle hardly utilized it. Granted, now of days the technology is getting a second glance, but it surely hasn't provided us anything yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joseph hollinger
Joined: 12 Sep 2002
Posts: 9483
Location: United States, California, san francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Martin wrote: | Joseph, if you read the context I said there are many experimented technologies, some make it, and some do not.
Nasa has many technologies that never lead to anything else... Such as the Nasa Oblique wing, and/or lifting body technology. Millions were dumped into it, and it turns out that the Shuttle hardly utilized it. Granted, now of days the technology is getting a second glance, but it surely hasn't provided us anything yet. |
Okay, but that's always going to be the case for any R/D program. Not every idea is going to pan out. The amazing thing is that billions of dollars are invested in F1 R/D and yet it is virtually impossible to identify any technology that actually originates in F1 and then turns out to have widespread application in the world. Its just amazing (at least I'm amazed) that so much money can be spent with so little to show at the end of the day.
_________________
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. -- Winston Churchill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Hurst
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 569
Location: United States, California,
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adrian Baran wrote: | | Might as well open up the rules where anything is fair game. That's where the creativity and inovation comes. Right now they're doing quite an amazing job with the restrictions they have so one can only imagine what would come from more freedom. |
Why hasn't anyone started a totally unlimited racing series? I get that insurance would be a problem and people might die...but it would be the business to see a true no holds barred racing class.
One of my dreams in life has always been to start something like this because I think it would be phenomenal to watch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joseph hollinger
Joined: 12 Sep 2002
Posts: 9483
Location: United States, California, san francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Hurst wrote: |
Why hasn't anyone started a totally unlimited racing series?
|
Because that would be race between banks.
_________________
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. -- Winston Churchill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck Skowron
Joined: 19 Jul 2001
Posts: 1152
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Hurst wrote: | | Adrian Baran wrote: | | Might as well open up the rules where anything is fair game. That's where the creativity and inovation comes. Right now they're doing quite an amazing job with the restrictions they have so one can only imagine what would come from more freedom. |
Why hasn't anyone started a totally unlimited racing series? I get that insurance would be a problem and people might die...but it would be the business to see a true no holds barred racing class.
One of my dreams in life has always been to start something like this because I think it would be phenomenal to watch. |
All you have to do is read the Epilogue in Pete Lyons' immortal book Can-Am (which in its first iteration, was the closest thing we'll ever get to a truly unlimited series), to understand why a "no-rules" series can never happen today.
Basically, such a thing would be unsustainable. If a team or manufacturer really had the ambition to win such a series. The amount of $$$ that they could spend would probably match the GDP of some third-world countries. There aren't many out there that could afford such expenditure, so the teams that couldn't would quickly leave. Even the ones that could afford it; if they're not winning, then any justification to spend that kind of money would vanish, and they would soon disappear too. You can't run a viable race series with a field that imploded on itself.
This has happened so many times before. In the original Can-Am, nobody could touch the factory McLarens at first. They didn't do anything revolutionary, or had any whiz-bang innovations like Chaparral often had. McLaren simply had better organization, better structure, better planning, a LOT more testing, and most importantly, spent the money needed to win that few competitors were willing to commit to. Their results speak for themselves.
Then along came Penske and Mark Donohue with their uber-powerful, twin-turbocharged, 1500 HP, factory-built 917s from Porsche. A car that nobody could possibly match, with all the investment, research, and testing that went into it. And THEY had an operating budget that even McLaren could not comprehend; and the Kiwis soon left the series. A competitor could not buy a 917/10 until late into the first season. And no one could buy the factory 917/30 the following year. Face with those odds, against a car and team that was basically unbeatable, many soon dropped out. Then Penske/Donohue/Porsche accomplished what they set to do and they exited too. But the damage was already done, and the original Can-Am collapsed into rubble soon after. It just couldn't keep going the way it did.
And that was 40 years ago, when amount of technology a competitor can exploit (and spend on) was a fraction of what it is today. Not to mention the amount of testing, R&D, and other facets of a racing venture they invest in today compared to decades ago. It would make the Can-Am Porsche effort look like a club racer enjoying the weekend at an SCCA regional.
For an example from today, Grand-Am's Continental Tire Challenge Series is supposed to be a series for production cars built close to Showroom Stock specs, and some teams still can't build a car for under $100,000 before they even turned a wheel on the track. If they do that with a near-stock production car, how far could they go with a car built with almost no rules?
_________________
C. Skowron
CRG/Spec Honda - #15 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Doll
Joined: 18 Jul 2001
Posts: 2643
Location: United States, Washington,
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not to mention, with today's technology, the cars would deadly fast. The Can Am 917's reportedly put out something like 1,200 hp - they could easily double, maybe even triple that with the same displacement today. Full fledged ground effects and other aero tricks (sliding skirts, massive underbodys, perhaps even 'sucker' fans, movable wings) would mean huge downforce in the corners and unreal cornering speeds.
You'd have a car that could do 300 mph on the straights and pull six or more G's in the corners. The drivers would need to wear fighter pilot like G-suits just to keep from blacking out in the corners. If something went wrong, it would be nearly impossible to have enough runoff area to prevent a huge impact, and a car getting airborn in an accident could clear a 30 or 40 ft catch fence.
To sort of put it in perspective - you can go out today and buy a Corvette or a number of other road cars that could beat a 1960's vintage Formula 1 car. Can you imagine what race car designers could do if you didn't put some limits on them?
Tim
_________________
Standard disclaimer - I'm FREE - No longer affiliated with any organization, I can say whatever I darn well please!.
Everett, Washington |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Livengood
Joined: 24 Jul 2001
Posts: 2432
Location: United States, Pennsylvania, Da Burgh
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Hurst
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 569
Location: United States, California,
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tim Doll wrote: |
You'd have a car that could do 300 mph on the straights and pull six or more G's in the corners. The drivers would need to wear fighter pilot like G-suits just to keep from blacking out in the corners. If something went wrong, it would be nearly impossible to have enough runoff area to prevent a huge impact, and a car getting airborn in an accident could clear a 30 or 40 ft catch fence.
Tim |
And that right there in my mind justifies spending GDP levels of $$$ on race cars. Come on...those Shaiks have enough money! What about that Mexican telecom guy who is worth ~73 billion dollars. We need to start pitching this to some people!
In all seriousness the explanations you guys provided make sense and I suppose it's a kind of unfortunate catch 22 because if it was viable it would be an incredible thing to watch.
Given the argument I suppose I think of the tech in F1 as slightly artificial and I would rather see less tech and more driver vs. driver effort. Tech is part of the sport to a lot of people and is just as important though so I see both sides. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Benn Herr
Joined: 18 Jul 2001
Posts: 1580
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While we certainly could not have a series today like the Can-Am was in the 60/70s, it is fun to dream...
But maybe we could have something if we figured out the right kinds of limitations.
How about:
A fuel capacity/BTU on board limit.
Pit stops that only allow one person to work/refuel the car.
A sliding weight to HP scale to really reward new lightweight technologies.
A requirement to have the car be a genuine two seater - and a roof - and luggage space.
Races that last an amount that fits into a TV schedule - an hour and a half or so.
Make it so you have to go fast to win, we don't want slow poke electric/sail power races.
If the right combination of restrictions/guidance can be figured out it could be a very interesting series.
_________________
Benn Herr
Come see our Superkart Build Off @
http://www.lostenduros.com/?page_id=1534
beherr3@cox.net
http://www.southwestkarters.com/
http://www.lostenduros.com/
Kart Design
Chandler, Az. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Hurst
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 569
Location: United States, California,
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benn Herr wrote: | While we certainly could not have a series today like the Can-Am was in the 60/70s, it is fun to dream...
But maybe we could have something if we figured out the right kinds of limitations.
How about:
A fuel capacity/BTU on board limit.
Pit stops that only allow one person to work/refuel the car.
A sliding weight to HP scale to really reward new lightweight technologies.
A requirement to have the car be a genuine two seater - and a roof - and luggage space.
Races that last an amount that fits into a TV schedule - an hour and a half or so.
Make it so you have to go fast to win, we don't want slow poke electric/sail power races.
If the right combination of restrictions/guidance can be figured out it could be a very interesting series. |
I'm with you on everything but the luggage space, two seats, and allowing one person to work on the car in a pit stop.
Personally I think DRS and KERS need to go. They add a lot of artificial competition to the sport. Saying you can only use DRS when permitted is ridiculous and the guy in front can't use his to counter? I think thats stupid.
Does anyone on here really want KERS in their sports cars or DRS? I personally don't care for either of these things in a road car and I think the weight they are adding to modern sports cars is ridiculous. The new Porsche 918 is allegedly over 3700lbs.
According to NY Times: "The average new car or light-duty truck sold in the 2003 model year tipped the scales at 4,021 pounds"
Does anyone see a problem with that besides me? Would anyone on here trade 1000lbs of weight for a 150hp electric boost?
F1 drivers should be allowed to use DRS whenever they want, but the DRS should be linked to something they do to earn it (like getting a question box in mario kart...only different...obviously).
If anyone on here plays racing games, yeah Forza and GT5 are great driver games...but anyone who has played Mario kart knows that you are on edge literally all 3 laps because you never know who might get that blue shell.
I'm just sayin... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Go Top
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
