Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Ross Brawn announces new technical regulations for 2021 [split]


  • Please log in to reply
402 replies to this topic

#351 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 8,882 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 08 November 2019 - 01:08

Fair enough, I misremembered (was thinking back to Marussia wetting themselves for scoring a single point at Monaco a few years back).

 

Yup, both the feeling of finally scoring point(s), but also jumping to 9th in the constructors!



Advertisement

#352 THEWALL

THEWALL
  • Member

  • 2,147 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 08 November 2019 - 01:12

Which is a shame because I think it's actually quite interesting for all fans to know why some decisions were made with the new regulations.

 

For example the switch to 18 inch rims. Pat Symonds explains that it wasn't because of the aesthetics or it being more "modern" but actually because they are much easier to model. There is a lot of flex in the current sidewalls and in CFD you can only run one model at the time. To accurately model the tyre you would have to do a lot of runs to model each and every way a tyre can flex. Obviously, the bigger teams throw more money and personnel at the problem and their tyre models end up being a lot better than those of smaller teams. By eliminating a lot of this flex modelling the tyres accurately becomes a lot easier for smaller teams.

Anything about the wheel covers?



#353 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,357 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 08 November 2019 - 07:30

Slight shift rearwards.

Allowed bias range
now: 53.5 - 54.5%
2021: 54.5 - 56%

I would say car length and tyre sizes contribute to what the bias has to be, not the other way round. Those changed so the bias will too.


The length doesn't matter. The current bias has been in place since 2011, through various growing car lengths. The new tyres are smaller on the front so the weight is shifting back to suit

#354 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 1,952 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 08 November 2019 - 10:40

The old 10-6-4-3-2-1 was easy to remember. :up:

Whereas, I can't remember the current system either... 25-18-??-??-??-??-??-??-2-1 :confused:


This..

#355 TheGoldenStoffel

TheGoldenStoffel
  • Member

  • 545 posts
  • Joined: November 18

Posted 08 November 2019 - 10:55

Anything about the wheel covers?

Don't think it was mentioned in the video but he explained that teams currently try to push the front wheel wake out to the sides as much as possible and that the aim of the new regulations is to keep the wake as narrow as possible and then throw it up high in the air at the back of the car

 

Now putting my own aerodynamic hat on. I assume teams currently use the front brake ducts to drive air through the wheel to push their front tyre wake out as much as possible. By putting these covers on the wheels they eliminate the possibility to do so.



#356 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,357 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 08 November 2019 - 11:07

Even just the brake cooling will achieve that. For 2021, both the cooling inlet and outlet for the brakes will be inboard of the wheel

#357 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,438 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 November 2019 - 17:22

Don't think it was mentioned in the video but he explained that teams currently try to push the front wheel wake out to the sides as much as possible and that the aim of the new regulations is to keep the wake as narrow as possible and then throw it up high in the air at the back of the car
 
Now putting my own aerodynamic hat on. I assume teams currently use the front brake ducts to drive air through the wheel to push their front tyre wake out as much as possible. By putting these covers on the wheels they eliminate the possibility to do so.

 
 

Even just the brake cooling will achieve that. For 2021, both the cooling inlet and outlet for the brakes will be inboard of the wheel


With the caps they may try to reduce turbulence from the rotating wheels/rims

#358 CoolBreeze

CoolBreeze
  • Member

  • 1,771 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 09 November 2019 - 05:17

At this rate soon there will be quotes of someone hitting 23k

 

Like i said, I could be wrong. Do you even know how to read?



#359 w1Y

w1Y
  • Member

  • 4,610 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 09 November 2019 - 07:13

Won't the bigger wheels mean even more tyre wake that the teams have to try and manage

Advertisement

#360 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 9,258 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 10 November 2019 - 03:57

Won't the bigger wheels mean even more tyre wake that the teams have to try and manage

overall wheel AND tyre size is basicly the same



#361 Repco

Repco
  • New Member

  • 10 posts
  • Joined: October 19

Posted 10 November 2019 - 07:47

These new regulations make me laugh. For 2018 we heard all this hype about the new regulations, and how the new cars would be monsters and 5 seconds a lap faster, and they showed us all these crazy concept drawings, yet in reality all we got was slightly wider and uglier 2017 cars. Now they are going to slow them down again, the direct opposite of these regulations, It shows how clueless everyone is in the sport despite apparently being so intelligent. I am not expecting much from these new cars at all. I guess they can't get any uglier than these monstrosities. 



#362 CoolBreeze

CoolBreeze
  • Member

  • 1,771 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 10 November 2019 - 12:03

These new regulations make me laugh. For 2018 we heard all this hype about the new regulations, and how the new cars would be monsters and 5 seconds a lap faster, and they showed us all these crazy concept drawings, yet in reality all we got was slightly wider and uglier 2017 cars. Now they are going to slow them down again, the direct opposite of these regulations, It shows how clueless everyone is in the sport despite apparently being so intelligent. I am not expecting much from these new cars at all. I guess they can't get any uglier than these monstrosities. 

 

doubt there's gonna be any changes. 

 

They need to go back to basics. Basic aero, basic tyres, steel brakes..you get the idea. Then we can see proper racing. 

 

On one side, they talk about cost saving, yet on the other side, they are wasting money every 5 years re-designing the looks, and rules for the 'show'



#363 kumo7

kumo7
  • Member

  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 12 November 2019 - 05:32

These new regulations make me laugh. For 2018 we heard all this hype about the new regulations, and how the new cars would be monsters and 5 seconds a lap faster, and they showed us all these crazy concept drawings, yet in reality all we got was slightly wider and uglier 2017 cars. Now they are going to slow them down again, the direct opposite of these regulations, It shows how clueless everyone is in the sport despite apparently being so intelligent. I am not expecting much from these new cars at all. I guess they can't get any uglier than these monstrosities. 

 

One thing I can hardly understand of this current reg direction is that FIA is designing the car, or almost fixing the design directions. 

 

This is pre-emptying the need for team to think, take riks and invent the fastest car within the open formule.

This current direction makes the car design as a matter of elaboration, instead of inventing own logic.

Therefore the team with the biggest budget wil win. 

 

I think quite honestly this is rather senseless competition.

The designers should compete with their intelligence, but not with their budget.

OK, which means the team with the biggest budget might loose and they wil complain big time, as they will lose 100s of millions, but this is the game isn't it?

 

FIA's role is to design the RULES.

The rules gives task to the teams to discover the problem that the team need to solve to go fast, faster than his opponents.

And the team need the balls to take risk on the thoughts and go racing.

 

Why should FIA define the problem and even tell the team how to solve it! 

 

 

 

I am again and again, which obviously ignored, ...

but I say get rid of both front and rear wings, define the box envelope of the body works up and down the chassis, and leave the rest to the teams.

So as the PU, tell them you have 1000 BHP to produce and do the rest.

 

Certainly it makes for the team and the drivers to drive the car faster, but that is their business...


Edited by kumo7, 12 November 2019 - 05:33.


#364 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,776 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 12 November 2019 - 12:26

I am again and again, which obviously ignored, ...

but I say get rid of both front and rear wings, define the box envelope of the body works up and down the chassis, and leave the rest to the teams.

So as the PU, tell them you have 1000 BHP to produce and do the rest.

 

Certainly it makes for the team and the drivers to drive the car faster, but that is their business...

It’s been ignored because it wouldn’t work. It would simply exaggerate the aero problems F1 has been trying to combat for the last 10 years at least. Oh, and the teams would still spend millions doing it.

 

Also, to ban wings you need particularly prescriptive rules. Open up boxes only and wings will appear.



#365 kumo7

kumo7
  • Member

  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 12 November 2019 - 22:31

Hi PayasYouRace, thank you you did not ignore my post,..!

Never the less, I must say I cannot see in what way you can predict the a box of envelope is the way to fail?
I say some smart guy always win as long as it is a competition...

#366 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,776 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 12 November 2019 - 22:35

I cannot see in what way you can predict the a box of envelope is the way to fail?

Because I’m an aerodynamicist. I know what these guys are looking for.



#367 kumo7

kumo7
  • Member

  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 13 November 2019 - 02:22

Yes, but there were many car designers who did not see where Chapman got his idea, that is the beauty...


Edited by kumo7, 13 November 2019 - 02:22.


#368 richardprice

richardprice
  • Member

  • 71 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 13 November 2019 - 04:03

 

I am again and again, which obviously ignored, ...

but I say get rid of both front and rear wings, define the box envelope of the body works up and down the chassis, and leave the rest to the teams.

So as the PU, tell them you have 1000 BHP to produce and do the rest.

 

 

There are plenty of racing series out there without F1 style wings, please watch those and leave the sport I love alone, thanks.



#369 kumo7

kumo7
  • Member

  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 13 November 2019 - 13:17

you can always love something else, ruichardprice, love is endless....  :up:



#370 richardprice

richardprice
  • Member

  • 71 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 13 November 2019 - 19:18

you can always love something else, ruichardprice, love is endless....  :up:


Why don’t you love something else then? F1 is the only sport I follow.

#371 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 466 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 13 November 2019 - 21:12

Of course FIA could build a mobile wind tunnel and set a maximum downforce level. Then drag is the only thing to be done aerodynamically. And, road relevant as it saves petrol/energy. And reducing starting weight to aid cornering in the race. A low energy fuel with high flow rate would then actually put nice emphasis on air drag.



#372 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,447 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 November 2019 - 22:10

you can always love something else, ruichardprice, love is endless....  :up:

 

 

Why don’t you love something else then? F1 is the only sport I follow.

 

Maybe F1 should do what's right for F1 (ignoring what others think) and then those that don't like it can find something else.



#373 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,750 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 November 2019 - 23:33

Of course FIA could build a mobile wind tunnel and set a maximum downforce level. Then drag is the only thing to be done aerodynamically. And, road relevant as it saves petrol/energy. And reducing starting weight to aid cornering in the race. A low energy fuel with high flow rate would then actually put nice emphasis on air drag.


Ohh boy. A mobile 1:1 wind tunnel. That would work out just fine.

#374 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,357 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 14 November 2019 - 00:17

Of course FIA could build a mobile wind tunnel and set a maximum downforce level. Then drag is the only thing to be done aerodynamically. And, road relevant as it saves petrol/energy. And reducing starting weight to aid cornering in the race. A low energy fuel with high flow rate would then actually put nice emphasis on air drag.


That's a ridiculous idea just as they've set their targets for reducing their carbon footprint.

#375 richardprice

richardprice
  • Member

  • 71 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 14 November 2019 - 01:52

Maybe F1 should do what's right for F1 (ignoring what others think) and then those that don't like it can find something else.


And the problem with that is that “what’s right for F1” is nothing more than a set of differing opinions - yours, mine, Liberty Media’s, the teams, the sponsors, Pirelli...

There is no single “what’s right for F1”. Some people like it how it is now, some people seemingly want to take it back 50 years, some people want to make it essentially a spec sport, and some people worry more about the “show” rather than the “sport”.

#376 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 6,021 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 14 November 2019 - 03:16



Of course FIA could build a mobile wind tunnel and set a maximum downforce level. Then drag is the only thing to be done aerodynamically. And, road relevant as it saves petrol/energy. And reducing starting weight to aid cornering in the race. A low energy fuel with high flow rate would then actually put nice emphasis on air drag.

 

39078870640_c84b3b0bcc_o.jpg



#377 taran

taran
  • Member

  • 3,175 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 14 November 2019 - 08:50

39078870640_c84b3b0bcc_o.jpg

 

The thing is, the FIA set out regulations every few years and teams then develop the cars to claw back what has been lost. Usually, within a season or two, they are right back where they started in downforce etc.

 

The only way to really solve this development war is to fix the end results....that is a maximum horsepower figure and perhaps a maximum downforce figure.

Now with engines, this can be relatively easy done....you can even open up the regulations as long as the engine only produces up to the max the rules stipulate. Each team then nominates a few engines for each race, they get checked on a dyno beforehand and then sealed and released to the teams at the actual track. Solved...

 

For downforce, that's a lot more difficult. Wing configurations can change downforce levels so do you freeze this at the track? Do you provide standard wings which can't be altered, e.g. one wing configuration for the entire season? Do you drag a wind tunnel with you to each individual race and measure the cars before the race? Do you make a render of the car in parc ferme and run it through a software package to determine how many kg of downforce it develops? And is that even F1 as we know it?

 

But it would solve some of the problems F1 has with its huge budgets and unrelenting R&D IMO. And probably create new problems somewhere else as teams are always looking for a competitive advantage.



#378 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 6,021 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 14 November 2019 - 09:05

Do you drag a wind tunnel with you to each individual race and measure the cars before the race?

 

No, you don’t.

 

A full size tunnel with a rolling bed isn’t like a chassis dyno.  The bed would have to sustain and secure the top speed of the vehicle to get a reading on downforce at that speed.  The size of the tunnel is large.  Moving it and ensuring it maintains consistency is another matter.   It’s not practical.  



#379 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 466 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 14 November 2019 - 09:46

That's a ridiculous idea just as they've set their targets for reducing their carbon footprint.

The idea and the target are equally rediculous :-D
Lots of climate talk but no-one fixing the ocean or hard banning deforestation for farmland. No-one taxing beef and pork extra over chicken, or meat at all.
Many countries with cheap petrol undermining green alternatives.

Another way is driving the cars, at speed, over a weigh bridge.
With aero fixed items, a weigh bridge could be crossed at both ~200 kph in a corner and >300 kph on a straight, during a quali lap itself, or measure mass+downforce in one sweep. A simple electronic eye and wind meter as cheaper than a mobile wind tunnel. Weight bridges are not too cheap, but compared to many things in F1, kind of small. 
And they could serve more than just F1. 



Advertisement

#380 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,542 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 14 November 2019 - 10:52

The thing is, the FIA set out regulations every few years and teams then develop the cars to claw back what has been lost. Usually, within a season or two, they are right back where they started in downforce etc.

 

The only way to really solve this development war is to fix the end results....that is a maximum horsepower figure and perhaps a maximum downforce figure.

Now with engines, this can be relatively easy done....you can even open up the regulations as long as the engine only produces up to the max the rules stipulate. Each team then nominates a few engines for each race, they get checked on a dyno beforehand and then sealed and released to the teams at the actual track. Solved...

 

For downforce, that's a lot more difficult. Wing configurations can change downforce levels so do you freeze this at the track? Do you provide standard wings which can't be altered, e.g. one wing configuration for the entire season? Do you drag a wind tunnel with you to each individual race and measure the cars before the race? Do you make a render of the car in parc ferme and run it through a software package to determine how many kg of downforce it develops? And is that even F1 as we know it?

 

But it would solve some of the problems F1 has with its huge budgets and unrelenting R&D IMO. And probably create new problems somewhere else as teams are always looking for a competitive advantage.

"Development war" and "unrelenting R&D" are not problems for F1. They are F1.

 

The money issue is addressed by budget cap.



#381 taran

taran
  • Member

  • 3,175 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 14 November 2019 - 11:11

"Development war" and "unrelenting R&D" are not problems for F1. They are F1.

 

The money issue is addressed by budget cap.

 

I get what you mean but is it true?

The Lotus 72, surely one of the most iconic F1 cars, remained competitive for several seasons in the 1970s.

The McLaren MP4 remained largely the same for several seasons.

Same with the Williams FW07, it lasted for 3 seasons.

 

Arguably, the golden era of F1 didn't have this OTT development cycle. If that could be contained to some degree, I think F1 would be more competitive than with a budget cap while still allowing the most efficient teams to succeed.



#382 RA2

RA2
  • Member

  • 1,289 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 14 November 2019 - 11:35

The thing is, the FIA set out regulations every few years and teams then develop the cars to claw back what has been lost. Usually, within a season or two, they are right back where they started in downforce etc.

 

The only way to really solve this development war is to fix the end results....that is a maximum horsepower figure and perhaps a maximum downforce figure.

Now with engines, this can be relatively easy done....you can even open up the regulations as long as the engine only produces up to the max the rules stipulate. Each team then nominates a few engines for each race, they get checked on a dyno beforehand and then sealed and released to the teams at the actual track. Solved...

 

For downforce, that's a lot more difficult. Wing configurations can change downforce levels so do you freeze this at the track? Do you provide standard wings which can't be altered, e.g. one wing configuration for the entire season? Do you drag a wind tunnel with you to each individual race and measure the cars before the race? Do you make a render of the car in parc ferme and run it through a software package to determine how many kg of downforce it develops? And is that even F1 as we know it?

 

But it would solve some of the problems F1 has with its huge budgets and unrelenting R&D IMO. And probably create new problems somewhere else as teams are always looking for a competitive advantage.

 

 

Down force is easy to measure, it just the weight of the car when it is on track, they can weight it when at 200kph and 300 kph and set limits for the same, They can measure it how many ever times they want. 



#383 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,750 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 14 November 2019 - 11:42

Down force is easy to measure, it just the weight of the car when it is on track, they can weight it when at 200kph and 300 kph and set limits for the same, They can measure it how many ever times they want.


If you figured that out just get a patent. You’ll be filthy rich.

#384 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,776 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 November 2019 - 14:08

If you figured that out just get a patent. You’ll be filthy rich.

 

Easily measured on track, as you just need to measure the force being applied on the suspension.



#385 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,776 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 November 2019 - 14:09

I get what you mean but is it true?

The Lotus 72, surely one of the most iconic F1 cars, remained competitive for several seasons in the 1970s.

The McLaren MP4 remained largely the same for several seasons.

Same with the Williams FW07, it lasted for 3 seasons.

 

Arguably, the golden era of F1 didn't have this OTT development cycle. If that could be contained to some degree, I think F1 would be more competitive than with a budget cap while still allowing the most efficient teams to succeed.

 

Those cars didn't remain largely the same over their lifespans. They evolved and the car at the end of the cycle was a vastly improved version on the one at the start. The only part that really stayed the same was the chassis itself.



#386 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,776 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 November 2019 - 14:15

Of course FIA could build a mobile wind tunnel and set a maximum downforce level. Then drag is the only thing to be done aerodynamically. And, road relevant as it saves petrol/energy. And reducing starting weight to aid cornering in the race. A low energy fuel with high flow rate would then actually put nice emphasis on air drag.

 

I don't think you quite understand how big of a building a 1:1 size windtunnel needs. It wouldn't be a mobile structure in the slightest.

 

 

The idea and the target are equally rediculous :-D
Lots of climate talk but no-one fixing the ocean or hard banning deforestation for farmland. No-one taxing beef and pork extra over chicken, or meat at all.
Many countries with cheap petrol undermining green alternatives.

Another way is driving the cars, at speed, over a weigh bridge.
With aero fixed items, a weigh bridge could be crossed at both ~200 kph in a corner and >300 kph on a straight, during a quali lap itself, or measure mass+downforce in one sweep. A simple electronic eye and wind meter as cheaper than a mobile wind tunnel. Weight bridges are not too cheap, but compared to many things in F1, kind of small. 
And they could serve more than just F1. 

 

That wouldn't work as you'd only get a transient load as the car crossed the weighbridge. However, you could easily use suspension force gauges to measure the downforce produced by a car.



#387 kumo7

kumo7
  • Member

  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 14 November 2019 - 14:36

Why don’t you love something else then? F1 is the only sport I follow.



Oh ‘why don’t you’, yes you can be rude, you are or angel I know now.

Why don’t you try to see how wonderful if we see nee Chapman the next year and ten years later once more.

Formula one is what it was because it did race on open formula. Yes if I do not like what formula one will become, like a Indy spec series, don’t you worry I am certain that I will stop watching it.

#388 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,776 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 November 2019 - 14:41

Oh ‘why don’t you’, yes you can be rude, you are or angel I know now.

Why don’t you try to see how wonderful if we see nee Chapman the next year and ten years later once more.

Formula one is what it was because it did race on open formula. Yes if I do not like what formula one will become, like a Indy spec series, don’t you worry I am certain that I will stop watching it.

You’ve got to realise that the sport was much less mature in the 1960s and 1970s. The technology available and the knowledge base surrounding it was much less than today. It was much easier to simple think of a good idea when all your opponents never even thought to investigate something. Nowadays the knowledge level is so high that having an open formula requires millions of pounds just in R&D to find something new. Open formulae are not cheap.



#389 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,750 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 14 November 2019 - 16:19

Easily measured on track, as you just need to measure the force being applied on the suspension.

Instrumentation is never easy. You'll take many trials to get it right then the guy changes a suspension angle by 2deg and you have to start over.



#390 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,776 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 November 2019 - 16:42

Instrumentation is never easy. You'll take many trials to get it right then the guy changes a suspension angle by 2deg and you have to start over.

Not that difficult compared to some other ideas. It’s just geometry and spring stiffnesses.



#391 BalanceUT

BalanceUT
  • Member

  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: February 16

Posted 14 November 2019 - 16:48

If you figured that out just get a patent. You’ll be filthy rich.

If nothing else, all the weigh stops for trucks on highways could be replaced by these for tremendous cost savings for the states and the trucking companies keeping their trucks rolling.



#392 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 6,021 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 14 November 2019 - 18:05

Easily measured on track, as you just need to measure the force being applied on the suspension.

It’s the implementation not the method.  A rolling weigh bridge at race speed would be quire a feat.    In the shop tests using a pull down rig can measure suspension force.  They are around $100k for one suitable for stock cars each and fairly mobile.

 

Links to show the others how big a full scale 180 mph rolling bed wind tunnel is. The test area is relatively small.  It’s the tunnel part that’s gigantic.  Winshear has a pic of the building in the background and an interactive graphic showing the basics of the tunnel.  In the second link check out how big the rolling bed needs to be.  These are a couple of reasons there are so few full scale rolling bed tunnels capable of 180 mph.

 

https://www.windshearinc.com/

 

https://newatlas.com...nd-tunnel/8106/



#393 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 6,021 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 14 November 2019 - 18:11

If nothing else, all the weigh stops for trucks on highways could be replaced by these for tremendous cost savings for the states and the trucking companies keeping their trucks rolling.

Weight in motion is pretty common but it’s at truck highway speed and not as accurate as would be needed for this.  Weight in motion is to see how close you are to the GVW of your truck.  The window is several hundred to a few thousand lbs wide.  It only needs to be enough to flag you into the scale house for a more precise measurement.

 

Here’s how it works.

https://en.wikipedia...Weigh_in_motion



#394 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,776 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 November 2019 - 19:05

It’s the implementation not the method.  A rolling weigh bridge at race speed would be quire a feat.    In the shop tests using a pull down rig can measure suspension force.  They are around $100k for one suitable for stock cars each and fairly mobile.

 

Links to show the others how big a full scale 180 mph rolling bed wind tunnel is. The test area is relatively small.  It’s the tunnel part that’s gigantic.  Winshear has a pic of the building in the background and an interactive graphic showing the basics of the tunnel.  In the second link check out how big the rolling bed needs to be.  These are a couple of reasons there are so few full scale rolling bed tunnels capable of 180 mph.

 

https://www.windshearinc.com/

 

https://newatlas.com...nd-tunnel/8106/

 

Exactly, for accurate results you need to have the smallest blockage factor possible, as the walls of the tunnel create a boundary layer which will mix with the car's aero. You also need enough length in your tunnel to have cleaned up airflow reaching your test section.

 

As for sensors, I'm pretty sure that F1 teams already have the load sensors on the suspension because always talk about how much downforce is lost when a car has it's floor or front wing damaged.



#395 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,750 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 14 November 2019 - 21:12

Exactly, for accurate results you need to have the smallest blockage factor possible, as the walls of the tunnel create a boundary layer which will mix with the car's aero. You also need enough length in your tunnel to have cleaned up airflow reaching your test section.

As for sensors, I'm pretty sure that F1 teams already have the load sensors on the suspension because always talk about how much downforce is lost when a car has it's floor or front wing damaged.

But they have dozens, hundreds, thousands of datapoints for calibration. FIA won’t.

Just keep in mind that any measuring device that is involved in value exchange has to be checked and calibrated periodically.

How exactly slapping a bunch of strain gauges on bespoke composite parts will produce actionable data?

Edited by saudoso, 14 November 2019 - 21:27.


#396 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,776 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 November 2019 - 21:41

But they have dozens, hundreds, thousands of datapoints for calibration. FIA won’t.

Just keep in mind that any measuring device that is involved in value exchange has to be checked and calibrated periodically.

How exactly slapping a bunch of strain gauges on bespoke composite parts will produce actionable data?

 

I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing. It's more complicated than just slapping strain gauges on the parts so it's too complicated to do at all? It's certainly a more viable and cost effective solution than having circuits build weighbridges into sections of the racing circuit or constructing 1:1 scale windtunnels at every track.

 

(Edit: Calibration can be done at scrutineering, using similar equipment to what's used for wing deflection tests. You push the car down, and record what your sensors are telling you. Then you know what they'll be reading on the track.)

 

That's if the idea of limiting maximum downforce is even a path worth pursuing, rather than more traditional methods of controlling speeds.



#397 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,750 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 14 November 2019 - 22:17

I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing. It's more complicated than just slapping strain gauges on the parts so it's too complicated to do at all? It's certainly a more viable and cost effective solution than having circuits build weighbridges into sections of the racing circuit or constructing 1:1 scale windtunnels at every track.

(Edit: Calibration can be done at scrutineering, using similar equipment to what's used for wing deflection tests. You push the car down, and record what your sensors are telling you. Then you know what they'll be reading on the track.)

That's if the idea of limiting maximum downforce is even a path worth pursuing, rather than more traditional methods of controlling speeds.

Calibrating on the field with static loads to enforce downforce rules on cars moving at 300+ kph on own power over bumps and kerbs. That’s gonna work just fine. Just the torsion from braking or accelerating should be enough to kick results by a few percent points.

Weight bridges wouldn’t work since the car would be sucking the platform up. The tunnels neither. Neither using sensors on the cars. It’s not feasible.

Move on.

Just as curbing net engine output is impractical.

Edited by saudoso, 14 November 2019 - 22:39.


#398 kumo7

kumo7
  • Member

  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 15 November 2019 - 08:27

You’ve got to realise that the sport was much less mature in the 1960s and 1970s. The technology available and the knowledge base surrounding it was much less than today. It was much easier to simple think of a good idea when all your opponents never even thought to investigate something. Nowadays the knowledge level is so high that having an open formula requires millions of pounds just in R&D to find something new. Open formulae are not cheap.

 

Yes I do agree in so far as the current condition.

 

Still I must say, guys makes different music every moment by using technological tools, and the building looks day by day different.

OK, Music industry wants what sales in divers genres and sort out the industry to suits this demands, so this condition s a bit different from F1, where lap time is just so simple and there are no two or more winners.



#399 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,447 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 November 2019 - 16:21

Yes I do agree in so far as the current condition.

 

Still I must say, guys makes different music every moment by using technological tools, and the building looks day by day different.

OK, Music industry wants what sales in divers genres and sort out the industry to suits this demands, so this condition s a bit different from F1, where lap time is just so simple and there are no two or more winners.

 

There's a difference between things that are subjective and the 'best' is determined by personal taste vs something that can be, and is, measured as being the best. 



Advertisement

#400 CountDooku

CountDooku
  • Member

  • 10,498 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 16 November 2019 - 10:32

Calibrating on the field with static loads to enforce downforce rules on cars moving at 300+ kph on own power over bumps and kerbs. That’s gonna work just fine. Just the torsion from braking or accelerating should be enough to kick results by a few percent points.

Weight bridges wouldn’t work since the car would be sucking the platform up. The tunnels neither. Neither using sensors on the cars. It’s not feasible.

Move on.

Just as curbing net engine output is impractical.


I think it’s something that can be measured quite easily actually using pressure and temperature sensors in the tyres to measure loads and proxy the increases in pressure in the tyre as the car speeds up as a proxy for downforce.

Not that it’s something I’d think is a good idea mind.