Bootstrap Framework 3.3.6

[supeindesu]

As stonemonkeys says, you'll need a rocket to do that, and never think to go otherwise that straight.

[stonemonkey]

Rockets are slightly different, they carry their own oxygen supply rather than using atmospheric oxygen. Only use them if you're racing on the moon but the big problem there is again that there's no air so the wings won't work to give you any downforce and the reduced gravity would give you much less mechanical grip but then again aerodynamics of any of the car won't make any difference so maybe Buttons fans should get on to Bernie to build a moon track.

[f1ea]

SOME CONSTANT in this case = a scalar (non-vector) magnitude, with a specific value somewhat 'easy' to determine.

This formula gives out a [lenght] unit, which in fluid dynamics is usually a measure of ENERGY (in F1 terms: Energy = Horse power). In the formula you gave you have a pressure term (p), a kinematic (speed/velocity) term 1/2 v^2, and a potential energy term relative to location (rgh)...

The sum of this value being a 'constant' does not mean it is constant AT ALL TIMES, it is actually constant at a SPECIFIC TIME, namely, a very small time interval... it will be a different constant value at any other time interval, which could be, for example 1 second later and so on...

the reason for example BMW has this super sophisticated computer to do hydrodinamic tests.. is that the computer is actually computing (solving) ALL fluid dynamics equations at VERY small time steps for a certain simulation time interval... this should give out a HELL OF A LOT of calculations, as in an F1 car all the variables are constantly changing and a function of other variables, which mean, really complex equations will give you the values of r and the other variables involved. For example air density is dependant of air flow velocity, and air flow velocity is a function of the car's speed and the shape of the car etc etc etc... Here's where the aerodynamic engineers make their money in F1.

Usually, these calculations are really complex and require solving a lot of equations... and just as an example, let's say you have a PC processor that runs at 1 GHz , this means you can do about 1 million calculations per second. Normally a hydrodynamic simulation can take from 1 sec to over 24 hrs. Depending on the capacity of your PC and the complexity of your problem. BMW's new machine can probably do 2-3 times more computations than a less powerful machine in a day... That's why everybody wants a powerful machine: more simulations in less time.

Ok... hope this helped.

PS- Kids: don't try this at home!

[racechick]

Reading this I realise why I never became a physicist, aerodynamisist or any other sort of sist

[texasmr2]

Nice "cut and paste" ! j/k

[stonemonkey]

Usually, these calculations are really complex and require solving a lot of equations... and just as an example, let's say you have a PC processor that runs at 1 GHz , this means you can do about 1 million calculations per second. Normally a hydrodynamic simulation can take from 1 sec to over 24 hrs. Depending on the capacity of your PC and the complexity of your problem. BMW's new machine can probably do 2-3 times more computations than a less powerful machine in a day... That's why everybody wants a powerful machine: more simulations in less time.

Their computer uses 1024 Intel cores, so in theory could be that much faster than the equivelant pc with 1 core.
The machine they have now is 2-3 times faster than their previous machine.

[f1ea]

^^
oh... correction: "2-3 times more computations than a less powerful machine" being "2-3 times more computations than an already super-powerful machine".
This is where the IT engineers make their money......

[texasmr2]

This thread tell's me I need to get back in school LOL!!

[bud]

No need to go into the physics of it all, simple answer NO .

[perch]

*head explodes*

[f1ea]

No need to go into the physics of it all, simple answer NO .

LOL I was thinking the same thing but I thought the whole speed of sound thing was already answered... the rest was just 'general knowledge'.

[weiping2007]

Wings on an airplane generate an upward force that's called lift. If you turn the wing upside down, mount it on a car, and move it through the air you get negative lift which we call downforce.
do downforce increase a weight of a car?
if yes how to more force pressing the car down with no extra weight on the car?

[stonemonkey]

It doesn't really increase the weight of the car, it adds to the force the car exerts onto the track already due to gravity.

If you were to say the weight has increased then for cornering you'd have to take that additional weight into account and require higher forces to change the direction of that additional weight which isn't the case.

from the wikipedia:

an F1 car produces much more downforce than any other open-wheel formula; for example the Indycars produce downforce equal to their weight at 190 km/h (118 mph), while an F1 car achieves the same downforce:weight ratio of 1:1 at 125 km/h (78 mph) to 130 km/h (81 mph), and at 190 km/h (118 mph) the ratio is roughly 2:1. Therefore, theoretically, F1 cars can drive upside down from 130 km/h (81 mph).

so at 118mph, the downward force produced by the wings is about 1200kg and that will be considerably more by the time it's traveling at 200mph (although these figures will change with different setups from track to track).

I think as well that it'll increase the downward acceleration so that the cars don't lose contact (as much) with the track when going over bumps that would launch most other cars into the air.

[ArtHowe]

I hope Bernie doesn't read your post Stonemonkey. He'd probably be introducing inverted night time racing.

[stonemonkey]

We can only dream of barrel rolling tracks with loops and vertical banks..... , or play wipeout.