The main difference as I see it is that the golf balls' only means of propulsion is the person in funny clothes with the golf bat who will strike the ball with said golf bat thus determining the velocity of the ball so the ball will need as much help as possible for it to achieve the desired or anywhere near the desired travel distance. An F1 car has an engine in the back that provides a constant source of propulsion. I don't think dimpled F1 cars would be a good idea aerodynamically. Ideally an F1 car will have a small a surface area as possible. Add thousands of dimples and the surface area is going to be increased significantly. Also, I think that dimples would actually cause drag which would slow the car, limit the top speed , increase fuel consumption and increase the amount of fuel to be carried.
A source that can explain the aerodynamics of golf balls far better than I can wrote: Dimpled balls fly farther than non-dimpled balls due to the combination of two effects:
The dimples on the surface of a golf ball cause the boundary layer on the upstream side of the ball to transition from laminar to turbulent. The turbulent boundary layer is able to remain attached to the surface of the ball much longer than a laminar boundary and so creates a narrower, low pressure, wake and hence less pressure drag. The reduction in pressure drag causes the ball to travel farther.
Second, backspin generates lift by deforming the airflow around the ball, in a similar manner to an airplane wing. This is called the Magnus effect. Backspin is imparted in almost every shot due to the golf club's loft (i.e., angle between the clubface and a vertical plane). A backspinning ball experiences an upward lift force which makes it fly higher and longer than a ball without spin. Sidespin occurs when the clubface is not aligned perpendicularly to the direction of swing, leading to a lift force that makes the ball curve to one side or the other. Unfortunately the dimples magnify this effect as well as the more desirable upward lift derived from pure backspin (some dimple designs are claimed to reduce sidespin effects).
It seems to be something that pops it's head up every now and again, I would be very surprised if the aero engineers in F1 havn't looked into it. Here's an article on it:
Whether or not it would be legal in F1 I don't know, maybe with the rules about the underside of the car floor it wouldn't be allowed there but I don't see why other surfaces couldn't be dimpled.
To use my phone in the car I deleted all my German contacts, it's now Hans free.
Mythbusters did this a few years ago, it certainly works/increases efficiency. Can't find the English link... but you may be able to make out enough of it in French.
[youtube]DU4LLwHoiFk[/youtube]
"I don't want to be part of a forum where everyone has differing opinions." Boom...
Youd want as much air pressure for Down force no? Wouldn't dimples take downforce away and affect flow to wings etc? I'm sure if it were beneficial it would already be in f1.
bud wrote:Youd want as much air pressure for Down force no? Wouldn't dimples take downforce away and affect flow to wings etc? I'm sure if it were beneficial it would already be in f1.
With a golf ball, it's the dimples that give it lift when hit with backspin, hit it badly with topspin and you'll give it downforce. The thing is for that it needs to be spinning. The other thing (from what I gather) is that with a smooth ball, the airflow over the ball doesn't seperate from the surface of the back of the ball easily and causes drag, whereas the dimpled surface actually gives slightly increased resistance to the airflow over it but allows easier seperation of the airflow from the back of the ball which is what makes it travel further. The F1 car can be designed with shapes that minimise or don't give rise to the effects a ball experiences, except for the tyres.
To use my phone in the car I deleted all my German contacts, it's now Hans free.
The general consensus is this idea would be a failure in F1, or any form of motorsport. Simply because the golf ball travels in a straight line (sort of) while in F1 the cars are nearly never in a straight line. As someone said earlier, the dimples will simply be a major disadvantage everytime the wheel is turned.
Breaking News:Lewis Hamilton has officially overtaken The Fonz in race wins. With 88 races less. Lol(Without a specially built blown diffuser, illegal front wing, preferential treatment)
i Read a fact about the golf ball dimples somewhere......maybe on a sweet, i forgot.......it said that it had something like 200 dimples on it...?
"I'm very privileged. I've always had a very good life. But everything that I've gotten out of life was obtained through dedication, and tremendous desire to achieve my goals. A great desire to victory, meaning victory in life, not as a driver"
At any given instant, the car or the golf ball is always traveling in a straight line. Only imbalanced dynamics causes it to turn. Regardless, whether its going straight or performing a lomcovák has bugger all to do with the aerodynamic properties of dimples.
CorkSoaker wrote:Are golf ball like dimples allowed on an F1 car? The dimple technology ought to allow for slightly greater top speed aerodynamically, less fuel consumption due to better mileage and associated better cornering speed with less fuel carried.
You made your point already, so you can drop that angle now thanks.
Rising number one of Formula 1, Juan - Juan, one wonders should Juan only win one Formula 1 one year, would Juan have won that one in round one, Juan??
