Poking the nose

Dedicated to technical discussion...
User avatar
darwin dali
Forum Queen
Posts: 26948
Joined: 18 Mar 06, 02:56

Re: Poking the nose

Postby darwin dali »

And how about dimples like on a golf ball?

A ball moving through air experiences two major aerodynamic forces, lift and drag. Dimpled balls fly farther than non-dimpled balls due to the combination of two effects:

Firstly, the dimples delay separation of the boundary layer from the ball. Early separation, as seen on a smooth sphere, causes significant wake turbulence, the principal cause of drag. The separation delay caused by the dimples therefore reduces this wake turbulence, and hence the drag.

Secondly, 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.[1] 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.)

In order to keep the aerodynamics optimal, the ball needs to be clean. Golfers can wash their balls manually, but there are also mechanical ball washers available.




Hm, golfers can wash their balls manually? Only them, other people can't? And that mechanical ball washer sounds a bit scary :shock:
Image Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. Image
User avatar
stonemonkey
Missing Mod
Posts: 6013
Joined: 30 Jul 07, 17:58
Favourite Driver: Bernie
Favourite Team: Connaught
Location: Buried in the tyre wall

Re: Poking the nose

Postby stonemonkey »

Yeah, I knew about the dimples on golf balls before, first discovered when slighly damaged balls went further than the smooth balls. I've read somewhere before about experiments with dimpled wings for aircraft but it only had any positive effect at certain speeds but wondered if it was something ever looked into by the aerodynamacists (sp?) in F1.
To use my phone in the car I deleted all my German contacts, it's now Hans free.
User avatar
bud
Shrub
Posts: 17636
Joined: 10 Jan 06, 03:02
Favourite Driver: Ayrton Senna, Lewis Hamilton
Favourite Team: McLaren
Location: Adelaide, Australia, ɹǝpun uʍop

Re: Poking the nose

Postby bud »

think the principles behind dimples only work on spheres dont they?
User avatar
f1ea
Posts: 4290
Joined: 18 Sep 07, 16:19
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: Poking the nose

Postby f1ea »

darwin_dali wrote:And how about dimples like on a golf ball?


Here's a guess:

1. F1 cars do not spin.
2. If the dimples create a turbulent layer with lower pressure about the contact surface, then dimples on TOP of an F1 would generate uplift, not downforce. Unless they could place dimples also on the bottom of the car, which would qualify as 'undercar aerodynamics'. Banned since the Senna crash investigation?

bud wrote:think the principles behind dimples only work on spheres dont they?


Agree with you, clever boy :):wink:
Came out fighting indeed.
User avatar
darwin dali
Forum Queen
Posts: 26948
Joined: 18 Mar 06, 02:56

Re: Poking the nose

Postby darwin dali »

f1ea wrote:
darwin_dali wrote:And how about dimples like on a golf ball?


Here's a guess:

1. F1 cars do not spin.
2. If the dimples create a turbulent layer with lower pressure about the contact surface, then dimples on TOP of an F1 would generate uplift, not downforce. Unless they could place dimples also on the bottom of the car, which would qualify as 'undercar aerodynamics'. Banned since the Senna crash investigation?

bud wrote:think the principles behind dimples only work on spheres dont they?


Agree with you, clever boy :):wink:


You're both wrong, ha, just found this article:

Dimples on racecars

Research into this has been going on already.
Image Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. Image
User avatar
bud
Shrub
Posts: 17636
Joined: 10 Jan 06, 03:02
Favourite Driver: Ayrton Senna, Lewis Hamilton
Favourite Team: McLaren
Location: Adelaide, Australia, ɹǝpun uʍop

Re: Poking the nose

Postby bud »

interesting but it seems only viable on spinning objects still
User avatar
f1ea
Posts: 4290
Joined: 18 Sep 07, 16:19
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: Poking the nose

Postby f1ea »

darwin_dali wrote:You're both wrong, ha, just found this article:

Dimples on racecars

Research into this has been going on already.


Wrong? not really. its something that's being researched, not something that has yielded succesful results yet.
Besides, one of the uses (of dimples) mentioned are in the undercar surface, and this would not be allowed in F1. Perhaps the wheel covers (unless they already are dimpled), but I think thats it...
Came out fighting indeed.
User avatar
darwin dali
Forum Queen
Posts: 26948
Joined: 18 Mar 06, 02:56

Re: Poking the nose

Postby darwin dali »

Yes, wrong. Not only on spinning objects as the sticker idea on the undercar indicates (or Lexus' undercar shows in real life application) or dimples under the wings. Or the shark skin that might get them engineers some ideas.
I'm not saying they have it all figured out. All I'm saying is that could be in the cards for F1 given that winglets will be banned. The teams have to spend their millions SOMEWHERE, don't they? And they already have the tool, i.e., wind tunnels.
Image Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. Image
User avatar
madbrad
Posts: 3194
Joined: 04 Mar 07, 00:34
Location: Pickering ON Canada

Re: Poking the nose

Postby madbrad »

Road cars have for several years had dimples on high pressure surfaces such as side mirrors in order to reduce that turbulence, so it does work on non moving parts.
sent from my supercray using assembler.
_______________________________



Image
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
User avatar
bud
Shrub
Posts: 17636
Joined: 10 Jan 06, 03:02
Favourite Driver: Ayrton Senna, Lewis Hamilton
Favourite Team: McLaren
Location: Adelaide, Australia, ɹǝpun uʍop

Re: Poking the nose

Postby bud »

darwin_dali wrote:Yes, wrong. Not only on spinning objects as the sticker idea on the undercar indicates (or Lexus' undercar shows in real life application) or dimples under the wings. Or the shark skin that might get them engineers some ideas.
I'm not saying they have it all figured out. All I'm saying is that could be in the cards for F1 given that winglets will be banned. The teams have to spend their millions SOMEWHERE, don't they? And they already have the tool, i.e., wind tunnels.


yes its interesting

might start putting dimples on my Kart and helmet :lol:
User avatar
f1ea
Posts: 4290
Joined: 18 Sep 07, 16:19
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: Poking the nose

Postby f1ea »

darwin_dali wrote:I'm not saying they have it all figured out. All I'm saying is that could be in the cards for F1 given that winglets will be banned. The teams have to spend their millions SOMEWHERE, don't they? And they already have the tool, i.e., wind tunnels.


Yes, I understand, I'm sure they already are (and have done) experimentation for some parts of the F1 to have dimples. When I initially read and thought of your post, however, i was thinking you were more referring to the whole surface of the F1 to be dimpled :| but if its just some features, then i guess it could be useful... but maybe the dimple effect becomes negligible at such high flow velocities and pressures. Hard to say without a wind tunnel... If only i had one of those in my backyard :)
Came out fighting indeed.
User avatar
darwin dali
Forum Queen
Posts: 26948
Joined: 18 Mar 06, 02:56

Re: Poking the nose

Postby darwin dali »

f1ea wrote:
darwin_dali wrote:I'm not saying they have it all figured out. All I'm saying is that could be in the cards for F1 given that winglets will be banned. The teams have to spend their millions SOMEWHERE, don't they? And they already have the tool, i.e., wind tunnels.


Yes, I understand, I'm sure they already are (and have done) experimentation for some parts of the F1 to have dimples. When I initially read and thought of your post, however, i was thinking you were more referring to the whole surface of the F1 to be dimpled :| but if its just some features, then i guess it could be useful... but maybe the dimple effect becomes negligible at such high flow velocities and pressures. Hard to say without a wind tunnel... If only i had one of those in my backyard :)



Jason Zuback broke the world ball speed record on an episode of Sports Science with a golf ball velocity of 328 km/h (204 mph). The previous record of 302 km/h (188 mph) was held by José Ramón Areitio, a Jai Alai player.
Image Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. Image
User avatar
f1ea
Posts: 4290
Joined: 18 Sep 07, 16:19
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: Poking the nose

Postby f1ea »

darwin_dali wrote:Jason Zuback broke the world ball speed record on an episode of Sports Science with a golf ball velocity of 328 km/h (204 mph). The previous record of 302 km/h (188 mph) was held by José Ramón Areitio, a Jai Alai player.


:D

Wind resistance would be a Force = m x a.
And the mass of these golf sized balls is very small compared to an F1 car; so for the same 'order of magnitude-acceleration' the acting forces should be much larger in the F1 car be signifficant.
I'm not saying the dimples would have NO effect at all... but if the difference in wind resistance (force) gained by adding dimples results very small relative to the Drag (a Force as well) generated by larger and more notorious F1 parts. Then maybe the dimples don't do much... UNLESS this force were acting on a very large area (i.e. the whole car, the rear wing... etc).

Anyway... it's just a quick opinion. Maybe I'm making no sense, or not being too good at getting my point accross :):wink:
Came out fighting indeed.
User avatar
darwin dali
Forum Queen
Posts: 26948
Joined: 18 Mar 06, 02:56

Re: Poking the nose

Postby darwin dali »

f1ea wrote:
darwin_dali wrote:Jason Zuback broke the world ball speed record on an episode of Sports Science with a golf ball velocity of 328 km/h (204 mph). The previous record of 302 km/h (188 mph) was held by José Ramón Areitio, a Jai Alai player.


:D

Wind resistance would be a Force = m x a.
And the mass of these golf sized balls is very small compared to an F1 car; so for the same 'order of magnitude-acceleration' the acting forces should be much larger in the F1 car be signifficant.
I'm not saying the dimples would have NO effect at all... but if the difference in wind resistance (force) gained by adding dimples results very small relative to the Drag (a Force as well) generated by larger and more notorious F1 parts. Then maybe the dimples don't do much... UNLESS this force were acting on a very large area (i.e. the whole car, the rear wing... etc).

Anyway... it's just a quick opinion. Maybe I'm making no sense, or not being too good at getting my point accross :):wink:


In this day and age where time differentials are measured in thousandth (1/1000) of seconds and where teams spend millions to gain an ever so small advantage over the competition, you can bet your sweet little bum that they will do whatever they can to make dimples work on an F1 car in case they have a shred of hope that it could make a difference. If necessary they could play around with the dimple size and depth and then their positioning - lots to play with and test :wink:
Image Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. Image
User avatar
f1ea
Posts: 4290
Joined: 18 Sep 07, 16:19
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: Poking the nose

Postby f1ea »

darwin_dali wrote:In this day and age where time differentials are measured in thousandth (1/1000) of seconds and where teams spend millions to gain an ever so small advantage over the competition, you can bet your sweet little bum that they will do whatever they can to make dimples work on an F1 car in case they have a shred of hope that it could make a difference.


Yeah, I think the same too :) and i bet they have done some tests already. Some carbon fiber surfaces on road/performance cars already have these dimples.
But perhaps to bring effects to the 1/1000 s difference in an F1(you'd probably have to increase the depth of the dimples, the size, the contact surface and so on) and you won't be able to tell the effect of such change in the rest of the variables until you run a model/simulation (and analyse the results)... because you could end up with less wind resistance, but also experience a loss of downforce, increased turbulence, or undesired instability etc etc.

But don't convince us here :):wink: sort these out and approach a team:
1. How much money and what resources do you need to carry out said research?
2. Can you come up to an F1 team and say that they should spend these resources (1) on your project based on the (theoretical/experimental) data you have or could be able to produce at your own expense?
3. Will your proposed parts abide to F1 regs?
4. How does the team (2) know you're not another Ferrari spy?? :D:D
Came out fighting indeed.