Common windtunnel mistakes 

same, such a git

Glad to see you are into this stuff too XD Edit: grammar

Hello loyal subscriber :D

😊😊😂😂😂what a yoke!

*Williams

Kurt Phillips and them

It's ironic that one of these guys actually used to work for McLaren.

Ouch 💀

Thank you will check it out!

Sorry, I think you missed my terrible joke. It was in regards to the size of the car not the type of car. lol I realize it is a model, just joking. "How do they find people to fit into such a small car?"

Whooosh

the sharkfin does not help against lifting off, mostly it just improves lateral stability. the liftoff and backflip prevention are those holes above the front wheels

nUKerATsKi 😂 good joke lol

What is this? A car for ANTS?!

Just use Mclaren's secret by using some superglue.

No

BMW engineer when that one pesky Mercedes Evo 2 DTM car was introduced.

Well to get the right reynolds numbers you would have to increase the wind speed with a factor 18. So yes, it scales, but the other way around. I don't think they do that though.

I don't think you can really rely on scaled models because wind behaves differently at different scales, particularly the difference between laminar and turbulent flow, relating to the Reynolds number mentioned by the previous commenter.

I'm curious as well

Well obviously modeling properly is still going to end up cheaper...

Than wheeling the real thing in a wind tunnel? At some point all that model making eclipses the cost difference to a 100% tunnel. Never understood this.

Making changes to full size parts would be rather expensive. I'm imagining that remaking full size front wings for every small design change would blow the budget pretty fast.

the comparably cheaper series Nascar uses full size wind tunnels, Haas Windshear is even big enough to test how two cars behind each other affect each other

Have you seen any McLarens in your "wind tunnel" lately?

Andrew Jackson nonono, Ericson hit us.

The engine air intake is closed down 😂

I know this is a bit late But basically a boundry layer is a very small amount of air that pretty much sits still on the surface of the road, kinda like a thin layer of ice. Now the reason why they want to get rid of this is that a normal road doesn't have it cause all the air is sitting pretty much still not blown through a fan like in a wind tunnel. Belt lifting is simply when the belt (the black surface that acts like a road similar to a treadmill) lifts up due to the suction of the car

NOOOOO! Simulation is almost perfect (like 99% accurate) for structures, but fluids/aero it's not -- especially for complex and detailed analysis (it also takes tons of computing power). Basically you need to start with a "model" (set of parameters), verify it with physical testing, then if there are any discrepancies, return to the model and iterate until you have comparable data that you're satisfied with. If you're interested in the subject, you can read about CFD (computational fluid dynamics) and FEA.

@@andrewmancini46 forgot the rather "unpredictable" nature of fluids...

They're both inaccurate in different ways. Current computing power isn't up to the task of a CFD simulation that solves the complete set of fluid flow equations (Navier-Stokes) so there are numerical models that approximate turbulence. Typically, you're looking at a couple of percentage points off in lift and drag. Wind tunnels, on the other hand have scaling issues. You can't just make a scale model of something and throw it in a wind tunnel and assume that the air is going to act the same way as it does with a full scale car. When you test in a wind tunnel, you have to run the tunnel at the inverse of the model scale. So, if you want to simulate a car at 100mph with a 50% scale model, you have to run the tunnel at 200mph to equate the two. Doing that fulfills the requirement of equating the Reynolds number but you have to equate two factors to get it right and nearly nobody does that. The right way to do it is to pressurize the wind tunnel or use a gas that's denser than air. Both of these methods are extremely expensive and rarely used outside of NASA or other aerospace organizations. So, you do both ... compare the results ... hope they validate each other and build a car and test. Full scale tunnels are the way to go but IIRC, their use was banned by F1 on the basis of cost.

John Button - a *_much_* more well developed video on the subject is here... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KC0E0wU6inU.html

It's perfect

@@afoxwithahat7846 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7ffj8SHrbk0.html

@@zzrzz6199 it's expensive

Andreas Kociok - I thought it was the Peugeot 908 on first viewing.

I'd like that too

many fia controlled series only allow small scale tunnels

I believe the Reynolds number sorts that out. Engineers always have an answer.

They do translate if you do the math correctly

as far as im aware wind tunnels can only apply tension in one axis?

which isnt always the case in real life

you want them to make up stuff for you? or give you the information they have?

Do you want to hear from real engineers or from announcers without actual experience?

Forced Media ,shut your face you self-righteous narcissistic fuck

air moves, moving air does magic forcy bits and goes woooosh. there you go aero in 10s seconds

This video is clearly not intended for normal motorsport fans but for students, or interns in a big company starting out for example. I find it interesting and not boring at all because I can relate with what's being said. Besides aero isn't just "OMG look at this enormous wing it creates so much downforce oh wow it has grooves". No need to be so dramatic

Two of them work for racing teams.