BC

The fact that there is no inseason testing - and the compared fact that the cars as they were in the beginning have improved very little - with CFD being open and ACTUAL real world testing is banned -

Is this proof that CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics - The testing of the car in a pretty much artificial environment - doesn't actually result in real world progress? At least for this situation?

Actually putting the car on a track must be so much clearer to the engineers than the CFD simulations - it must be maddening that they cannot test.

multi21

One compliments the other. The on track running validates the CFD and windtunnel, or not.

It's difficult to replicate cross winds and turbulence on CFD or the windtunnel

2BWise

CFD is magnitudes cheaper. They probably go thru hundreds of interations in the lab before even considering creating a part, let alone putting it on the car. I'm willing to bet that the parts are pretty well optimized beforehand and on track testing becomes more of a validation of the design method. I can't imagine how expensive it would be to create multiple parts and then have to pay for logistics to be able to test on a track.

dp35

I'm not sure if this season hasn't validated that some team's CFD does indeed work quite well. Brawn in particular.

Honda spent most of 2008 designing their 2009 car, but never tested it. The first time it hit the track (as a Brawn) it was the car to beat, and still is. Every other team had more pre-season 2009 testing than Brawn. Seems like Honda/Brawn's CFD design & wind tunnel testing worked fairly well.

brendo

i view it as the opposite. the CFD that led to the diffusers at rule "interpretation" put out some fantastic cars.

and, the closeness of the cars is ridiculous. even without the double diffuser, the red bulls were fantastic

BC

I was trying to figure out why CFD has not created an environment where the teams with 300 million dollars cannot yet match Brawn this far into the season.

I saw the reason as the removal or banning of in season testing.

2BWise

My thoughts are that it isn't just the CFD design work, but the integration with all the other systems that is holding back the other teams. Packaging concerns and compromises with other systems such as the suspension I think is what is holding back the other teams. Everything needs to work in harmony and compromising mechanical grip for aero grip or vice versa is not very smart. Especially with the return to full slicks and the resultant increase in overall mechanical grip I think some teams were still so focused on the aero work that they never quite picked up the mech. grip and personally I think thats why the Red Bulls and Brawns are so good everywhere. No matter how much they optimize the aero package with CFD if they're still limited by mech. grip then they'll still be slower. I think the Mclaren is the best example. The suspension setup looks so compromised and the car so twitchy makes me think they don't have nearly the mech. grip that the other cars are making.

ltc

IIRC, there are restrictions governing the scale and hours of CFD time to be used.
Also, there will be a difference between static and rolling road CFD measurements.

Besides, Adrian Newey doesn't need no stinkin' CFD or wind tunnels...the man still uses a drafting table and passes off his designs for others to enter into the CAD/CAE systems.
I'd be willing to bet he also uses an HP calculator and has a slide rule...just in case.

multi21

IIRc the double diffusers were tested on track in pre-season, before the testing ban. There were pictures and stories about them before the season so the "theory" of CFD was put to the test and validated on track when the Brawn, Toyotas and Williams were fast in pre-season testing, but no one believed the results until after race 1.

What's happening now is that all the teams that did not have a double diffsuer are trying to develope a DD, but can only road test it on Fridays because of the inseason ban on testing. With the exception of the Red Bull cars, everyone is struggling to catch up with only CFD and wind tunnel testing, which has been limited as well. The 3rd element of actual real world track testing is needed.

M758

CFD is a tool. Any tool is only as good as the inputs to that tool. The aero effects of a race car on the ground are very complex. Alot of assumtions go into any modeling and whe do those assumptions come from? Real on track test data. These are needed all the time to ensure the boundry conditions for the model are accurate. Without accurate boundry conditions all the analysis in the world is junk.

The probelms some teams can run into is if they have bad boundry conditions. Ok maybe bad is too strong a word, but maybe inaccurate or incomplete. Then you do a bunch of CFD models pick a "best design". Build it and when it does not work as planned you scratch your head.

CFD is an essential tool and allows for faster development, but it will not design a car for you. The engineers still need to the work and test teams still need to do the testing that supples data to the engineers.

Cory M

There would be a CFD jihad if I showed this post to the Aero engineers I work with!

I think this year proves the opposite in some ways. Downforce was supposed to be REDUCED by 50% with the new rules, and yet track records have been falling. I know a lot of that is due to the slick tires but obviously aero plays a huge part too. It's difficult to judge as the season progresses because every car is evolving at the same time. They have little tweaks with incremental performance gains and fewer breakthroughs.

Like Lewis (ltc) said, CFD resources were limited this year per the rules change. Although I'm not sure how you could possibly police that unless you own the servers? Seems like teams could outsource to consulting firms as well and get creative with the accounting...

dp35

Slow down, you're getting way ahead of the class. You're describing 2010's budget cap fiasco before its even happened.

multi21

Like you said, slicks vs. grooved tires and double diffusers. Estimate is that downforce is only down 20% vs. the 50% that was supposed to be the target number.

993-CT

Brawn had an entire year of unlimited testing/development and most importantly - use of 100% scale wind tunnel during 2008. Remember that Honda/Brawn pretty much gave up on the 2008 season in early March 08.....And while Brawn looked pretty poor over the winter, much of the 09 Brawn was developed when Honda was the biggest spending F1 team.

The teams that are trying to play catch up are limited in two regards:
1. No on-track testing other than Fridays before GP
2. only 60% scale wind tunnel allowed in 2009.

BC

And to me, this says that real world testing is the the 20 in the 80/20 rule.