›
Existing Users: Because of an update to the forum software you will need to reset your password. Please use the "Forgot?" link on the sign in form to do so. If that doesn't work, send me an email at feedback@forzaminardi.com and I'll sort you out!

The 3 new teams

Petroltorque
in ForzaMinardi.com Forum
Anyone got any ideas as to which ones are credible. Campoe Meta seems solid. USF1, who knows.
Manor seems suspect to me. Iread somewhere that their car will be a totally CFD design. That can't be right can it? I didn't think the CFD similations for aero were that valid.
I'd be interested in anyone could shed some light on this. Thanks in advance.

Comments

  • Telstar
    Sounds like the Manor team's entry was helped by a guy in the FIA, so not sure if they are as legit as other entries. Unfortunately I don't have much knowledge on CFD vs. Wind Tunnel.

    USF1 has been planning for four years and have a wind tunnel, so that is a start.

    With the regulations still not clear for next season it is going to be tough to judge how well these new teams can respond once the regs are cleared up. Yet even established teams can become ass backwards with regs, see mclaren, bmw, and ferrari.
  • forzaminardi
    didn't Stewart do a full CFD back in the day?
  • steamdrivenhammer
    Apparantely Richard Branson has switched teams from Brawn to Manor GP in exchange for a 20% stake.
  • steamdrivenhammer
    Apparantly USGPE F1 Grand Prix or whatever its called is going to be sponsored by Youtube or at least financed in part by the guy who started it.

    Interesting could mean loads of highlights on youtube (only if Bernie allows it) available to the masses. or is it some rich guy feeding his fantasy?
  • Stan
    I read somewhere that their car will be a totally CFD design. That can't be right can it?
    You old, old, old, old, old man. ;)

    I doubt anyone will ever be able to point out CFD designed cars from their windtunnel counterparts. Hell, half the time Minardi designs had hardly ever seen a wind tunnel! ;).
  • Petroltorque
    Well thats pretty incredible. Makes me wonder why one would run your windtunnel 24/7 if CFD can produce the same results.
  • Stan
    I'm just saying that I doubt you need to run a windtunnel at all to be able to run a mid field F1 car. Especially when you look at how many Minardi's ran at a respectable gap from the field without wind tunnels or CFD.

    [Edited on 15-7-09 by Stan]
  • printscreen
    Still think it's strange Prodrive didn't get a place on the grid.. they're about the only 'constructor' i would take serious.
  • steamdrivenhammer
    Originally posted by printscreen
    Still think it's strange Prodrive didn't get a place on the grid.. they're about the only 'constructor' i would take serious.
    I think they didn't get in because bernie is still narked at them saying they were coming in this season only to pull out over the row about customer cars.
  • Petroltorque
    Its even more interesting that Cosworth have agreed to run at an 18 000 rev limit.
    Moseley was clearly attempting to get 2 tier F1 through the back door by letting them run unrestricted. At 18 000 revs output is around 720bhp. At 20 000 output is 780bhp. Its effectively KERS without the weight penalty.
  • Dr_Spin
    CFD vs Wind Tunnel?

    The results from CFD depend on the quality of the model, with all the car's fittings accurately modelled, and then the actual simulations of speed downforce and the rest which you would also do with the wind tunnel anyway.

    It's more a choice of the team's aero dynamicist and the time factor as to whether he trusts the CFD model and simulations to give the same feel as the more hands-on work of wind tunnel testing. If you fully design with 3D computer models, you can run the enhancement options straight away with CFD before even fabricating them. With the wind tunnel, you hand profile the enhancement then test it with the advantage that you know and can see all the car as built.

    Maybe teams are more comfortable with wind tunnel testing as the simulations are more obvious and easily understood than CFD which depends on interpreting results from the simulations and trusting the calibration of the model.

    If you have a wind tunnel you may as well use it, likewise if you've invested your money in CFD, initially plus the cost of maintaining the model and employing the analyst round the clock, then use that.

    The final calibration is on the track in race conditions.

    Quig?
  • viges
    A stranger to this parish.
  • Stan
    Who?
Sign In or Register to comment.