Discussion:
New aero
(too old to reply)
build
2018-03-06 13:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
New innovative aero facility. Thanks to Joe Saward:
This is *really* interesting.
https://www.totalsimulation.co.uk/catesby-aero-research-facility/

beers,
News
2018-03-06 13:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by build
This is *really* interesting.
https://www.totalsimulation.co.uk/catesby-aero-research-facility/
beers,
Yeah, interesting, but not unique:

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/nascar/the-secrets-of-laurel-hill/
build
2018-03-06 14:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by build
This is *really* interesting.
https://www.totalsimulation.co.uk/catesby-aero-research-facility/
beers,
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/nascar/the-secrets-of-laurel-hill/
Thank you.

beers,
~misfit~
2018-03-07 01:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by build
This is *really* interesting.
https://www.totalsimulation.co.uk/catesby-aero-research-facility/
beers,
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/nascar/the-secrets-of-laurel-hill/
Yep I read about that a year or so ago (maybe from a link here?). The tunnel
at Catesby is twice as long as the Laurel Hill tunnel so should give quite a
bit more data on fast cars when it's finished.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
News
2018-03-07 02:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by News
Post by build
This is *really* interesting.
https://www.totalsimulation.co.uk/catesby-aero-research-facility/
beers,
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/nascar/the-secrets-of-laurel-hill/
Yep I read about that a year or so ago (maybe from a link here?). The tunnel
at Catesby is twice as long as the Laurel Hill tunnel so should give quite a
bit more data on fast cars when it's finished.
Catesby 2.7 km = 1.67 miles vs. Laurel Hill 1 mile

Somewhat more valuable for vehicles that are slow to accelerate to speed.

By the time such tunnels are renovated, instrumented and finished, a
full-size, closed-return, rolling road wind tunnel may be no more
expensive to build and operate.
~misfit~
2018-03-07 03:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by ~misfit~
Post by News
Post by build
This is *really* interesting.
https://www.totalsimulation.co.uk/catesby-aero-research-facility/
beers,
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/nascar/the-secrets-of-laurel-hill/
Yep I read about that a year or so ago (maybe from a link here?).
The tunnel at Catesby is twice as long as the Laurel Hill tunnel so
should give quite a bit more data on fast cars when it's finished.
Catesby 2.7 km = 1.67 miles vs. Laurel Hill 1 mile
The article you linked above says the Laurel Hill tunnel is 1,384m long.
Very close to half of 2,700m.
Post by News
Somewhat more valuable for vehicles that are slow to accelerate to speed.
Yep, and for fast vehicles. You'd get more data per run = less time spent
turning around for another run. By the time you remove run up and slow down
zones from both tunnels Catesby would have three or four times as much
stable running length available. At least.

In that same article it says the "working test section" is 420m - which
means that the other 964m is taken up with run up, slow dawn and the
turntable. If we take that same 964m away from the quoted 2,700m of Catesby
that would equal a 'working test section' for Catesby of 1,736m. That's over
four times as long as Laurel Hill.
Post by News
By the time such tunnels are renovated, instrumented and finished, a
full-size, closed-return, rolling road wind tunnel may be no more
expensive to build and operate.
Agreed. However the data gathered is different. It would be possible to get
more data from a tunnel as above than a wind tunnel. Witness RBRs
'correleation issues' for the first part of last year where their pre-season
CFD and windtunnel data didn't translate accurately to actual running
conitions.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
News
2018-03-07 12:19:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by News
Post by ~misfit~
Post by News
Post by build
This is *really* interesting.
https://www.totalsimulation.co.uk/catesby-aero-research-facility/
beers,
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/nascar/the-secrets-of-laurel-hill/
Yep I read about that a year or so ago (maybe from a link here?).
The tunnel at Catesby is twice as long as the Laurel Hill tunnel so
should give quite a bit more data on fast cars when it's finished.
Catesby 2.7 km = 1.67 miles vs. Laurel Hill 1 mile
The article you linked above says the Laurel Hill tunnel is 1,384m long.
Very close to half of 2,700m.
In fact, the article states both. Available today, not in 2019 (maybe).
Post by ~misfit~
Post by News
Somewhat more valuable for vehicles that are slow to accelerate to speed.
Yep, and for fast vehicles. You'd get more data per run = less time spent
turning around for another run. By the time you remove run up and slow down
zones from both tunnels Catesby would have three or four times as much
stable running length available. At least.
In that same article it says the "working test section" is 420m - which
means that the other 964m is taken up with run up, slow dawn and the
turntable. If we take that same 964m away from the quoted 2,700m of Catesby
that would equal a 'working test section' for Catesby of 1,736m. That's over
four times as long as Laurel Hill.
Post by News
By the time such tunnels are renovated, instrumented and finished, a
full-size, closed-return, rolling road wind tunnel may be no more
expensive to build and operate.
Agreed. However the data gathered is different. It would be possible to get
more data from a tunnel as above than a wind tunnel. Witness RBRs
'correleation issues' for the first part of last year where their pre-season
CFD and windtunnel data didn't translate accurately to actual running
conitions.
A full-scale, rolling road wind tunnel is more easily configured for
temperature, humidity, altitude, slip angle, among other variables
encountered in 'real world'.

RBR's issues were with correlation of CFD to 'real world', not CFD to
tunnel (rolling road or not, unknown), or tunnel to 'real world'.
~misfit~
2018-03-08 00:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by ~misfit~
Post by News
Post by ~misfit~
Post by News
Post by build
This is *really* interesting.
https://www.totalsimulation.co.uk/catesby-aero-research-facility/
beers,
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/nascar/the-secrets-of-laurel-hill/
Yep I read about that a year or so ago (maybe from a link here?).
The tunnel at Catesby is twice as long as the Laurel Hill tunnel so
should give quite a bit more data on fast cars when it's finished.
Catesby 2.7 km = 1.67 miles vs. Laurel Hill 1 mile
The article you linked above says the Laurel Hill tunnel is 1,384m
long. Very close to half of 2,700m.
In fact, the article states both. Available today, not in 2019
(maybe).
Yep, rounded up to 1 mile in the 'foreward' part of the article but
described more accurately in the text.
Post by News
Post by ~misfit~
Post by News
Somewhat more valuable for vehicles that are slow to accelerate to speed.
Yep, and for fast vehicles. You'd get more data per run = less time
spent turning around for another run. By the time you remove run up
and slow down zones from both tunnels Catesby would have three or
four times as much stable running length available. At least.
In that same article it says the "working test section" is 420m -
which means that the other 964m is taken up with run up, slow dawn
and the turntable. If we take that same 964m away from the quoted
2,700m of Catesby that would equal a 'working test section' for
Catesby of 1,736m. That's over four times as long as Laurel Hill.
Post by News
By the time such tunnels are renovated, instrumented and finished, a
full-size, closed-return, rolling road wind tunnel may be no more
expensive to build and operate.
Agreed. However the data gathered is different. It would be possible
to get more data from a tunnel as above than a wind tunnel. Witness
RBRs 'correleation issues' for the first part of last year where
their pre-season CFD and windtunnel data didn't translate accurately
to actual running conitions.
A full-scale, rolling road wind tunnel is more easily configured for
temperature, humidity, altitude, slip angle, among other variables
encountered in 'real world'.
RBR's issues were with correlation of CFD to 'real world', not CFD to
tunnel (rolling road or not, unknown), or tunnel to 'real world'.
If the correlation issues were only with CFD then surely they would have
noticed the difference between CFD and tunnel data pre season and not been
hampered so badly having to sort it during the first part of the season?
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
News
2018-03-08 14:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by News
Post by ~misfit~
Post by News
Post by ~misfit~
Post by News
Post by build
This is *really* interesting.
https://www.totalsimulation.co.uk/catesby-aero-research-facility/
beers,
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/nascar/the-secrets-of-laurel-hill/
Yep I read about that a year or so ago (maybe from a link here?).
The tunnel at Catesby is twice as long as the Laurel Hill tunnel so
should give quite a bit more data on fast cars when it's finished.
Catesby 2.7 km = 1.67 miles vs. Laurel Hill 1 mile
The article you linked above says the Laurel Hill tunnel is 1,384m
long. Very close to half of 2,700m.
In fact, the article states both. Available today, not in 2019 (maybe).
Yep, rounded up to 1 mile in the 'foreward' part of the article but
described more accurately in the text.
Post by News
Post by ~misfit~
Post by News
Somewhat more valuable for vehicles that are slow to accelerate to speed.
Yep, and for fast vehicles. You'd get more data per run = less time
spent turning around for another run. By the time you remove run up
and slow down zones from both tunnels Catesby would have three or
four times as much stable running length available. At least.
In that same article it says the "working test section" is 420m -
which means that the other 964m is taken up with run up, slow dawn
and the turntable. If we take that same 964m away from the quoted
2,700m of Catesby that would equal a 'working test section' for
Catesby of 1,736m. That's over four times as long as Laurel Hill.
Post by News
By the time such tunnels are renovated, instrumented and finished, a
full-size, closed-return, rolling road wind tunnel may be no more
expensive to build and operate.
Agreed. However the data gathered is different. It would be possible
to get more data from a tunnel as above than a wind tunnel. Witness
RBRs 'correleation issues' for the first part of last year where
their pre-season CFD and windtunnel data didn't translate accurately
to actual running conitions.
A full-scale, rolling road wind tunnel is more easily configured for
temperature, humidity, altitude, slip angle, among other variables
encountered in 'real world'.
RBR's issues were with correlation of CFD to 'real world', not CFD to
tunnel (rolling road or not, unknown), or tunnel to 'real world'.
If the correlation issues were only with CFD then surely they would have
noticed the difference between CFD and tunnel data pre season and not been
hampered so badly having to sort it during the first part of the season?
Limited by the amount of pre-season testing permitted... as well as the
limited amount and nature of wind tunnel testing permitted, as well as
by the limited amount of CFD simulation permitted, resulting in limited
correlation to 'real world', and parading around in free practice with
instrumented pitot rakes mounted at various points.
Post by ~misfit~
All competitors must observe a factory shutdown period of 14 consecutive days in July and/or August, during which time their wind tunnels and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) facilities must not be used for Formula 1 activities.
Wind tunnel testing is heavily restricted, both in terms of what kind of testing may be done and how long it may be done for. Scale models used may be no larger than 60 percent and speeds are limited to 50 metres per second.
Similar restrictions also apply to CFD simulation work.
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-08 17:48:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by ~misfit~
If the correlation issues were only with CFD then surely they would have
noticed the difference between CFD and tunnel data pre season and not been
hampered so badly having to sort it during the first part of the season?
Limited by the amount of pre-season testing permitted... as well as the
limited amount and nature of wind tunnel testing permitted, as well as
by the limited amount of CFD simulation permitted, resulting in limited
correlation to 'real world', and parading around in free practice with
instrumented pitot rakes mounted at various points.
Well, Red Bull are not the only team to run into these correlation problems. Ferrari had something similar a few years back.

But has this happened to Merc?
Post by News
Post by ~misfit~
All competitors must observe a factory shutdown period of 14 consecutive days in July and/or August, during which time their wind tunnels and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) facilities must not be used for Formula 1 activities.
Wind tunnel testing is heavily restricted, both in terms of what kind of testing may be done and how long it may be done for. Scale models used may be no larger than 60 percent and speeds are limited to 50 metres per second.
Similar restrictions also apply to CFD simulation work.
They're limited to so many computer cycles (or billions thereof). But how is that checked? Is this legislated or some gentleman's agreement that a team can break and not incur any real penalty?
bra
2018-03-06 15:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by build
This is *really* interesting.
https://www.totalsimulation.co.uk/catesby-aero-research-facility/
beers,
One of the NASCAR teams bought a similar tunnel for aero research, but I don't know how far they developed its operation.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/a24696/racings-secret-hideout-ganassi-tunnel/
Loading...