Post by News Post by ~misfit~ Post by News Post by build
This is *really* interesting.
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
"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)