Aero & Dynamics Parity... Real or Illusion...?

[Reload]

Also interested to read in AA that JB believes the Holdens have more downforce.

[FAS33]

Originally Posted by Reload

Also interested to read in AA that JB believes the Holdens have more downforce.

they've had more downforce since the early 90's mate, why do you think they use a runway for? we all know that's the most accurate way of telling how much each car produces.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Reload

Also interested to read in AA that JB believes the Holdens have more downforce.

I think it depends a little as to the reference point.

The story goes that the CotF VF has more front downforce than the Blueprint VE, with a longer front splitter, more in line with the Falcon FG package.

So while saying that the current VF has more downforce, Mr Bowe is correct, if comparing to the outgoing VE.

The differences between the cars are still there..

...the 6 Fords each use FPR-spec front suspension, in uprights, and brand of dampers..

...the 4 WP-supplied Commodores use a unique-to them front suspension design, including brand of dampers

...the 3 SBR-built Erebus AMGs use a different unique-to-them suspension design and brand of damper package

...the 888 squad, and their 4 direct customer cars use an 888-made suspension design, with Sachs dampers. That same choice has made it onto the BJR threesome, the Nismo foursome too, while it is said this technology is also at GRM...

So.. are we talking about the cars themselves running good, or the package underneath them.. which, despite an illusion of commonality, seem to be operating 888 stuff and being somewhere near the front, or not and not...

How do you paritise this stuff?

[Bell_End]

Originally Posted by FAS33

they've had more downforce since the early 90's mate, why do you think they use a runway for? we all know that's the most accurate way of telling how much each car produces.

No one ever said it is the most accurate for exact downforce figures each car produces independently, but when you fit all cars with spec shocks and springs with strain gauges fitted and run them down the runway at the same time so they deal with the same wind conditions at the same speeds and doing coast down tests you would get a pretty accurate comparison between the four different cars the exact figures mean dick really, as long as they all measure within the allowed tolerance for the COTF and everyone was satisfied with the numbers.

[Umai Naa]

The aero on the cars is adjustable anyway. Rear wing angle, and the amount of block/blanking used in the front ducting.

So yes, comparitively-speaking, they're about as equal as they can get at the time of testing.

[FAS33]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

How do you paritise this stuff?

being the Number 1 touring car series in the world and all, you'd expect V8SC to have a wind tunnel operating, or is it too expensive?

[Umai Naa]

Ford sent an AU to the States many years ago for windtunnel testing. The results at the track showed that it was not a very cost-effective outcome.

The stop-gap measure of grafting the VT splitter on, yeilded better results.

[Bell_End]

Originally Posted by FAS33

being the Number 1 touring car series in the world and all, you'd expect V8SC to have a wind tunnel operating, or is it too expensive?

Why do you think wind tunnel testing is needed?


With v8s in a wind tunnel, I believe DJR sent one to the UK many years ago and Morris had one shipped to the USA. I would also assume during the height of HRT and Walkingshaw sent stuff to the UK at some stage for evaluation.

[Greem]

Remember too that wind tunnel tests - even in full size tunnels - are only viable if they *actually correlate* to the world outside. Ferrari, Williams and a few other F1 teams have been bitten by that more than once in the last 10 years.

The great thing about "runway" tests - otherwise known as straight-line aero tests - is that there's a human in the car who can report back on intangible things such as how the car "feels". That simply isn't possible in a wind tunnel, and can result in what might seem dreadfully counter-intuitive settings to the rest of us. High front wing angle giving more drag but faster straight line speed? Check. Wings trimmed out resulting in a drop in overall straight line speed? Check too.

So far as I can tell there isn't a decent way to measure parity in the case of aero features, because the overall shape of most models of car in most series differs sufficiently to make a difference. Sure, the amount of downforce at a given speed can be measured, but the way it affects the car needs springs & dampers, push/pullrod angles, chassis types, rollcage installations, tyre pressures, air & track temperatures etc etc. to be factored in and none of those things have simple linear relationships.

I find the concept of equalisation slightly odd. If my team has a demonstratively better driver than yours, do we have to equalise that? if so, how do we do it?

I guess what I'm saying is that Aero Parity is mostly an illusion, except where clever engineers work out what The Other Guy is doing, at which point it can (but doesn't always!) become close to reality.

[Crash Test]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

I think it depends a little as to the reference point.

The story goes that the CotF VF has more front downforce than the Blueprint VE, with a longer front splitter, more in line with the Falcon FG package.

So while saying that the current VF has more downforce, Mr Bowe is correct, if comparing to the outgoing VE.

The differences between the cars are still there..

...the 6 Fords each use FPR-spec front suspension, in uprights, and brand of dampers..

...the 4 WP-supplied Commodores use a unique-to them front suspension design, including brand of dampers

...the 3 SBR-built Erebus AMGs use a different unique-to-them suspension design and brand of damper package

...the 888 squad, and their 4 direct customer cars use an 888-made suspension design, with Sachs dampers. That same choice has made it onto the BJR threesome, the Nismo foursome too, while it is said this technology is also at GRM...

So.. are we talking about the cars themselves running good, or the package underneath them.. which, despite an illusion of commonality, seem to be operating 888 stuff and being somewhere near the front, or not and not...

How do you paritise this stuff?

From what I can gather, everyone in the field, excepting the 4 Clayton cars, are on a combination of these two products- http://www.zf.com/na/content/en/nort...ampers_na.html

[sizzle]

Originally Posted by Crash Test

From what I can gather, everyone in the field, excepting the 4 Clayton cars, are on a combination of these two products- http://www.zf.com/na/content/en/nort...ampers_na.html

http://www.v8supercars.com.au/files/...013-Div-C1.pdf para C7.8 Is quite specific on what can be used, either the Sachs or Ohlins, and what can be done to them.

Anyway that isn't aero so OT

[DV_08]

Originally Posted by FAS33

being the Number 1 touring car series in the world and all, you'd expect V8SC to have a wind tunnel operating, or is it too expensive?

For a full sized wind tunnel you would be looking at millions of dollars so it wouldn't be feasible. Although they could always hire one out but you would still be looking at tens of thousands of dollars.

Originally Posted by Bell_End

With v8s in a wind tunnel, I believe DJR sent one to the UK many years ago and Morris had one shipped to the USA. I would also assume during the height of HRT and Walkingshaw sent stuff to the UK at some stage for evaluation.

If I remember correctly Morris sent his car over to have it tested on a shaker rig, not sure on the other cases though

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by sizzle

Anyway that isn't aero so OT

Well, it is and it isn't. Straight line tests will measure aero equality under specific conditions, but the potential aerodynamic balance and downforce is endlessly variable according to car set up and driving style. Angle of attack (dive and lift), slip angles (oversteer/understeer), ride height, use of kerbs, smoothness, bump and rebound will all have an effect which can make two identical cars perform differently aerodynamically. Setting up the dampers to acheive a flat platform with minimum ride height is the only way of ensuring all cars are identical, but may result in something which provides no feedback and is undriveable.

The absolute best that can be acheived is that under a specific set of conditions two vehicles produce aerodynamic performance which is essentially so similar as to make no difference. The moment you change the steering wheel or throttle position then all bets are off.

[Mixer]

People don't win in V8SC because of a bit better aero, they win because of better shock/damper packages.

Look what PMM were able to do to the 888 package, engineered all the speed right out of it.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

How do you paritise this stuff?

It is thinking like that that makes motor sport boring except in certain classes that seem to be able to get away with it. Formula Vee would be the stand out here as everyone is allowed and prepared to have a red hot go.

[rocks harder]

Originally Posted by Mixer

People don't win in V8SC because of a bit better aero, they win because of better shock/damper packages.

Look what PMM were able to do to the 888 package, engineered all the speed right out of it.

Didnt they what! unbeleivable self trolling effort there. Buy the best gear and ruin it!
888 Front end is whats doing it. i can see a control damper uprights etc coming to a series near you!

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

How do you paritise this stuff?

Get T8 to build all 28 cars?

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

Get T8 to build all 28 cars?

That's not actually funny. It'll probably will end up being that way soon. If no, all except for a few cars.

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

That's not actually funny. It'll probably will end up being that way soon. If no, all except for a few cars.

Would they accept though?

WP have clearly given sub par equipment to GRM (going by a few years ago when Caruso said 'this is bull****' when the HRT car was pulling away from him when he was in the slipstream)

[GTRMagic]

So... in yesterday's telecast, it was noted that the front splitters of both Mr Whincup & Mr Bright were enjoying a flap along when hunting down the straight at full noise.

Is that an issue with the longer front splitter base putting too much pressure on the mounting points, with the additional downforce from that length making the car turn in better.. but also stressing other parts of the mounting system?

Either way, the 2013 CotF is still slower than the 2012 PB...

[Blue Falcon]

It appears John Bowe was correct.
This was posted in the Official V8Supercar website.

Wednesday 17 April 2013 6:00
By: V8 Supercars
There’s no way you’ll notice it from the grandstands – and you’d even struggle to pick it up close – but the Ford FG Falcon has sacrificed downforce via a two degree flatter rear wing as a result of pre-season aerodynamic parity testing.
And the new Holden VF Commodore is responsible.
The VF has moved to a 50mm narrower endplate-mounted rear wing which has less rear downforce than the old VE. To match the Falcon's rear grip would have meant cranking on so much wing it would have resulted in a significant loss of straight line speed.
So instead the FG, which entered aero testing at the East Sale RAAF base as the benchmark – or datum – because it was the only carry-over car, had to flatten its rear wing angle to ensure the Commodore was competitive.
The change has resulted in the loss of about 15kg in rear downforce for the Falcon.
V8 Supercars Technical Manager Frank Adamson said the Commodore and Falcon were now closer in aerodynamic terms than they had ever been, and were closely matched by the two championship newcomers, the Nissan Altima and Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG.
“As we walked away from the test the parity between the four cars was the best we have ever seen,” he told v8supercars.com.au. “The Ford hasn’t copped a performance downgrade, it was equalised with everyone else.”
The wing wasn’t the only part of the FG’s aero package to change as the rear undertray was also redesigned because the fuel tank has been moved forward as part of the Car of the Future redesign.
Ford Performance Racing (FPR) Team Principal Tim Edwards said the aero changes had added further complexity to the set-up puzzle the team is in the process of solving with the new Car of The Future technical regulations.
“Our aerodynamic package is very different to what it was last year, we have a different rear diffuser and rear wing than we had last year… so the reality is we have got a different aero balance to what we had last year.
“This year you roll your car out of the truck, stick your finger in the air and say ‘I think we have the set-up right for this track’ but you’re guessing because you have never been to this circuit with a car with an independent rear suspension and so on and even a new rear aero package.”
Considering Will Davison broke through for FPR’s first win of 2013 at the ITM 400 Auckland on Sunday and leads the championship, while Mark Winterbottom has displayed sizzling pace at times, there is no doubt the team is making development progress.
However, Commodores have won eight of the nine Championship races run this year.
Edwards couldn’t resist having a go at the Commodore aero package, which was developed by Triple Eight Race Engineering’s Ludo Lacroix in consultation with Holden and the Holden Racing Team.
“That bloody Holden thing was useless, it was so appalling when it turned up,” he joked, before adding more seriously: “It’s just one of those things you don’t know, until you do the comparative tests between the other marques.”

[FAS33]

commodore cup comes to mind...

[Mixer]

I hate to tell you guys but the COTF FG isn't the same as the 2012 FG so why should it be exactly the same? All the cars are equal to within a fraction of a percent, and the Falcon's wing was changed prior to the season, when these things SHOULD have been done.

Reading between the lines the downforce in the body of the VF is much less than the VE, so the VF couldn't be made to have equal downforce to the FG, so the FG's downforce was reduced. I'm not an expert but this sounds like a sensible and cheap solution to equalising all the cars.

[Blue Falcon]

The FG Falcon was the only carry over vehicle from last year and as the article stated it was the datum that other COTF cars were to be measure against. I was led to believe that the FG was not going to change.

If the previous VE was aero tested against the FG and was supposed to be within a certain aero parity tolerance of each other, why did Triple 8 develop an rear aero kit for the VF that produced lower downforce than the VE which is now 15kg less than the 2012 FG?

It is understood that the VF wing produces less drag than the VE version so you could summise that the trade off would be less downforce. Ludo Lacroix was quoted in the Red Bull Racing website "Ford's rear wing has been superior for a number of years and when the Triple Eight lads made the switch from the dark side, they brought a few secrets with them. Put simply, had the Commodores had this kit last year then FPR would have stood as much a chance of battling for the title as an under-14s kart racer." Ludo, your new wing wasn't that effective. The actions of the Technical Manager achieved what you wanted.

The teams that constructed the aero kits for the Nissan, Merc and VF would have been given some sort of target aero downforce, front & rear, to aim for the parity testing. If they couldn't get to the target why weren't they sent back to the drawing board instead of penalising the Falcon?

It is totally out of order to penalise the FG by affecting it's known aero balance against the other COTF cars which had their kits design to achieve a certain balance. it follows a historical pattern back in the early V8Supercar era when angle grinders were used on the Falcons for the purpose of parity.

[Umai Naa]

The FG COTF is not exactly the same aero-wise as last year. Sure, the outside is pretty much unchanged, but you need to look further into it.

The underside, rear suspension, diff, transmission, and rear diffuser are completely different due to the design of the COTF chassis. This alone makes a huge difference to the aerodynamics.