Dont worry about frequency of uploads, im still subscribed to Blinky after 10 years. Your content is awesome, its so refreshing to see the acutal analysis behind the decisions you have to make.
@@randoawesomemix9501 Building things is not the same as "engineering". Engineering is a rigorous discipline akin to following the scientific method. He is solving a problem that is defined by a list of specific requirements. Every decision hinges on those requirements, because this is the method behind engineering. And this is the thing that TH-camrs typically do not do.
One can have "passive" DRS, just like the flexy wings that F1 teams are arguing about. And no need to make the wings flex in this car's case, just need to have a spring mechanism on it so that angle of attack can change depending on the aero load. Not sure if it is worth the weight savings over an active system though.
the problem with a spring is that it acts linearly. a variable angle of attack on a wing that you can't control sounds a little too dangerous to be used on a mountain thanks to the complexity of actually testing its behavior, CFD or not. just an element of uncertainty you wouldn't want your driver to have to deal with in my opinion.
@@ujjawalsingh2028 it doesnt have to act linearly, there have been progressive springs for that. I agree though, predictability in a race car will more often than not outperform an uncontrolled and unpredictable platform
Here's an idea for you to avoid overloading the tires at low altitude at pikes peak. Use an altimeter to control front and rear wing (or other lift modifying device) angle. They're very precise, and the transition would be continuous. With a computer you could combine altitude with speed data to always make a target downforce the entire way up the mountain. Or, more likely in your case, almost always making peak downforce, only reducing wing angle in the straights at the bottom of the mountain.
wow the engine actually sounds really calm for 10krpm, i would have thaught it would be louder. but its just calm and stable, only the exhaust is getting hot lol. amazing work from the team!
Wrt DRS systems; do you remember in F1 they had this port flowing air over the rear wing to alleviate drag. Now in F1 active aero is not allowed so they had the driver cover the port with his hand in the cockpit. But could be a low weight system to automate?
Not just F1 hot dumping (which was in a rather small area based on the size of the exhaust), "blown flaps" was critical to some aircraft (notably the F104 starfighter). Robin stressed the problem of the rough road surface, but a fan system to enhance the airflow over wings might give large benefits ?
DRS could be controlled with springs, easy to adjust the preload of the springs and the springs would allow the DRS to unload the aero progressively. This would also mean you could also remove the DRS by replacing the springs with a solid member and revert to standard making it easy to test.
Not too dissimilar to the way supermodifieds do it (used to do it?), as they've made use of hydraulic rams that collapse past a certain level of pressure so as to lay flat on straights and pop back up in corners.
UT Arlington FSAE (and many others) mount their wings on pushrods attached to the hub of the wheel to transfer aero to the unsprung portion of the suspension. I bet it could be made to work on a high travel car.
Back in the earliest days of downforce in motor racing, sports car teams connecting their wings directly to the wheels was a relatively common practice too. Off the top of my head, the Nissan R381 and Chaparral 2F both mounted their sizeable aerofoils this way, with the Nissan even having a setup that allowed each half to tilt for more or less angle depending on body roll to essentially use the drag to help steer the car.
The biggest issue with that is just that you're increasing unsprung mass, and at the point of doing something as complex as pull rod dual wishbones It doesn't cost a lot of extra weight to build mode decoupling suspension to manage the downforce
@@larsmurdochkalsta8808 right, mode decoupling suspension sounds like a good call ... Can you decouple jounce from aero load? Do you run a ride spring/damper for each corner pair, and a ride spring/dampner for each axle? (Then of course roll spring/dampers)... Man that would be neat, but a hell of a thing to tune damping on.
@@Aheitchoo I don't know if jounce is different from what I refer to as heave. But if heave is then I understand it as when there is a significantly elevated force applied to all four tires. So in a rally car if you had heave decoupled you could use it to increase your effective spring rate when landing after a jump. My understanding is that formula cars use the same system to increase the effective spring rate as the downforce on their car increases to get a more consistent ride height. But the system itself I don't think can differentiate between aerodynamic load and literally slamming all four tires on the ground. Because all it's capable of sensing and reacting to is heave regardless of its origin. And then the rest of the suspension is tuned somewhat independently of the heave decoupling There's a great video on it by Kyle engineers who was a Mercedes F1 aerodynamicist back when they were still winning lol. He also has a great video on unsprung aero. Really makes me want to build aerofoil shaped control arms.
Wow! You have adressed every single item I have been wondering about for months. Thank you, for sharing. I will look forward to watching your progress.
This is absolutely fascinating, thanks for taking the time to record these videos and include so many interesting images and clips, been loving them and always excited to see every new episode! Go Sendy!!!
So fun to watch this! It would have been fun to combine the fan car idea with the powertrain problem and see if it would be possible, to run some kind of turbine engine. Medium light helicopterengines make around 1000hp easily and they are pretty light. And they could also be used as active aero. But i think they are built for constant speed applications.
Love these bits of data, thank you for sharing all that. I would love to see *some* unsprung aero on your next car. You could probably have a couple of wings connected to the wheel hubs and not bother with a second sub-chassis or whatever.
I love hearing the thoughts of a winning driver and engineer, I like the concept of harvesting R&D from Honda and grafting two of them together to make a fantastic v8.
Wow, really reminds me of the Spice F-15 concept!!! Along with the Allard J2X with the long chord front wing and low rear deck. I would suggest adding some wake control features to the aero development. An outwashing front wing endplate would help along with an outwashing vortex generator on the middle of the wing to clear the wake off the front wheel. I'd also add a barge board on the back side of the brake ducts to get more outwash. You can even take some inspiration from the 1992 F1 cars with their vortex generating extensions on the back of their front wing endplates and the vertical outer endplate on the current F1 cars above the front floor throat
I’m confident you’ll do very well with your new car. I think the McMurtry will have no trouble smashing by the record. I’ve pestered them to do it. The fans can be enlarged. Maybe even a two stage system developed. Did they try and poach you Robin? 😅 Personally I’d go with a fan set up like this: An open wheel car with enclosed wheels. A skirt attached to the uprights on each wheel fed via ducting from the main chassis. Each of the 4 ducts would have electronically actuated bypass valves. In the chassis would be multiple stage fans for different altitudes. As the car corners and accelerates the valves can vary suctions to each individual wheel. This could be used to maximise loading on the tires. Because the skirts around each wheel are tracking ride highs to the localised area around the wheel the only big consideration would be the deformation of the tire itself. Along the side of the skirts could be trail pivoting seals with some wear/ablative material that could be replaced easily. With your design I’m a bit confused from your previous statements. You claim that suction cars would struggle with sealing due to the bumps and porosity yet you are designing a predominantly ground effect chassis with mostly sprung downforce.
What if you put the drs wing(s) in the middle? Like with Benson or Ferrari? Are you worried about porpoising? What about the bmw f1 twin tower wings that were banned back then? Can you talk more about the design of the body and aerodynamics? Love these vids! Really cool car design! Really appreciate all the information! Really learning a lot!!
I would imagine that because of all the bumps you would go for an all-out wing centered concept to generate downforce (also since there isn't much priority for drag reduction in pikes peak) but you seem to be going for a floor-centered concept for downforce generation. Is pitch sensitivity due to edge-mounted wings more important than heave sensitivity due to the floor? How much can you midigate with floor-side-expansion considering your suspension travel (which i would imagine needs to be long due to bumps)?
Thank you for the advice that you gave Rob Dahm. I am now placing who gave him the lift and coast advice with the actual person. I just started watching your videos a few weeks ago. The comments about rotary thermal inefficiencies and the resultant cooling challenges are interesting. Watching the Dahm Pikes Peak video, cooling was one of the major issues. I also appreciate your overview of aero. As a hobbyist, that happens to like rotary engines and is looking at my own build I am considering how much effort I want to put into aero. This overview that is also focused on pragmatism is awesome!
Wouldn't it be possible to put some extra gears between the engine and gearbox to solve the too much torque issue with the lower reving engines? That should be lighter than getting a stronger gearbox. Also if you had a ICE driven mcmurty system couldn't you put some kind of choke device infront of it to get fine control over how much suction it produces? One more thing I'm wondering about. If cooling on pikes peak is such a problem would it be at all viable to use evaporative cooling? Since that should actually work better at the low air pressure. The main down side to this would be that it might add too much weight.
Extra gears? The problem is not torque to the wheels, the issue is the torque at the gearbox itself. You need to beef up the individual gears in order to handle the extra loads. Not to mention gearbox length is a big consideration for packaging, aero, and weight distribution
For fan cars it just makes far more sense to use a separate system than trying to rely on the ICE to turn the turbine. I had the passing idea of using the McMurtry compressors as turbos, but it would need a complex bypass system for when you are off throttle and don’t want boost crammed into the engine and there is fact that it would take a lot of work to get the air clean enough that you would be okay with having feed to the engine. I still think it’s an idea that could possibly work given enough development time but it would be very complex.
@@Shadowboost No I mean literally just a single reduction between the engine and the gear box. I'm not a mechanical engineer but AFAIK if you have a 400Nm at 4000 RPM a 2:1 reduction will convert that to 200Nm at 8000RPM and then you could put that through the gear box.
It's not impossible, but in practice designing & adding those extra gears & getting it all to work robustly together would end up being "a stronger, heavier gearbox" with extra steps. And you might still need to upgrade components, add oil coolers, etc. since you're putting more power thru For an ICE driven fan car, I was thinking to use variable pitch blades & dual contra rotating flywheels. Would be a bit heavy & complex though, so maybe wings are better Evaporative cooling could work in certain situations I think. In fact, technically all the drivers are using it already (sweating)
Have you put any thought to doing a fan assisted diffuser like Gordon Murray? I assume it would have a lot of the same issues as the McMurtry system but it would still be interesting to hear your opinion. Love the videos 👍
love the look of the car. I'm designing a formula 750 with very similar looking aero but I'm looking to go the unsprung aero like the lotus 88 as I have access to information about the 88. the reasons I've gone that route so the floor can make insane downforce without having to run a very stiff springs so the car can make mechanical grip in the slow corners. also going that route the track surface isn't effected as much for the aero. the only 2 down sides is over working the tyres and unsprung mass.
For DRS I would look for the experience of Sigma P1 and JLM Racing AJR in Brazil. Both are running 3 elements front and rear wings in Endurance racing with DRS in both ends to keep balance, with good reliability. From what I understand they are using pneumatic actuators supplied by the gearbox shifting system, and the systems have springs that force the wings in full downforce position in case anything goes wrong. Sigma even sells a rear DRS kit for the Ginetta G57/G58. Also, these cars are designed in a configuration akin to what you are developing, so they can be an interesting benchmarking
There is also a potential safety issue with the fan car setup, especially with the nature of pike's peak. If the car goes over a bump and the skirt comes out of contact with the ground, you lose most of your downforce. A sudden loss of downforce when heading into a corner could end catastrophically. a standard wing setup is much less susceptible to changes in ride height and/or becoming slightly airborne.
Surprised at the discounting of fan although your reasoning is perfectly sound. Even ignoring the weight penalty, the porous tarmac could be a big issue!! Very interesting and she’s going to be a beauty. Cheers.
I have had this idea for a while...: it's kind of a mixture of activ and unsprung aero that is passively actuated. I don't know if your car will have an anti roll bar like device but if so here is my idea. Somewhere on the torsional devices that counteract roll there is a spot where the torsion cancels out and it only rotates if both wheels are compressed in there travel. At this point one could have a cantilever which actuates eg a hydraulic cylinder that reduces the angle of attack on a aero element with another hydraulic cylinder. The aero element should be mounted in a way that the center of suction is outside of a main pivot so that aero down foce always tries to compress the slave cylinder. The pivot placement and relative cylinder diameters should be chosen so that the angle of attack reduces as the car gets pushed in the ground through aero but also in a compression. This should allow for softer springs as the counter forces at the anti roll device should increase the effective wheel rate at higher aero loading. The hydraulic slave cylinder could and probably should be damped to reduce the likelihood of stalling the aero device because of rapid movement. A biasing device could also be added to the cantilever for example a pneumatic two way cylinder to slightly adjust to aero balance between the front and rear wheels. The downside would probably be that this would require active dampening to account for the change in wheel rate.
You would need a wizard of a control systems engineer to make that thing work with the frequency variability of bumps at pikes peak. Also the system would probably be heavier as a mechanical system and not an electrical one with sensors and actors.
I'm very suspicious of "only 16% of performance" in regards to the fan car. I'm only a student in aerodynamics, but I'd think with less load for the same fan power you could get greater RPM. It'd be worth looking into propeller efficiencies of aircraft, they run a much wider altitude shift and do "fine". Is it really a fundamental limitation? Or could it be solved with engineering?
Have you considered addition of a mass damper system like the Renault F1 car used before it was banned? It seems this feature would be well worth the effort, due to how rough pikes peak is on the upper sections of the mountain, and being completely mechanical it doesn’t add another failure point to the car / can be removed if the systems weight doesn’t justify the performance.
It’s Interesting contrasting this discussion with the engine one. The amount of development effort that can be “stolen” from road cars is drastically lower with aero - going from full cylinder head assemblies down to vague concepts like balanced active aero. TSC is dialing back the risk to keep acceptable return on investment of effort. I’ll be honest though, I was hoping to see unsprung aero get some more attention simply because it feels like a cheat code on paper to allow softer spring rates to handle the road surfaces at pike’s peak. The brake duct idea seems like a very nice compromise because it can be more simply added/removed later though. Can very much empathize with not wanting to deal with simulating behaviour of an under tray sprung only by the tires on a bad surface.
I'm a "fan" (no punt intended) of unsprung aero. I'd like so see a well designed one, and it could well include a fan. The air can after all go through a flexible duct. I imagine a hugely efficient underfloor that sit under the tub and has a fan opening attached, but the fan motor it attached to the tub. I can also imagine a dual underfloor, each in a 3-point attachment. 2 of those are the uprights, one is ideally under the other end of the car.
There might be some clever linkage geometries that would allow you to have a constant load shared between the wheel and body together without having significant aoa changes on the wing as the body bounces. Would make an adaptable architecture where you could turn up the load into the wheels for tracks.
Rather than a full floor mounted to the suspension, what about just skirts? Alot less unsprung mass and similar sealing benefits even if your tunnel cross section isn't constant?
Great thought train. Nice to hear that process. Makes sense for what you're going for, even though I'd like to see (sometime) some more active stuff (fans and flaps) just because engineering wankery and moar speed! :D Btw, side skirts with that big important floor? At least something, even with bumps :)
I imagine this may get lost in the sea of comments but I'd be curious as to what the plan is for manufacturability and iterability. That is to say, with such a floor-centric aero package, is there a plan in place in the inevitable case where subtle tweaks to the design would be beneficial. As an aero guy I'm grateful that the CFD tools we have in the contemporary era are wonderful, but they're not perfect. It can be difficult enough to replace a wing element when it's not behaving as expected but I'd be concerned about the cost of a replacement should the floor have some unexpected issue once you're in the testing phase. Absolutely rooting for the concept, it's incredible how much this car is shaping out to look like the "If I won the lottery" car I've been dreaming of since I was a teenager. Good luck Sendy! Maybe if the Sendy Club is feeling generous the CAD models can be open sourced someday? 👀
Really great question! Basically, I am triple checking my work with other aerodynamicists and their different simulation protocols. Also, giving up a high peak and tight operating window for a broader working, less peaky setup. I believe this is less sensitive to simulation inaccuracies also
Have you ever called Koenigsegg for a collab? They have some fun stuff. Their 3-cyl is not happening, but was to be 2L for 600 hp, 70 kg. Strictly hydraulic valves which allows for fancy timings. I'd love to see a 6-inline based off that cutie, split by one of their mysterious clutches to run in "VW mode" for emissions testing. For cooling and thin air power up the mountain they might suggest a different layout. Their V8 is pretty peppy at 1600 hp, would still have 1000+ hp at the peak. Great gearboxes as well. Would they get involved though? They're inching more towards time attack stuff, so...
Question: have you decided on all of the major system types that are going into the car and are now just looking for the particular model (e.g. you're sold on a turbo but still looking for the exact one to use) or are you actively looking at changing/adding/removing systems from the car? And if so which ones?
What if instead of unsprung aero you attached just the side skirts of your ground effects to the suspension? Keep a tight seal over bumps without having to worry about bottoming out.
I've read about the different brake rotors used in some of the recent winners' pikes peak cars, and there's a variety like the Peugeot using carbon-carbon rotors, and the recent Ford EVs using carbon ceramic and also the VW IDR. Which do you think would be better for the car since the rotors add to the unsprung weight of the car? Or is sticking with the traditional iron rotors better since there won't be any significant performance gains running the carbon-carbon/carbon ceramic?
Steel is tried and tested. Alcon offer some carbon-carbon options that work well from cold (VW ID.R and Ford EV). The unsprung and rotational masses are nice performance gains!
You forgot to check out the 1,000 hp 3 cylinder that Steve Morris is developing. It uses a sleeved stock block so you could probably build three of them for the price of one of those V8s and it is being developed for a turbo with the power level you want. It's 1.2 liters so it has to rev and torque probably isn't too high. Weight is probably good too.
By the time that engine finishes it's development cycle, they probably wouldn't have time to integrate it into the car. Also it's only a 1.2, so it's hard to get it up on the turbo than with the V8 he's chosen. Also considering how the engine is going to mounted in his car I suspect the lack of stiffness in the Rotax engine block could be a major problem in terms of longevity. I bet this was also an issue that plague their K20s
@@Thee_Snow_Wolf no, the engine already exists and lots of them are tuned to 400+ hp so it's 100% doable to integrate the engine in to the car before the 1,000 up version is "done". I'm not sure how stiff a Rotax block is but since it's a 3 cylinder, it must be shorter than a 4 cylinder and that will make it stiffer than a similar block with a fourth cylinder added. Also if he goes with an unsprung aero scheme that puts the down force directly in to the upright instead of the chassis, chassis stiffness requirements will be less. Both solutions might need a cradle for the engine to carry torsional stress because motorcycle engines are not exactly known as great stressed members.
@@beardoe6874 The likely problem with the Rotax imo is that it's an open deck block. So the cylinder walls will want to shift under torsional load, which can be a bit of an engine killer. This is why the Vee engine is the first choice, since it's an inherently stiffer construction than an inline engine. And as a bonus it's based off the already semi stressed S1000RR.
@@Thee_Snow_Wolf a V engine architecture is in no way inherently stiffer than inline engines, it's the length so a V8 is stiffer than a straight 8 but an I3 is shorter than either so it should be stiffer (if construction is similar). I see the Rotax is an open deck block but I don't think any 70kg motorcycle based V8 is going to be designed to be a stressed member, it's more of a thing for C Sports Racer where the engine is not a stressed member at all. People have been doing V8 engines using liter bike heads for over 20 years, I don't think you understand the reality of V8s designed that way.
i think you should lean in to youtube Robin, it's quite something to be the fastest 'Rob' on youtube these days and even watching people engineer 'slow' cars like superslowMatt entertains a million people...
I have a couple questions! Was a turbine or turbine hybrid considered? Is there anything you can say about optimizing for different sections of the mountain, eg can you go faster on the first half by making certain changes to aero or powerplant that outweigh the loss on the second half? Or vice versa? Or does there need to be a very broad optimization strategy for "as good as we can get everywhere"
Speaking of suspension as mentioned in passing in this video, was active suspension or other advanced suspension considered? I've seen some interesting interlinked hydraulic systems on formula student vehicles that give fully independent control of all the suspension movement modes, would something like that be an option?
I was thinking about turbos. Would it be possible to spec a turbo which is too big for the engine at 9000 feet but good at 14,000 feet then run a progressive swirl throttle on the inlet which rotates with altitude, or does that only make sense on a constant speed engine where response and part throttle output is less important? You may surmise that I’ve been learning about WW2 aero engines.
I always wondered why an active suspension like the old citroen or 90ies Benetton f1 aren't used for semi unsprung airo? Sure complexity, weight, aswell as mechanical engineering and problem solving are the obvious factors. But conventional remote reservoir should be adaptable to that setup and the rest should be of the shelf (at least for proof of concept, wight reduction pending) or inhouse (for you at least) anyways. Don't know just find it interesting.
I'd like to see aerofoils that actively change their thickness, not just angle. From a knife to a fat foil. How the aero responds could be geolocation based. Some fast bits call for minimum drag, some for downforce.
If you're making a vast majority of the down-force from the floor, would a "DRS" system similar to the t50/t50s be worth looking at? Disrupting the underfloor to disrupt drag seems (on the surface) like a really efficient method. The moving parts are smaller, lower down, and closer to the center of the car, so should be easier to package. As the floor loses downforce, the force on the suspension obviously goes down, and the ride height should raise, further reducing drag. The question is obviously tradeoffs here; time gained from aero vs weight added, as well as cost/complexity/safety balances. I'm also curious how much this would shift the aero balance,. It should be less biased than backing off the rear wing, but it also it could be more 'tuneable' than a traditional DRS system, depending on floor design. From my memory, many of the most problematic bumps on Pike Peak are on higher speed corners. It seems like losing downforce from the floor (less effective over bumpy surfaces) would be preferred here compared to backing off on the wings. You'd sacrifice the aero from the less consistent of the two surfaces in the areas of the run that matter, and there's (presumably) a much smaller shift in aero load. I'd love to see an episode on how you come to these decisions; how much is the team involved, how much is pure calculation, how much is based on computer sims, etc. I'd also love to see an episode where you test/compare various systems/setups on a racing sim too!
The McMurtry style skirt might need to be hydraulically kept in the right position. Really high speed. Jarring. But could be worth it. It would allow to run it a lot lower and care less about margins.
please please please put that engine on an 8 in 1 header. it would sound insane. promise. on another note, how much cubic air flows through the engine? Can you use the engine as the vacuum pump to suck you in to the ground below 90 mph?
Forgive me if you spoke to this in the video, i was busy taking care of a sick child. Have you condsidered the oppisite of DRS? As you go up the mountain, incrementally increase the angles of attack on the front and rear wings to reduce the loss of downforce. You might not be generating the same forces at the top compared to the start, but it could be that extra couple percent that makes the difference.
You might as well run that extra downforce at the bottom, then. Remember at Pike's Peak, any downforce is faster, even at the cost of an equal amount of drag.
Any consideration of passive flexing aero to decrease load at high speed? Assume that it makes sense for an F1 team looking for gains but maybe not worth the effort if you don’t have 50 people running CFD full time.
Really tricky to do. Aeroelastic design is very analysis, manufacturing, and testing intensive. To gain a couple of mph in the few straight sections on the mountain? Time is better spent adding more downforce to the package
About the unsprung aero, have you seen this miata that Donut featured a while back? th-cam.com/video/xSvIkIcPLjM/w-d-xo.html Linked to 8:46, where they talk about the wing specifically. Likely not super applicable to your car/setup, but interesting nonetheless
Just started the video. My prediction is: robin sings the praises of active aero then tells us he wont be using any of it because of weight and complexity.
why has he chosen to use a lot of underbody aero if efficiency doesn't matter much and it needs a high ride hieght? obviously he knows what he's doing, but im pretty confused.
Is there a reason to not try and add more downforce the higher u go? Like half way through u hit a button and u get more aero or something? U have less air to get in your way but u also have less downforce. U are smarter than me so u probably already thought of this. It’s probably too heavy of a design and would probably upset the balance of the car.
You want as much downforce as much of the time as possible. Essentially, if you had a means to get more downforce at the bottom of the hill, you already would be using it
@@Shadowboost yea I was thinking maybe it would just be less efficient at the lower part where there is more speed and then u really crank up the downforce the higher u go
Dont worry about frequency of uploads, im still subscribed to Blinky after 10 years. Your content is awesome, its so refreshing to see the acutal analysis behind the decisions you have to make.
I broke down and blocked BOM after they dropped the van project ☠
@@RiverCA Did they? All I have seen s nothing since April 2023.
@@misterdaz1018 they post an update on Patreon once every few months...
Me too
BOM? now that's a name a haven't heard in a long time
This is such a rare instance of "actual" engineering on youtube!
Totally agree ❤
Maybe on the channels you watch. There's tons of actual engineers building things that take actual engineering on TH-cam.
@@randoawesomemix9501 Building things is not the same as "engineering". Engineering is a rigorous discipline akin to following the scientific method. He is solving a problem that is defined by a list of specific requirements. Every decision hinges on those requirements, because this is the method behind engineering. And this is the thing that TH-camrs typically do not do.
I love hearing the way you think through technical problems
One can have "passive" DRS, just like the flexy wings that F1 teams are arguing about. And no need to make the wings flex in this car's case, just need to have a spring mechanism on it so that angle of attack can change depending on the aero load.
Not sure if it is worth the weight savings over an active system though.
the problem with a spring is that it acts linearly. a variable angle of attack on a wing that you can't control sounds a little too dangerous to be used on a mountain thanks to the complexity of actually testing its behavior, CFD or not. just an element of uncertainty you wouldn't want your driver to have to deal with in my opinion.
@@ujjawalsingh2028 it doesnt have to act linearly, there have been progressive springs for that. I agree though, predictability in a race car will more often than not outperform an uncontrolled and unpredictable platform
Here's an idea for you to avoid overloading the tires at low altitude at pikes peak. Use an altimeter to control front and rear wing (or other lift modifying device) angle. They're very precise, and the transition would be continuous. With a computer you could combine altitude with speed data to always make a target downforce the entire way up the mountain.
Or, more likely in your case, almost always making peak downforce, only reducing wing angle in the straights at the bottom of the mountain.
Thank you Robin, it's very rare to be gifted so much insight into such a unique and comprehensive motorsport projects as yours.
Why don't I have 30 minutes for watch this right now?!?! I love this series!!
That engine, you can tell it's holding back, it wants to run. Can't wait to see it on the mountain.
The pattern of load and RPM seemed very deliberate. I will ask about that.
wow the engine actually sounds really calm for 10krpm, i would have thaught it would be louder. but its just calm and stable, only the exhaust is getting hot lol. amazing work from the team!
Another fantastic & detailed video Robin! Proud to be part of it :)
Wrt DRS systems; do you remember in F1 they had this port flowing air over the rear wing to alleviate drag. Now in F1 active aero is not allowed so they had the driver cover the port with his hand in the cockpit. But could be a low weight system to automate?
I remember! Appears to be a lot more reliable than a mechanical system.
Not just F1 hot dumping (which was in a rather small area based on the size of the exhaust), "blown flaps" was critical to some aircraft (notably the F104 starfighter). Robin stressed the problem of the rough road surface, but a fan system to enhance the airflow over wings might give large benefits ?
DRS could be controlled with springs, easy to adjust the preload of the springs and the springs would allow the DRS to unload the aero progressively. This would also mean you could also remove the DRS by replacing the springs with a solid member and revert to standard making it easy to test.
Not too dissimilar to the way supermodifieds do it (used to do it?), as they've made use of hydraulic rams that collapse past a certain level of pressure so as to lay flat on straights and pop back up in corners.
UT Arlington FSAE (and many others) mount their wings on pushrods attached to the hub of the wheel to transfer aero to the unsprung portion of the suspension. I bet it could be made to work on a high travel car.
Back in the earliest days of downforce in motor racing, sports car teams connecting their wings directly to the wheels was a relatively common practice too. Off the top of my head, the Nissan R381 and Chaparral 2F both mounted their sizeable aerofoils this way, with the Nissan even having a setup that allowed each half to tilt for more or less angle depending on body roll to essentially use the drag to help steer the car.
The biggest issue with that is just that you're increasing unsprung mass, and at the point of doing something as complex as pull rod dual wishbones It doesn't cost a lot of extra weight to build mode decoupling suspension to manage the downforce
@@larsmurdochkalsta8808 right, mode decoupling suspension sounds like a good call ...
Can you decouple jounce from aero load? Do you run a ride spring/damper for each corner pair, and a ride spring/dampner for each axle? (Then of course roll spring/dampers)... Man that would be neat, but a hell of a thing to tune damping on.
@@Aheitchoo I don't know if jounce is different from what I refer to as heave. But if heave is then I understand it as when there is a significantly elevated force applied to all four tires.
So in a rally car if you had heave decoupled you could use it to increase your effective spring rate when landing after a jump.
My understanding is that formula cars use the same system to increase the effective spring rate as the downforce on their car increases to get a more consistent ride height.
But the system itself I don't think can differentiate between aerodynamic load and literally slamming all four tires on the ground. Because all it's capable of sensing and reacting to is heave regardless of its origin.
And then the rest of the suspension is tuned somewhat independently of the heave decoupling
There's a great video on it by Kyle engineers who was a Mercedes F1 aerodynamicist back when they were still winning lol. He also has a great video on unsprung aero. Really makes me want to build aerofoil shaped control arms.
Wow! You have adressed every single item I have been wondering about for months. Thank you, for sharing. I will look forward to watching your progress.
This is absolutely fascinating, thanks for taking the time to record these videos and include so many interesting images and clips, been loving them and always excited to see every new episode! Go Sendy!!!
Love this series. Very very informative and I like the thought process behind some of the decisions.
I think around 27:40 the engine answer actually comes to you in the background there haha. You need a moaning old GM 3800 V6 with a 4t60e slushbox
oh that engine testing rig is interesting. would love to hear about that sometime!
Noted!
So fun to watch this! It would have been fun to combine the fan car idea with the powertrain problem and see if it would be possible, to run some kind of turbine engine. Medium light helicopterengines make around 1000hp easily and they are pretty light. And they could also be used as active aero. But i think they are built for constant speed applications.
Great stuff. 👍 I'm already looking forward to the next one!
Love these bits of data, thank you for sharing all that.
I would love to see *some* unsprung aero on your next car. You could probably have a couple of wings connected to the wheel hubs and not bother with a second sub-chassis or whatever.
I love hearing the thoughts of a winning driver and engineer, I like the concept of harvesting R&D from Honda and grafting two of them together to make a fantastic v8.
Wow, really reminds me of the Spice F-15 concept!!! Along with the Allard J2X with the long chord front wing and low rear deck.
I would suggest adding some wake control features to the aero development. An outwashing front wing endplate would help along with an outwashing vortex generator on the middle of the wing to clear the wake off the front wheel. I'd also add a barge board on the back side of the brake ducts to get more outwash. You can even take some inspiration from the 1992 F1 cars with their vortex generating extensions on the back of their front wing endplates and the vertical outer endplate on the current F1 cars above the front floor throat
I’m confident you’ll do very well with your new car.
I think the McMurtry will have no trouble smashing by the record. I’ve pestered them to do it. The fans can be enlarged. Maybe even a two stage system developed. Did they try and poach you Robin? 😅
Personally I’d go with a fan set up like this:
An open wheel car with enclosed wheels. A skirt attached to the uprights on each wheel fed via ducting from the main chassis. Each of the 4 ducts would have electronically actuated bypass valves. In the chassis would be multiple stage fans for different altitudes. As the car corners and accelerates the valves can vary suctions to each individual wheel. This could be used to maximise loading on the tires. Because the skirts around each wheel are tracking ride highs to the localised area around the wheel the only big consideration would be the deformation of the tire itself. Along the side of the skirts could be trail pivoting seals with some wear/ablative material that could be replaced easily.
With your design I’m a bit confused from your previous statements. You claim that suction cars would struggle with sealing due to the bumps and porosity yet you are designing a predominantly ground effect chassis with mostly sprung downforce.
What if you put the drs wing(s) in the middle? Like with Benson or Ferrari?
Are you worried about porpoising?
What about the bmw f1 twin tower wings that were banned back then?
Can you talk more about the design of the body and aerodynamics?
Love these vids! Really cool car design! Really appreciate all the information! Really learning a lot!!
Great questions, I will cover in the upcoming videos
I would imagine that because of all the bumps you would go for an all-out wing centered concept to generate downforce (also since there isn't much priority for drag reduction in pikes peak) but you seem to be going for a floor-centered concept for downforce generation. Is pitch sensitivity due to edge-mounted wings more important than heave sensitivity due to the floor? How much can you midigate with floor-side-expansion considering your suspension travel (which i would imagine needs to be long due to bumps)?
What about Chaparral style unsprung wings? Of maybe stiffly sprung for filtering out the bumps
Thank you for the advice that you gave Rob Dahm. I am now placing who gave him the lift and coast advice with the actual person. I just started watching your videos a few weeks ago. The comments about rotary thermal inefficiencies and the resultant cooling challenges are interesting. Watching the Dahm Pikes Peak video, cooling was one of the major issues.
I also appreciate your overview of aero. As a hobbyist, that happens to like rotary engines and is looking at my own build I am considering how much effort I want to put into aero. This overview that is also focused on pragmatism is awesome!
Aero is everything if you want to go fast. Just look at the progression of WTAC over the years
Lovely to hear all the thinking about compromises and optimization
Wouldn't it be possible to put some extra gears between the engine and gearbox to solve the too much torque issue with the lower reving engines? That should be lighter than getting a stronger gearbox.
Also if you had a ICE driven mcmurty system couldn't you put some kind of choke device infront of it to get fine control over how much suction it produces?
One more thing I'm wondering about. If cooling on pikes peak is such a problem would it be at all viable to use evaporative cooling? Since that should actually work better at the low air pressure. The main down side to this would be that it might add too much weight.
Extra gears? The problem is not torque to the wheels, the issue is the torque at the gearbox itself. You need to beef up the individual gears in order to handle the extra loads. Not to mention gearbox length is a big consideration for packaging, aero, and weight distribution
For fan cars it just makes far more sense to use a separate system than trying to rely on the ICE to turn the turbine. I had the passing idea of using the McMurtry compressors as turbos, but it would need a complex bypass system for when you are off throttle and don’t want boost crammed into the engine and there is fact that it would take a lot of work to get the air clean enough that you would be okay with having feed to the engine. I still think it’s an idea that could possibly work given enough development time but it would be very complex.
@@Shadowboost No I mean literally just a single reduction between the engine and the gear box. I'm not a mechanical engineer but AFAIK if you have a 400Nm at 4000 RPM a 2:1 reduction will convert that to 200Nm at 8000RPM and then you could put that through the gear box.
hi buildzoid
It's not impossible, but in practice designing & adding those extra gears & getting it all to work robustly together would end up being "a stronger, heavier gearbox" with extra steps. And you might still need to upgrade components, add oil coolers, etc. since you're putting more power thru
For an ICE driven fan car, I was thinking to use variable pitch blades & dual contra rotating flywheels. Would be a bit heavy & complex though, so maybe wings are better
Evaporative cooling could work in certain situations I think. In fact, technically all the drivers are using it already (sweating)
Great insights Robin, you know what you are talking about!
Loved this comment, just stick a wing and an angle at Monaco, that'll do it 🙂.
Thanks! 👍💪✌
Have you put any thought to doing a fan assisted diffuser like Gordon Murray? I assume it would have a lot of the same issues as the McMurtry system but it would still be interesting to hear your opinion. Love the videos 👍
Hail the algorithm!
😊
love the look of the car. I'm designing a formula 750 with very similar looking aero but I'm looking to go the unsprung aero like the lotus 88 as I have access to information about the 88. the reasons I've gone that route so the floor can make insane downforce without having to run a very stiff springs so the car can make mechanical grip in the slow corners. also going that route the track surface isn't effected as much for the aero. the only 2 down sides is over working the tyres and unsprung mass.
That looks like a great fun little engine.
For DRS I would look for the experience of Sigma P1 and JLM Racing AJR in Brazil. Both are running 3 elements front and rear wings in Endurance racing with DRS in both ends to keep balance, with good reliability. From what I understand they are using pneumatic actuators supplied by the gearbox shifting system, and the systems have springs that force the wings in full downforce position in case anything goes wrong. Sigma even sells a rear DRS kit for the Ginetta G57/G58. Also, these cars are designed in a configuration akin to what you are developing, so they can be an interesting benchmarking
Sendy sick, like normal sick but much, much quicker! Get well soon fella.
There is also a potential safety issue with the fan car setup, especially with the nature of pike's peak. If the car goes over a bump and the skirt comes out of contact with the ground, you lose most of your downforce. A sudden loss of downforce when heading into a corner could end catastrophically. a standard wing setup is much less susceptible to changes in ride height and/or becoming slightly airborne.
Surprised at the discounting of fan although your reasoning is perfectly sound. Even ignoring the weight penalty, the porous tarmac could be a big issue!!
Very interesting and she’s going to be a beauty.
Cheers.
I have had this idea for a while...: it's kind of a mixture of activ and unsprung aero that is passively actuated. I don't know if your car will have an anti roll bar like device but if so here is my idea. Somewhere on the torsional devices that counteract roll there is a spot where the torsion cancels out and it only rotates if both wheels are compressed in there travel. At this point one could have a cantilever which actuates eg a hydraulic cylinder that reduces the angle of attack on a aero element with another hydraulic cylinder. The aero element should be mounted in a way that the center of suction is outside of a main pivot so that aero down foce always tries to compress the slave cylinder. The pivot placement and relative cylinder diameters should be chosen so that the angle of attack reduces as the car gets pushed in the ground through aero but also in a compression. This should allow for softer springs as the counter forces at the anti roll device should increase the effective wheel rate at higher aero loading. The hydraulic slave cylinder could and probably should be damped to reduce the likelihood of stalling the aero device because of rapid movement. A biasing device could also be added to the cantilever for example a pneumatic two way cylinder to slightly adjust to aero balance between the front and rear wheels. The downside would probably be that this would require active dampening to account for the change in wheel rate.
You would need a wizard of a control systems engineer to make that thing work with the frequency variability of bumps at pikes peak. Also the system would probably be heavier as a mechanical system and not an electrical one with sensors and actors.
@@minascholevas purely for aero reasons probably but also increasing wheel rate my guess would be there is nothing in it weight wise.
I'm very suspicious of "only 16% of performance" in regards to the fan car. I'm only a student in aerodynamics, but I'd think with less load for the same fan power you could get greater RPM. It'd be worth looking into propeller efficiencies of aircraft, they run a much wider altitude shift and do "fine". Is it really a fundamental limitation? Or could it be solved with engineering?
Aircraft props have to pitch the blades in order to maintain efficiency at higher advance ratio. The motors of the McMurtry will still be rpm limited
Consider compressor cavitation my friend!
Have you considered addition of a mass damper system like the Renault F1 car used before it was banned? It seems this feature would be well worth the effort, due to how rough pikes peak is on the upper sections of the mountain, and being completely mechanical it doesn’t add another failure point to the car / can be removed if the systems weight doesn’t justify the performance.
My only wish is more of these videos and more footage of your chosen engine.....with a slight hope for something resembling a rocket at the end (:
Have you considered an active, location aware, aero system? So that the system knows when a corner is coming up, and can adjust accordingly?
It’s Interesting contrasting this discussion with the engine one. The amount of development effort that can be “stolen” from road cars is drastically lower with aero - going from full cylinder head assemblies down to vague concepts like balanced active aero. TSC is dialing back the risk to keep acceptable return on investment of effort. I’ll be honest though, I was hoping to see unsprung aero get some more attention simply because it feels like a cheat code on paper to allow softer spring rates to handle the road surfaces at pike’s peak. The brake duct idea seems like a very nice compromise because it can be more simply added/removed later though. Can very much empathize with not wanting to deal with simulating behaviour of an under tray sprung only by the tires on a bad surface.
I'm a "fan" (no punt intended) of unsprung aero. I'd like so see a well designed one, and it could well include a fan. The air can after all go through a flexible duct.
I imagine a hugely efficient underfloor that sit under the tub and has a fan opening attached, but the fan motor it attached to the tub.
I can also imagine a dual underfloor, each in a 3-point attachment. 2 of those are the uprights, one is ideally under the other end of the car.
That would be the dream!
There might be some clever linkage geometries that would allow you to have a constant load shared between the wheel and body together without having significant aoa changes on the wing as the body bounces. Would make an adaptable architecture where you could turn up the load into the wheels for tracks.
Technically unsprung aero doesn't even need a separate body. FSAE guys are mounting wings directly to the uprights
im happy you enjoyed reading my comment
Rather than a full floor mounted to the suspension, what about just skirts? Alot less unsprung mass and similar sealing benefits even if your tunnel cross section isn't constant?
Great thought train. Nice to hear that process. Makes sense for what you're going for, even though I'd like to see (sometime) some more active stuff (fans and flaps) just because engineering wankery and moar speed! :D
Btw, side skirts with that big important floor? At least something, even with bumps :)
Don't need a perfect seal, but flexi skirts help. We have already run them on the Wolf with success
Your aero image looks gorgeous. I hope the real one gets painted similarly to the flow model. Do it.
I imagine this may get lost in the sea of comments but I'd be curious as to what the plan is for manufacturability and iterability. That is to say, with such a floor-centric aero package, is there a plan in place in the inevitable case where subtle tweaks to the design would be beneficial. As an aero guy I'm grateful that the CFD tools we have in the contemporary era are wonderful, but they're not perfect. It can be difficult enough to replace a wing element when it's not behaving as expected but I'd be concerned about the cost of a replacement should the floor have some unexpected issue once you're in the testing phase.
Absolutely rooting for the concept, it's incredible how much this car is shaping out to look like the "If I won the lottery" car I've been dreaming of since I was a teenager. Good luck Sendy!
Maybe if the Sendy Club is feeling generous the CAD models can be open sourced someday? 👀
Really great question! Basically, I am triple checking my work with other aerodynamicists and their different simulation protocols. Also, giving up a high peak and tight operating window for a broader working, less peaky setup. I believe this is less sensitive to simulation inaccuracies also
Have you ever called Koenigsegg for a collab? They have some fun stuff. Their 3-cyl is not happening, but was to be 2L for 600 hp, 70 kg. Strictly hydraulic valves which allows for fancy timings.
I'd love to see a 6-inline based off that cutie, split by one of their mysterious clutches to run in "VW mode" for emissions testing. For cooling and thin air power up the mountain they might suggest a different layout. Their V8 is pretty peppy at 1600 hp, would still have 1000+ hp at the peak. Great gearboxes as well. Would they get involved though? They're inching more towards time attack stuff, so...
Question: have you decided on all of the major system types that are going into the car and are now just looking for the particular model (e.g. you're sold on a turbo but still looking for the exact one to use) or are you actively looking at changing/adding/removing systems from the car? And if so which ones?
With the "DRS" system, what about having it be open at the bottom of the mountain and gradually closing as the air gets thinner
What if instead of unsprung aero you attached just the side skirts of your ground effects to the suspension? Keep a tight seal over bumps without having to worry about bottoming out.
I've read about the different brake rotors used in some of the recent winners' pikes peak cars, and there's a variety like the Peugeot using carbon-carbon rotors, and the recent Ford EVs using carbon ceramic and also the VW IDR. Which do you think would be better for the car since the rotors add to the unsprung weight of the car? Or is sticking with the traditional iron rotors better since there won't be any significant performance gains running the carbon-carbon/carbon ceramic?
Steel is tried and tested. Alcon offer some carbon-carbon options that work well from cold (VW ID.R and Ford EV). The unsprung and rotational masses are nice performance gains!
You forgot to check out the 1,000 hp 3 cylinder that Steve Morris is developing. It uses a sleeved stock block so you could probably build three of them for the price of one of those V8s and it is being developed for a turbo with the power level you want. It's 1.2 liters so it has to rev and torque probably isn't too high. Weight is probably good too.
th-cam.com/video/5iTkkbRkJog/w-d-xo.htmlsi=RbJvYLfRslHGM59E
By the time that engine finishes it's development cycle, they probably wouldn't have time to integrate it into the car. Also it's only a 1.2, so it's hard to get it up on the turbo than with the V8 he's chosen. Also considering how the engine is going to mounted in his car I suspect the lack of stiffness in the Rotax engine block could be a major problem in terms of longevity. I bet this was also an issue that plague their K20s
@@Thee_Snow_Wolf no, the engine already exists and lots of them are tuned to 400+ hp so it's 100% doable to integrate the engine in to the car before the 1,000 up version is "done".
I'm not sure how stiff a Rotax block is but since it's a 3 cylinder, it must be shorter than a 4 cylinder and that will make it stiffer than a similar block with a fourth cylinder added.
Also if he goes with an unsprung aero scheme that puts the down force directly in to the upright instead of the chassis, chassis stiffness requirements will be less.
Both solutions might need a cradle for the engine to carry torsional stress because motorcycle engines are not exactly known as great stressed members.
@@beardoe6874 The likely problem with the Rotax imo is that it's an open deck block. So the cylinder walls will want to shift under torsional load, which can be a bit of an engine killer.
This is why the Vee engine is the first choice, since it's an inherently stiffer construction than an inline engine. And as a bonus it's based off the already semi stressed S1000RR.
@@Thee_Snow_Wolf a V engine architecture is in no way inherently stiffer than inline engines, it's the length so a V8 is stiffer than a straight 8 but an I3 is shorter than either so it should be stiffer (if construction is similar).
I see the Rotax is an open deck block but I don't think any 70kg motorcycle based V8 is going to be designed to be a stressed member, it's more of a thing for C Sports Racer where the engine is not a stressed member at all. People have been doing V8 engines using liter bike heads for over 20 years, I don't think you understand the reality of V8s designed that way.
Have you considered active suspension, as well as dapmpner like in the alonso era renault
The endorphins I feel when I see a new Sendy Club upload >>>>
i think you should lean in to youtube Robin, it's quite something to be the fastest 'Rob' on youtube these days and even watching people engineer 'slow' cars like superslowMatt entertains a million people...
What you need is a gimballing micro gas turbine on the top of the rollover hoop that can give you thrust vectoring according to need.
I have a couple questions!
Was a turbine or turbine hybrid considered?
Is there anything you can say about optimizing for different sections of the mountain, eg can you go faster on the first half by making certain changes to aero or powerplant that outweigh the loss on the second half? Or vice versa? Or does there need to be a very broad optimization strategy for "as good as we can get everywhere"
Speaking of suspension as mentioned in passing in this video, was active suspension or other advanced suspension considered? I've seen some interesting interlinked hydraulic systems on formula student vehicles that give fully independent control of all the suspension movement modes, would something like that be an option?
It would, I will touch on this in an episode. I would want this to be an "add-on" rather integral to the operation of the car.
How about a reverse drs that you use to increase available down force at higher elevations
awesome
I was thinking about turbos. Would it be possible to spec a turbo which is too big for the engine at 9000 feet but good at 14,000 feet then run a progressive swirl throttle on the inlet which rotates with altitude, or does that only make sense on a constant speed engine where response and part throttle output is less important?
You may surmise that I’ve been learning about WW2 aero engines.
I will touch on this a little in the next video
I always wondered why an active suspension like the old citroen or 90ies Benetton f1 aren't used for semi unsprung airo? Sure complexity, weight, aswell as mechanical engineering and problem solving are the obvious factors. But conventional remote reservoir should be adaptable to that setup and the rest should be of the shelf (at least for proof of concept, wight reduction pending) or inhouse (for you at least) anyways.
Don't know just find it interesting.
I'd like to see aerofoils that actively change their thickness, not just angle. From a knife to a fat foil.
How the aero responds could be geolocation based. Some fast bits call for minimum drag, some for downforce.
That would be neat! I hear this is an area for development in airplanes also
If you're making a vast majority of the down-force from the floor, would a "DRS" system similar to the t50/t50s be worth looking at? Disrupting the underfloor to disrupt drag seems (on the surface) like a really efficient method. The moving parts are smaller, lower down, and closer to the center of the car, so should be easier to package. As the floor loses downforce, the force on the suspension obviously goes down, and the ride height should raise, further reducing drag.
The question is obviously tradeoffs here; time gained from aero vs weight added, as well as cost/complexity/safety balances. I'm also curious how much this would shift the aero balance,. It should be less biased than backing off the rear wing, but it also it could be more 'tuneable' than a traditional DRS system, depending on floor design.
From my memory, many of the most problematic bumps on Pike Peak are on higher speed corners. It seems like losing downforce from the floor (less effective over bumpy surfaces) would be preferred here compared to backing off on the wings. You'd sacrifice the aero from the less consistent of the two surfaces in the areas of the run that matter, and there's (presumably) a much smaller shift in aero load.
I'd love to see an episode on how you come to these decisions; how much is the team involved, how much is pure calculation, how much is based on computer sims, etc. I'd also love to see an episode where you test/compare various systems/setups on a racing sim too!
Not this time :(
The McMurtry style skirt might need to be hydraulically kept in the right position. Really high speed. Jarring. But could be worth it. It would allow to run it a lot lower and care less about margins.
Would have to control it really well to avoid taking load from the tires!
please please please put that engine on an 8 in 1 header. it would sound insane. promise.
on another note, how much cubic air flows through the engine? Can you use the engine as the vacuum pump to suck you in to the ground below 90 mph?
Forgive me if you spoke to this in the video, i was busy taking care of a sick child. Have you condsidered the oppisite of DRS? As you go up the mountain, incrementally increase the angles of attack on the front and rear wings to reduce the loss of downforce. You might not be generating the same forces at the top compared to the start, but it could be that extra couple percent that makes the difference.
You might as well run that extra downforce at the bottom, then. Remember at Pike's Peak, any downforce is faster, even at the cost of an equal amount of drag.
Any consideration of passive flexing aero to decrease load at high speed? Assume that it makes sense for an F1 team looking for gains but maybe not worth the effort if you don’t have 50 people running CFD full time.
Really tricky to do. Aeroelastic design is very analysis, manufacturing, and testing intensive. To gain a couple of mph in the few straight sections on the mountain? Time is better spent adding more downforce to the package
Ok that is a cool sounding engine a bit V8 and a bit motorbikes all good.
Isn't underfloor stuff risky with pikes peak being so bumpy?
About the unsprung aero, have you seen this miata that Donut featured a while back?
th-cam.com/video/xSvIkIcPLjM/w-d-xo.html
Linked to 8:46, where they talk about the wing specifically. Likely not super applicable to your car/setup, but interesting nonetheless
This is getting quite involved... In rough terms, what is the matrix size of your spreadsheet?
It lives in my head, neurons are the limit!
Could you just put the turbo inlet on the bottom of the car for free downforce?
Your comments on the heat generated by rotaries makes me wonder if they could take advantage of the meredith effect.
Every one of these is so awesome, although I must recommend to robin a slightly less tight headsock
I don't think my helmet fits at the moment!
hearting this comment is a move so daring only a true racer willing to push the limits would commit to. Bravo.
@@thesendyclub I have my notifications on for literally all your videos lol. This is akin to meeting a childhood hero
Just started the video. My prediction is: robin sings the praises of active aero then tells us he wont be using any of it because of weight and complexity.
No wonder you have 4 championships your a pirate 1 eye short focusing 1 eye long focusing . Pirate brothers for life
2 inches of ride height, 60-80 millimeters of travel :) :)
Hail the algorithm
👍❤
why has he chosen to use a lot of underbody aero if efficiency doesn't matter much and it needs a high ride hieght? obviously he knows what he's doing, but im pretty confused.
Covering this in the next video - good question. Answer is counterintuitive.
@@thesendyclub ooh i'll be looking forwards to that! under body aero is fascinating to me, and so is high altitude motorsport! i can't wait.
The amount of ppl that think rotary engines are decent performers is proof that automotive/engineering communication has failed on YT.
hello friend
Is there a reason to not try and add more downforce the higher u go? Like half way through u hit a button and u get more aero or something? U have less air to get in your way but u also have less downforce. U are smarter than me so u probably already thought of this. It’s probably too heavy of a design and would probably upset the balance of the car.
You want as much downforce as much of the time as possible. Essentially, if you had a means to get more downforce at the bottom of the hill, you already would be using it
@@Shadowboost yea I was thinking maybe it would just be less efficient at the lower part where there is more speed and then u really crank up the downforce the higher u go
@@WillFuI efficiency is just not that important compared to ultimate downforce at Pike's peak.
Soooo…… no rotary engine :(
I'd rather go slower. It only makes vehicles look worse.
Leave aero for speed and economy. Downforce ruins everything.
absolutely fascinating.