Tyrrell 019: Reverse Engineering its Wings.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 พ.ค. 2022
- (45m/s) This is my attempt at reverse engineering the Tyrrell 019 front and rear wings. Using data from a Gascoyne paper I tried to replicate the downforce number presented.
- วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
happy to find you TH-cam channel. like to learn F1 aerodynamics,thanks
To be completely honest, a lot of what you talk about goes over my head (I'm nowhere close to being an engineer), but I still really enjoy your content. There aren't nearly as many people as there should be talking about this period of Formula 1 cars. The amount of experimentation by the teams is fascinating, and your videos do an amazing job at displaying that. Keep up the good work!
I think the car is about 3.8CL, 1.8 floor diffuser, 0.9 front wing, 1.1 rear wing. I think the cars run better when the front and rear equal to the same lift. More frontal grip, slight less drag on the rear. But it really depends how the floor diffuser distributes it's load. Which means, they're forced to use slightly less frontal lift to the rear to keep the Aero Balance. I think F1 teams would of tried their best to get more rear diffuser downforce so it would equal. This is me driving th-cam.com/video/n-1Ad3HoO7A/w-d-xo.html 1.05CL on rear wing 1.8 / 1 Ratio and 0.80CL on front wing 5.7 / 1 Ratio
-About 0.56CD of body Drag
-1.74CL on the floor diffuser. ( 0.17CL, 0.37CL, 1.20CL )
-Using CG of 0.400
It's seems the rear wing was probably at 30% of total down-force for 1990 car..the 35%, for the mid 80's turbos. 45% for the floor diffuser and 25% for the front wing.
I reworked the aero on mine using your findings on the rear wing, which you seem to be getting a 3 / 1 to ratio lift to drag for high down force wing. I was using 1.8 / 1 Ratio. To get the same data from the Tyrell Papers, I had add lots more drag to the body of the car in AC its 3.79CL and 1.33CD of drag. I have 1.15CL(3 / 1) on rear wing, 0.95CL ( 6 / 1) n the front and total of 0.78CD on the Body (Wheels, Diffusers, Rest of Body). I've lost lots of down-force for Medium or Low, wing circuits as I got lots more drag on the body, I had about 0.60CD before, now I'm having to drop Wings really low to get same top speeds. I've always questioned 0.60CD for the body, it seems too low. The car is far more unstable now, very jumpy.
1290 NM at 160KM/H would be about 1 CL. I think they ran the tests with 1.47 air density. I would though the rear wing would had more drag. I tried to do a simple wing like this but with planes. I got like Cd : 1.8172308 (pressure: 1.8174097 viscous: -0.00017890582)
Cl : -2.6043388 (pressure: -2.6037395 viscous: -0.00059923812) but it wasn't stuck to the car and it was flat planes, simple stuff.
air density should be about 1.2. This is the default number so unless you deliberately changed it that is what it is. If you can output forces you should do that. It makes the experimentation easier. Cl is just what the aeronautical people like because it characterizes the aerodynamic performance, its a part of their language and should be understood but it shouldn't necessarily be give priority. Typically they are looking at a static lift number and that should be achieved with the least amount of energy. If you are looking at road cars then Cd should be given priority, but then I've seen large cars have their Cd promoted and they have a large frontal area, meaning that they have more drag than smaller cars with high Cd....
ƤＲＯ𝓂Ｏ𝕤ᗰ