Your videos are really damn good, but you shouldn't "rush through" like that. It's like someone firing a hailstorm of pictures and facts at you like a machine gun. If you would take your time, one picture and one CFD sequence after the other and explain here step by step and then for comparison the "previous" solution - then your videos would probably be the best ever! So but it is great, but you have to stop a hundred times, look, then partly continue to look, back, forward again, because you rush so through and the simulations too little detailed explanation and these then also too fast succession that one understands only if you go through it several times slowly step by step and often back. If you arrange it a little better, say something more about it and also clarify this better and more detailed - then your videos would be the best by far!
Agree. It's still one of the best channels but I have to stop a lot of times to understand what he wants to conclude, even though I have years of experience in racecar aerodynamics. For a 'usual' F1 fan who is just interested in aerodynamics, and it isn't their job, it must be very difficult to understamd. But keep up the amazing work, I want to emphasize again that this is one of my favorite channels, and I often recommend this to others.
Thanks for the feedback. Believe it or not I have tried slowing these vids down.... I was struggling for consistence here more than usual. I'm firstly someone interested in aero and making the videos turned out to be a good way to work through the ideas. This video title was almost "A Keeping This Channel Alive Special", motivation was low but the data was there..... Always trying to improve the surprisingly complicated work flow for these videos, doesn't always happen. Lastly those four animations, its a bit difficult to compare the time steps if they aren't on the screen at the same time. If they weren't then you will be scrolling back and forth on the time line anyway. It always a compromise. Hope I can share a few more interesting insight with you in the future.
I am not an expert on the subject. For the front wing design, you have the following design parameters: 1. wing platform sweepback angle, 2. dihedral/anhedral angles, 3.local twisting angles of the elements along the span, 4. variable ground clearance along the span and along the nose cone 5. control of wakes/upwash in front of the suspension elements 6. control of wakes/upwash and vortices in front of the front wheel 7. tapering of the element chord 8. lift loading along the span. One can appreciate how complex the problems are. Based on the longitudinal vorticity slices in your analysis, I cannot see a clear explanation of the differences in effects between inward and outward loading cases.
I'm very impressed by how much you've improved your understanding of these regulations, and your contributions will definitely raise everyone's game.
Your videos are really damn good, but you shouldn't "rush through" like that. It's like someone firing a hailstorm of pictures and facts at you like a machine gun. If you would take your time, one picture and one CFD sequence after the other and explain here step by step and then for comparison the "previous" solution - then your videos would probably be the best ever! So but it is great, but you have to stop a hundred times, look, then partly continue to look, back, forward again, because you rush so through and the simulations too little detailed explanation and these then also too fast succession that one understands only if you go through it several times slowly step by step and often back. If you arrange it a little better, say something more about it and also clarify this better and more detailed - then your videos would be the best by far!
Agree. It's still one of the best channels but I have to stop a lot of times to understand what he wants to conclude, even though I have years of experience in racecar aerodynamics. For a 'usual' F1 fan who is just interested in aerodynamics, and it isn't their job, it must be very difficult to understamd.
But keep up the amazing work, I want to emphasize again that this is one of my favorite channels, and I often recommend this to others.
Thanks for the feedback. Believe it or not I have tried slowing these vids down.... I was struggling for consistence here more than usual. I'm firstly someone interested in aero and making the videos turned out to be a good way to work through the ideas. This video title was almost "A Keeping This Channel Alive Special", motivation was low but the data was there..... Always trying to improve the surprisingly complicated work flow for these videos, doesn't always happen.
Lastly those four animations, its a bit difficult to compare the time steps if they aren't on the screen at the same time. If they weren't then you will be scrolling back and forth on the time line anyway. It always a compromise. Hope I can share a few more interesting insight with you in the future.
Which type of simulation is used here? Looks like the geometry is perforating the plane. How is it called?
I am not an expert on the subject. For the front wing design, you have the following design parameters:
1. wing platform sweepback angle,
2. dihedral/anhedral angles,
3.local twisting angles of the elements along the span,
4. variable ground clearance along the span and along the nose cone
5. control of wakes/upwash in front of the suspension elements
6. control of wakes/upwash and vortices in front of the front wheel
7. tapering of the element chord
8. lift loading along the span.
One can appreciate how complex the problems are. Based on the longitudinal vorticity slices in your analysis, I cannot see a clear explanation of the differences in effects between inward and outward loading cases.
Ive started using ansys workbench and im failing at making a simple 2d wing work 😭
How does one even begin to model a car like this?
reading the rules pdf and finding a spare 50hrs
@@nelsonphillips What software?
@@Andre_The_Millennialopenfoam