McLaren wind tunnel at MTC
The reason I write this piece is to re-explore if you recall all those brouhaha regarding Virgin with their philosophy of only using CFD as the only aerodynamics design tool. Virgin Racing’s technical director Nick Wirth says his team’s performance at the Bahrain Grand Prix justifies its all CFD design philosophy. Well, can you agree with him?
F1 has always undergo a strict flow path of work, each detailed to the tiniest fraction possible so that all sums of work is a perfect companion of each other. From design office – chassis construction – engine fabrication – aerodynamics. The basic process flow of aerodynamics comes from ideas from the design office tested using CFD and verified in wind tunnel. Certain behaviour are difficult to predict in CFD, pitching of the car under acceleration and braking for example.
Renault CFD Centre
Computational fluid dynamics is one of the branches of fluid mechanics that involve fluid flows. Computers are used to perform the massive calculations required to simulate the real world application. All F1 teams on the grid have their own CFD or uses CFD to study the motion of air when it interacts with a F1 car. The competitive nature of Formula 1 racing and the small time window between races make it crucial for engineers to quickly comprehend aerodynamic effects and move new designs to fabrication with rapidity and confidence. However, at F1 level you would expect some physical testing in wind tunnel. It’s done basically to reconfirm the data modelled using CFD. Wind tunnel serves as a validity checker. It’s the second best thing to running a real race car around a track.
Renault Supercomputers? I’m not sure what this is. Everything about F1 is so high tech that some of the things they use perhaps doesn’t even have any word for it yet.
Tony Fernandes doubted Nick Wirth’s judgment in deciding to create the VR-01 with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) technology. He made his point noting that coming from aviation industry, he simply unable to fathom designing an aerodynamic piece of a race car without a wind tunnel.
Red Bull’s Adrian Newey, perhaps the best designer in F1 at the moment, says that CFD only design has pitfalls. CFD design validity must be compared with wind tunnel data. However he would like to see how it turns out in reality. But he suggested that if everything goes down well at Virgin, then he has to revise his opinion.
Renault CFD Centre
Next time when you watch a Formula One Grand Prix, remember Virgin, it’s all a CFD design car. By bringing this up, perhaps I kind of knock some issue into your head. Maybe before this you just happen to concentrate on Schumacher or Alonso or Hamilton and when it gets boring you switch channel, now you have extra reason to focus at the back of the field. Maybe you just hate people who think their idea of engineering is so absurd it is against the norm so you wish them a terrible defeat and in humility admit they have made a mistake and you were right all along. It’s good to be the one who at the end of the day, manage to come out on top and say “I told you so”. Or on the other hand, you may just like the revolutionary ideas and hope all successes to them.
Renault Wind Tunnel Testing – Enstone UK
If Virgin can establish themselves among front runners in the future without the help of a wind tunnel, then what will happen? Will this turn the tide on the design philosophy based on years of practice, unchanged since F1 was introduced to aerodynamics. Ideas so revolutionized, it’s unbelievable that a new inexperienced team on the grid is trying to adopt it. We knew very well that by trying out design changes with CFD on a computer, there is no need to build a model, a process that could easily cost a bomb. On a different case, I don’t think any sponsor will have confidence in a team lacking in equipment and technology. But if you can justify CFD is the only tool needed to understand aerodynamics and procurement of wind tunnel is not necessary, then you will save a lot of money and still stand on the high ground when dealing with sponsors.
Toyota had one of the most sophisticated CFD and wind tunnel during their era, but still unable to produce a single victory in years of F1 racing. So when a Virgin Racing sounds very confident with tiny budget compared to that of Toyota, is it a political stunt or they do have a magic formula under the carpet waiting to be unleashed? Whatever it is, the truth is in the pudding.
Editorial : Mu’az Zakaria
Image Source : Mercedes GP / Renault F1
No related posts.
Hello,I love reading through your blog, I wanted to leave a little comment to support you and wish you a good continuation. Wishing you the best of luck for all your blogging efforts.
You have really great taste on catch article titles, even when you are not interested in this topic you push to read it
Thanks so much for the blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Really Cool.
Fun article to read, and I hope I can offer my view on the CFD vs. wind tunnel debate.
My experience is in a different type of Formula1, the one of sailboats instead of cars, the America’s Cup. The company I work for, Applied Fluid Technologies, Inc., was in charge of the aerodynamic development of the BMW Oracle Racing trimaran, the boat that won the last America’s Cup. I can tell you that computational fluid dynamic, that only ten years ago played a marginal role in the development of the boats, is now the main tool because it is believed to have many less uncertainties, much cheaper and much more flexible than wind tunnel testing.
Cheers.
Claudio, thanks for the interesting insights. I believe in the same case too. However, as Newey pointed out both are complimentary. What we don’t know is that how many percentage of knowledge is gone without the usage of wind tunnel. I don’t have any technical experience in aerodynamics at all. Hence my quotation of the expert in the business. But I agree with you on the subject that CFD now is far more advanced than what it used to be 10 years ago.
Btw thanks for the comments.