View Poll Results: Which do you like?
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 1013. You may not vote on this poll
Poll: FMIC - Front Mount Intercooler
Evolved Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
From: Bangkok
Originally Posted by taenaive
They put best engineers on designing F1 car body design. they test every day and night. It is the most aerodynamically desgined car. drag is there to push down on that car. The downforce they put is so great that you can drive upside down after 100 mph. this is wrong comparison there. they will open the duct for absolutely necessary amount only. Toyota F1 aerodynamic team's head guy told our Fluid dynamics engineer that they would pay him multi million dollars to him if he can improve drag coefficent just 1%! and He couldn't even with the power of super computers and the project money he got from the Toyota.
Don't get a wrong Idea. Evo's areo dynamic is horrible already. just do the 4th gear pull and it will be like having 1000lbs added to your car after 100 mph.
However, under 60 mph, there will be the great benefit having large intercoolers. you can ignore the drag under 60 mph.
Don't get a wrong Idea. Evo's areo dynamic is horrible already. just do the 4th gear pull and it will be like having 1000lbs added to your car after 100 mph.
However, under 60 mph, there will be the great benefit having large intercoolers. you can ignore the drag under 60 mph.
Now, I'm not so sure about the millions of dollars for the 1% improvement. I mean, they can set the car up in a high downforce (more drag) or low downforce (low drag). The difference between the two should be huge already. Besides, F1 cars get 'updates' regularly so it's not like they've come up against a technical barrier already.
Anyway, cooling is a rather big issue in F1 because of the different locations in which they race and the fact that they package the thing so tightly. I understand that some teams do this with less margin than others and I guess an optimum solution in Bahrain isn't going to be so great in Canada.
dude... i can't ****in' fight the urge to compete.
you think you know what aerodynamics means??? look up the drag coefficient of any f1 car. it's worse than the evo. why? because a drag coefficient is not the sole interest of f1 cars. if that were so they'd make it look like a freakin' drag car.
with that said your careful choice of words "most aerodynamically designed" is absolutely correct, it has the most aerodynamically interested parts and designs implemented on it. however it is one of the most UNAERODYNAMIC in the sense that it is aerodynamically INEFFIECIENT. the amount of force required to push it through the same given fluid at the same velocity rivals that of a square truck, and this of course only gets worse as speeds go higher, which is EXACTLY why they NEED high horsepower engines.
despite it being the shape of a near perfect aerodynamically efficient object (an almond shaped missle) it has enough ducts, diffusing, wings and aerofoils that cause SEPERATED FLOW and RAPID DIFFUSION of fluid that it ends up being totally aerodynamically inefficient.
this said... yes it generates a ton of downforce, but downforce is not aerodynamically efficient perse, a submarine is aerodynamically efficient, it has to be, but you don't see it making downforce. an air plane needs to make lift, but you don't see seperated flow over its wings (cuz that would kill lots of people). an f1 car can AFFORD to seperate and rapidly expand flow because it's in the unique situation of GAINING stability with seperation of flow ONLY AT THE COST OF FORCE NEED TO PROPEL. hp is cheap, and you can never make enough traction.
i'm done.
you think you know what aerodynamics means??? look up the drag coefficient of any f1 car. it's worse than the evo. why? because a drag coefficient is not the sole interest of f1 cars. if that were so they'd make it look like a freakin' drag car.
with that said your careful choice of words "most aerodynamically designed" is absolutely correct, it has the most aerodynamically interested parts and designs implemented on it. however it is one of the most UNAERODYNAMIC in the sense that it is aerodynamically INEFFIECIENT. the amount of force required to push it through the same given fluid at the same velocity rivals that of a square truck, and this of course only gets worse as speeds go higher, which is EXACTLY why they NEED high horsepower engines.
despite it being the shape of a near perfect aerodynamically efficient object (an almond shaped missle) it has enough ducts, diffusing, wings and aerofoils that cause SEPERATED FLOW and RAPID DIFFUSION of fluid that it ends up being totally aerodynamically inefficient.
this said... yes it generates a ton of downforce, but downforce is not aerodynamically efficient perse, a submarine is aerodynamically efficient, it has to be, but you don't see it making downforce. an air plane needs to make lift, but you don't see seperated flow over its wings (cuz that would kill lots of people). an f1 car can AFFORD to seperate and rapidly expand flow because it's in the unique situation of GAINING stability with seperation of flow ONLY AT THE COST OF FORCE NEED TO PROPEL. hp is cheap, and you can never make enough traction.
i'm done.
Evolved Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
From: Bangkok
Originally Posted by trinydex
dude... i can't ****in' fight the urge to compete.
you think you know what aerodynamics means??? look up the drag coefficient of any f1 car. it's worse than the evo. why? because a drag coefficient is not the sole interest of f1 cars. if that were so they'd make it look like a freakin' drag car.
with that said your careful choice of words "most aerodynamically designed" is absolutely correct, it has the most aerodynamically interested parts and designs implemented on it. however it is one of the most UNAERODYNAMIC in the sense that it is aerodynamically INEFFIECIENT. the amount of force required to push it through the same given fluid at the same velocity rivals that of a square truck, and this of course only gets worse as speeds go higher, which is EXACTLY why they NEED high horsepower engines.
despite it being the shape of a near perfect aerodynamically efficient object (an almond shaped missle) it has enough ducts, diffusing, wings and aerofoils that cause SEPERATED FLOW and RAPID DIFFUSION of fluid that it ends up being totally aerodynamically inefficient.
this said... yes it generates a ton of downforce, but downforce is not aerodynamically efficient perse, a submarine is aerodynamically efficient, it has to be, but you don't see it making downforce. an air plane needs to make lift, but you don't see seperated flow over its wings (cuz that would kill lots of people). an f1 car can AFFORD to seperate and rapidly expand flow because it's in the unique situation of GAINING stability with seperation of flow ONLY AT THE COST OF FORCE NEED TO PROPEL. hp is cheap, and you can never make enough traction.
i'm done.
you think you know what aerodynamics means??? look up the drag coefficient of any f1 car. it's worse than the evo. why? because a drag coefficient is not the sole interest of f1 cars. if that were so they'd make it look like a freakin' drag car.
with that said your careful choice of words "most aerodynamically designed" is absolutely correct, it has the most aerodynamically interested parts and designs implemented on it. however it is one of the most UNAERODYNAMIC in the sense that it is aerodynamically INEFFIECIENT. the amount of force required to push it through the same given fluid at the same velocity rivals that of a square truck, and this of course only gets worse as speeds go higher, which is EXACTLY why they NEED high horsepower engines.
despite it being the shape of a near perfect aerodynamically efficient object (an almond shaped missle) it has enough ducts, diffusing, wings and aerofoils that cause SEPERATED FLOW and RAPID DIFFUSION of fluid that it ends up being totally aerodynamically inefficient.
this said... yes it generates a ton of downforce, but downforce is not aerodynamically efficient perse, a submarine is aerodynamically efficient, it has to be, but you don't see it making downforce. an air plane needs to make lift, but you don't see seperated flow over its wings (cuz that would kill lots of people). an f1 car can AFFORD to seperate and rapidly expand flow because it's in the unique situation of GAINING stability with seperation of flow ONLY AT THE COST OF FORCE NEED TO PROPEL. hp is cheap, and you can never make enough traction.
i'm done.
Efficiency, in the way I used meant the amount of drag it generates vs. the amount of downforce it provides. Obviously, one of the things engineers need to do is to balance the two for any given track and engine perofrmance. I did not mean the amount of opposing force vs. speed through a fluid medium.
As you pointed out, there are lots of other factors for F1 cars such as stability and balance between the front and rear and so on. However, an area which F1 differs from airplanes and such is that they operate at a very odd range of speeds. From speeds that wings do basically nothing and to speeds that they become critical and on. The thing also is that wings on F1 cars can't move. Or not anymore than the FIA lets them move. In some places you can take the wings off and go just as fast (or faster) and places that wings allow F1 cars to corner at suicidal speeds all in the same lap so again it's all a bit complicated (for me) to say whether an F1 car is aerodynamically 'good' or not. One thing for sure is that there's a heck of a lot of aerodynamic things going on and for the amount of brain/computing power that gets thrown at these thing, I think they're pretty optimized at the very unique task they perform.
As to whether their drag coefficient is lower/higher than the evo, I'm not sure, but I am pretty certain that they are not the most drag-free shapes around.
p.s. 215mph is waaay high. I heard they can do it at around 120mph.
Back on topic, I don't see having a larger i/c will increase drag appreciably (unless you are talking about an extremely large one, say twice the size). Again, I suppose in racing it's another thing to balance. I mean would you rather have a little more drag or would you rather have it overheat? The ideal solution is to work out exactly how much cooling you need and use the minimum amount of stuff that will let your car work at it's optimum. Going back to F1, they run cars at very hot and very cold places so I guess a lot of time it's a compromise.
Coming back to i/c's in our evos, bear in mind that the drag caused by larger ones only really come into play at very high speeds _but_ the increased performance will be felt all the way up to that speed. [I am assuming that the larger one will cool better with less perssure drop].
Evolved Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
From: Bangkok
Sound slightly bad if that's the only thing you get from the new i/c.
I have heard from a number of people that some aftermarket i/c's make the system pretty laggy because (i think) of the increased mass of air you need to accelerate together with the increased pressure drop. Looks to me like some of them are really designed for larger turbos and so on.
Works good after the lag, right?
I have heard from a number of people that some aftermarket i/c's make the system pretty laggy because (i think) of the increased mass of air you need to accelerate together with the increased pressure drop. Looks to me like some of them are really designed for larger turbos and so on.
Works good after the lag, right?
Originally Posted by x838nwy
I think you and I are saying roughly the same thing. However, thought I'd like to clear up some things I said:
Efficiency, in the way I used meant the amount of drag it generates vs. the amount of downforce it provides. Obviously, one of the things engineers need to do is to balance the two for any given track and engine perofrmance. I did not mean the amount of opposing force vs. speed through a fluid medium.
As you pointed out, there are lots of other factors for F1 cars such as stability and balance between the front and rear and so on. However, an area which F1 differs from airplanes and such is that they operate at a very odd range of speeds. From speeds that wings do basically nothing and to speeds that they become critical and on. The thing also is that wings on F1 cars can't move. Or not anymore than the FIA lets them move. In some places you can take the wings off and go just as fast (or faster) and places that wings allow F1 cars to corner at suicidal speeds all in the same lap so again it's all a bit complicated (for me) to say whether an F1 car is aerodynamically 'good' or not. One thing for sure is that there's a heck of a lot of aerodynamic things going on and for the amount of brain/computing power that gets thrown at these thing, I think they're pretty optimized at the very unique task they perform.
As to whether their drag coefficient is lower/higher than the evo, I'm not sure, but I am pretty certain that they are not the most drag-free shapes around.
p.s. 215mph is waaay high. I heard they can do it at around 120mph.
Back on topic, I don't see having a larger i/c will increase drag appreciably (unless you are talking about an extremely large one, say twice the size). Again, I suppose in racing it's another thing to balance. I mean would you rather have a little more drag or would you rather have it overheat? The ideal solution is to work out exactly how much cooling you need and use the minimum amount of stuff that will let your car work at it's optimum. Going back to F1, they run cars at very hot and very cold places so I guess a lot of time it's a compromise.
Coming back to i/c's in our evos, bear in mind that the drag caused by larger ones only really come into play at very high speeds _but_ the increased performance will be felt all the way up to that speed. [I am assuming that the larger one will cool better with less perssure drop].
Efficiency, in the way I used meant the amount of drag it generates vs. the amount of downforce it provides. Obviously, one of the things engineers need to do is to balance the two for any given track and engine perofrmance. I did not mean the amount of opposing force vs. speed through a fluid medium.
As you pointed out, there are lots of other factors for F1 cars such as stability and balance between the front and rear and so on. However, an area which F1 differs from airplanes and such is that they operate at a very odd range of speeds. From speeds that wings do basically nothing and to speeds that they become critical and on. The thing also is that wings on F1 cars can't move. Or not anymore than the FIA lets them move. In some places you can take the wings off and go just as fast (or faster) and places that wings allow F1 cars to corner at suicidal speeds all in the same lap so again it's all a bit complicated (for me) to say whether an F1 car is aerodynamically 'good' or not. One thing for sure is that there's a heck of a lot of aerodynamic things going on and for the amount of brain/computing power that gets thrown at these thing, I think they're pretty optimized at the very unique task they perform.
As to whether their drag coefficient is lower/higher than the evo, I'm not sure, but I am pretty certain that they are not the most drag-free shapes around.
p.s. 215mph is waaay high. I heard they can do it at around 120mph.
Back on topic, I don't see having a larger i/c will increase drag appreciably (unless you are talking about an extremely large one, say twice the size). Again, I suppose in racing it's another thing to balance. I mean would you rather have a little more drag or would you rather have it overheat? The ideal solution is to work out exactly how much cooling you need and use the minimum amount of stuff that will let your car work at it's optimum. Going back to F1, they run cars at very hot and very cold places so I guess a lot of time it's a compromise.
Coming back to i/c's in our evos, bear in mind that the drag caused by larger ones only really come into play at very high speeds _but_ the increased performance will be felt all the way up to that speed. [I am assuming that the larger one will cool better with less perssure drop].
but in any case, there is nothing wrong wtih the shape of the f1 car... i already said it's done very well... but the stuff under it, mainly the large diffuser, the stuff around it, the fins and wings and spats. those take up a TON air and just stop the car. it's like running around with a parachute open all the time. and actually it IS! it's just not what you usually think of.
as far as air planes... they also operate in a range from 0 to lift, i mean they take off and fly... the fact is they DON'T operate above that range lest they stall and die. f1 cars are of course optimsed for a certain speed and they have certain very large adjustabilities but it won't kill anyone for them to go BEYOND (might kill them to go under), because like i already said even in seperated flow conditions they still make the down force they just get increased drag which is easily overcome by horsepower.
and there is no way that an f1 runs on teh bare minimum ducting possible as previously stated by the guy this WAS meant for. in f1 reliability is key, they travel all over the world during varying seasons and they can't make monocoque changes (ducting), they make it for the hardest condition and that's that.
Last edited by trinydex; Mar 15, 2006 at 02:49 AM.
Evolved Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
From: Bangkok
Originally Posted by trinydex
dude... totally wasn't meant for you.
as far as air planes... they also operate in a range from 0 to lift, i mean they take off and fly... the fact is they DON'T operate above that range lest they stall and die. f1 cars are of course optimsed for a certain speed and they have certain very large adjustabilities but it won't kill anyone for them to go BEYOND (might kill them to go under), because like i already said even in seperated flow conditions they still make the down force they just get increased drag which is easily overcome by horsepower.
as far as air planes... they also operate in a range from 0 to lift, i mean they take off and fly... the fact is they DON'T operate above that range lest they stall and die. f1 cars are of course optimsed for a certain speed and they have certain very large adjustabilities but it won't kill anyone for them to go BEYOND (might kill them to go under), because like i already said even in seperated flow conditions they still make the down force they just get increased drag which is easily overcome by horsepower.
Airplanes are only at low speeds (when they need their wings) for very short periods, but you can get 2nd gear corners at some tracks. cars won't fall of the road, but the wings aren't adjustable as speed changes either, so when your wings stall, they're just making drag and nothing else...
anyway, I think you know what i'm saying... I'm off to do some s2k bashing...
that's exactly what i was sayin'.
anyway i also highly doubt that 1% efficiency million dollar deal. cuz the deal would sound nothing like that. i can easily improve the efficiency of an f1 car by 1 percent. take off the wing. BAM your coefficient of drag goes down. but they prolly meant improve the cd while still making the same amount of downforce. fine... put a speed variable electricly controlled motorized wing on the car BAM cd is maximumly efficient. oh... but those are illegal in f1... SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING? no such deal would have ever been made, which means the point of the original poster was lame.
also... i do know what tae is talking about, computational fluid dynamics is a big interest to me and they do use cfd now as all the rules for f1 have undergone major changes in the past 2 years, specifically targetting downforce and straight line speeds.
anyway i also highly doubt that 1% efficiency million dollar deal. cuz the deal would sound nothing like that. i can easily improve the efficiency of an f1 car by 1 percent. take off the wing. BAM your coefficient of drag goes down. but they prolly meant improve the cd while still making the same amount of downforce. fine... put a speed variable electricly controlled motorized wing on the car BAM cd is maximumly efficient. oh... but those are illegal in f1... SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING? no such deal would have ever been made, which means the point of the original poster was lame.
also... i do know what tae is talking about, computational fluid dynamics is a big interest to me and they do use cfd now as all the rules for f1 have undergone major changes in the past 2 years, specifically targetting downforce and straight line speeds.
Last edited by trinydex; Mar 15, 2006 at 04:43 PM.
Originally Posted by trinydex
that's exactly what i was sayin'.
anyway i also highly doubt that 1% efficiency million dollar deal. cuz the deal would sound nothing like that. i can easily improve the efficiency of an f1 car by 1 percent. take off the wing. BAM your coefficient of drag goes down. but they prolly meant improve the cd while still making the same amount of downforce. fine... put a speed variable electricly controlled motorized wing on the car BAM cd is maximumly efficient. oh... but those are illegal in f1... SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING? no such deal would have ever been made, which means the point of the original poster was lame.
also... i do know what tae is talking about, computational fluid dynamics is a big interest to me and they do use cfd now as all the rules for f1 have undergone major changes in the past 2 years, specifically targetting downforce and straight line speeds.
anyway i also highly doubt that 1% efficiency million dollar deal. cuz the deal would sound nothing like that. i can easily improve the efficiency of an f1 car by 1 percent. take off the wing. BAM your coefficient of drag goes down. but they prolly meant improve the cd while still making the same amount of downforce. fine... put a speed variable electricly controlled motorized wing on the car BAM cd is maximumly efficient. oh... but those are illegal in f1... SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING? no such deal would have ever been made, which means the point of the original poster was lame.
also... i do know what tae is talking about, computational fluid dynamics is a big interest to me and they do use cfd now as all the rules for f1 have undergone major changes in the past 2 years, specifically targetting downforce and straight line speeds.
Got that? The guy worked on this project was the top Phd fluid dynamics expert working for the Army. He showed many computer simulations on F1 car using his unique equations and Toyota actually built the body desgined by him and did many wind tunnel tests. You don't know what is going on in this industry. He provides solutions for many unsolved fluid dynamics problems. I don't think I will argue with that guy about that. F1 car is really aero dynamical car!
Edit:
Dang that down force! No wonder he can't do anything about that drag!
Ok, I give up
F1 car has more drag than Hummer!
Here are the list of drag coefficients.
2.1 - a smooth brick
0.9 - a typical bicycle plus cyclist
0.7 to 1.1 - typical values for a Formula 1 car (wing settings change for each circuit)
0.7 - Caterham Seven
at least 0.6 - a typical truck
0.57 - Hummer H2, 2003
0.51 - Citroën 2CV
0.42 - Lamborghini Countach, 1974
0.39 - Dodge Durango, 2004
0.38 - Volkswagen Beetle
0.38 - Mazda Miata, 1989
0.372 - Ferrari F50, 1996
0.36 - Citroën DS, 1955
0.36 - Ferrari Testarossa, 1986
0.36 - Opel GT, 1969
0.36 - Citroën CX, 1974 (the car was named after the term for drag coefficient)
0.34 - Ford Sierra, 1982
0.34 - Ferrari F40, 1987
0.34 - Chevrolet Caprice, 1994-1996
0.34 - Chevrolet Corvette Z06, 2006
0.338 - Chevrolet Camaro, 1995
0.33 - Dodge Charger, 2006
0.33 - Audi A3, 2006
0.33 - Subaru Impreza WRX STi, 2004
0.32 - Toyota Celica,1995-2005
0.31 - Citroën GSA, 1980
0.30 - Saab 92, 1947
0.30 - Audi 100, 1983
0.30 - Porsche 996, 1997
0.29 - Honda CRX HF 1988
0.29 - Subaru XT, 1985
0.29 - BMW 8-Series, 1989
0.29 - Porsche Boxster, 2005
0.29 - Chevrolet Corvette, 2005
0.29 - Mazda RX-7 FC3S Aero Package, 1986-91
0.31 - Mazda RX-7 FC3S, 1986-91
0.33 - Mazda RX-7 FC3C, 1987-91
0.29 - Honda Accord Hybrid, 2005
0.29 - Lotus Elite, 1958
0.29 - Mercedes-Benz W203 C-Class Coupe, 2001 - 2007
0.28 - Toyota Camry and sister model Lexus ES, 2005
0.28 - Porsche 997, 2004
0.28 - Saab 9-3, 2003
0.27 - Infiniti G35, 2002 (0.26 with "aero package")
0.27 - Mercedes-Benz W203 C-Class Sedan, 2001 - 2007
0.27 - Toyota Camry Hybrid, 2007
0.26 - Toyota Prius, 2004
0.26 - Vauxhall Calibra, 1989
0.25 - Honda Insight, 1999
0.24 - Audi A2 1.2 TDI, 2001
0.212 - Tatra T77, 1938
0.195 - General Motors EV1, 1996
0.19 - Mercedes-Benz "Bionic Car" Concept, 2005 [1] (based on the boxfish)
0.137 - Ford Probe V prototype, 1985
Last edited by taenaive; Mar 15, 2006 at 07:20 PM.
Found evo's coefficient!
http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.za/l...ancer_aero.asp
The Evolution VIII also boasts a coefficient of drag (Cd) that is 0.01 lower than the VII, at 0.36.
Edit: And if you put the vortex generator, you can reduce the drag coefficient by .007
http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.za/l...ancer_aero.asp
The Evolution VIII also boasts a coefficient of drag (Cd) that is 0.01 lower than the VII, at 0.36.
Edit: And if you put the vortex generator, you can reduce the drag coefficient by .007
Last edited by taenaive; Mar 16, 2006 at 05:53 PM.