197
6
Aerodynamics of theComplete Vehicle
Introduction
Just as racing success is measured in terms o time, so can the dierence betweenthe brilliant and less competent designs be measured by time: The winners areusually those who are the quickest to properly implement a new idea, i.e., by taking ewer iterations to arrive at the right solution. Resources or large budgetsare equivalent to time, so a large budget is oten exchangeable with wisdom.Given sucient time, teams with bad designs or lack o support, or both, willeventually reach the right solution—but in the meantime the brilliant (or theover-supported) teams will be working on their next trick. A careul observer o the technological advances in the various orms o motorsport can clearly seethe migration o good and bad ideas among the various teams.This short prologue is aimed at explaining the large number o black-magictricks that appear as aerodynamic modications—and why some o the weirdesto all came rom the best-supported teams. Because those teams could (and stillcan) aord the largest number o trial and errors (mostly mistakes), they haveseen the winner’s circle more oten—which does not necessarily mean that they always had the best aerodynamic design.The preceding chapters ocused our attention on the basic disciplinesinfuencing vehicle design and aerodynamics. In this chapter this inormationwill be used to examine both generic body shapes applicable to high-speedvehicle design and some o the components aimed at improving the aerodynamicperormance o various race cars. Later on I will ocus on those tricks that didwork, and or the sake o brevity will ignore those that did not (e.g., doublefoors, three wings, with one above the driver, etc.).In order to simpliy this initial discussion, the numerous shapes o race carsare grouped into three generic categories:
•
Sedan-based race cars: IMSA GTU, GTO, NASCAR, European Touring, etc.These cars bear strong resemblance in their outer lines to their passengercar sibling, and only minor aerodynamic modications are allowed. Fig. 6-1shows one such a vehicle (1993, IMSA GTS Class) with open windows, butno opening doors (which is a widely used concept).
•
Enclosed-wheel race cars: IMSA GTP, FISA group C, etc. These vehicles arebasically the designer’s dream, since the body shape is mostly unrestricted.Most leagues allow underbody tunnels (venturis) and complex wing shapes.Fig. 6-2 depicts an example.
•
Open-wheel race cars: Indy, Formula 1, 2, etc. These vehicles have ourexposed wheels, a narrow body which may have underbody tunnels (Indy
198
Chapter 6: Aerodynamics of the Complete Vehicle
cars), and two large wings mounted at the ront and rear ends o the vehicleor aerodynamic downorce. These race cars are single seaters while theprevious two categories, in principle, must have a wider seating area. Fig. 6-3shows an example.The discussion that ollows begins with several basic aerodynamicobservations relevant to the three vehicle categories. These fuid dynamicphenomena then can be used as building blocks in a hypothetical, conceptualvehicle design. More detailed geometrical concepts aimed at improving vehicleaerodynamics are presented later in the chapter. In general, the sedan-based andprototype race cars have a more promising potential or an ecient aerodynamic
Fig. 6-1.
A typical production-based race car; the 1992/3 Nissan300ZX Twin-Turbo (only the exterior resembles,vaguely, the productionvehicle). Dennis Ashlock photo.
Fig. 6-3.
A typical open-wheel race car:1992 Williams FW14B,Formula One. Richard Dole photo.
Fig. 6-2.
A typical prototype race car: the 1992 Jaguar XJR-14.Courtesy o TWR USA.
199
Basic Vehicle Body Concepts
design. This is because the aerodynamic components o an open-wheel race carare within the disturbed fow eld created by the our large, exposed wheels andtheir wakes.
Basic Vehicle Body Concepts
The discussion on the eect o aerodynamics on vehicle perormance (Chapter5) clearly indicates that the typical objectives o a good aerodynamic design are1) to reduce drag and 2) to increase the downorce (not to mention reduce thesensitivity o the ront/rear downorce ratio to pitch, yaw, roll, etc.). With theseobjectives in mind let us investigate how some very generic changes in a body’sgeometry can aect its aerodynamic lit and drag. The inormation ound onthis topic in the open literature can be urther divided into two subcategories.The rst group identies typical fow elds over generic bodies with quite sharpcorners, resembling a variety o road vehicles. The second category includesadditional generic shapes, more relevant to race cars, which have the potentialto generate downorce with reasonably low drag. The ollowing two subsectionsdescribe these two groups o generic body shapes.Recall the aerodynamic data presented in Chapter 2, Fig. 2-23, on two basicellipsoid shapes with dimensions reminiscent o the ratios used on road vehicles.The important conclusion to be drawn rom this gure is that both positive andnegative lit can be generated by bodies when placed close to the ground. Drag,however, is primarily a result o the blunt rear-end shape, which creates localfow separation, as shown in Fig. 2-3 (note that skin-riction drag is usually small, as indicated in Table 2.4). While the rst type o design in Fig. 2-23 ocuses
Flow Field overGeneric GroundVehicle Shapes
Fig. 6-4.
Typical separated-ow patterns ound on some automobile-related shapes.
A. Flat plate at angle of attackC. “Three box” bodyD. Tapered lower surface
V
∞
B. Slanted upper surface
V
∞
separated flowE. Basic venturi
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
New Directions in Race Car Aerodynamics by Joseph Katz - Excerpt from Chapter 6: Aerodynamics of the Complete Vehicle
An excerpt from Chapter 6: Aerodynamics of the Complete Vehicle, from the acclaimed technical reference book New Directions in Race Car Aerodynamics by Joseph Katz. For more information on this automotive engineering textbook, visit http://www.bentleypublishers.com/product.htm?code=gaer
2.1K
Reads
18
Readcasts
556
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
