Stealth III Aerodynamics Report

STEALTH III AERODYNAMIC
ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPMENT

Nathaniel Olson
Stealth III Aerodynamic Analysis and Development Nathaniel Olson
Abstract
There is a lack of published literature that goes in the detail of low drag aerodynamics on a
small enclosed single seater electric car. This project is aimed at investigating further and to
add to this area of knowledge that is low drag aerodynamics. Most of the investigation will be
based around the floor with its interaction with the moving ground and wheels. The primary
aim of the project was to reduce the coefficient of drag by 10% at 0 and 15 deg wind yaw
conditions. Three areas of development were identified within the floor designs including 2
floor angle models, 3 floor edge radius models and 3 wheel fairing designs. Overall 20 CFD
simulations were created, resulting in a large array of data points that will assist future
developments on low drag vehicles.
Through the numerical and experimental analysis within this project, the primary aim was
mostly achieved with the developed body reducing drag coefficient by 4.64%, falling short of
the aim, however at 15 degrees yaw, it reduced by 10.13%, successfully meeting the aim. In
terms of lift coefficient, it achieved a near zero balance between lift and downforce in zero
yaw with a value of 0.009, well within the target range set.
A wind tunnel model of the reference design was designed, manufactured and tested in the
Coventry University Wind Tunnel, producing an useful set of results and flow visualisation
records that will aid future development. A few flow structures were observed to be similar to
the analysis carried out in the CFD simulations. There were a few shortcomings with the
experimental configuration which with further work would bring a higher level of accuracy
and correlation with the numerical analysis carried out.
1|Page
Table of Contents
Declaration ......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Abstract............................................................................................................................................ 1
Acknowledgments.............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
List of figures ................................................................................................................................... 4
List of tables .................................................................................................................................... 6
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 7
1.1. Greenpower Aerodynamics ................................................................................................ 7
1.2. Aims and Constraints .......................................................................................................... 8
2. Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 10
2.1. Summary of relevant literatures ....................................................................................... 10
2.2. Investigations into underfloor diffuser angles.................................................................. 12
2.3. Investigations into wheel wells designs ........................................................................... 15
2.4. Investigations into reducing aerodynamic drag in high yaw conditions ........................ 16
2.5. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 18
3. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 19
3.1. Numerical ........................................................................................................................... 19
3.1.1. Reference CAD Model ............................................................................................... 19
3.1.2. Experimental CAD Models ........................................................................................ 21
3.1.3. CFD Setup and Mesh Settings .................................................................................. 24
3.1.4. Mesh Independency Study ........................................................................................ 27
3.2. Experimental ...................................................................................................................... 28
3.2.1. Wind Tunnel Setup ..................................................................................................... 28
3.2.2 Wind Tunnel Model Specification ............................................................................... 28
3.2.3. Wind Tunnel Model Design and Manufacture .......................................................... 30
4. Numerical Results ................................................................................................................. 33
4.1. Zero Degree Yaw Simulations.......................................................................................... 33
4.1.1. Floor Angle .................................................................................................................. 33
4.1.2. Floor Edge Radius...................................................................................................... 34
4.1.3. Wheel Fairings ............................................................................................................ 35
4.1.4. Developed Model........................................................................................................ 36
4.2. 15 Degrees Yaw Simulations ........................................................................................... 37
4.2.1. Floor Angle .................................................................................................................. 37
4.2.2. Floor Edge Radius...................................................................................................... 38
4.2.3. Wheel Fairings ............................................................................................................ 39
2|Page
4.2.4. Developed Model........................................................................................................ 40

5. Numerical Discussion............................................................................................................... 41
5.1. Reference........................................................................................................................... 41
5.2. Floor Angle ......................................................................................................................... 43
5.3. Floor Edge Radius............................................................................................................. 46
5.4. Wheel Fairing ..................................................................................................................... 50
5.5. Developed Model............................................................................................................... 53
6. Experimental Results ............................................................................................................... 57
7. Experimental Discussion ......................................................................................................... 60
8. Future Work .............................................................................................................................. 64
Isosurface set to 170 Pa Total Pressure .................................................................................... 64
9. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 65
10. Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 67
10.1. Appendix 1 – CFD Reference Mesh Parameters Values ............................................ 67
10.2. Appendix 2 – Coventry University Wind Tunnel Full Specification ............................. 68
10.3. Appendix 3 – Wind Tunnel Raw Data............................................................................ 69
11. References.............................................................................................................................. 70
3|Page
List of figures
Figure 1 - Stealth II at Dunsfold Park 2017 .................................................................................. 7
Figure 2 - Development Process for Project ................................................................................ 8
Figure 3 - PAC-Car II in Nogaro 2005 (ETH Zurich, 2005) ....................................................... 10
Figure 4 - Basic Morelli Shape (Anthony Morelli, 1976) ............................................................ 11
Figure 5 - Influence of diffuser angle on drag coefficient (RH Barnard, 2009) ........................ 12
Figure 6 - Morelli Model (Left), Morelli Model with Wheels (Right) (Morelli, 1976) ................. 13
Figure 7 – Negative velocity distribution around the wheel fairings of Shape 2 (Courtesy of
RUAG) (ETH Zurich, 2005) .......................................................................................................... 15
Figure 8 - Front Wheel Fairings (ETH Zurich, 2005) ................................................................. 16
Figure 9 - The Shape 2 drag coefficient Cx, plotted for various yaw angles, the wind tunnel
model, the initial PAC-Car II and the optimised PAC-Car II (ETH Zurich, 2005) .................... 17
Figure 10 - Shape 2 in CFD (Courtesy of RUAG) (ETH Zurich, 2005) .................................... 17
Figure 11 - Stealth III at Castle Combe F24+ Heat 2018 .......................................................... 19
Figure 12 - Stealth III - Reference CAD Model .......................................................................... 19
Figure 13 - Front Wheel Internal Volume with Bulkheads ......................................................... 20
Figure 14 – Centreline cross section with filled internal volume (red) showing open rear end
internal volume.............................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 15 - Reference Stealth III Chassis with Wheels ............................................................. 21
Figure 16 - High Tail (Blue), Reference (Orange), Flat Floor (Green) ..................................... 22
Figure 17 - Varying Levels of Radiuses and Wheel Exposure ................................................. 23
Figure 18 - Wheel Fairing Experimental Designs ...................................................................... 24
Figure 19 - Wall Y+ Scalar of Reference Zero Yaw Simulation ................................................ 25
Figure 20 - Wind Tunnel Side View (Mesh)................................................................................ 26
Figure 21 - Coefficient of Drag vs Mesh Cell Count .................................................................. 27
Figure 22 - Coventry University Wind Tunnel Schematic (Coventry University, 2019) .......... 28
Figure 23 - Wind Tunnel Model CAD View................................................................................. 29
Figure 24 - Wind Tunnel Model Chassis - Drawing (Left) & Installed Chassis (Right) ........... 30
Figure 25 – 26 Components manufactured by 3D printing ....................................................... 30
Figure 26 - Wind Tunnel Surface Finish Process ...................................................................... 31
Figure 27 - Completed Wind Tunnel Model Side View.............................................................. 31
Figure 28 – Completed Wind Tunnel Model Rear Right View (Left) and Front View (Right) . 32
Figure 29 - Velocity and Pressure Scalar of ZX Plane at Rear Axle ........................................ 41
Figure 30 - Velocity Scalar of Reference Front Wheel Internal Volume (Body removed for
visual clarity and Plane at Axle) .................................................................................................. 42
Figure 31 - Pressure Scalar on Centerline ZX Plane for all Floor Angles ............................... 43
Figure 32 – Streamline showing air circulation within rear volume – Zero Yaw Reference vs
High Tail ........................................................................................................................................ 43
Figure 33 – Floor Angles at Zero Yaw – Rear Wake Total Pressure Scalar ........................... 44
Figure 34 - Floor Angles at 15° Yaw - Rear Wake Pressure Scalar ........................................ 45
Figure 35 - Farside Front Wheel Wake at 15 Degrees Yaw - Reference (Left) vs 90mm
(Right) ............................................................................................................................................ 47
Figure 36 - Underfloor Total Pressure Scalar (No Clipping) ..................................................... 48
Figure 37 - Front Wheel Pressure Wake (Zero Yaw) - Scalar Sections .................................. 50
Figure 38 – 15° Yaw Wheel Fairing Wakes Pressure Scalar at Z 0.05m ................................ 51
Figure 39 - Developed Rear Fairing vs Fixed and Reference Models ..................................... 53
Figure 40 - Total Pressure Scalar of Reference vs Developed Models - Bottom View .......... 53
4|Page
Figure 41 - Underfloor Airflow Distribution of Reference (Top) vs Developed (Bottom) -

Streamline at Z 0.12m .................................................................................................................. 54
Figure 42 - Reference vs Developed Pressure Scalar – Front Side View ............................... 55
Figure 43 - Reference vs Developed Rear Wake at 1m offset from Car ................................. 55
Figure 44 - 15° Yaw Rear Total Pressure Wake Reference vs Developed ............................. 56
Figure 45 - Velocity Scalar of Developed Front Wheel Internal Volume (Body removed for
visual clarity and Plane at Axle) .................................................................................................. 56
Figure 46 - Wind Tunnel - Coefficient of Drag vs Yaw Angle Graph........................................ 57
Figure 47 - Wind Tunnel - Coefficient of Lift vs Yaw Angle Graph ........................................... 58
Figure 48 - Wind Tunnel – Pitch Moment vs Yaw Angle Graph ............................................... 59
Figure 49 - Front side view of wind tunnel reference model showing position of wheels
relative to ground .......................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 50 - Wind Tunnel - ‘Suction' Effect of the Front Wheel Openings at Zero Yaw........... 62
Figure 51 - Reference Wind Tunnel Model - Tuft indicating air being ducted through opening
........................................................................................................................................................ 62
Figure 52 - Reverse Flow into Rear Internal Volume - Underfloor (Left) & Helmet Fairing
Channel (Right) ............................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 53 - Tuft Direction indicating flow direction at 15° yaw on Reference Model .............. 63
Figure 54 - Top Body Edge Vortex Formation at 15° Yaw - Axial Velocity (Left) and Total
Pressure (Right) ............................................................................................................................ 64
Figure 55 - Wind Tunnel – All Raw Data vs Yaw Angle Graph ................................................ 69
5|Page
List of tables
Table 1 - Relevant 2018 Greenpower Bodywork Regulations (Greenpower, 2018) ................ 9
Table 2 - Aerodynamic Coefficient from Morelli Wind Tunnel Test (Morelli, 1976) ................. 13
Table 3 - Coefficient of Pressure and Shear Drag Distribution for Reference Model ............. 26
Table 4 - CFD Surface Conditions .............................................................................................. 26
Table 5 - Mesh Independency Study Results ............................................................................ 27
Table 6 – Zero Degree Yaw Reference vs Floor Angle Model CFD Results .......................... 33
Table 7 - Zero Degree Yaw Reference vs Floor Edge Radius Model CFD Results ............... 34
Table 8 – Zero Degree Yaw Reference vs Wheel Fairing Model CFD Results ...................... 35
Table 9 – Zero Degree Yaw Reference vs Developed Model CFD Results ............................ 36
Table 10 – 15 Degrees Yaw Reference vs Floor Angle Model CFD Results .......................... 37
Table 11 – 15 Degrees Yaw Reference vs Floor Edge Radius Model CFD Results .............. 38
Table 12 – 15 Degrees Yaw Reference vs Wheel Fairing Model CFD Results ...................... 39
Table 13 – 15 Degrees Yaw Reference vs Developed Model CFD Results ........................... 40
Table 14 - Floor Edge Radius at Zero and 15° Yaw - Total Pressure Scalar Sections .......... 46
Table 15 - Wind Tunnel Reference Model - Coefficient of Drag vs Yaw Angle....................... 57
Table 16 - Wind Tunnel Reference Model - Coefficient of Lift vs Yaw Angle .......................... 58
Table 17 - Wind Tunnel Reference Model – Pitch Moment vs Yaw Angle .............................. 59
Table 18 - Reference Wind Tunnel Test Raw Data ................................................................... 69
6|Page
1. Introduction
1.1. Greenpower Aerodynamics
Greenpower is an international competition that allows students of a young age to design,
build and race small single seater electric cars such as Stealth II in Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Stealth II at Dunsfold Park 2017
Greenpower mandates a standard 240-watt motor and 2 x 12 volts 36Ah batteries that cars
must use to propel and therefore the main differentiator is in the efficiency of the chassis and
aerodynamics. A top F24+ category car would run at approximately 40mph average speed
(Greenpower, 2018) depending on circuit layout and due to this relatively low speed, the wind’s
direction and magnitude has a significant impact on race speeds. Aerodynamic drag
coefficient in a wide range of yaw conditions plays a more important role here than other typical
race cars such as Formula Ford, GT3, LMP1 and F1.
Therefore, stemming from the unique set of aerodynamic conditions, there is a lack of research
in this area of reducing the wind-averaged drag coefficient of low speed and drag 4-wheeled
vehicles. This project is targeted at this area and will be using a model of Stealth III, a car
finishing 3rd in the F24+ 2018 championship, as a reference. The underfloor is severely
underdeveloped and has been recommended by the team to split into three areas for further
investigation including the following:
• Floor diffuser angle

• Floor edge radius
• Addition of wheel fairings
The best combination of designs obtained from CFD simulations will be combined in a single
final model to be tested and compared in CFD and the Coventry University Wind Tunnel.
7|Page
The planned developmental process from the reference to developed model followed as
shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 - Development Process for Project
1.2. Aims and Constraints

Project Aims
• The primary aim of this project is to reduce the drag coefficient of the reference design by
10% at a wind yaw angle of 0 and 15 degrees, running at an air velocity of 18m/s.
• Achieve a lift coefficient of 0 ± 0.2 in a zero-degree yaw condition to ensure minimal impact
on the vehicle’s rolling resistance at high speeds.
• Maintain total frontal area within 0.03m2 of reference shell. The reference shell is a close
fit to the current chassis and therefore there isn’t any scope to reduce the frontal area. The
focus is to improve the drag coefficient via changes in the underfloor design rather than in
frontal area.
• Design and build a custom wind tunnel modular unit that has inbuilt driven rotating wheels
that both the reference and developed aerodynamic shell can be tested on it. This will
allow for comparison of the difference made between the referenced and developed model
in both CFD and Wind tunnel and validate the body design and results.
8|Page
Design Constraints
Any development of the reference model must comply with the Greenpower 2018 technical
rules and regulations. Below in Table 1, the relevant bodywork regulations are outlined.
T3.1. Tyres must not be less than 300 mm nor greater than 520 mm in diameter.
T3.3. The track of the vehicle must not be less than 500 mm front or rear. The track is deemed
as the measured width between centres of tyres where they contact the ground. The track
may vary front to rear.
T4.1. The base of the main batteries must be at or below 100 mm from ground level.
T4.2. The driver’s seat including any padding must be at or below 100 mm from ground level.
T5.1. The vehicle must not exceed 2800 mm in length, 1200 mm in width, and 1200 mm in height.
T5.2. Ground clearance must not be less than 30 mm.
T5.3. No part of the vehicle may extend more than 800 mm behind the centre point of the rear
wheels.
T7.4. The cockpit opening, when viewed from directly above must be able to accommodate a
rectangle 600 mm in length and 350 mm wide with no intrusions, e.g. helmet fairings,
instrument covers, etc. must not overhang this area.
T7.6. Bodywork, including windscreens, to the front or sides of the driver’s helmet may not be
higher than the bottom of the driver’s helmet visor aperture.
Table 1 - Relevant 2018 Greenpower Bodywork Regulations (Greenpower, 2018)
9|Page
2. Literature Review
2.1. Summary of relevant literatures
Below are summaries of 5 separate relevant literatures that are later explored in what
information that they offer to each topic area that is being investigated in this project.
Literature 1 - The World’s Most Fuel-Efficient Vehicle – ETH Zurich
A book focused around the design and development of PAC Car II (Figure 3) which competed
in Shell Eco Marathon 2005 and is still currently the world’s most fuel-efficient car. Shell Eco
Marathon is a similar competition to Greenpower with similar objectives of trying to achieve
the further distance possible on a set amount of energy. Chapter 5 contains information on
their aerodynamic development including CFD and wind tunnel analysis results from zero to
15 degrees yaw on 3 separate designs. They investigated the use of cambered wheel wells
to reduce the impact of the venturi tunnel that occurs between the two fairings. Their
development process is of a similar style of what is planned to be used in this research project.
(Olson, 2019)
Figure 3 - PAC-Car II in Nogaro 2005 (ETH Zurich, 2005)
Literature 2 – The Body Shape of Minimum Drag by Anthony Morelli
A technical paper published in 1976 featuring a well-known low drag Morelli shape (Figure 4)
which is said to be optimised for a car body shape operating at near proximity to the ground.
The key aspect of this paper to take into the project research is the interaction between the
body’s underside and the ground, giving me a starting point in floor angle and curvature on
developing the underfloor angle of the reference shell. (Olson, 2019)
10 | P a g e
Figure 4 - Basic Morelli Shape (Anthony Morelli, 1976)
Literature 3 – Road Vehicle Aerodynamic Design – Third Edition by RH Barnard
A book detailing a comprehensive overview on all the aerodynamic features and systems that
occurs on all types of road passenger vehicles nowadays including family, convertible,
commercial and high-performance cars. The information contained would be extremely
relevant to the development of road passenger vehicles but however is lacking in specialist
areas such as low drag and velocity vehicles with fully enclosed wheels fairings, bubble
canopies, efficient ways of exhausting heat generated from the powertrain, aerodynamic
performance in high yaw conditions. (Olson, 2019)
Literature 4 - Necessity and Premises for Reducing the Aerodynamic Drag of Future
Passenger Cars by Buchheim R., Deutenbach K.R. and Luckoff H.J
A paper published in 1981 that investigated methods of improving fuel economy for future
mass-produced passenger cars in which they found that drag reduction was the most
promising with 25% to 35% reduction being feasible in the future. They went into detail of
optimisation in each area such as underfloor angle, roof shape, front end, rear end, and
windshield angle. (Olson, 2019)
Literature 5 - The Influence of Ground Simulation on the Aerodynamic of Simple Car Shapes
with an Underfloor Diffuser by J. P. Howell
A paper published in 1994 that investigated the change in diffuser angle on a basic road car
body with varying length and angle. In conclusion a long and steeper tail perform better in
reducing drag coefficient but there is a point of where that benefit is lost, and more drag is
generated. The impact of the rotating wheel being more exposed is not clear on how this is
controlled. (Olson, 2019)
11 | P a g e
2.2. Investigations into underfloor diffuser angles
Figure 5 - Influence of diffuser angle on drag coefficient (RH Barnard, 2009)
RH Barnard combined the data available from Buchhiem et al and JP Howell, and found that
with variation of diffuser length and angle, it’s possible to end up with an increase in drag. ‘The
upper and lower surfaces therefore cannot be optimised independently, and the rear end has
to be treated as a single three dimensional shape.’ (RH Barnard, 2009) While the angle can
be investigated in principle by itself, it would need to work with the entirety of the rear wake
flow structure to minimise drag production.
Figure 5 suggests that a diffuser angle from 5 – 20 degrees would give the most reduction in
drag depending on the length of the diffuser. However, any increase in diffuser angle would
increase the effect of the underside venturi tunnel, accelerating the airflow and generate
unwanted downforce. This would then in turn increase the rolling resistance, so a compromise
must be struck between drag and downforce.
In the investigations carried out by Buchhiem and Howell, it’s not clear how they simulated the
rotating wheel as any increase in diffuser angle would in turn expose the wheel more, feature
a larger cut-out in the bodywork and increase the overall drag.
All their tests were carried out at zero yaw direction, there’s no mention about its effect in high
yaw conditions. Since this is applied on passenger cars where there would be no heat rejection
at the most rearward face and therefore the size of the rear face is not of a concern. However,
on a vehicle that does exhaust heat out of the rear end, featuring a high diffuser would reduce
the outlet area for heat rejection (Olson, 2019).
12 | P a g e
Morelli Body Shape
The Morelli shape is said to be a body shape that is optimised for running in near proximity to
the ground. It’s aimed at improving the aerodynamic qualities of a passenger road car which
has stricter regulations and customer requirements that is not necessary on a single seater
vehicle. However, the body shape in principle can be learnt from with it featuring an extremely
high tail that begins ~1/4 of the body length behind the leading edge which would typically
produce a low-pressure region and therefore downforce. The direction of the tail would indicate
that it generates an upwash and forming two corresponding vortexes at the most outboard
rearward point. Despite this, the drag coefficient of the wheel-less body was 0.071 shown in
Table 2 (Olson, 2019).
Cx Cz Cm
Without Wheels 0.071 -0.044 -0.187
With Wheels 0.177 0.166 -0.074
Table 2 - Aerodynamic Coefficient from Morelli Wind Tunnel Test (Morelli, 1976)
Figure 6 - Morelli Model (Left), Morelli Model with Wheels (Right) (Morelli, 1976)
Morelli found a substantial increase in drag when testing a modified version with wheels added
(Figure 6) which likely would’ve caused flow separation along the bottom half of the body.
Our understanding of aerodynamic principles and low drag shapes has improved since 1976,
when this paper was published, especially with the use of new CFD software and more
advanced wind tunnels. No investigations were carried out on the performance of this shape
in high yaw conditions which is a crucial aspect of real-world performance. The highly radiused
corners and narrow high tail of the basic model would suggest that it would’ve performed well
but can’t draw any conclusion until it’s validated in a wind tunnel (Olson, 2019).
13 | P a g e
The book ‘Road Vehicle Aerodynamic Design’ went into the detail on how rolling resistance
would increase when there is an increase in downforce. Equation 1 entails the total resistance
force including rolling and aerodynamic contributions. Rolling resistance is assumed to be a
constant 𝑘𝑟 to eliminate complexity that comes from the variability of rolling resistance i.e.
temperature changes.
1 1
𝐹= 𝑝𝑉 2 𝐴𝐶𝑑 + 𝑘𝑟(𝑊 − 𝑝𝑉 2 2𝐴𝐶𝑙 )
2 2
Equation 1 - Total Resistance Force (RH Barnard, 2009)
Equation 1 determines that for vehicles of low drag, rolling resistance has a more significant
contribution to the total resistance force acting on the car and if possible, any lift that can be
generated that doesn’t compromise the drag, cornering grip and overall car’s balance would
be beneficial in reducing rolling resistance. The floor diffuser angle would largely dictate this
aspect due to its significance of surface area. (Olson, 2019).
14 | P a g e
2.3. Investigations into wheel wells designs

The book ‘Road Vehicle Aerodynamic Design’ has a brief section on the effect that rotating
wheels has on the overall aerodynamic drag coefficient. They found that it can contribute from
0.05 to 0.084 on a typical road vehicle. However, the data is based on typical tyres found on
passenger cars which are significantly wider than the bicycle tyres that are typically in use on
Greenpower vehicles due to their low rolling resistance and frontal area. Therefore, the airflow
along the sides of the wheels play a far more important role than the airflow’s behaviour in
front of the tyre. The reference model has disc wheels, blanking off any internal structure and
providing a smooth surface on both sides to minimise drag created. (Olson, 2019).
Figure 7 – Negative velocity distribution around the wheel fairings of Shape 2 (Courtesy of RUAG) (ETH Zurich,
2005)
ETH Zurich found the symmetrical design of the front wheel fairings promotes flow separation
on the inboard face in their CFD analysis, near the trailing edge shown in Figure 7. This is
caused by the venturi tunnel between the two fairings, accelerating the flow and lowering the
pressure within the region. The airflow reaches 3/4 along the fairing’s chord until it detaches.
It detached on the inboard face due to the lower pressure of the tunnel drawing air travelling
outboard of the wheel fairing inwards which as side effect aids flow attachment on the outer
faces (Olson, 2019).
As shown in Figure 8, they opted for a cambered fairing profile to reduce the change in the
centre cross section area, thus reducing the air’s velocity and raise the pressure in this region.
This reduces the downforce generated and therefore reduces the rolling resistance as well.
Cambered wheel fairing profile is a design feature which will be taken forward and
15 | P a g e
implemented on the test designs to evaluate its effect on a 4-wheeler vehicle such as a
Greenpower car. (Olson, 2019).
Figure 8 - Front Wheel Fairings (ETH Zurich, 2005)
However, the cambered air foil profile produces a stream of accelerated airflow on the
outboard face which imparts a side force. With incoming laminar airflow at zero yaw direction,
the two fairings would cancel each other out and have a stable flow structure, but in turbulent
and cross wind conditions, there is the potential to have an unstable vehicle at high velocities
which is highly likely to occur in a competition such as Greenpower, (Olson, 2019).
2.4. Investigations into reducing aerodynamic drag in high yaw conditions

There are limited literatures available on methods of reducing drag coefficient in a wide range
of yaw conditions. As it’s the concern of the car manufacturers that their product is stable and
drivable in cross wind conditions, they design it to do exactly that and any effect on drag
coefficient is considered a by-product.
‘Road Vehicle Aerodynamic Design’ entails a whole chapter on vehicle in cross winds. It
investigates how cross wind affect its yaw moment, side forces, aerodynamic lift and stability.
No data or details was included on how one might reduce aerodynamic drag in high yaw
conditions. This project is looking into the reduction of drag in both zero and 15 degrees and
will disregard any concerns for stability in cross wind conditions because it does not play an
important role in low speed racing (Olson, 2019).
An aerodynamic yaw study was carried out in the development process of PAC-Car II, in which
they presented their data in their book as shown in Figure 9. Their results indicate that as the
model got refined further and further for a marginal reduction in zero yaw drag coefficient, the
results from 7.5 – 15 ± degrees shows to be producing relatively bigger difference in drag as
the yaw angle increases, (Olson, 2019).
16 | P a g e
Figure 9 - The Shape 2 drag coefficient Cx, plotted for various yaw angles, the wind tunnel model, the initial PAC-
Car II and the optimised PAC-Car II (ETH Zurich, 2005)
Figure 10 - Shape 2 in CFD (Courtesy of RUAG) (ETH Zurich, 2005)
In their CFD analysis, they summarised that while the CFD ‘absolute results should be handled
with care, especially when the friction forces dominate the pressure forces. Still, the relative
changes suggested by the CFD simulations were all confirmed in the wind tunnel, proving the
value of the tool.’ (ETH Zurich, 2005)
17 | P a g e
However due to the difference in race structure and regulations, Shell Eco Marathon cars
typically run at 15-20mph over the course of a race run whereas Greenpower cars will run at
30-60mph over the course of an hour race, requiring a different aerodynamic philosophy.
(Olson, 2019).
2.5. Conclusion
There is a lack of any literature published specifically on low drag aerodynamics due to the
limited following and money of series such as Greenpower and Shell Eco Marathon which has
only became more popular in the last few years and while the information gathered from other
literature such as from Shell Eco Marathon will contribute to this research, the regulations that
Greenpower mandates has posed a unique set of aerodynamic problems that needs to be
investigated into further in this project to achieve the best solution.
Information can be acquired from road passenger vehicle, using their research in basic shapes
and aerodynamic principles to influence the design of the aerodynamic surfaces, however
their relevance to vehicle such as Greenpower or Shell Eco marathon cars are non-existent
PAC-Car II’s drag coefficient results across a range of yaw angles will be a useful basis to
compare future results against, however it’s not clear what contributed to the change between
the Shape 2 and optimised Shape 2 i.e. what geometry change they implemented to reduce
the wind-averaged drag coefficient which then could be implemented into this research project.
They were able to compare their results from CFD and wind tunnel tests, which is also the aim
for this project.
PAC-Car II cambered wheel fairings and the Morelli underfloor design will be developed onto
the reference model to evaluate the difference in the wind-averaged results, both in zero- and
15-degrees yaw. (Olson, 2019).
18 | P a g e
3. Methodology
3.1. Numerical
3.1.1. Reference CAD Model
The reference CAD model utilised for the baseline simulation is a copy of Stealth III (Figure
11), a car that competed in the 2018 season of Greenpower finishing 3 rd in the championship.
Its most notable aerodynamic features include the following:
• 95mm ground clearance

• 1050mm wheelbase
• Tapered rear end
• Enclosed front and rear 355 ETRTO wheels
• Pressure relief channels alongside the helmet fairing
• Open rear end for exhausting heat generated by the electric motor drive unit.
The main shortcoming of this design is the underfloor design with sharp outboard edges and
no potential wheel fairings to shield all but 30mm of the rotating wheels as per Greenpower
regulations.
Figure 11 - Stealth III at Castle Combe F24+ Heat 2018
Figure 12 - Stealth III - Reference CAD Model
19 | P a g e
To reduce the complexity of the CFD car, the chassis was simplified to a single block with
ducting closely representing the vehicle’s most critical internal air-washed surfaces. This has
the benefit of reducing overall computational time for each simulation without a significant loss
of correlation to the real vehicle and isolate the results of the changes being made better.
One of the primary aims is to assess the impact of the three developmental areas, one being
the wheel fairing designs which requires internal bulkheads to be placed in between the
chassis and the bodywork to closely replicate the size of the internal volume. The air within
can pass through two openings, one being the floor wheel opening and secondly through a
duct below the cockpit leading edge (Figure 13).
Figure 13 - Front Wheel Internal Volume with Bulkheads
There’s a large single volume situated behind the chassis rear bulkhead with 4 openings in
which the air can be ducted in or out including both rear wheels openings, front of the helmet
fairing, and a completely open tail. The rear wheels rotate within the 2mm shell to match the
outside air velocity and the openings allow the heat generated from the motor drive unit to be
exhausted out. (Figure 14)
Figure 14 – Centreline cross section with filled internal volume (red) showing open rear end internal volume.
20 | P a g e
Wheel hubs and kingposts geometries were all simplified as this has a minimal impact on the
final result, and the real-life complexity of the components would require an extremely fine
mesh, increasing computational time. Wheels are blanked off with no spokes exposed to
represent the configuration it ran in the Greenpower International Final 2018.
To simulate a driver sitting within the car, the cockpit volume has been filled to shoulder level,
the same height of the rear helmet fairing channels. The driver’s helmet is a close
representation of the LS2 Atmos helmet that the actual driver uses with all visor gaps were
removed to avoid meshing errors within Star CCM+ and does not play a significant role in this
investigation.
A reference chassis block as shown in Figure 15 is used across all bodywork to maintain
consistency of the internal wheel wells volumes and when a body is placed upon it, the two
parts were combined to produce the final CFD-ready model.
Figure 15 - Reference Stealth III Chassis with Wheels
3.1.2. Experimental CAD Models

From the literature review, it was clear that there was limited information available on how low
drag or basic shapes would perform in high yaw wind conditions. Three areas on the reference
model has been identified to have the potential to develop into a solution that produces less
drag in such conditions. 3 different designs have been created for each area and the best
results from each area will be combined in a single model which was carried forward into the
final CFD and wind tunnel test.
21 | P a g e
For investigating the effect of floor angle, 2 additional model have been created to simulate
the extreme ends of what’s possible on the Stealth III’s body. The high tail version connects
the very end of the underfloor to the top side surface, giving a much smaller exhaust area and
a higher angle of attack. The flat floor is a straight extension from the front portion of the floor
and is parallel to the ground. The specifications of all three versions are as followed and shown
in Figure 16.
• Reference Model (Purple) - Average angle of 1.8 degrees spanning 1430mm long.
• High Tail (Grey) - Average angle of 6.0 degrees spanning 1430mm long
• Flat Floor (Blue) – Zero angle of attack for the underfloor
1430mm
Figure 16 - High Tail (Blue), Reference (Orange), Flat Floor (Green)
The second area of investigation is introducing a radius on the outboard edge of the floor. This
is a challenging design feature to implement on the real vehicle’s floor due to the outboard
position of the standard specification lead acid batteries which remains to be the widest and
lowest part of the car. However, the design of the chassis can be altered to allow for a radius
to be implement if the benefit is proven to be significant enough. Three levels of radiuses have
been created, 10mm, 50mm, and 90mm, all shown in Figure 17. This radius spans the full
length of the body from nose to tail.
Due to the proximity of the wheels to the body side panel, an increase in edge radius value
will force a larger wheel opening to be created, expose the wheel further and affect the flow
structure downstream. This effect also can be seen in Figure 17.
22 | P a g e
Reference Model 10mm Radius
50mm Radius 90mm Radius

Figure 17 - Varying Levels of Radiuses and Wheel Exposure
The final area of development is the addition of wheel fairings, designed to shroud the exposed
lower portion of the wheel from the floor to 30mm off the ground, keeping within the regulations
set by Greenpower. Three different designs shown in Figure 18 have been created and are
as follows.
• Floating – Cambered fairings focused on minimising frontal area. The front wheels are
required to be steerable for the car to perform its function and therefore the fairing will
move in line with the wheel.
• Fixed – Identical rear wheel fairing as the floating version however with a larger front
fairing that shrouds the full steering envelope of the front wheels.
• Shortened – Identical to the fixed arrangement with the exception of the tail portion
removed to attempt to minimise its impact in high yaw conditions.
Both the floating and fixed designs have been influenced by the development of the PAC-Car
II, featuring cambered wheel fairings to reduce the pressure change that is caused by the
narrowing cross-section area between the two fairings.
23 | P a g e
Reference
Shortened
Floating
Fixed
Figure 18 - Wheel Fairing Experimental Designs
All the models shown in Figure 16, Figure 17, and Figure 18 will be ran individually in both
zero- and 15-degrees yaw conditions.
3.1.3. CFD Setup and Mesh Settings

Zero Yaw Setup
The fastest Greenpower car in 2018 over a single lap was Probation IV at Castle Combe with
an average speed of 17.6m/s (Greenpower, 2018). Therefore, all CFD simulations will be
running at 18m/s. During a race, speeds can however vary in tailwind/downhill sections of the
track with top speeds of 60 mph occurring for the top teams, but to improve overall race time
performance, performance must be improved at the speed where the car spends most of its
time racing at.
When sizing the wind tunnel, a blockage ratio of 2 % was chosen with the same height / width
ratio compared to the car, giving relatively good accuracy while balancing computational time.
The wind tunnel length is 2 cars lengths in front and 6 behind, the low drag nature of the body
means the airflow behind settle down in a uniform pattern much quicker when compared to a
GT3 car and therefore not requiring as long of a wind tunnel to allow results to converge.
To further save computational time, a symmetry plane has been implemented on the ZX plane
and all CFD analysis will only be carried out on one side of the symmetrical car.
24 | P a g e
All of the CFD simulations are using the Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) modelling
which is using the properties of flow turbulences to give a time-averaged solution to the
standard Navier Stokes equations. The model produces an unknown variable called Reynolds
Stress which then relies on a turbulence model to calculate (Symscape. 2009). For this project,
the realisable K--Epsilon 2-layer turbulence model was used for that purpose due to it being
the most widely used turbulence model, allowing for good convergence and not being memory
intensive (Engineering, 2016)
The standard K-epilson model has several limitations especially when dealing with adverse
pressure grandients and strong curvatures but since have been significantly improved in the
realisable version (Engineering, 2016)
‘It’s two-layer formulation has improved its applicability to well-resolved boundary layers. It
also has improved results for complex separated industrial flows. The model has improved
performance for planar surfaces, round jets, rotation, recirculation and streamline curvature.
It also improves the boundary layer under strong adverse pressure gradients or separation’
over the standard k-epsilon model’ (Engineering, 2016). Overall this turbulence model gives a
good compromise between accuracy and overall computational time.
Due to the low speed application and low drag nature of the simulated geometry, a low wall
Y+ configuration was chosen for this project with all surfaces falling within a range of 0 - 5.
Figure 19 shows the almost all surfaces with the exception of outer edges of the rotating
wheels complying within this range.
Figure 19 - Wall Y+ Scalar of Reference Zero Yaw Simulation
This was decided due to the initial simulations on the reference model showing that shear drag
accounted for 33.54% of the total drag detailed in Table 3. Therefore, it was crucial to mesh
the prism layer to be of sufficient quality to simulate the boundary layer accurately.
25 | P a g e
Part Pressure Shear Net
Body 0.0748 55.85% 0.0591 44.15% 0.1339

Rollbar 0.0270 96.44% 0.0010 3.56% 0.0280
Helmet 0.0155 79.91% 0.0039 20.09% 0.0194
Front Left Wheel 0.0078 83.62% 0.0015 16.38% 0.0093
Right Left Wheel 0.0043 105.58% -0.0002 -5.58% 0.0041
Total 0.1294 66.46% of Net 0.0653 33.54% of Net 0.1947
Table 3 - Coefficient of Pressure and Shear Drag Distribution for Reference Model
Figure 20 - Wind Tunnel Side View (Mesh)
Surface Conditions
Body, Roll bar Wall
Front & Rear Left Wheels Wall at a Local Rotation Rate
85.54 Rad/s on individual axis
Inlet Velocity Inlet
Outlet Pressure Outlet
Floor and Walls Slip
ZX Plane Symmetry Plane
Table 4 - CFD Surface Conditions
Wake Refinement on Roll bar
To ensure that the effect of the roll bar was simulated correctly as it contributed a significant
portion of the total frontal area and drag in initial simulations, a specific surface control was
assigned to the roll bar with higher wake refinement detail compared to the rest of the car. A
length of 0.35m, 7.5 degrees expansion rate, and a 1% target size of base size (1m) has been
setup for the roll bar, based on several test simulations ran differing in size and length to suit
the roll bar and its wake structure specifically on the Stealth III car.
15 degrees Yaw Simulation
The 15 degrees yaw simulation required a full car simulation with the symmetry plane
removed. All the mesh settings for part and volume controls were replicated from the zero-
yaw setup. Yaw center coordinate systems were implemented to allow drag results to be
calculated from the car’s own coordinate system rather than the overall tunnels.
26 | P a g e
3.1.4. Mesh Independency Study

To ensure the results for all simulations are not dependent on the mesh size and quality, a
mesh independency study was carried out ranging from 2.2 to 6.3 million cells. All the mesh
size parameters are linked to the base size and therefore to maintain consistency in how the
mesh was resized across multiple simulations, only the base size was changed. The results
from this study can be seen in Table 5.
Mesh Cell Pitch Moment

Count Cd Cl Drag Force (N) Lift Force (N) (Nm)
2227624 0.19750 -0.12100 4.78585 -2.92741 -3.77228
2902713 0.19595 -0.12322 4.74119 -2.99829 -3.73160
4042670 0.19453 -0.10397 4.71734 -2.50534 -3.76258
4919985 0.19415 -0.11721 4.69580 -2.82980 -3.79112
6327458 0.19433 -0.11228 4.69389 -2.77188 -3.75312
Table 5 - Mesh Independency Study Results
The results shown that the simulations were converging from 4 – 6.3 million cells and all
resulting within 1 count for coefficient of drag (Figure 21). Therefore, to minimise
computational time while maintaining accuracy of the results, the mesh settings that lead to
4.0 million cells were chosen as the baseline for all simulations throughout. For small
variations in the geometry between the reference and developmental models, the cell count
will vary but will always maintain the same mesh parameters values.
Coefficient of Drag vs Mesh Cell Count

0.1980
0.1975
0.1970
0.1965
0.1960
Cd
0.1955
0.1950
0.1945
0.1940
0.1935
0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 7000000
Mesh Cell Count
Figure 21 - Coefficient of Drag vs Mesh Cell Count
The reference mesh parameters values can be found in Appendix 1.
27 | P a g e
3.2. Experimental
3.2.1. Wind Tunnel Setup
Figure 22 - Coventry University Wind Tunnel Schematic (Coventry University, 2019)
The wind tunnel that is used for the analysis of the 35% scale model is the Coventry University
Wind Tunnel situated in the Coventry University Engineering & Computing Faculty. The full
specification is detailed in Appendix 2.
The model is held in by a balance unit designed and supplied by the Mercedes AMG F1 team
and is used to monitor all the forces that is acting upon the model. To ensure the boundary
layer is minimised once the airflow entering the working section, an adjustable thin aluminium
sheet is situated between the wind tunnel ground and the model to better simulate the ground.
This however doesn’t not simulate a moving ground like what the full-scale vehicle would
experience out on the race track and the lack of moving ground will affect the flow structure of
the underfloor, leading to a source of error when correlating with the CFD analysis and the
real vehicle’s performance on the track.
3.2.2 Wind Tunnel Model Specification

Specification of Wind Tunnel Model shown in Figure 23
• 35% Scale Model - 945mm Length x 216mm Width x 257mm Height (without strut).
• Custom internal modular unit to work with both reference & developed shells.
• Rotating wheels driven by internal motor on individual axles.
• Designed with mounting provisions for an aerodynamic strut in 0° & 15° yaw setups.
28 | P a g e
Figure 23 - Wind Tunnel Model CAD View
With a velocity of 18m/s, 2.7m long car, and at 10°C kinematic viscosity value of air being
1.4207x10-5 m2/s, the full-scale car would have a Reynolds number of 3,420,849. The
maximum Reynolds number that can be achieved with the wind tunnel setup and a 35% scale
car is 2,993,243 with a 14.3% offset difference.
The wind tunnel specification dictates a maximum velocity of 45m/s and with the motor running
at a fixed rotational velocity of 1650 rpm, the diameter of the pulleys on both the motor and
wheel pulleys have been tuned to a ratio of 3.53 to simulate the correct wheel velocity to match
the air velocity.
The top and bottom part of the wind tunnel model are spilt into two components allowing for
access into the internals as well as reducing costs and time needed to manufacture additional
experimental models for future developments.
Rotating vs Non-Rotating Wheels
To achieve the best possible correlation between the wind tunnel test setup without a moving
ground and the CFD simulations, 2 different configurations were tested against the reference
simulation, firstly with non-rotating wheels, and secondly with the whole vehicle raised to
produce a gap between the wheel and ground off 6mm, translating to a 2.1mm gap on the
35% wind tunnel setup.
The non-rotating wheel resulted in a 4% increase in coefficient of drag compared against the
reference simulation from 0.194 to 0.202. Lift Coefficient increased by 25% from -0.117 to -
0.081 along with the underside flow structure changing. Raising the car 6mm resulted in a
smaller difference of 1 count increase against reference and 2 counts increase for coefficient
of drag and lift respectively. Therefore, for all the CFD simulations from here on is with rotating
wheels.
29 | P a g e
3.2.3. Wind Tunnel Model Design and Manufacture

The design and manufacture of the model took a large portion of the allocated project time
with an estimated total of 272 hours. The model was designed in a CAD software package
over the course of approximately 20 hours. This ensures all the components fit together
without any issues and that the model’s geometry identical to the CFD model.
Figure 24 shows the chassis unit which consists of laser cut 9mm thick MDF panels, all
designed with a tab and groove arrangement that self-aligns when assembled together. The
assembly of chassis was straightforward using a hot glue gun and screws to bond it together
with the process taking 2 hours.
Figure 24 - Wind Tunnel Model Chassis - Drawing (Left) & Installed Chassis (Right)
The 3D printing process for the 26 body and wheel components shown in Figure 25 took
approximately 210 hours to complete over the course of 4 weeks. With the intention of
rotating the wheels within the model, a thin wall section of 1.2mm was implemented across
the model and executing this to a sufficient level of surface quality and layer adhesion took a
week of trial and error before concluding on a final set of printing parameters.
Figure 25 – 26 Components manufactured by 3D printing
30 | P a g e
Once the individual components were manufactured, they were trimmed and bonded
together using cyanoacrylate superglue. Weaker sections were braced with internal wooden
flat strips to improve rigidity of the two bonded assemblies in the turbulent environment of
the wind tunnel at 45m/s and a high yaw angle of 20 degrees. Alignment of the assemblies
to each other is critical for making a symmetrical model and the implementation of the tab
and groove arrangement ensured this. The whole assembly process took approximately 15
hours to complete.
While 3D printing has its advantages in being able to manufacture complex geometries, its
surface quality could compromise the accuracy of the wind tunnel results. To bring it to the
expected quality, an additional 25 hours were spent on bringing the surface to a glossy,
smooth and consistent finish. This process shown in Figure 26 involved sanding the bare
PLA plastic to an 80-grit level, followed by a full coverage application of high build primer to
fill in all the striations that occurs between the layers. Deep defects and gaps were filled in
with body filler and re-sanded to blend into the surrounding surfaces. Once the surface had a
consistent finish and quality, it was then brought to a 400-grit level and had the final gloss
black topcoat applied to complete it.
RAW 3D PRINT SURFACE FILLED & SANDED COMPLETED SURFACE FINISH

Figure 26 - Wind Tunnel Surface Finish Process
The completed model installed in the wind tunnel is shown in Figure 27 and Figure 28.
Figure 27 - Completed Wind Tunnel Model Side View
31 | P a g e
Figure 28 – Completed Wind Tunnel Model Rear Right View (Left) and Front View (Right)
32 | P a g e
4. Numerical Results
There are two sections below, firstly for all zero-degree yaw simulation and secondly for all
15 degrees yaw simulations. The structure of the results within each section is split out
between each of the three experimental areas of the car, all referencing and being compared
against the reference model. For each experimental design, the difference in coefficient
between the reference and subsequent models are calculated beside the actual coefficient
and then a percentage is then calculated for how much change that component has
impacted on the overall coefficient of the car in percentage terms.
All results for 15 degrees yaw simulations feature a percentage increase over zero yaw
configuration to indicate the sensitivity of the model. Wind Averaged CdA is a simple
averaging of the CdA values across the two yaw configurations and may differ from the
undetermined true value of 7.5° yaw. All forces are calculated at a velocity of 18m/s and an
air density of 1.225.
4.1. Zero Degree Yaw Simulations

4.1.1. Floor Angle
FLOOR ANGLE
REFERENCE HIGH TAIL FLAT FLOOR

2
Frontal Area (m ) 0.252 0.252 0.00% 0.252 0.000%
Wind Averaged CdA 0.0530 0.0552 4.04% 0.0557 4.99%
Total Drag (N) 9.702 10.152 0.450 4.64% 10.102 0.400 4.12%
CdA 0.0489 0.0512 0.002 4.64% 0.0509 0.002 4.12%
Total Lift (N) -5.201 -19.704 -14.503 -278.85% 0.800 6.001 115.38%
Pitch Moment (Nm) -3.574 -2.526 1.048 29.32% -4.140 -0.566 -15.84%
Total 0.194 0.203 0.009 4.64% 0.202 0.008 4.12%
Body 0.134 0.133 -0.001 -0.52% 0.139 0.005 2.58%

Rollbar 0.028 0.028 0.000 0.00% 0.028 0.000 0.00%
Cd
Helmet 0.019 0.026 0.007 3.61% 0.021 0.002 1.03%
FL 0.009 0.009 0.000 0.00% 0.009 0.000 0.00%
RL 0.004 0.007 0.003 1.55% 0.005 0.001 0.52%
Total -0.104 -0.394 -0.290 -278.85% 0.016 0.120 115.38%

Body -0.173 -0.438 -0.265 -254.81% -0.060 0.113 108.65%
Rollbar 0.007 0.007 0.000 0.00% 0.007 0.000 0.00%

Cl
Helmet 0.083 0.081 -0.002 -1.92% 0.083 0.000 0.00%
FL -0.007 -0.010 -0.003 -2.88% -0.008 -0.001 -0.96%
RL -0.014 -0.034 -0.020 -19.23% -0.006 0.008 7.69%
Table 6 – Zero Degree Yaw Reference vs Floor Angle Model CFD Results
33 | P a g e
4.1.2. Floor Edge Radius

FLOOR EDGE RADIUS
REFERENCE 10mm 50mm 90mm
Frontal Area (m2) 0.252 0.252 0.000% 0.251 -0.40% 0.249 -1.19%
Wind Averaged CdA 0.0530 0.0525 -0.95% 0.0528 -0.40% 0.0525 -0.96%
Total Drag (N) 9.702 9.502 -0.200 -2.06% 9.414 -0.288 -2.96% 9.438 -0.264 -2.72%
Cda 0.0489 0.0479 -0.001 -2.06% 0.0474 -0.001 -2.96% 0.0476 -0.001 -2.72%
Total Lift (N) -5.201 -4.501 0.700 13.46% -4.931 0.270 5.19% -5.930 -0.729 -14.01%
Pitch Moment (Nm) -3.574 -2.731 0.843 23.59% -1.961 1.613 45.13% -1.260 2.314 64.75%
Total 0.194 0.190 -0.004 -2.06% 0.189 -0.005 -2.58% 0.191 -0.003 -1.55%
Body 0.134 0.129 -0.005 -2.58% 0.123 -0.011 -5.67% 0.123 -0.011 -5.67%
Rollbar 0.028 0.028 0.000 0.00% 0.028 0.000 0.00% 0.028 0.000 0.00%
Cd
Helmet 0.019 0.019 0.000 0.00% 0.021 0.002 1.03% 0.021 0.002 1.03%
FL 0.009 0.009 0.000 0.00% 0.010 0.001 0.52% 0.010 0.001 0.52%
RL 0.004 0.005 0.001 0.52% 0.007 0.003 1.55% 0.009 0.005 2.58%
Total -0.104 -0.090 0.014 13.46% -0.099 0.005 4.81% -0.120 -0.016 -15.38%
Body -0.173 -0.155 0.018 17.31% -0.166 0.007 6.73% -0.186 -0.013 -12.50%
Rollbar 0.007 0.008 0.001 0.96% 0.007 0.000 0.00% 0.006 -0.001 -0.96%
Cl
Helmet 0.083 0.083 0.000 0.00% 0.083 0.000 0.00% 0.084 0.001 0.96%
FL -0.007 -0.011 -0.004 -3.85% -0.006 0.001 0.96% -0.006 0.001 0.96%
RL -0.014 -0.015 -0.001 -0.96% -0.017 -0.003 -2.88% -0.018 -0.004 -3.85%
Table 7 - Zero Degree Yaw Reference vs Floor Edge Radius Model CFD Results
34 | P a g e
4.1.3. Wheel Fairings

WHEEL FAIRING
REFERENCE FLOATING FIXED SHORTENED
Frontal Area (m2) 0.252 0.254 0.79% 0.259 2.78% 0.260 3.18%
Wind Averaged CdA 0.0530 0.0485 -8.54% 0.0510 -3.81% 0.0536 0.97%
Total Drag (N) 9.702 9.325 -0.377 -3.88% 9.560 -0.142 -1.46% 10.165 0.463 4.77%
Cda 0.0489 0.0470 -0.002 -3.88% 0.0482 -0.001 -1.46% 0.0512 0.002 4.77%
Total Lift (N) -5.201 -0.454 4.747 91.28% -2.005 3.196 61.46% -2.941 2.260 43.45%
Pitch Moment (Nm) -3.574 -3.230 0.344 9.63% -3.447 0.127 3.55% -3.574 0.000 0.00%
Total 0.194 0.185 -0.009 -4.64% 0.186 -0.008 -4.12% 0.197 0.003 1.55%
Body 0.134 0.141 0.007 3.61% 0.146 0.012 6.19% 0.152 0.018 9.28%
Rollbar 0.028 0.028 0.000 0.00% 0.027 -0.001 -0.52% 0.027 -0.001 -0.52%
Cd
Helmet 0.019 0.015 -0.004 -2.06% 0.015 -0.004 -2.06% 0.018 -0.001 -0.52%
FL 0.009 0.002 -0.007 -3.61% -0.001 -0.010 -5.15% 0.000 -0.009 -4.64%
RL 0.004 -0.001 -0.005 -2.58% -0.001 -0.005 -2.58% 0.000 -0.004 -2.06%
Total -0.104 -0.009 0.095 91.35% -0.039 0.065 62.50% -0.057 0.047 45.19%
Body -0.173 -0.091 0.082 78.85% -0.117 0.056 53.85% -0.135 0.038 36.54%
Rollbar 0.007 0.008 0.001 0.96% 0.007 0.000 0.00% 0.007 0.000 0.00%
Cl
Helmet 0.083 0.085 0.002 1.92% 0.082 -0.001 -0.96% 0.082 -0.001 -0.96%
FL -0.007 -0.004 0.003 2.88% -0.004 0.003 2.88% -0.002 0.005 4.81%
RL -0.014 -0.007 0.007 6.73% -0.007 0.007 6.73% -0.009 0.005 4.81%
Table 8 – Zero Degree Yaw Reference vs Wheel Fairing Model CFD Results
35 | P a g e
4.1.4. Developed Model
REFERENCE DEVELOPED
2
Frontal Area (m ) 0.252 0.257 1.98%
Wind Averaged CdA 0.0530 0.0500 -5.77%
Total Drag (N) 9.702 9.435 -0.267 -2.75%
CdA 0.0489 0.0475 -0.001 -2.75%
Total Lift (N) -5.201 -0.459 4.742 91.17%
Pitch Moment (Nm) -3.574 -2.858 0.716 20.03%
Total 0.194 0.185 -0.009 -4.64%
Body 0.134 0.145 0.011 5.67%
Rollbar 0.028 0.028 0.000 0.00%

Cd
Helmet 0.019 0.013 -0.006 -3.09%
FL 0.009 -0.001 -0.010 -5.15%
RL 0.004 0.000 -0.004 -2.06%
Total -0.104 -0.009 0.095 91.35%
Body -0.173 -0.089 0.084 80.77%
Rollbar 0.007 0.005 -0.002 -1.92%

Cl
Helmet 0.083 0.085 0.002 1.92%
FL -0.007 -0.005 0.002 1.92%
RL -0.014 -0.005 0.009 8.65%
Table 9 – Zero Degree Yaw Reference vs Developed Model CFD Results
36 | P a g e
4.2. 15 Degrees Yaw Simulations

4.2.1. Floor Angle
FLOOR ANGLE
REFERENCE HIGH TAIL FLAT FLOOR

2
Frontal Area (m ) 0.252 0.252 0.00% 0.252 0.00%
Wind Averaged CdA 0.0530 0.0552 4.04% 0.0557 4.99%
Total Drag (N) 11.352 11.752 0.400 3.52% 12.002 0.650 5.73%
Increase over Zero 17.01% 15.76% -1.25% 18.81% 1.80%
Total Lift (N) 12.752 -1.900 -14.653 -114.90% 22.304 9.552 74.90%
Increase over Zero -345.19% 90.36% -254.84% 2687.50% 3032.69%
CdA 0.0572 0.0592 3.524% 0.0605 5.727%
Pitch Moment (Nm) -11.451 -7.800 3.651 102.15% -13.510 -2.059 -57.61%
Total 0.227 0.235 0.008 3.52% 0.240 0.013 5.73%
Body 0.168 0.163 -0.005 -2.20% 0.178 0.010 4.41%
Rollbar 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.00% 0.034 0.000 0.00%
Helmet 0.002 0.010 0.008 3.52% 0.005 0.003 1.32%

Cd
FL 0.006 0.007 0.001 0.44% 0.006 0.000 0.00%
FR 0.013 0.014 0.001 0.44% 0.014 0.001 0.44%
RL 0.003 0.005 0.002 0.88% 0.002 -0.001 -0.44%
RR 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.44% 0.001 0.000 0.00%
Total 0.255 -0.038 -0.293 -114.90% 0.446 0.191 74.90%
Body 0.178 -0.104 -0.282 -110.59% 0.357 0.179 70.20%
Rollbar 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.00% 0.006 0.000 0.00%
Helmet 0.090 0.092 0.002 0.78% 0.091 0.001 0.39%

Cl
FL 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.00% 0.002 0.001 0.39%
FR 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00% 0.001 0.001 0.39%
RL -0.018 -0.030 -0.012 -4.71% -0.010 0.008 3.14%
RR -0.002 -0.003 -0.001 -0.39% -0.001 0.001 0.39%
Table 10 – 15 Degrees Yaw Reference vs Floor Angle Model CFD Results
37 | P a g e
4.2.2. Floor Edge Radius

FLOOR EDGE RADIUS
REFERENCE 10mm 50mm 90mm
Frontal Area (m2) 0.252 0.252 0.000% 0.251 -0.40% 0.249 -1.19%
Wind Averaged CdA 0.0530 0.0525 -0.95% 0.0528 -0.40% 0.0525 -0.95%
Total Drag (N) 11.352 11.352 0.000 0.00% 11.556 0.204 1.80% 11.415 0.063 0.55%
Increase over Zero 17.01% 19.47% 2.46% 22.75% 5.74% 20.94% 3.93%
Total Lift (N) 12.752 15.253 2.500 19.61% 14.545 1.792 14.06% 13.589 0.836 6.56%
Increase over Zero -345.19% -438.89% 93.70% -394.95% 49.76% -329.17% -16.03%
CdA 0.0572 0.0572 0.000% 0.0582 1.797% 0.0575 0.551%
Pitch Moment (Nm) -11.451 -8.701 2.750 76.94% -6.982 4.469 125.04% -4.576 6.875 192.36%
Total 0.227 0.227 0.000 0.00% 0.232 0.005 2.20% 0.231 0.004 1.76%
Body 0.168 0.163 -0.005 -2.20% 0.161 -0.007 -3.08% 0.155 -0.013 -5.73%
Rollbar 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.00% 0.034 0.000 0.00% 0.034 0.000 0.00%
Helmet 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.44% 0.005 0.003 1.32% 0.004 0.002 0.88%
Cd
FL 0.006 0.009 0.003 1.32% 0.014 0.008 3.52% 0.017 0.011 4.85%
FR 0.013 0.013 0.000 0.00% 0.013 0.000 0.00% 0.013 0.000 0.00%
RL 0.003 0.004 0.001 0.44% 0.004 0.001 0.44% 0.006 0.003 1.32%
RR 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.00% 0.001 0.000 0.00% 0.002 0.001 0.44%
Total 0.255 0.305 0.050 19.61% 0.292 0.037 14.51% 0.275 0.020 7.84%
Body 0.178 0.225 0.047 18.43% 0.217 0.039 15.29% 0.221 0.043 16.86%
Rollbar 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.00% 0.006 0.000 0.00% 0.006 0.000 0.00%
Helmet 0.090 0.091 0.001 0.39% 0.092 0.002 0.78% 0.092 0.002 0.78%
Cl
FL 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.00% -0.002 -0.003 -1.18% -0.020 -0.021 -8.24%
FR 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.39% -0.001 -0.001 -0.39% 0.000 0.000 0.00%
RL -0.018 -0.017 0.001 0.39% -0.018 0.000 0.00% -0.023 -0.005 -1.96%
RR -0.002 -0.002 0.000 0.00% -0.002 0.000 0.00% -0.001 0.001 0.39%
Table 11 – 15 Degrees Yaw Reference vs Floor Edge Radius Model CFD Results
38 | P a g e
4.2.3. Wheel Fairings

WHEEL FAIRINGS
REFERENCE FLOATING FIXED SHORTENED
Frontal Area (m2) 0.252 0.254 0.79% 0.259 2.78% 0.260 3.17%
Wind Averaged CdA 0.0530 0.0485 -8.54% 5.10% -3.81% 5.36% 0.97%
Total Drag (N) 11.352 9.930 -1.422 -12.53% 10.691 -0.661 -5.82% 11.093 -0.259 -2.28%
Increase over Zero 17.01% 6.49% -10.52% 11.83% -5.18% 9.14% -7.87%
Total Lift (N) 12.752 23.590 10.838 84.99% 19.878 7.125 55.87% 14.499 1.746 13.69%
Increase over Zero -345.19% -5300.00% 4954.81% -1091.63% 746.43% -592.98% 247.79%
CdA 0.0572 0.0500 -12.527% 0.0539 -5.825% 0.0559 -2.280%
Pitch Moment (Nm) -11.451 -9.925 1.526 42.70% -9.942 1.509 42.22% -8.450 3.001 83.97%
Total 0.227 0.197 -0.030 -13.22% 0.208 -0.019 -8.37% 0.215 -0.012 -5.29%
Body 0.168 0.156 -0.012 -5.29% 0.165 -0.003 -1.32% 0.168 0.000 0.00%
Rollbar 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.00% 0.033 -0.001 -0.44% 0.033 -0.001 -0.44%
Helmet 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.44% 0.005 0.003 1.32% 0.007 0.005 2.20%
Cd
FL 0.006 0.003 -0.003 -1.32% 0.001 -0.005 -2.20% 0.002 -0.004 -1.76%
FR 0.013 0.002 -0.011 -4.85% 0.005 -0.008 -3.52% 0.006 -0.007 -3.08%
RL 0.003 0.000 -0.003 -1.32% 0.000 -0.003 -1.32% 0.000 -0.003 -1.32%
RR 0.001 -0.001 -0.002 -0.88% -0.001 -0.002 -0.88% -0.001 -0.002 -0.88%
Total 0.255 0.468 0.213 83.53% 0.387 0.132 51.66% 0.281 0.026 10.20%
Body 0.178 0.398 0.220 86.27% 0.305 0.127 49.80% 0.199 0.021 8.24%
Rollbar 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.00% 0.005 -0.001 -0.39% 0.006 0.000 0.00%
Helmet 0.090 0.090 0.000 0.00% 0.089 -0.001 -0.39% 0.090 0.000 0.00%
Cl
FL 0.001 -0.009 -0.010 -3.92% -0.001 -0.002 -0.78% 0.001 0.000 0.00%
FR 0.000 -0.007 -0.007 -2.75% -0.001 -0.001 -0.39% 0.000 0.000 0.00%
RL -0.018 -0.009 0.009 3.53% -0.009 0.009 3.43% -0.013 0.005 1.96%
RR -0.002 -0.001 0.001 0.39% -0.001 0.001 0.39% -0.002 0.000 0.00%
Table 12 – 15 Degrees Yaw Reference vs Wheel Fairing Model CFD Results
39 | P a g e
4.2.4. Developed Model
REFERENCE DEVELOPED
2
Frontal Area (m ) 0.252 0.257 1.98%
Wind Averaged CdA 0.0530 0.0500 -5.77%
Total Drag (N) 11.352 10.404 -0.948 -8.35%
Increase over Zero 17.01% 10.27% -6.74%
Total Lift (N) 12.752 25.654 12.901 101.17%
Increase over Zero -345.19% -5688.89% 5343.70%
CdA 0.0572 0.0524 -8.349%
Pitch Moment (Nm) -11.451 -8.229 3.222 90.15%
Total 0.227 0.204 -0.023 -10.13%
Body 0.168 0.159 -0.009 -3.96%
Rollbar 0.034 0.033 -0.001 -0.44%
Helmet 0.002 0.004 0.002 0.88%

Cd
FL 0.006 0.001 -0.005 -2.20%
FR 0.013 0.007 -0.006 -2.64%
RL 0.003 0.000 -0.003 -1.32%
RR 0.001 0.000 -0.001 -0.44%
Total 0.255 0.503 0.248 97.25%
Body 0.178 0.417 0.239 93.73%
Rollbar 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.00%
Helmet 0.090 0.090 0.000 0.00%

Cl
FL 0.001 -0.001 -0.002 -0.78%
FR 0.000 -0.001 -0.001 -0.39%
RL -0.018 -0.006 0.012 4.71%
RR -0.002 -0.002 0.000 0.00%
Table 13 – 15 Degrees Yaw Reference vs Developed Model CFD Results
40 | P a g e
5. Numerical Discussion
5.1. Reference
The reference model shown to have a drag coefficient of 0.194 at zero yaw and 0.227 at 15°
yaw, which is an increase of 17.01%. Lift coefficient resulted in -0.104 and 0.255 respectively.
(Table 6) This is the baseline result in which all the other models are compared against.
The main contribution of drag is the car body, forming 69.07% of the total drag. The wheel
openings had a more significant contribution to the rear wake size and shape than expected
as there is a relatively large pressure differential between the internal volume and the outside
stream of air combined with the rotation of the wheel. Going from a low velocity state to
interacting with a highly volatile environment, it doesn’t allow for a smooth transition. Figure
29 shows that with a sloping floor combined with the obstructions of the rear wheels, a low-
pressure region exists in between the wheels and therefore there is a larger pressure
differential inboard of each wheel, and thus leaking more here. The size of this region expands
further downrange due to the tapering nature of the rear end.
Figure 29 - Velocity and Pressure Scalar of ZX Plane at Rear Axle
A small portion of the airflow is being fed back through the rearmost opening in the bodywork
as there isn’t sufficient ducted air in front of the volume to reverse the flow direction and ensure
the heat generated from the motor drive unit can exhausted effectively out of the rear end
rather than the rear wheel openings. Opening up the helmet faring to allow a bigger gap to the
helmet itself would duct more airflow in and solve this however will induce more drag.
41 | P a g e
The reference model generates 5.184 N of downforce which while it does meet the objectives
set before the beginning of the project, generating downforce increases the load applied onto
the tyres and therefore increases rolling resistance which is a negative impact on the overall’s
car performance for the type of racing it competes in. However, by applying load onto the car,
it does provide stability at higher velocities. Achieving zero lift and downforce would be the
desired outcome with the grip from the tyres generated solely by the mass of the car.
Figure 30 - Velocity Scalar of Reference Front Wheel Internal Volume (Body removed for visual clarity and Plane
at Axle)
When the car is positioned at 15° yaw, the wheel presents a larger obstruction to the free
stream of air which gets divert around the wheel. For the front wheels, the easiest pathway for
the airflow apart apart from travelling downstream of the car is through the wheel opening and
into the common front wheel internal volume. Figure 30 shows the initial deceleration of the
airflow once it enters but also the subsequent acceleration when reaching the top of the wheel
and through the common top duct. This stream of air is then pushed out of the opening on the
other side, causing a large detrimental high-pressure wake.
42 | P a g e
5.2. Floor Angle

In terms of coefficient of drag, the results in Table 6 shows that the reference angle still
presents the lowest overall drag value of the three designs. The high tail version did however
result in an isolated body drag that was 1 count less drag in zero yaw compared to the
reference angle but the increase of rear wheel exposure to the airflow counters this and more,
increasing its overall drag and performs worse.
HIGH TAIL
REFERENCE
FLAT FLOOR
Figure 31 - Pressure Scalar on Centerline ZX Plane for all Floor Angles
The impact that the floor angle has on the rear wake is significant as with an increase in floor
angle, the angle of the wake also changes in line as shown in Figure 31. It’s clear that there’s
downwash occurring due to the sloping nature of the top surface combined with the low
pressure region occurring under the floor. Depending on the floor angle, the downwash can
be cancelled out to produce a horizontal wake, which was almost achieved with the high tail.
REFERENCE TAIL HIGH TAIL
Figure 32 – Streamline showing air circulation within rear volume – Zero Yaw Reference vs High Tail
43 | P a g e
Unfortunately, the air within is not traveling through the rear exhaust area and is escaping
through the rear wheel openings which has a negative impact on the wheel’s wake. Figure 32
show that the high tail version reduces both the amount of air circulating within the rear volume
and the time it spends there before escaping through the wheel openings. An increase in angle
influences the size of the wake with the high tail showing a less concentrated upwash than the
reference.
Due to floor’s proximity to the ground, there is a ground effect generated on the body.
Introducing a completely flat floor which does not try to expand the air underneath for
downforce purposes, the isolated body’s lift is much lower and combined with the high lift of
the helmet itself, it produces an overall positive coefficient of lift of 0.019 (Table 6). It doesn’t
feature a higher frontal area in zero yaw but in 15° yaw, the nature of the lower floor means
that frontal area is higher and combined with the highest drag across all experimental model,
this won’t be pursed any further.
The 6° high tail generates significantly more downforce than all other experimental designs
and being concentrated rearwards of the car, the nose heavy pitch moment has been reduced
by 29.32% over the reference angle of 1.8°. Correlation with result with the flat floor showing
a 15.84% increase in moment, presents a relationship of approximately 15% change for every
2° change in floor angle (Table 6).
FLAT FLOOR REFERENCE HIGH TAIL
Foremost ZY plane at 1.4 m behind body with all subsequent 20 planes in 0.2m steps.
Figure 33 – Floor Angles at Zero Yaw – Rear Wake Total Pressure Scalar
There is also a side effect of introducing a higher floor angle in that the wake from each of the
rear wheels gets either pushed out by the downwashing wake or swept inboard by the
upwashing wake shown in Figure 33. This is why in Figure 31, a pressure region reappears
far past the car as the air gets swept in past the centreline plane This effect carries across in
the 15° yaw configurations as well shown in Figure 34. Ideally to reduce drag of a body, the
44 | P a g e
air should be treated as carefully and calmly as possible while traveling pass it and by causing
a upwash or a severe downwash rearwards of the car, it takes energy away from the car to
do so. Achieving this balance for this particular configuration for Stealth III looks to be halfway
between the high taill and reference models but it is yet to be determined what is the optimum
solution, requiring further investigation potentially without the wheels to better isolate the
changes.
FLAT FLOOR HIGH TAIL

Rearmost ZY plane at 1.4 m behind body with all subsequent 13 planes in 0.3m steps.
Figure 34 - Floor Angles at 15° Yaw - Rear Wake Pressure Scalar
An unexpected outcome of running the three floor angles is that the drag of the helmet has a
significant increase for only the high tail, rising from 0.019 to 0.026, an increase of 3.61% on
the overall coefficient of drag (Table 6). This same effect occurs for the 15° yaw configuration
as well (Table 10).
As with all the other experimental models, they all produce more lift when at yaw regardless
of what changes are being made.
Across both yaw configurations, the reference model angle of 1.8° is still the best floor angle
to run due to having the lowest drag coefficient and a lift coefficient that is still within the aims
set for this project.
45 | P a g e
5.3. Floor Edge Radius

An increase in radius size did reduce the overall drag coefficient however it’s clear that there
is a point of diminishing returns at least from an overall standpoint. Introducing a radius did
not significantly impact the flow structure on the top surface past the helmet fairing and
channel with all pressure scalars below in Table 14 showing similar location and pressure
value of each wake region across from 0mm to 90mm radius.
Zero Degrees Yaw 15 Degrees Yaw

REFERENCE
10
mm
50
mm
90
mm
A B C D E
(RL) (FL) (RR) (FR)
Table 14 - Floor Edge Radius at Zero and 15° Yaw - Total Pressure Scalar Sections
46 | P a g e
On the other hand, introducing a radius did have an impact on the underfloor flow structure
with Table 14 above showing a trend in the size and pressure of the wheel wake when
changing the level of radiuses. For 15 degrees yaw, there are 4 identifiable pressure regions,
one traveling rearwards each of the wheels.
Wake A, B and E (Table 14) both increase in the size of the region in line with an increase of
radius as the region is not as concentrated or low in pressure from being able to travel in the
larger gap between underfloor and ground and is able to diffuse into the surrounding air better
on the far side. Being able to rid the energy used to accelerate these regions to become high
velocity and low-pressure conditions reduces the drag of the body. Figure 35 shows the effect
of this better comparing the reference and 90mm versions.
Figure 35 - Farside Front Wheel Wake at 15 Degrees Yaw - Reference (Left) vs 90mm (Right)
There is a trend in the Table 7 in that shows as the floor radius increases, the pitch moment
of the car reduces. Figure 36 shows the total pressure distribution of the underfloor and here
it’s clear where the source of this trend comes from. The reference model with a pitch moment
of -3.574 Nm (Table 7) has a low-pressure region at area A generated from the sharp floor
edge and the expanding cross-sectional area of the nose which is producing undesirable front-
end downforce and pitching the car onto its front wheel, increasing rear end instability.
This effect gets considerably worse when in 15 degrees yaw as indicated at area C, results
show a 320% increase to -11.574 Nm (Table 11). An additional long low-pressure region is
also generated at area D in which with the high angle of attack the airflow is coming from, the
sharp edge here trips up the boundary layer and combined with the deflected air from the front
wheels, it generates a vortex.
47 | P a g e
REFERENCE 10mm RADIUS REFERENCE 10mm RADIUS 90mm RADIUS

ZERO YAW ZERO YAW 15 DEG YAW 15 DEG YAW 15 DEG YAW
C F H
A B
E G I
Figure 36 - Underfloor Total Pressure Scalar (No Clipping)
However just introducing a 10mm radius on the floor edge reduces this effect significantly with
improvement of 23.59% and 76.96% for zero- and 15-degrees yaw conditions respectively.
The elimination of the sharp edge allows the boundary layer to remain attached to the surface
for longer and not be churned into a vortex immediately. Increasing the radius to 90mm
furthers improves this by 64.75% and 192.38% for zero and 15° yaw condition respectively
over the reference model, and the reduction in peak pressure differential can clearly be seen
between area C and H.
There is however a disadvantage of running higher radiuses in which the nature of radius
allows more airflow to be ducted to the underfloor of the car rather than continuing along the
side of the body. This increase of mass air flow influences the size of the low-pressure regions
occurring inboard of the nearside front and rear wheels and this can be clearly seen in Figure
36 at area E, F, G, H and I.
48 | P a g e
Overall there is a benefit from introducing a radius on the floor edges and this effect is
significant for both 10 and 50mm radius. While 90mm does perform well regarding its body
solely, there is point of diminishing returns in zero yaw conditions and with the more exposed
rear wheels shown in Figure 17, its overall drag coefficient is higher. Shrouding the wheels
would reduce the impact of rotating wheels as well as allowing for a smaller opening as
determined with the later developed model.
At 15 degrees yaw, if the results were focused purely on the body, there was a more significant
drag reduction at higher radius values with 0.168, 0.163, 0.161, and 0.155 for 0mm, 10mm,
50mm, and 90mm radiuses respectively. However again such is the profound effect of further
exposing the rotating wheels, only the 10mm radius shell managed to achieve a reduction in
total drag coefficient compared to the sharp reference shell.
49 | P a g e
5.4. Wheel Fairing

Across all the experimental models, the introduction of wheel fairings produces most
significant improvement in drag and lift coefficient at both zero- and 15-degrees yaw
conditions. Compared to the reference model, the fairings help the body to produce more
overall lift to the point where the lift/downforce is near neutralised (Table 8 and Table 12).
In zero yaw conditions, across all different wheel fairing designs, there is a consistent trend
of that a low-pressure region exists within the inner wheel volume which leaks out onto the
underfloor shown on the reference design in Figure 37. With the introduction of the wheel
fairings, the openings move down and become smaller due to the circular nature of the
wheel itself. The result of this is that particular region moves down closer to the ground and
consists of much lower pressure in a more concentrated area. The size of the openings
dictates how much air get leaked out and therefore the size of the wake left behind, and the
difference between the floating and fixed fairings in Figure 37 shows exactly this.
REFERENCE
FLOATING
FAIRINGS
FULLY FIXED
FAIRINGS
SHORTENED
FAIRINGS
Figure 37 - Front Wheel Pressure Wake (Zero Yaw) - Scalar Sections
50 | P a g e
The wheel fairings are also more consistent across zero and 15° yaw, an average increase
of 9.53% vs 21.45% and 17.21% for the combined averages of floor edge radiuses and
angle designs respectively (Table 12). A lower increase means the car is less sensitive to
the wind direction which is constantly changing in a circuit style race track. The fairings with
their longer tails act as a flow conditioner for the floor, cleaning up the airflow and redirecting
it to the rear of the car rather than allowing it to escape through the side in 15° yaw. This is
shown in Figure 38 with most notably the distance of the wake coming off the nearside front
wheel to the far side rear wheel. The further away it is, the more it merges with the nearside
rear wheel wake, producing a neater and smaller wake.
REFERENCE – Cd 0.227 FLOATING – Cd 0.197 FIXED – Cd 0.208 SHORTENED – Cd 0.215
Figure 38 – 15° Yaw Wheel Fairing Wakes Pressure Scalar at Z 0.05m
The intention of shortening the fairings was to still reduce the drag of the rotating wheels by
shrouding them from the airflow but minimise its length to reduce its impact and higher
frontal area in high yaw conditions. The results in Table 12 shows that the aim has been met
with the fully fixed arrangement giving a 12.42% drag force increase and 1099.12% lift force
increase from zero to 15° yaw, while the shortened fairing gave only 9.73% drag force
increase and 591.99% lift force increase from zero to 15° yaw, making the shortened fairing
51 | P a g e
less drag and lift sensitive. However, the shortened fairing still produced more downforce
and drag in both conditions and therefore is worse option of the two. The benefit of the
longer fairing tail is that it acts as a flow conditioner.
Breaking down the results in Table 8 and Table 12, it’s clear that a trend is occurring which
by shrouding the wheels, the body does increase in drag but however is offset more by the
reduction in each wheel’s drag, resulting in a lower drag overall and confirming the benefits it
brings to low drag and speed vehicle such as the PAC Car II and Stealth III.
The floating and fixed fairing shells both resulted in similar drag coefficient of 0.185 and
0.186 respectively but with the fixed front fairings shrouding the full steerable envelope of the
wheels, its frontal area is 2.2% larger and therefore produce a higher CdA overall.
For the developed model if the best wheel fairing (floating front wheel fairing) was combined
with a floor edge radius, the interaction between these would potentially add mass and
complexity and the reduction of 2.77% CdA can’t be justified as an overall package (Table
8). A more realistic option to manufacture and race reliably is to use the fully fixed front
wheel fairings in combination with the 90mm radiused floor.
52 | P a g e
5.5. Developed Model

Following the results of the 3 experimental areas, the following models were chosen to be
combined for the developed model.
• 90mm Radius
• Reference Floor Angle
• Fixed Wheel Fairings
However, the rear fixed wheel fairings were redesigned to increase its airfoil camber angle,
with the change shown in Figure 39. The intention of this was to increase the inwash effect
and improve boundary layer attachment on the outboard surface. Increased camber also help
to offset the effect of the floor angle by reducing the change in underfloor cross section for a
short length of the car. The lower pressure of the region between the rear wheels can been
seen in Figure 40.
Reference
Fixed
Fairing
Developed
Fairing
Figure 39 - Developed Rear Fairing vs Fixed and Reference Models
Figure 40 - Total Pressure Scalar of Reference vs Developed Models - Bottom View
53 | P a g e
The developed model resulted in the lowest coefficient of drag of 0.184 across all models
ran in this project for zero yaw and 0.204 for 15° yaw, second to floating wheel fairing model,
and a drag reduction of 4.64% and 10.13% respectively over the reference model (Table 9).
Both lift and pitch moment have both reduced to the point in which at zero yaw, the whole
model is producing only 0.45N of downforce which falls well within the initial aims and pitch
moment has been reduced by 20.03% from reference. However, lift force at 15° yaw has
more than doubled with 93% of the increase coming from the body itself (Table 13). This is
more than the initial aims set, and due to the near neutral balance of lift/downforce, the jump
from -0.009 to 0.503 makes it the most sensitive model lift-wise, potentially compromising
stability.
Figure 41 shows the difference in how uniform the airflow is distributed across the width of
the underfloor. It’s clear the difference that the front wheel fairing has made on ensuring a
clean and even distribution of the airflow once past the fairing. The combination of 1.5°
cambered front fairings and the 1.8° floor angle ensures a small inwash effect is created
which carries the airflow outboard of the front wheels to inboard of the rear wheels, reducing
the size of the rear wake.
Figure 41 - Underfloor Airflow Distribution of Reference (Top) vs Developed (Bottom) -Streamline at Z 0.12m
The leading edge of all rotating wheels has the highest-pressure region over the whole car
(Figure 42) and shrouding them with a more aerodynamically efficient design reduces this
peak pressure and ensures that airflow travelling either side of the wheel can re-join together
after the wheel in a more uniform fashion. By just shrouding the wheels, the overall drag
coefficient was reduced by 7.22%, this is countered by the increased drag of the body giving
an increase of 5.67%. Combined with the helmet’s reduced drag and increased total frontal
area, its CdA did improve by 4.64% overall (Table 9).
However, running an aerofoil profile for a wheel fairing means that the air is being
accelerated more on the sides, and imparting a side force through the change in pressure.
54 | P a g e
Unsteady air and variable wind conditions can affect the level of flow attachment on the
fairing surfaces and can introduce unwanted car side instability.
Reference Model Developed Model
Figure 42 - Reference vs Developed Pressure Scalar – Front Side View
The rear wake size and pressure distribution shown in Figure 43 has changed significantly
with a more concentrated centralised wake for the body and a more isolated and normalised
rear wheel wake. Unfortunately, in the case of the developed model, the wake of the rear
wheels has been pushed further outboard compared to the reference design. The analysis
undertaken for the floor angle has shown that this can be solved by raising the floor by
approximately 1 to 2 degrees.
1m
REFERENCE DEVELOPED
Figure 43 - Reference vs Developed Rear Wake at 1m offset from Car
At 15° yaw, the largest difference is in the rear wake region on the far side when compared
to the reference design shown in Figure 44. The change in wheel fairing design and floor
edge radius has managed to leave a smaller pressure change in the air, reducing the
acceleration of the air stream in this area and therefore has taken less energy from the car
when being pushed through the air. The drag coefficient has reduced by 10.13% from
reference, a significant step forward for its real-world performance (Table 13)
55 | P a g e
REFERENCE DEVELOPED
Figure 44 - 15° Yaw Rear Total Pressure Wake Reference vs Developed
Figure 45 - Velocity Scalar of Developed Front Wheel Internal Volume (Body removed for visual clarity and Plane
at Axle)
Overall the developed model has made a positive step in improving the aerodynamic
performance. Apart from the floating wheel fairing with its high complexity on the physical
car, this model produces the lowest drag coefficient value across the board for both zero and
15° yaw conditions. Factoring in the change in frontal area, the wind-averaged CdA
improved by 5.77% with a 4.64% and 8.35% individual improvement for zero and 15° yaw
respectively as detailed in Table 13.
56 | P a g e
6. Experimental Results
COEFFICIENT OF DRAG VS YAW ANGLE - REFERENCE

Raw Data - Cd Averaged Data - Cd CFD Data - Cd
0.450
0.400
COEFFICIENT OF DRAG
0.350
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.150
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
YAW ANGLE (°)
Figure 46 - Wind Tunnel - Coefficient of Drag vs Yaw Angle Graph
Yaw Angle Actual

(°) -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Raw Data - Cd 0.382 0.265 0.259 0.249 0.245 0.244 0.274 0.427 0.417
Averaged Data -
0.400 0.310 0.267 0.247 0.245 0.246 0.267 0.310 0.400
Cd
CFD Data - Cd - 0.227 - - 0.194 - - 0.227 -
CFD and Average
- 0.083 - - 0.051 - - 0.083 -
WT Difference
Table 15 - Wind Tunnel Reference Model - Coefficient of Drag vs Yaw Angle
57 | P a g e
COEFFICENT OF LIFT VS YAW ANGLE - REFERENCE

Cl - Raw Data Cl - Averaged Result Cl - CFD Result
0.500
0.400
0.300
COEFFICIENT OF LIFT
0.200
0.100
0.000
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-0.100
-0.200
-0.300
YAW ANGLE (°)
Figure 47 - Wind Tunnel - Coefficient of Lift vs Yaw Angle Graph
Yaw Angle Actual (°) -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Raw Data - Cl 0.337 0.084 -0.112 -0.223 -0.213 -0.188 -0.081 0.141 0.388
Averaged Result - Cl 0.363 0.113 -0.096 -0.206 -0.213 -0.205 -0.096 0.113 0.362
CFD Result - Cl - 0.255 - - -0.104 - - 0.255 -
Difference between CFD and
- 0.142 - - 0.109 - - 0.142 -
Averaged Wind Tunnel
Table 16 - Wind Tunnel Reference Model - Coefficient of Lift vs Yaw Angle
58 | P a g e
PITCH MOMENT VS YAW ANGLE - REFERENCE

Pitch Moment (Nm) Averaged Out Pitch Moment (Nm)
Corrected Pitch Moment to match CFD (Nm) CFD Pitch Moment (Nm)
0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
-5
PITCH MOMENT (NM)
-10
-15
-20
-25
YAW ANGLE (°)
Figure 48 - Wind Tunnel – Pitch Moment vs Yaw Angle Graph
Yaw Angle Actual (°) -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Pitch Moment (Nm) -16.213 -12.013 -11.061 -10.041 -10.321 -10.751 -12.819 -19.571 -20.401
Averaged Out Pitch
-18.307 -15.792 -11.940 -10.396 -10.321 -10.396 -11.940 -15.792 -18.307
Moment (Nm)
Corrected Pitch Moment to
-19.827 -17.102 -12.931 -11.259 -11.177 -11.259 -12.931 -17.102 -19.827
match CFD (Nm)
CFD Pitch Moment (Nm) - -11.451 - - -3.574 - - -11.45 -
Difference between CFD
and Averaged Wind Tunnel - 5.651 - - 7.603 -- - 5.652 -
Value (Nm)
Table 17 - Wind Tunnel Reference Model – Pitch Moment vs Yaw Angle
59 | P a g e
7. Experimental Discussion
Following the successful first wind tunnel test session for the reference model, there were a
few observations made from the results and the flow visualisation using tufts.
15 degrees Anomaly in Yaw Sweep
There is a notable anomaly at both negative and positive 15° yaw with both presenting
opposite change. 3 tests were carried out to try source the problem and eliminate it including
ensuring no contact was possible with the aluminium panel underneath. However, despite all
wheels being secured in place and no bodywork to be visibly moving, it remains. It is
suggested that it stems from a unique set of flow conditions that only occurs at the angle of
15 degrees as 20 degrees follows the expected increase in the result. In Table 15 for
coefficient of drag, both the raw and averaged data is provided. The averaged data has had
the ± 15° results removed and replaced with a 5th order polynomial trendline predicted value
based on the remaining averaged out values. This gives a much better indication of the car’s
performance and is much more closely in line with the results shown in Figure 9 from ETH
Zurich’s Shell Eco Marathon car, PAC Car II from the literature review.
The wind tunnel did present a set of force values in the wind tunnel X, Y and Z axis (Table 18)
which was recalculated to an attempt to acquire a better set of results or see whether the
supposed drag values have been miscalculated for 15° and beyond. However, it has resulted
in the exact same value, which suggests the wind data did calculate its values correctly. Figure
55 with all the raw data plotted on a single graph shows most of the values did get affected at
± 15 degrees and is not an isolated issue.
Further wind tunnel sessions to test the impact of the wheels and the pressure relief channels
would allow the more complex aspects of the geometry to be eliminated from being the source
of the change occurring at ± 15 degrees.
Results
Overall the reference car in the wind tunnel had a drag and lift coefficient of 0.244 and -
0.203, CFD for reference had 0.194 and -0.104 for drag and lift coefficient. Pitch moment had
a significant increase to -11.177 Nm, an increase of 7.603 over the CFD model. There are a
few potential sources of difference when comparing data between the wind tunnel and the
CFD simulations, including the following;
• There is a difference in Reynolds number due to the limited air velocity allowed in the
wind tunnel. Wind tunnel model’s size currently is pushing the limits of what’s allowed
in the working section.
60 | P a g e
• There are several areas of imperfections in the surface finish including the application
of the aluminium tape, disturbing the boundary layer from the nose onwards which
compared to the perfect virtual surface in CFD having zero imperfections.
• No slip condition on the ground surface compared to the aluminium sheet in the wind
tunnel creating a small boundary layer.
• Position of the model relative to the rear of the aluminium
• Non-rotating wheels as explained in the following section.
Unfortunately, due to the complexity of the system, the limited space within the body and the
time available, it was not feasible to simulate rotating wheels for this test session. All wheels
were completed fixed in place. As determined in the wind tunnel setup period, the comparison
of non-rotating vs rotating wheels and raising the car up was explored. As an estimate the
non-rotating wheel combined with a raised car resulted in a 9 count increase in drag coefficient
and 38 count increase in lift coefficient. This would explain partially the increase of drag and
lift the data from the wind tunnel had over the CFD results.
Figure 49 - Front side view of wind tunnel reference model showing position of wheels relative to ground
During the design phase of the wind tunnel model, the intention was to keep the aerodynamic
slim strut neutral to the airflow and manually rotate the model around that point via multiple
mounting points on the chassis. However, it occurred during assembly that this wasn’t
possible. Therefore, the results beyond zero yaw will be affected by the flow conditioning that
the strut is doing on the air flow downstream. In Table 15, the difference between CFD and
the averaged values increases, potentially caused by the strut redirecting the airflow in a
different direction than what it would’ve done naturally without a strut in place.
Flow Structures Observed
When moving the tuft location around in front of car in the zero yaw configuration, it clearly
shown that there was a ‘suction’ effect in both front wheel openings with the tuft direct itself
into the volume without much persuasion. It was noted that inboard of the front wheel had a
stronger effect to the point the tuft being positioned outboard of the body would get drawn
inboard and into the volume.
61 | P a g e
Figure 50 - Wind Tunnel - ‘Suction' Effect of the Front Wheel Openings at Zero Yaw
At 15 degrees yaw, as shown in the numerical analysis in Figure 30, the front wheel opening
on the nearside is ducting airflow through and is likely making its way through the common
cockpit duct and making its exit through the farside opening.
Figure 51 - Reference Wind Tunnel Model - Tuft indicating air being ducted through opening
In zero yaw, there was a noticeable effect observed during the test session of the air being
ducted into the rear internal volume through the rearmost opening and this occurred for the
flow traveling along the helmet fairing channels and the underfloor shown in Figure 52.
Figure 52 - Reverse Flow into Rear Internal Volume - Underfloor (Left) & Helmet Fairing Channel (Right)
However at 15 degrees yaw, this phenomenon has largely disappeared and in this case, is
exhausting airflow out of the opening shown in Figure 53 and suggesting that there’s a point
in which this has transitioned in between zero and 15 degrees yaw, stemming from unique
set of aerodynamic flow conditions.
62 | P a g e
Figure 53 - Tuft Direction indicating flow direction at 15° yaw on Reference Model
Overall the wind tunnel model and test session were both a success. The model managed to
be stable, imparted minimal side force at zero yaw, indicating a symmetrical model setup
and coped with 45 m/s stream of airflow hitting the car at 20 degrees angle. Initial
observations were made on the flow structures which did closely replicate the CFD
simulations, but along with the 15-degrees anomaly in the results, more time spent in the
wind tunnel is needed to reach a concrete conclusion on the performance of the car.
63 | P a g e
8. Future Work
Wind Tunnel Test – Developed Version
Unfortunately, due to lack of manufacturing availability, the developed floor was not able to be
manufactured and tested in time. However, following the wind tunnel analysis of the reference
shell, it would still be extremely useful to validate the changes made in CFD for the developed
model and ensure that the work being carried out is heading in the right direction of reducing
coefficient of drag in both zero- and 15-degrees yaw conditions. Due to the design of the wind
tunnel model being separated into a top and bottom component, the bottom floor can be easily
be swapped out with the developed version and retested in the wind tunnel.
Zero to 15 degrees Yaw Analysis in 2.5° Increments

While doing zero and 15 degrees CFD simulations and wind tunnel tests is a great indication
of performance, there is a need of more data points to be determined in between these two
yaw angles which will allow to see exactly how sensitive each design is. The downside of
carrying out this investigation is the computational power and time required to carry out such
investigation. If such resource is available, this would bear more fruit and able to calculate the
vehicle’s performance on a race track more effectively with factoring in wind direction and
magnitude.
Chined vs Non-Chined Body Geometry

In all the 15 degrees yaw simulations, there is a consistent vortex formation along the outside
edge of the cockpit. It is at this point due to the turbulence of the cockpit edge, it quickly forms
a very large wake. This top edge is 10mm radius which while is not sharp, it doesn’t help the
airflow to remain attached to the surface for as long as possible. This stems from the
necessary manufacturing requirements that lead to the chined panel nature of the reference
body. It would be interesting to investigate the difference between a chined and a non-chined
version featuring highly radiused corners with no flat panels and its impact on the car’s
aerodynamics.
Isosurface set to 170 Pa Total Pressure
Figure 54 - Top Body Edge Vortex Formation at 15° Yaw - Axial Velocity (Left) and Total Pressure (Right)
64 | P a g e
9. Conclusion
The results of the experimental CFD models are as expected based on the literature
reviewed and can be concluded to the following points;
• An increase in floor angle also increases the downforce generated as well as transferring
pitch moment to be more rearward bias.
• An increase in floor edge radius reduces the drag coefficient of the body but due to
further exposing the wheel, the additional drag of the wheel offset any gains made with
50mm and 90mm radiuses bodies.
• The wheel fairing brings a substantial benefit to both the drag and lift of the car, with the
steerable front wheel fairing having the best results across all models tested throughout
this project
Following the results of the experimental CFD simulations, a developed body was designed
with fully fixed wheel fairing (with redesigned rear fairings), 90mm floor edge radius and
reference floor angle of 1.8°. The results of this developed model have shown a drag
coefficient improvement of 4.64% and 10.13% for zero- and 15-degree yaw configurations
respectively, partially meeting the primary aim of 10% reduction of coefficient of drag.
As per the aims of the project, the frontal area has been maintained within ± 0.03m 2 with
developed model only increasing by 0.005m 2. The lift coefficient of the developed model is a
near neutral value of -0.009 meeting the target range easily. What was not specified in the
aims was its lift coefficient for 15 degree yaw and this has doubled to 0.503 over the
reference model. Whether generating more lift beyond a certain point is beneficial to the
car’s performance on track is yet to be determined, the rolling resistance reduces which
helps straight line performance but the maximum grip available in the corners would reduce,
leading to more sliding and loss of energy.
The impact that the size and locating of the wheel opening has on the rear wake is
significant and the size and pressure of the internal front and rear volume affect this variable.
Having a wheel fairing moves the location of leakage lower down near the ground which
generates two side vortexes but still gives the best improvement over the reference design.
The main takeaway from running the yaw simulations is that the shrouding the wheels
reduces the drag significantly, with the floating design in 15° performing better than some
models in zero yaw. Across all the models, the lift increased regardless of the changes being
made, suggesting it’s due to the geometry of the top surfaces which has been untouched
throughout this project.
65 | P a g e
A custom wind tunnel model has been successfully designed, manufactured and tested in
the Coventry University Wind Tunnel. This had a drag and lift coefficient of 0.244 and -0.203
respectively. Unfortunately due to the design of the mounting hardware, the aerodynamic
strut could only be fastened in one direction and when increasing the wind yaw angle, the
impact of the strut will grow. This potentially explains the bigger difference in drag and lift
results at higher yaw angles.
The main strength of this project is the amount of data collected for different body
geometries which will help guide future development.
A limitation of the final developed model is that not every design combination was simulated
in Star CCM+ and therefore the current developed model may not be the best possible
design due to the nature of interaction between each design. Further iterations of the
developed model would help determine this. Particularly for the experimental area of varying
floor angles, it would’ve been beneficial to run a floor angled at 4 ° to complete the full
sweep from 0 to 6°.
The correlation of the wind tunnel model to the CFD simulation is poor with several aspects
of the setup not perfectly matched up. There were too many changes to the final wind tunnel
configuration to allow the CFD to be accurately compared against. A new CFD simulation
will need to be created, replicating the conditions that the model in the wind tunnel was
undergoing to understand the true offset between the two aerodynamic analysis methods for
a low drag body as such as Stealth III.
Unfortunately, due to the lack of time available, the developed model has not been
manufactured or ran in the wind tunnel which would’ve been an extremely useful set of
results to see whether the change in results are constant between the CFD and wind tunnel
simulation methods.
To conclude, the project would be considered as a partial success with the majority of the
aims achieved, most notably the 10.13% reduction of drag at 15° yaw. However with the lack
of rotating wheels in the wind tunnel model leading to a loss of correlation to the numerical
analysis and no experimental analysis of the developed body to evaluate the effectiveness of
the changes made in floor angle, edge radius and wheel fairing designs, there’s still lots of
work and potential findings to be found in the area of low drag electric racing cars.
66 | P a g e
10. Appendices
10.1. Appendix 1 – CFD Reference Mesh Parameters Values
All the values changed from the standard supplied mesh values within Star CCM+ are listed
below.
Default Values
Target Surface Size – 1.0m
Minimum Surface Size - 0.001m
Prism Layers - 20
Prism Layer Stretching - 1.2
Prism Layer total thickness - 12mm
Body
Minimum Surface Size – 0.0025m
Rollbar
Wake Refinement Relative Size – 0.005m
Wake Refinement Growth Rate – 1.3
Wake Refinement Distance – 0.35m in negative X direction
Wake Refinement Spread Angle - 7.5 degrees
Car Volumetric Control

Size – 0.0225m
Wind Tunnel
67 | P a g e
10.2. Appendix 2 – Coventry University Wind Tunnel Full Specification

Detailed below is the full specification of the Coventry University Wind Tunnel supplied by
Coventry University.
The Coventry University wind tunnel is an open-jet single return tunnel. It has been designed
to accommodate, with a suitable ground board installed, 20% scale open-wheel racing car
models with a maximum air velocity of 45 m/s at standard conditions. A schematic of the
tunnel air path is shown above.
Wind Tunnel
Type Closed single return tunnel with open-jet working section

Corner turning vanes Rolled steel vanes bonded into assemblies
Three stainless steel settling screens 500 mm apart at the entrance to the
Air settling
contraction
57.4% open area, 1 mm aperture size (2 off 2460x1890mm, 1 off
Mesh screen specification
2286x1890mm)
Honeycomb wall in settling chamber, 75 mm thick x 5.2 mm core size (1 off
Air straightening
2286x1890mm)
Temperature control Water cooled to ± 2° C by a cooling coil
Fan power 110 kW (147.5 hp) variable speed DC motor
Data Acquisition and
Model balance bespoke design by Mercedes AMG F1
Control
Working Section
Type Open Jet Length 2.5 m
Contraction ratio 3.63:1
Maximum air velocity 45.0 m/s
Nozzle width 1,300 mm
Nozzle height 1.000 mm
68 | P a g e
10.3. Appendix 3 – Wind Tunnel Raw Data

Below is the raw wind tunnel data without any modifications.
Yaw Angle Actual (°) -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Wind Speed (m/s) 45.129 45.214 45.241 45.258 45.273 45.262 45.231 45.182 45.130
3
Air Density (kg/m ) 1.176 1.176 1.177 1.177 1.177 1.177 1.177 1.177 1.177
Frontal Area (m2) 0.0313 0.0313 0.0313 0.0313 0.0313 0.0313 0.0313 0.0313 0.0313
Drag Force (N) 14.325 9.951 9.766 9.388 9.232 9.209 10.330 16.044 15.654
Lift Force (N) 12.622 3.169 -4.211 -8.411 -8.039 -7.095 -3.055 5.303 14.566
Side Force (N) 46.250 33.764 21.780 11.708 0.109 -11.498 -22.313 -32.382 -46.573
Resolved Force X (N) 29.279 18.351 13.400 10.373 9.232 10.176 14.048 23.878 30.638
Resolved Force Y (N) 38.561 30.038 19.753 10.845 0.109 -10.651 -20.181 -27.126 -38.410
Resolved Force Z (N) 12.622 3.169 -4.211 -8.411 -8.039 -7.095 -3.055 5.303 14.566
Roll Moment (Nm) 51.325 37.535 24.153 12.853 0.162 -12.392 -24.413 -35.630 -51.099
Yaw Moment (Nm) -2.928 -2.645 -2.098 -1.236 -0.059 1.221 2.025 2.507 2.491
Pitch Moment (Nm) -16.213 -12.013 -11.061 -10.041 -10.321 -10.751 -12.819 -19.570 -20.401
Table 18 - Reference Wind Tunnel Test Raw Data
WIND TUNNEL RAW DATA VS YAW ANGLE

Wind Speed Syn (m/s) Air Density (kg/m3) Drag Force (N)
Lift Force (N) Side Force (N) Resolved Force X (N)
Resolved Force Y (N) Resolved Force Z (N) Roll Moment (Nm)
Yaw Moment (Nm) Pitch Moment (Nm)
60.000
40.000
20.000
VARIOUS
0.000
-20.000 -15.000 -10.000 -5.000 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000
-20.000
-40.000
-60.000
YAW ANGLE (°)
Figure 55 - Wind Tunnel – All Raw Data vs Yaw Angle Graph
69 | P a g e
11. References
Engineering (2016) Choosing the Right Turbulence Model for your CFD simulation
[online] available from
<www.engineering.com/DesignSoftware/DesignSoftwareArticles/ArticleID/13743/Cho
osing-the-Right-Turbulence-Model-for-Your-CFD-Simulation.aspx > [29 April 2019]
ETH Zurich. (2005) The World’s Most Fuel-Efficient Vehicle.
CH-8092 Zurich: Vdf Hochschulerlag AG
Greenpower Live Timing (2018) Greenpower Live Timing [online] available from
<www.bbk-online.net/gpt/> [18 February 2019]
Greenpower Rules and Regulations 2018 (2018) Greenpower 2018 Rules and
Regulations [online] available from <www.greenpower.co.uk/news/technical-and-
sporting-regulations-2018> [18 February 2019]
J.P. Howell. (1994) ‘The Influence of Ground Simulation on the Aerodynamic of

Simple Car Shapes with an Underfloor Diffuser’. [online] available from
<www.saemobilus.sae.org/content/970134> [18 February 2019]
Morelli, A. (1976) ‘The Body Shape of Minimum Drag’. [online] available from
<www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/760186/> [18 February 2019]
Olson, N. (2019) Individual Project – Interim Report. Unpublished Bachelors Thesis.

Coventry University: Coventry.
R. Buchhiem, K.-R. Deutenbach, H.-J. Luckoff. (1981) ‘Necessity and Premises for
Reducing the Aerodynamic Drag of Future Passenger Cars’. [online] available from
<www.saemobilus.sae.org/content/810185> [18 February 2019]
70 | P a g e
R. H. Barnard. (2009) Road Vehicle Aerodynamic Design
St Albans: MechAero Publishing
Symscape (2009) Reynolds Averaged Naiver Stokes Equations [online] available

from < www.symscape.com/reynolds-averaged-navier-stokes-equations > [29 April
2019]
71 | P a g e

Stealth III Aerodynamics Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stealth III Aerodynamics Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STEALTH III AERODYNAMIC

ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPMENT

4.2.4. Developed Model........................................................................................................ 40

Figure 41 - Underfloor Airflow Distribution of Reference (Top) vs Developed (Bottom) -

Figure 1 - Stealth II at Dunsfold Park 2017

• Floor diffuser angle

Figure 2 - Development Process for Project

1.2. Aims and Constraints

Table 1 - Relevant 2018 Greenpower Bodywork Regulations (Greenpower, 2018)

Literature 1 - The World’s Most Fuel-Efficient Vehicle – ETH Zurich

Figure 3 - PAC-Car II in Nogaro 2005 (ETH Zurich, 2005)

Literature 2 – The Body Shape of Minimum Drag by Anthony Morelli

Figure 4 - Basic Morelli Shape (Anthony Morelli, 1976)

Literature 3 – Road Vehicle Aerodynamic Design – Third Edition by RH Barnard

2.2. Investigations into underfloor diffuser angles

Figure 5 - Influence of diffuser angle on drag coefficient (RH Barnard, 2009)

Morelli Body Shape

Without Wheels 0.071 -0.044 -0.187

With Wheels 0.177 0.166 -0.074

Equation 1 - Total Resistance Force (RH Barnard, 2009)

2.3. Investigations into wheel wells designs

Figure 8 - Front Wheel Fairings (ETH Zurich, 2005)

2.4. Investigations into reducing aerodynamic drag in high yaw conditions

Figure 10 - Shape 2 in CFD (Courtesy of RUAG) (ETH Zurich, 2005)

• 95mm ground clearance

Figure 11 - Stealth III at Castle Combe F24+ Heat 2018

Figure 12 - Stealth III - Reference CAD Model

Figure 13 - Front Wheel Internal Volume with Bulkheads

Figure 15 - Reference Stealth III Chassis with Wheels

3.1.2. Experimental CAD Models

Figure 16 - High Tail (Blue), Reference (Orange), Flat Floor (Green)

Reference Model 10mm Radius

50mm Radius 90mm Radius

Figure 18 - Wheel Fairing Experimental Designs

3.1.3. CFD Setup and Mesh Settings

Figure 19 - Wall Y+ Scalar of Reference Zero Yaw Simulation

Part Pressure Shear Net

Body 0.0748 55.85% 0.0591 44.15% 0.1339

Figure 20 - Wind Tunnel Side View (Mesh)

Table 4 - CFD Surface Conditions

Wake Refinement on Roll bar

15 degrees Yaw Simulation

3.1.4. Mesh Independency Study

Mesh Cell Pitch Moment

Coefficient of Drag vs Mesh Cell Count

Figure 21 - Coefficient of Drag vs Mesh Cell Count

The reference mesh parameters values can be found in Appendix 1.

Figure 22 - Coventry University Wind Tunnel Schematic (Coventry University, 2019)

3.2.2 Wind Tunnel Model Specification

Figure 23 - Wind Tunnel Model CAD View

Rotating vs Non-Rotating Wheels

3.2.3. Wind Tunnel Model Design and Manufacture

Figure 25 – 26 Components manufactured by 3D printing

RAW 3D PRINT SURFACE FILLED & SANDED COMPLETED SURFACE FINISH

Figure 27 - Completed Wind Tunnel Model Side View

4.1. Zero Degree Yaw Simulations

REFERENCE HIGH TAIL FLAT FLOOR

Total 0.194 0.203 0.009 4.64% 0.202 0.008 4.12%

Body 0.134 0.133 -0.001 -0.52% 0.139 0.005 2.58%

FL 0.009 0.009 0.000 0.00% 0.009 0.000 0.00%

RL 0.004 0.007 0.003 1.55% 0.005 0.001 0.52%

Total -0.104 -0.394 -0.290 -278.85% 0.016 0.120 115.38%

Rollbar 0.007 0.007 0.000 0.00% 0.007 0.000 0.00%

FL -0.007 -0.010 -0.003 -2.88% -0.008 -0.001 -0.96%