F1 » Glock: We've gone backwards – and it 'could be' due to CFD


Timo Glock has reflected that unless dramatic improvements are made, Virgin Racing could find itself in serious trouble with the reintroduced 107 per cent rule in F1 2011 - and that the cause of the team's woes may well be CFD

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest

clueless - Unregistered

March 31, 2011 11:26 AM

can someone explain to me where downforce is lost on a badly designed car? all f1 cars look very similar yet the performance gap is massive. if you put a red bull front wing on the virgin would it be seconds quicker?

Vince - Unregistered

March 31, 2011 11:46 AM

@clueless,

No, bolting a front wing on from another car may not necessarily speed things up - it will most likely slow the driver down initially as it could change the way the car handles in a negative way - remember that the front wing has a significant effect on what happens to the air about to head over the rest of the car. A lot of the little curves and small sticking flick out bits on the RBR/Ferrari/McLaren front wings are specifically tailored for these purposes.

The problem Virgin have is probably the airflow over the car is either not going to where they predicted/designed it to go, not reaching certain aerodynamic components correctly, etc.

Keep in mind that the airflow through the car itself can play a big part in performance - think back to the sort of 'gills' at the end of the sidepods on Ferrari's / toyatos from a few years back, to channel air out of the car and feed the aro at the back.

Oli - Unregistered

March 31, 2011 12:58 PM

The fact is that they are using technology championed by their chief designer, but the man in question has never built a fast F1 car despite numerous attempts.

They should just swallow their pride and put the thing in a wind tunnel. Patrick Head makes a very interesting comment in the Williams book that came out in 2009 that the first time he put one of his cars into a wind tunnel he was amazed at how inefficient it was. He really thought they had a decent design and suddenly all the flaws were shown up.

Virgin need to do the same thing so that they can progress the car - using both CFD and a wind tunnel.

Oli

Ronald McDonald - Unregistered

March 31, 2011 1:29 PM

I feel sorry for Glock.n His career was on the up when he was with Toyota but now he's stuck driving a tractor at the back of the grid. He should get out of there asap. Nick Wirthless should accept that the CFD only approach clearly doesn't work, they need to get that car in a wind tunnel!

richard

March 31, 2011 1:46 PM

a computer can only guess what happens to airflow, guided by whatever programme it was set up with. NOTHING can replicate what happens in real life, due to a huge number of variables such as caused by braking, yaw, etc. manor should swallow their pride and start using a proper wind tunnel, to at least get them on the right track (pun not intended!)

Boss B - Unregistered

March 31, 2011 2:11 PM

CFD has its merits given enough testing. Just look at the work they did for Acura in the ALMS. Going against Porsche of all people in P2.

And now with the P1 car going against Audi.

Sure in lemans racing they use restrictors to balance performance, but Audi and Porsche are much larger manufacturers than any one in F1 so Nick wirth is still going against some tough competition.

I think the real problem is Virgin isn't given him enough money to put more resources into the project. After all he just works for Virgin F1 he doesn't own it.

Honda probably gives him a blank check.

Page 1 of 2
1 2  »

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2014 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.