原帖由
arthurchanny 於 2010-2-10 06:35 PM 發表
Is it just me or the RB6 looks nearly the same as RB5?
And does anyone notice the VR-01 nose dips a little be like an Indy Car...? As in the fact that the VR-01 nose dips and it is shar ...
你睇得冇錯
架 RB6 的外形的確和 RB5 沒有太大分別, 它是 RB5 的 evolution (進化版本), 或者讓我們聽聽它的設計者 Adrian Newey 的介紹 :-
This year's car, as you can see, is an evolution of last year's car. We've tried to look at which bits we feel we can still improve, but it has been more a question of packaging the fuel tank and optimising the double diffuser than the more normal evolution. We tried to refine and evolve it rather than go to new concepts. As a result, the car looks similar, with elements such as the chassis and pull-rod rear suspension retained.
Like everybody else, the near double-size of the fuel tank is a straightforward packaging problem. You can either go longer, higher or wider - or a combination of all three. Like everyone else, probably, we have done a combination. One of the downsides of going wider means that you have to make the radiators smaller if you are not very careful, which can compromise cooling.
We are somewhat longer in the chassis, but I don't think it is a big effect on the rest of the car. Everyone is now in a position where they have a wheelbase of somewhere around three metres, so an extra 100 millimetres, 3 percent of that, isn't a big factor.
Surprisingly, the aerodynamic effects of the narrow front tyre are quite small. The main difference of course is less front grip, which means a change in the weight distribution and a change in the set-up of the car. But it has not been a big effect on the aerodynamics.
We've stuck with the pull rod. Obviously with a single diffuser, I think the pull rod is a very elegant solution. But with a double diffuser it is a bit more difficult. There are far more pros and cons - but we felt overall that it was still a good solution.
To be perfectly honest, had we been push rod in the first place we probably would not have been pull rod, but having been on pull rod for a year, and trying to understand its strengths and weaknesses, we felt it was the right way to continue.
至於架 Virgin Racing 的 VR01, 個車鼻真係好尖播! 會唔會係淨靠 Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) 設計的產物呢?
即係話 : 沒經過任何風洞測試.
Newey 對此表示懷疑喎, 佢又有野講 :
"I think CFD is a very powerful tool, there is no doubt about it, and it is another way of simulating the real environment, a wind tunnel is a simulation of the real world.
CFD is an electronic simulation of a real environment, but it still has pitfalls - not least that every single run in CFD for a given attitude of the car, or ride height, or whatever it might be, is a discreet run. Whereas in the wind tunnel, what we call a normal run, will have 20 or more data points in it. In other words, that is equivalent to 20 runs in the CFD.
That is a limitation of size really, so your CFD cluster has to be that much bigger to do that many runs. And there are some areas that CFD physically doesn't capture as well as a wind tunnel - like basic aerodynamic properties.
So how well it turns out, we shall see. It is a different route, and my personal belief is that you still need to combine the two at the moment. But maybe their car will go very well and I will have to revise my opinion."
日後便睇吓 Virgin Racing 的 chief designer Nick Wirth 會唔會剥佢棚牙啦!!
[
本帖最後由 獅象 於 2010-2-11 12:12 AM 編輯 ]
分享
