timmay70

iTrader: (5)

Bring back the TOJ (modernized a little)...

nagatahawk

How about one of those new Audie diesel P1 or Porche P1 bodys with an aerodynamic wing?

Then we would need to start a pan car class again. I can only wish.

Oasis

iTrader: (38)

Pan cars Rock.. It would be cool if Protoform would crank out a few once a year for us..Dale.. 1/10 235mm

RCSteve93

iTrader: (11)

Maybe its the point your eyes cant focus on green as good as other colors?

rayhuang

iTrader: (5)

I "think" that if Dale received an order paid up front for say 100 bodies-it might be worth his time to do a run!!! Of course I dont know that-I am just saying-make it worth his while or assume the risk.

rayhuang

iTrader: (5)

There are so many simple things you could try without the need for windtunnels or new bodies. Heres a short list of fun and educational things you could try with the bodies you have now:

-winglets on the front corners to add downforce
-dual element rear wing
-aero devices INSIDE the body, like winglets behind front and rear tires to make use of turbulence behind tires for downforce
-pitch body
-move whole body forward and back
-move wing forward or back
-front splitter (dont hit a marshall please)
-front wing on hood
-enclose parts of interior of body (like canopy)
-vortex generators on hood or roof
-vertical splitter on rear window
-gurney strip on end of roof
-slots above tires in front (or rear).
-cut body down middle and make it get wider towards rear or narrower
-a thousand different shape wings and different materials

Establishing as many constants as you can, a radar gun and a laptimng system will be the greatest challenges.

Oasis

iTrader: (38)

.. If I had your money Ray I would do it..But I'm poor..

nf_ekt

iTrader: (115)

Yep.... When I look at green It makes me less comfortable than other colors. When I look at dark blue I focus in much better. I've had luck with blue, and will probably keep it as a color of choice on any shell I do!

I never see racers at any local track use red as a color. Kinda made me wonder why....

I hope this thread gets back to what it started as, a list of results from different aerodynamics. Try some different shells and let us know what you find.

wagnerov

iTrader: (4)

Here's a question for Dale, since this thread has been all over the map anyway:

It's pretty much obvious that touring car bodies don't produce downforce, but they do produce a ton of drag and that is how the wings work. And the technical difference between a wing and a spoiler is that a spoiler simply doesn't have a leading edge. So why don't 1/10 TC bodies use (gigantor) spoilers instead of wings, other than the scale aspect which has left the segment long ago? Nothing in the rules say you can't do it, going by strict definitions. Then one could shape the nose of the car for ultimate theoretical downforce. The limit has already been pushed with the humps on the noses of the Protoform Lola and G6 bodies, not to mention exaggerated A-pillars on legal bodies like the Stratus 3.

For some reason I can't get images of the ol' Andy's Mercedes 500SL and MRP ASA Camaro bodieso out of my head!

About 15 years ago at the (big car) Solo II Nationals in Salina, KS, a Vette showed up with a 3-foot high spoiler hangin' off the back with big side fences. They let it run, and he won. Of course it got banned the next year....

Remember the Saturn SC2? That had a spoiler. Protoform was on the right track 10 years ago. Not that they aren't now.

Soviet

iTrader: (2)

A strict return to "scale" bodies would be great for the Touring Car class...


No more "fudged" shapes and "approximate" designs. I'd love to see the class retun to its scale modeling roots.

AngryAsian

iTrader: (4)

I'd second that!

Wagnerov - Yes yes i'm not Dale but here's a few reasons why i believe spoilers aren't used.

There was a comment about our rc's being 1:10 scale, and therefore travelling at a scale speed of say.. 800km/h. Thus, the downforce must be huge.

Unfortunately, aerodynamics do not scale. Neither does speed. Speed is a constant relative measurement. The car is still doing 80km/h, but it's just smaller. The fact that it's smaller does not mean aerodynamic forces on it, are increased. Air molecules remain the same size.

This lead onto my second point - aero does not scale.

The reason why touring bodies have such large wings is because of this. If you were to put a smale scaled down version of a naca airfoil profile it just wouldn't work. The air molexules are too big for various aerodynamic principles which provide the downforce to have affect.

Wings (or upside down ones if you want to create downforce!) work by redirecting air and exchanging mass. I won't go into it in detail, but a wing basically redirects the flow of air. To do so, the air needs to stick to the wing.

(For those who are interested - look up the Coanda effect, circulation, Bernoulli and try to form an opinion yourself!)

To do so, the wings must be large! A small wing just does not redirect enough air. So to with a spoiler. A spoiler also redirects air by allowing air to "stick" to its surface, thereby producing a downward force. Or, depending on the application, by disruption the airflow over a car so as to cancel any lifting effect that might be occuring.

In doing so, a spoiler can also reduce drag as it "throws" air upwards. This air would normally slick off the car of a car and "stick" to the rear. This voilent turbelent air can create drag.

The crux of the problem is that for any of these effects to be observed, the wing/spoiler has to be large. a scaled down wing just doens't have enough useful effect.

I'd love to see scale everything as i think it adds to the general enjoyment of our hobby. But it wouldn't be practical on a touring shell that's designed to go round a track as fast as possible!

That aside - i'm not sure the racing bodies can change shape all that much. Most cars front shock towers get in the way of further lowering the nose, ditto for the rear shocktowers and the rear trunk lid. If you got ride of the a/b/c pillars and ended up with a flat shell then yeah, that would be faster. But oh so ugly!

You'd still need quite a large wing/. spoiler/ramped shape with gurney flap to increase downforce..





Disclamier - my summary of aerodynamic lift is just that. A very very brief summary with NO detail! Please take it as is.. i'm sure there's an aero guy here who can elaborate or make a better example of things.!

Faiz

Angry Asian - yes, I'm agree with you..Aero does not scale..

we have good example on 1:1 scale racing, it is F-1 racing,
start from 2-4 season before, most of the winning team, McLaren, Ferrari, Renault, etc. the trend is build a larger wind tunnel with Rolling road.., this to accept larger and larger scale model even until 1:1 scale,

I am sure their aerodynamicyst should have very strong reason to do so,

http://www.f1technical.net/articles/47

LEE UK

Excellent thread and i totally agree about speed and air molecules are a constant and i have heard on another thread on this forum that a Plane style wing does not work in the same way on a 1/10th scale car even when turned upside down to generate downforce but...... How do model planes and helicopters fly if this is the case.

Dale: Excellent work keep it up you make the best bodies on the planet!!

AngryAsian

iTrader: (4)

Model planes and helicopters still fly because the aerodynamic forces acting on them are exactly the same in their "life-sized" counterparts.

I suppose a simple way of looking at it, is that air is fluid. It's thick. It likes to "stick" to things..

The traditional classroom theroy is that a wing creates life through it's shape. That is, longer upper curved surface. Shorter straight lower surface. The air on top flows faster to keep up with the air passing on the bottom. The assumption is that because the front of the wing splits the airflow, the air must travel toegther and meet back together at the rear edge of the wing.

There is also mention that because the air on top flows faster, it is a relatively low pressure area, and that the air flowing on the bottom is of relatively higher pressure. Bernoulli's theorem is invoked to explain this..


Explaining how lift works comprehensively would take a rather large essay. Just know that the classroom definition is only very partially correct. It's more an obsevation than an explaination. There are quite a few things wrong with it..

More important is that fact that "Sticky" air is bent and redirected by a wing. So any surface of basically any reasonable "wing" shape can do this. Lift is a result of exchange of mass. If you can bend and throw enough air downwards, then you offset the weight that you carry. Just like a rocket throws propellent gases downward to go up.
So completely FLAT "wings" can indeed produce lift. Like your hand when you stick it out of a car window, or a paper airplane wing. The wing shape is only a piece of the puzzle.

As a matter of fact, even a upside down wing will produce upward lift as long as its angle of attack is great enough. Some airplane wings are indeed shaped like this. So RC planes and heli's still fly. Exactly the same theory as in life-sized aircraft. But slightly less efficient b/c the air molecules are apprently larger and don't "Stick" as well...

SammyXp

Some have theorized that airfoils are not very effective at 10th scale, and I tend to agree. The differential pressure created by the small differences in speed over a 10th scale airfoil are just too minute to amount to any significant downforce. Like Angry Asian said, you can always make downforce (at the expense of drag) by tilting an airfoil into the oncoming air. At best, the airfoil shape can reduce drag slightly by allowing the air to converge after the wing with less turbulence.

For the most part, we're stuck with "spoilers". Aka, an angled piece of plastic of varying shape and size.