I really just want to stress that the graph lines from 4:20 to 5:40 are just really rough shapes off what I would guess on the fly by eye from 3D extruded wings from these airfoils, depending on the specifics the blue foil may have a higher peak downforce than the purple one, it massively depends on the geometry of everything. The point of that video section was just to get you thinking on the fact that the downforce curves can have different shapes and peak magnitudes. Hope everyone enjoys the video!
Hi Kyle, I want to tell you that I like your videos so much and also I want to ask if you have a video explaining the aerodynamics of the "bridge wing" of the 2008 regulations and why FIA introduced a mandatory section later on. I really don't remember who made that cool video, I watched a couple of months ago but I haven't found it again, don't know if you made it and then delete it. I don't even remember if it was in Spanish. Cool you explained porposing thank you so much
I love your videos Kyle. I’m not sure if this would be considered rude, I want to ask of you to please label the axis for us younger engineers here. Thank you 😊
Not to be critical (I hope you find it useful actually as a reminder) ... but pronouns (when we can't see what you're referencing - as I'm thinking you might ... have noticed during editing?) really should _never be used in your demonstrations._ Granted, sometimes the point is so obvious that you can use pronouns. but in that case, the sentence wasn't even necessary I think. Unlinked pronouns can only undermine an explanation's efficacy. I have a friend with _intermittent [eye cue] aptitude_ who'll say insightful things like, "I'm here" ... as if that's informative or as if I know where "here" is (which he didn't understand). I then asked, "when would ... or even _could it_ be false for you to say _I'm here_ ..?" I tried explaining that "here" is always the pronoun of where you define yourself to be. I think his Theory of Mind is the issue ... and, we don't choose our brains. We're just lucky or unlucky ... and if I understand something, it's not always because I deserve to, so I try to be patient ... and explain as best I can. But people who like racing (I'd assume) aren't people _known for their patience._ :-)
I haven't finished watching this yet, but thank you for making this video. It's driving me nuts how many "arm-chair engineers" think they understand porposing "how hard can it be, the car just sucks down too much" and leave all these smug comments about how silly it is that they have this issue still because they solved it in X. Yet they have no idea whatsoever how complicated it is and why a "solution" from 30+ years ago won't work today. It seems to me that older F1 fans in particular (people like Peter Windsor) seem to have this gate keeping mentality about how engineering was "better" back in the day and how current F1 engineer's arrogance is one of the root causes of this issue . As someone that did FSAE and knows current engineers in F1, it just drives me up a wall as that thought process is absolute bullshit. I don't blame the F1 tech explanations F1 does as properly explaining it in 3 mins is impossible, but at the same time I wish they would emphasize more how much more complicated it is than the high level explanation they give. /end rant
I recently graduated with an ME degree. And these past few months have really emphasised why my lecturers always instructed us to review multiple sources of information. I've heard multiple explanations about porpoising that really left me asking "Is that really it?" I've been patiently waiting and hoping for Kyle to drop this video cause I knew he would go into more depth. But what's the issue with Peter Windsor? I watch his debriefs and I've always found them digestible. Simple even.
"the car just sucks down too much" Yes, the car is going wrong by doing what it's designed to do... Yeesh, I hadn't heard that one yet around my parts, the worst I'd heard was that the teams suffering the most from porpoising were trying too hard to optimize for absolute peak power near the ground (as opposed to not aiming as hard for peak and designing for a more stable "great" range).
A breath of fresh air. As someone who also works in F1 and seeing many half-hearted, and frankly incorrect explanations, this is exactly what we needed. Hope you don't miss Unit 4 too much Kyle :)
Could you make a video about different possible solutions for this proplem? I think there are many different small things that the teams have come up to counter porpoising and maybe you could compare them to each other.
@@nFINITELooP lol. the point is for people to be educated/entertained by his videos. F1 teams aren’t going to break down their solutions like these videos do, or take solutions from a RUclips channel. I would love to see a video about how certain solutions work
@@thethirdman225 I think the problem is going to be a lack of detailed information. Its hard to draw possible solutions when he is working with a simplified model that has a lot of assumptions made in it. Combine that with the complexity of the transient effects, its just too difficult to offer any credible real world solutions.
You can recreate porpoising in your own home. Get two spoons, face the two spoons away from each other pointing downwards whilst keeping them close to each other (almost touching but not quite). Then run them under a tap, and they'll be pulled together until they touch, then disconnect repetitively.
I wonder if it's a bit annoying to put so much effort into making this and getting lots of comments that ask for another video about something else. I really appreciate how you approached this topic. Helps me have a more open mind about how teams work on finding solutions. I am incredibly grateful that you have made your insights avaliable
Carroll Smith talked about proposing in his books. Back then it was generally the download reducing ground clearance at the front wing to the point where it would choke off the lower surface and, effectively, stall the wing …. Reducing the download and causing the car to pop up. As I recall there was some natural frequencies within the car would amplify the situation.
Thank you, nice to hear someone not over simplify the problem and provide some higher level understanding to the issue. I don't understand all the issues presented, but I am not an aerodynamicist.
this is amazing. I kinda have an Idea of how aero works around f1 cars (in terms of use of various vortex & roughly what they want to achieve) but this video really helps understand especially with the 2D sections comparing between ride heights, what the teams have going on. Great video! If you could maybe make a video about the different car upgrades & their intention, like you did in preseason testing, it would be amazing.
Great explanation Kyle. I’ve been looking forward to this for months. I was one who -probably- got it wrong because I saw it as a pitch problem that simply (nothing simple about it) meant less downforce as the rear springs compressed, due to a less optimum AOA. I definitely get the hysteresis component and that explains the cyclical nature of it perfectly. Thanks so much for putting this together. It’s so much better and more complete than anything else out there.
The hysteresis explanation is the one that makes the most sense to me. The suspension dampers will be working pretty hard to dissipate energy from porpoising so something has to be pumping a decent amount of energy into the system to keep the oscillation going. The shape of the downforce vs. ride height curve might be wacky (and might even admit multiple "stable" ride heights at a given speed!) but I think it's a red herring as it doesn't answer the question as to what is putting energy into the system (if downforce was purely a function of ride height then going up and down any such curve would be energy neutral.)
Thanks for this video! Whilst I don't understand it entirely still, much more informed as to how hard of a problem it is to solve. Keep up the good work!
Brilliant video Kyle. I'm glad someone is using proper engineering tools to understand engineering problems. And even though you don't have the actual data about the dimensions and operating condition for these cars, an educated estimated still works in explaining the problem. My only feedback will be to show the legends and magnitudes for all the plots because otherwise we are just looking at colors and distribution patterns. If I want to conclude that the static pressure advantage of the low-ride configuration outweighs the energy losses, I would like to see the magnitudes of the static, dynamic and total pressures. Also maybe improve the comparison by showing the two test cases side by side instead of flipping through them in the video :) In any case, this is a fantastic video. Waiting for more content!
Brilliant. Keep them coming, this is how we will learn and understand. It would be interesting for you to follow up with a video as to how you decision analyse the trade offs to come up with a self reinforcing concept.
bring back active suspension! the whole point of the most recent regulations is to make the cars more similar to road cars. we are starting to see extremely complex active suspension in road cars. it would be great to see it in f1 and fix all these issues.
With the bit @22:08 I'm guessing this is why we saw the various stays being used on the floors. Guessing Mercedes designed for maximum downforce with what they thought would be an acceptable level of porpoising. However they weren't able to forsee it hitting a natural frequency in the chassis. Wonder if Ferraris front wing design was done so it would give clean flow to the floor and reduce the size of the vortex heading into the underside. Interesting video as always 👍
I was wondering if you or someone else could explain in a little more detail what is meant when you say that a vortex becomes"lossy". When I hear this, it just makes me think that it can mean multiple different things. A little elaboration would be greatly appreciated.
It is harder to gather energy from turbulent flow because the fluid does not behave strictly as intended. And it also may disperse the fluid to a more static movement. i'm not an expert, tho
Awesome insights. Specially the bumpstop and the suspension acting as the bouncing agent. That opens up a lot of possibilities for each teams' particular porpoising scenarios.
Great video Kyle, chatting on the podcast I can now see why the common oversimplified explanation does no justice to the phenomenon at hand. Thanks for this!
Thank you for this lesson. I love F1 or racing because is not just one person behind the wheel. Also i think a discusión of the actual air resistance and flow is important in this explanation but this is not tech talk. Thanks
Finally an explanation based on CFD data! Specifically plots helped a lot. Thank you for correcting wrongs ad oversimplifications that are said about this phenomenon. As an aerospace student I enjoyed learning myself. Looking forward to watching the second one to have more insights on this matter.
If the wing touches the ground the stagnation region grows like crazy, I paid attention when you were talking about adverse pressure gradients. More stagnation leads to more APG, more APG means more turbulence and recirculation ie lots of drag and losses. Turbulent airflow is on average about 1/3rd as efficient as laminar flow depending on surface roughness.
FWIW... you showed how the RB floor generates lots of different vortices with various elements--some smaller than others. I wonder if the range in sizes act to kind of take over for another when it breaks down. So, as the the primary vortex starts to fail as the floor lowers, a smaller ones fill in the gap--and as the floor lowers more, causing that vortex to fail, a still smaller one seals off the floor. So you get a constant seal effect over a greater change in floor height, and thus, less oscillation. On the reverse direction (the RB does oscillate a bit), the floor recovers sooner as one of the smaller vortices comes back. The net effect would be it takes longer for the RB to stall out completely, and it recovers sooner.
The 3rd example is closer to the 1981-82 "fixed" skirt f1 cars, the modern cars have a variety of tunnel shapes. If you look at the pictures of the Mercedes floor from the first few races you see that their tunnel shape dipped very close to the bottom of the lowest parts of the rest of the car, That effectively not only created massive potential downforce, but also made it easier the flow to be choked off as the car lowered at higher speeds.
Fantastic video, Kyle explaining the various causes of porpoising. Would it be possible for you to make an accompanying video showing possible aerodynamic and suspension solutions, obviously not including active suspension systems as a way of neutralizing the porpoising effect?
Little is said about the ratio between tyre wall height and (centrifugal force from) wheel weight on contact surface. Where is the sweetspot that no longer the tyres can absorp the increases in downforce from accelerating. Distance means leverage effect, so a slight change of distances between sources of airflow rearrangements, can mean a world of difference. Some teams have remained on the forgiving side of issues, where some just came out on the disastrous side of the equations at stake.
Cheers for this, may need to watch it again tomorrow and try and digest more. But that is just the sort of above-my-head aero comments I want to try and understand a n'th better.
Great breakdown. A very complex issue indeed. I am curious whether there is benefit to having a pressure characteristic to the large volume near the skate or region where the diffusor main body meets the corner vortices and edge vortices along the floor that acts like a "spring-damper".
The porpoising is caused by the flloor area near the rear wheels for 2022. In 2020, the floor went all the way out to the rear wheels. In 2021, the FIA cut the floor slightly near the rear wheels. Yes, the rear diffuser is also different from 2020 to 2022. RedBull have rectified the porpoising for 2022 with a rear suspension geometry.
this is what adrian newey has mentioned in his thesis while he wokring on project for his final year engineering on ground effect car. avoid susction peak, and by looking at the pictures from different team ferrari had one and merc had two section peaks
The problem of porpoising is somewhat inherent when the emphasis on underbody aero is really high, but I think the really bad 70s and 80s problems were still to a large extent caused by it being a very new thing, that was quickly copied by others without necessarily too much understanding of the whole subject. People tend to forget that after the "ground effect ban" of F1 (a term that I hate because they never stopped using ground effect, they just banned specific types of structures that exploit it very efficiently) other car classes like Group C and IMSA's GTP made immense use of underbody Venturis to gain huge levels of downforce for a decade or more, and they weren't constantly complaining about porpoising. Which isn't to say that it's a simple thing to fix it, by no means. It's definitely a complex subject, but the people working on these cars are clever, and they'll figure it out after a while. I'd be highly surprised if cars next year and the year after that haven't been able to make a lot of progress based on what they learn this year.
Remember that Indycar bodies are Spec, and are made a lot simpler. You can simply put a minimum ride height for everyone and avoid the problems altogether without spending millions on aero testing.
@@Appletank8 Yup, very important point. If you can just make it so that people aren't allowed to chase the absolute ultimate performance, then it makes things a lot simpler.
@@jubuttib I'm no engineer or aero guy but I think the problem with f1 is the simplified suspension setup forced by the rules that isn't in effect with other cars and classes. That bouncing seems to be the perfect problem to be solved by some kind of damper again, just guessing
Hi Kyle, very interesting and instructive video. Could you maybe do an analysis about the Porsche 919 Hybrid Evo? Even though it is already three years old, that car is, in my opinion, astonishing fast, as it broke the record on the Nuerburgring Nordschleife by far and even was faster than a F1 car in Spa. And because of the sideskirts, I think they are also using the ground effect, but why isn't porpoising a problem there? Would be very nice to see the details of this car explained.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but isnt part of the reason for that separation and aerodynamic stall due to the inlet being too tight for the air to be able to ram through quickly enough, causing something similar to compressor stall on an airplane? Since F1 cars arent quite getting to the point where air is being treated as a compressible flow, it stands to reason that this would be causing that stall since the air is getting stuck
To what extend has speed to do with porpoising. Is it possible that airflow is limited at high speed and therefore spillover effects occur at the beginning of the diffuser resulting in unforseen flow structures.
Could the cars running the floor stays link the left and right sides together? If they ran a cable from 1 side to the other over the gearbox, down the straights it would hold each side level but in the corners, when the car rolls, if one side bottoms out the cable will slacken and allow the opposite side to drop lower to the ground.
I really just want to stress that the graph lines from 4:20 to 5:40 are just really rough shapes off what I would guess on the fly by eye from 3D extruded wings from these airfoils, depending on the specifics the blue foil may have a higher peak downforce than the purple one, it massively depends on the geometry of everything. The point of that video section was just to get you thinking on the fact that the downforce curves can have different shapes and peak magnitudes.
Hope everyone enjoys the video!
Hi Kyle, I want to tell you that I like your videos so much and also I want to ask if you have a video explaining the aerodynamics of the "bridge wing" of the 2008 regulations and why FIA introduced a mandatory section later on.
I really don't remember who made that cool video, I watched a couple of months ago but I haven't found it again, don't know if you made it and then delete it. I don't even remember if it was in Spanish. Cool you explained porposing thank you so much
hello kyle...a friend of mine states that "aero need to be loose or else it will break under pressure". What are you thoughts on this.
You are great ❤
Thanks
I love your videos Kyle. I’m not sure if this would be considered rude, I want to ask of you to please label the axis for us younger engineers here. Thank you 😊
Not to be critical (I hope you find it useful actually as a reminder) ... but pronouns (when we can't see what you're referencing - as I'm thinking you might ... have noticed during editing?) really should _never be used in your demonstrations._
Granted, sometimes the point is so obvious that you can use pronouns. but in that case, the sentence wasn't even necessary I think. Unlinked pronouns can only undermine an explanation's efficacy.
I have a friend with _intermittent [eye cue] aptitude_ who'll say insightful things like, "I'm here" ... as if that's informative or as if I know where "here" is (which he didn't understand). I then asked, "when would ... or even _could it_ be false for you to say _I'm here_ ..?"
I tried explaining that "here" is always the pronoun of where you define yourself to be. I think his Theory of Mind is the issue ... and, we don't choose our brains. We're just lucky or unlucky ... and if I understand something, it's not always because I deserve to, so I try to be patient ... and explain as best I can. But people who like racing (I'd assume) aren't people _known for their patience._ :-)
I haven't finished watching this yet, but thank you for making this video. It's driving me nuts how many "arm-chair engineers" think they understand porposing "how hard can it be, the car just sucks down too much" and leave all these smug comments about how silly it is that they have this issue still because they solved it in X. Yet they have no idea whatsoever how complicated it is and why a "solution" from 30+ years ago won't work today.
It seems to me that older F1 fans in particular (people like Peter Windsor) seem to have this gate keeping mentality about how engineering was "better" back in the day and how current F1 engineer's arrogance is one of the root causes of this issue . As someone that did FSAE and knows current engineers in F1, it just drives me up a wall as that thought process is absolute bullshit. I don't blame the F1 tech explanations F1 does as properly explaining it in 3 mins is impossible, but at the same time I wish they would emphasize more how much more complicated it is than the high level explanation they give.
/end rant
Lost respect for Peter Windsor several years ago
I recently graduated with an ME degree. And these past few months have really emphasised why my lecturers always instructed us to review multiple sources of information. I've heard multiple explanations about porpoising that really left me asking "Is that really it?"
I've been patiently waiting and hoping for Kyle to drop this video cause I knew he would go into more depth.
But what's the issue with Peter Windsor? I watch his debriefs and I've always found them digestible. Simple even.
@@Vamanos46 Why?
@@Dragonson575 USF1 team...
"the car just sucks down too much" Yes, the car is going wrong by doing what it's designed to do... Yeesh, I hadn't heard that one yet around my parts, the worst I'd heard was that the teams suffering the most from porpoising were trying too hard to optimize for absolute peak power near the ground (as opposed to not aiming as hard for peak and designing for a more stable "great" range).
A breath of fresh air. As someone who also works in F1 and seeing many half-hearted, and frankly incorrect explanations, this is exactly what we needed.
Hope you don't miss Unit 4 too much Kyle :)
Your CFD render is one of the most beautiful things I've seen!
Could you make a video about different possible solutions for this proplem? I think there are many different small things that the teams have come up to counter porpoising and maybe you could compare them to each other.
Nice try mr. Binotto
I think it will be a waste of time. Teams have much more resources and probably used the solutions that Kyle will come up with.
@@nFINITELooP lol. the point is for people to be educated/entertained by his videos. F1 teams aren’t going to break down their solutions like these videos do, or take solutions from a RUclips channel. I would love to see a video about how certain solutions work
@@nFINITELooP Some of us would like to know.
@@thethirdman225 I think the problem is going to be a lack of detailed information. Its hard to draw possible solutions when he is working with a simplified model that has a lot of assumptions made in it. Combine that with the complexity of the transient effects, its just too difficult to offer any credible real world solutions.
Some of the best automotive engineering content not just on RUclips, but the whole Internet!
Finally, a rational explanation using cfd imaging. Kudos. Don't stop here.
Ive been waiting for ages for your take on porpoising in F1. Love this video
With all respect to your day to day work: we need more videos! I found myself looking for new videos on your channel too often 😄
You can recreate porpoising in your own home. Get two spoons, face the two spoons away from each other pointing downwards whilst keeping them close to each other (almost touching but not quite). Then run them under a tap, and they'll be pulled together until they touch, then disconnect repetitively.
Love it. Kitchen sink fluid dynamics.
Thank you. Best explanation I've seen by far. No one else has I know of explains it like this.
I wonder if it's a bit annoying to put so much effort into making this and getting lots of comments that ask for another video about something else.
I really appreciate how you approached this topic. Helps me have a more open mind about how teams work on finding solutions. I am incredibly grateful that you have made your insights avaliable
Carroll Smith talked about proposing in his books. Back then it was generally the download reducing ground clearance at the front wing to the point where it would choke off the lower surface and, effectively, stall the wing …. Reducing the download and causing the car to pop up. As I recall there was some natural frequencies within the car would amplify the situation.
Thank you. I consider yours to be the premium F1 tech channel and this video certainly sets a high bar.
The video i didn't know I needed
This is truly fantastic. Only person I've found who goes into this level of detail. Thanks!
Hell of a video! As an eng student I can say that your videos are basically a direct link between an academic and a working perspective. Thanks a lot
I really like this video. So cool to learn that there are different causes, before I thought it was just simple choking of the underfloor
Thank you, nice to hear someone not over simplify the problem and provide some higher level understanding to the issue. I don't understand all the issues presented, but I am not an aerodynamicist.
I love how you draw the curves with measurement noise ❤
You're back making F1 content, rejoice!
Ok, it's complicated then :D I was waiting for this piece for so so long. Good to hear from You again.
Just wanted to thank you for the awesome and informative videos.
Keep going!
this is amazing. I kinda have an Idea of how aero works around f1 cars (in terms of use of various vortex & roughly what they want to achieve) but this video really helps understand especially with the 2D sections comparing between ride heights, what the teams have going on. Great video! If you could maybe make a video about the different car upgrades & their intention, like you did in preseason testing, it would be amazing.
Glad to see your still making vids Kyle, I hope you are well
Great explanation Kyle. I’ve been looking forward to this for months. I was one who -probably- got it wrong because I saw it as a pitch problem that simply (nothing simple about it) meant less downforce as the rear springs compressed, due to a less optimum AOA. I definitely get the hysteresis component and that explains the cyclical nature of it perfectly.
Thanks so much for putting this together. It’s so much better and more complete than anything else out there.
Thanks. Most in-depth and knowledgeable explanation.
Gonna be excellency content!
Ladies and gentlemen, THE porpoising explanation.
Superb explanation, bringing back so many memories 👌
Awesome analysis. Really appreciate this video highlighting how complex of a problem this really is
The hysteresis explanation is the one that makes the most sense to me. The suspension dampers will be working pretty hard to dissipate energy from porpoising so something has to be pumping a decent amount of energy into the system to keep the oscillation going. The shape of the downforce vs. ride height curve might be wacky (and might even admit multiple "stable" ride heights at a given speed!) but I think it's a red herring as it doesn't answer the question as to what is putting energy into the system (if downforce was purely a function of ride height then going up and down any such curve would be energy neutral.)
Thanks for this video! Whilst I don't understand it entirely still, much more informed as to how hard of a problem it is to solve. Keep up the good work!
Brilliant video Kyle. I'm glad someone is using proper engineering tools to understand engineering problems. And even though you don't have the actual data about the dimensions and operating condition for these cars, an educated estimated still works in explaining the problem.
My only feedback will be to show the legends and magnitudes for all the plots because otherwise we are just looking at colors and distribution patterns. If I want to conclude that the static pressure advantage of the low-ride configuration outweighs the energy losses, I would like to see the magnitudes of the static, dynamic and total pressures. Also maybe improve the comparison by showing the two test cases side by side instead of flipping through them in the video :) In any case, this is a fantastic video. Waiting for more content!
very cool video yet again!
Thank you Sir! Finally! There was so much talk and so much BS! Always good to have a real Aero Genius to get the real Information to us! BIG THX!
Amazing explanation with great CFD visuals!
I know if you ever ran an unsteady case, those vortices would be dancing all in those channels, like a frat party. LOL Nice video! Thank you!
Was waiting for a video on porpoising from you. Really nice explanation. thanks🙌🏼
Great stuff Kyle, thank you. Certainly the most comprehensive and detailed (therefore best) description of the problem.
Amazing video and overall channel content. Fluid dynamics was one of my favorite subjects in university.
Finally, thanks for this, more people need to subscribe to this channel and Racecar Engineering before communicating a personal assumption
Been eagerly waiting for this 1. Again excellent analysis thanks Kyle!
Brilliant. Keep them coming, this is how we will learn and understand. It would be interesting for you to follow up with a video as to how you decision analyse the trade offs to come up with a self reinforcing concept.
Would love to see more videos from you. I enjoy the educated take from an engineer that has real experience in f1.
bring back active suspension! the whole point of the most recent regulations is to make the cars more similar to road cars. we are starting to see extremely complex active suspension in road cars. it would be great to see it in f1 and fix all these issues.
With the bit @22:08 I'm guessing this is why we saw the various stays being used on the floors.
Guessing Mercedes designed for maximum downforce with what they thought would be an acceptable level of porpoising. However they weren't able to forsee it hitting a natural frequency in the chassis.
Wonder if Ferraris front wing design was done so it would give clean flow to the floor and reduce the size of the vortex heading into the underside.
Interesting video as always 👍
Wow, an excellent video about porpoising!
I was wondering if you or someone else could explain in a little more detail what is meant when you say that a vortex becomes"lossy". When I hear this, it just makes me think that it can mean multiple different things. A little elaboration would be greatly appreciated.
It is harder to gather energy from turbulent flow because the fluid does not behave strictly as intended. And it also may disperse the fluid to a more static movement. i'm not an expert, tho
Awesome insights. Specially the bumpstop and the suspension acting as the bouncing agent. That opens up a lot of possibilities for each teams' particular porpoising scenarios.
Great video Kyle, chatting on the podcast I can now see why the common oversimplified explanation does no justice to the phenomenon at hand. Thanks for this!
Brilliant explanaition - thank you for this!
Thank you for this lesson. I love F1 or racing because is not just one person behind the wheel. Also i think a discusión of the actual air resistance and flow is important in this explanation but this is not tech talk. Thanks
Finally an explanation based on CFD data! Specifically plots helped a lot. Thank you for correcting wrongs ad oversimplifications that are said about this phenomenon. As an aerospace student I enjoyed learning myself. Looking forward to watching the second one to have more insights on this matter.
If the wing touches the ground the stagnation region grows like crazy, I paid attention when you were talking about adverse pressure gradients. More stagnation leads to more APG, more APG means more turbulence and recirculation ie lots of drag and losses. Turbulent airflow is on average about 1/3rd as efficient as laminar flow depending on surface roughness.
FWIW... you showed how the RB floor generates lots of different vortices with various elements--some smaller than others. I wonder if the range in sizes act to kind of take over for another when it breaks down. So, as the the primary vortex starts to fail as the floor lowers, a smaller ones fill in the gap--and as the floor lowers more, causing that vortex to fail, a still smaller one seals off the floor. So you get a constant seal effect over a greater change in floor height, and thus, less oscillation. On the reverse direction (the RB does oscillate a bit), the floor recovers sooner as one of the smaller vortices comes back. The net effect would be it takes longer for the RB to stall out completely, and it recovers sooner.
The 3rd example is closer to the 1981-82 "fixed" skirt f1 cars, the modern cars have a variety of tunnel shapes. If you look at the pictures of the Mercedes floor from the first few races you see that their tunnel shape dipped very close to the bottom of the lowest parts of the rest of the car, That effectively not only created massive potential downforce, but also made it easier the flow to be choked off as the car lowered at higher speeds.
Thank's for the vid!
Fantastic video, Kyle explaining the various causes of porpoising. Would it be possible for you to make an accompanying video showing possible aerodynamic and suspension solutions, obviously not including active suspension systems as a way of neutralizing the porpoising effect?
The way everyone was explaining it made it seem so simple to solve when obviously there had to be more to it.
very very good video, thank you very much.
He’s back!
Little is said about the ratio between tyre wall height and (centrifugal force from) wheel weight on contact surface.
Where is the sweetspot that no longer the tyres can absorp the increases in downforce from accelerating.
Distance means leverage effect, so a slight change of distances between sources of airflow rearrangements, can mean a world of difference.
Some teams have remained on the forgiving side of issues, where some just came out on the disastrous side of the equations at stake.
Cheers for this, may need to watch it again tomorrow and try and digest more. But that is just the sort of above-my-head aero comments I want to try and understand a n'th better.
Amazing video, really well explained!
Kyle thanks for the video. Really love how you explained it. ❤️
Thanks. Top-tier content.
Very informative. Thank you so much for sharing! I learned a lot.
Tq for the knowledge, its really mind blowing, love it, the explanation is really good, i do understand tq again
that introductory graph made me sub
Another fantastic video. Great content.
Please do the Mythbusters Golfball car, that would be great!
Great breakdown. A very complex issue indeed.
I am curious whether there is benefit to having a pressure characteristic to the large volume near the skate or region where the diffusor main body meets the corner vortices and edge vortices along the floor that acts like a "spring-damper".
Great video! Thanks for the explanation!
Fantastic video! Thank you.
The porpoising is caused by the flloor area near the rear wheels for 2022. In 2020, the floor went all the way out to the rear wheels. In 2021, the FIA cut the floor slightly near the rear wheels. Yes, the rear diffuser is also different from 2020 to 2022.
RedBull have rectified the porpoising for 2022 with a rear suspension geometry.
That's an absolutely mega video!!👍👍👍
12:40 What program is used for CFD from 12:40 Onwards?
That was a great explanation! Thanks!
this is what adrian newey has mentioned in his thesis while he wokring on project for his final year engineering on ground effect car.
avoid susction peak, and by looking at the pictures from different team ferrari had one and merc had two section peaks
Hi, do anyone know how was created is flow visualization at 12:35 ?
Well done sir 👍🏾
Part 2 please Kyle :)
Thank you for the detailed explanation! 👍
An amazingly complicated issue. Did the early ground effect cars (70's/80's) experience the same issue? Or other current race series like Indycar?
Yes. Same issue.
The problem of porpoising is somewhat inherent when the emphasis on underbody aero is really high, but I think the really bad 70s and 80s problems were still to a large extent caused by it being a very new thing, that was quickly copied by others without necessarily too much understanding of the whole subject.
People tend to forget that after the "ground effect ban" of F1 (a term that I hate because they never stopped using ground effect, they just banned specific types of structures that exploit it very efficiently) other car classes like Group C and IMSA's GTP made immense use of underbody Venturis to gain huge levels of downforce for a decade or more, and they weren't constantly complaining about porpoising.
Which isn't to say that it's a simple thing to fix it, by no means. It's definitely a complex subject, but the people working on these cars are clever, and they'll figure it out after a while. I'd be highly surprised if cars next year and the year after that haven't been able to make a lot of progress based on what they learn this year.
Remember that Indycar bodies are Spec, and are made a lot simpler. You can simply put a minimum ride height for everyone and avoid the problems altogether without spending millions on aero testing.
@@Appletank8 Yup, very important point. If you can just make it so that people aren't allowed to chase the absolute ultimate performance, then it makes things a lot simpler.
@@jubuttib I'm no engineer or aero guy but I think the problem with f1 is the simplified suspension setup forced by the rules that isn't in effect with other cars and classes. That bouncing seems to be the perfect problem to be solved by some kind of damper
again, just guessing
Hi Kyle, very interesting and instructive video. Could you maybe do an analysis about the Porsche 919 Hybrid Evo? Even though it is already three years old, that car is, in my opinion, astonishing fast, as it broke the record on the Nuerburgring Nordschleife by far and even was faster than a F1 car in Spa. And because of the sideskirts, I think they are also using the ground effect, but why isn't porpoising a problem there? Would be very nice to see the details of this car explained.
That was freaking awesome. Thanks!
Love it, thanks man!!
Hi Kyle, what software are you using for this post processing?
great stuff, now make a video on how they fixed it, if you can
it would be nice to see where the section is cutting in the side view,
also, where model available to download. with much thankss
can you make a video about how you got into the world of f1 engineering career wise?
Correct me if I am wrong here, but isnt part of the reason for that separation and aerodynamic stall due to the inlet being too tight for the air to be able to ram through quickly enough, causing something similar to compressor stall on an airplane? Since F1 cars arent quite getting to the point where air is being treated as a compressible flow, it stands to reason that this would be causing that stall since the air is getting stuck
I never thought about hysteresis in aerodynamics at all!
thanks for making this video!
A nice informative video, can you please share the CAD model of the car??
Very good job.
Thanks
AAAAAAAAA THE VIDEO I WAS WISHING FOR!
To what extend has speed to do with porpoising. Is it possible that airflow is limited at high speed and therefore spillover effects occur at the beginning of the diffuser resulting in unforseen flow structures.
Could the cars running the floor stays link the left and right sides together?
If they ran a cable from 1 side to the other over the gearbox, down the straights it would hold each side level but in the corners, when the car rolls, if one side bottoms out the cable will slacken and allow the opposite side to drop lower to the ground.