aerodynamics is f1 the best ?

[scotf]

as the title sugests is the open wheeled style of f1 cars the best for aerodynamics or are gt1 / le mans style cars better
hope someone can answer this as its been annoying me latley
thanks scott

[gttouring]

i would say that F1 uses the most aerobits and is the absolute most intense and advanced uses of aerodynamics to stabilize and add grip to a car. but with exposed wheels i believe it is fighting up hill.
Now LMGTP/GT1/LM900 (et.al) are best for aero considerations and efficiency.
the cars arer sculpted purely for less windresistance and more grip, evry curve is used to make the car slippery. and to cool te car as well. my vot is for the LeMans racers Prototypes
this is an apples and oranges argument though as regulations make them so different.

[shiny side up!]

I suspect this is going to end up in the Technical Forum...

Open Wheels are not the best aerodynamic solution, because of the turbulence they create. The aerodynamic efficiency/design solutions that you see employed on cars are a result of the formula the car is built for... there are many ways to improve an F1 car's aero performance, but only so many of those options are allowed by the rules...

[Glen]

Open wheels are terrible for aero efficiency, but there again F1 puts more resources into aerodynamics and is therefore the leading formula for the science. Le Mans style cars are more efficient - they produce (or can produce if set up that way) more downforce for the cost of the drag.

[Adam43]

Different beasts and the thing that effects the aerodynamics with both cars are the rules of the series.

F1 has the most sophisticated aerodynamics, but that I mean more money, time and resources are spent on them.

And shiny, you are right. Why not visit other areas of ten-tenths!

[scotf]

ok so if as much money was spent on le mans type cars they would out perform there f1 rivals but as is the f1 car is faster .
would that be about right ??
p.s. does anyone have comparable lap times from the cars to see how they compare .
thanks scott

[JAG]

The problem is LMPs have restricted 650+BHP engines weres F1 cars are producing upto 900BHP.

F1 cars are also much lighter.

F1 cars are about 10-12 seconds a lap guicker than LMPs depending on the circuit.

But then againd F1 will be having a BIG rules overhall in the next 2-3 years to cut cornering speeds and top speeds.

[avsfan733]

Adam nailed it pretty much. Its very much a different thing to design and F1 vs GTP. neither is "better" neccesarily. Its like comparing the aero of a fighter jet to a bomber (just an analogy nothing to read into in the comparison). They are designed to do different things. They have different rules and therefore different designs. Toyota used the idea of vortices in its GTP a whilie before they appeared in F1 9to the best of my knowledge although i haven't really seen to many F1 undertrays

[scotf]

ok so if money was no object and there were no rules limiting bodystyle or bhp which design would be chosen

[shiny side up!]

Closed wheel.

[Dutton]

If there were no limits of any form, would each team not provide a car as wide as the track they are racing on? Pummel the money in to make it wit ha bloody 5000bhp engine with turbo and NOS etc.....

Would be intriguing.........

[scotf]

quote (no rules limiting bodystyle or bhp ) rules would still be in place

[Splatz the Cow]

I think the 2003 R8 is the most tricked out bit of kit around. With that rule bending/twisting/stretching desing in the rear wing.

[avsfan733]

no rules? they wouldc chose a closed wheel design thathad skirts sealing it and a fan at the back. Proably a closed cockpit also

[Mattracer]

Pardon my ignorance but do Le Mans-style sports cars have ground effects or a flat bottom?

[HiRich]

LM prototypes have flat bottoms, but I believe they have some sort of diffuser, and that is an area not mentioned here so far.
Considering downforce produced by the underbody, you should remember that Force = Pressure x Area.
An LM body has a much larger floor area. So in developing the same pressure drop underbody, it will produce far more downforce. IIRC, the 956/962 produced more downforce than its F1 brother.

So, if you were to produce a full-body conversion (which would include a cockpit roof) for an F1 car (and were still able to match weights), I would expect it to produce considerably more downforce yet still have a more slippery shape.
Two areas that would need addressing are trimming (ie front wings, and how to incorporate them without screwing up airflow right along the car), and susceptibility to angle of attack. As Mercedes discovered at Le Mans a few years ago, such designs can be very sensitive to small amounts of dive and squat, both in terms of their ability to catch air and flip, but also how the centre of pressure can move dramatically (so how much downforce is produced, and how it is split over front and rear axles can change enormously with just one degree of error).