Mike
This is just my amateur opinion. I would think that computer modeling would
almost have to glean you some information, but doubt you would get anywhere
close to $35,000. worth. Would think a wind tunnel would at least get you
some ball park info for a lot less money. Unfortunately its only at 150 MPH
or so, but thinking still much to learn. Example if it lifts a certain
amount at 150 would think you could extrapolate that it will lift even more
at higher speeds.
I like Keith & Dave's plan to data log significant info on the actual car
itself. Use it as your test bed to document changes as speed increases.
Combine that with some additional data from the coast down test we plan to
run this year at Maxton and it just might be better than a wind tunnel, and
more cost effective.
As for changes: As you know, none of the "bodied" cars are allowed a
vertical stabilizer. And with stock bodied cars there are other restrictions
that hamper improvements.
John
#79, C/GCC
----- Original Message -----
From: <Flowbench@aol.com>
To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 1:14 AM
Subject: CFD aka Computational Fluid Dynamics
> Time to ask the list for some input.
> I have recently been involved with a race team that had an accident at the
> salt. This car and another I'm involved with were/are running very close
to what
> we believe to be there aero limits. There are several things that could be
> done to help, but what seems to come up the most is CFD. Does anyone have
actual
> experience using this software? Does anyone know of a program where we can
> pay for this evaluation? This software goes for over $35,000 and is still
> undergoing testing in most cases that I'm aware of. Gary Eakers wind
tunnel is also
> up for discussion but in a limited format because of air speed and the
limited
> number of changes that can be made to the car vs. computer modeling.
> Thanks for your thoughts
> Mike
|