Rough or Smooth is Surface of F1 Car

[maris]

Hallo!

I have a question!!!

Does surface of Ferrari F1 sportcar (or others) is like golf ball surface or something like shark skin, or it is smooth like a glass???

The golf ball, thanks to surface like it has, can fly two times further than smoothlike surface ball. Skin of sharks and crocodiles are about the same idea of surface when it comes to swiming and water resistance.

Maris

[coysht]

The surface is in theory very smooth (until its been through a gravel trap or been hit with a race worth of flies and muck!).

I've had this discussion with an aerodynamicist before after someone had asked the very same question. I can't remember the exact details but basically it wouldn't work on a racing car.

I'll look into it a little further to find the exact details.

[maris]

Thank you coysht!

That`s Interesting...where is the trick why it wouldn't work on a racing car. There should be logical explanation (details). ...or mistakes in research.

[coysht]

Thank you coysht!

That`s Interesting...where is the trick why it wouldn't work on a racing car. There should be logical explanation (details). ...or mistakes in research.

With my slightly limited aerodynamic knowledge it comes down to the shape....

Air flowing around a round object (such as a vertical pole) or a sphere (golf ball) cannot detach cleanly as it reaches the rear of the object - the air cannot follow the shape of the object as it curves in tightly round the back, and so simply detaches and becomes turbulent. Turbulent air causes drag.

Adding dimples changes the way the air right next to the surface of the object behaves (the boundary layer) such that the main flow detaches further back on the object, reducing the turbulent wake and reducing drag.



All the aerodynamic surfaces on a racing car (or all the surfaces on an F1 car) have much sharper trailing edges to allow the air to detach cleanly. Adding dimples would do nothing or actually mess up the air flow over the nice clean surface.


I'm not saying this is fact, its just what I think / remember about it - I'm prepared to be proved wrong.

[maris]

I understand that...

It comes to that the nature`s creatures, golf ball and racing cars need 2 different things. those first have no need for pressure down to the ground or to another direction. For racing car it`s mandatory. But F1 car can divide the car body and the wings to do different functions much more divided - one to get pressure down, other to go through thy air with maximum no resistance. For this moment car body also does pressure down function.

In nature everything is simple. But F1 car now is most enjoyable to look than before, but also most complex. And if we look through evolution and speed of that - what will be next.

[samstre]

i think what coysht said is quite true...

the rough surface on a shark for instance is there to reduce drag. but on formula1 cars you got other (for this special purpose) better solutions (like gurneyflaps)... because on a formula1 car you want to increase the donwforce and have as little drag as possible... golf balls and sharks do not need downforce.

but maybe there will be such solutions in 2009. as far as i remember gurneyflaps will be reduced or forbidden in 2009. so who knows... :)

[TO FAST]

the front end is very smooth to maintain laminar flow which has less friction than turbulent flow but the flow turns to turbulent pretty quick if there are discontinities. this is why they polish the cars to get a smooth and to create less drag. and as said before a turbulent boundary layer detaches layer and this creates a smaller wake with less drag. but on a F1 car this gets very complicated.