Wow, this is going circles, imagine that! Chuck, does the contract include spell check? So..... If the wind tunnel is only used to prove or disprove ideas, is it then needed to design? Wow, I bet you could even build the body, sell it to customers, collect some feedback, and change the design a bit to tweak it. Maybe I should patten that idea? No wonder government spending is out of control..... CR
Chuck Voboril <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Chris, You said it, not me :-> "Actually, the wind tunnel is used more to prove or disprove ideas, less to develop new ones.." What this means is that CFD can be totally wrong in some cases. That does indeed happen. The trade journals have plently of articles on CFD errors. This is true of all mathematical models. The better the data base of verified design building blocks and the sophisication of the computational engine, the closer the result may be, but all models fail to predict nature's true behavior at some point. Originally, I just pointed out that that if something like the new KBS/Q bodywork has NOT been wind tunnel developed, that doesn't make it worthless or wrong. I read your post as you saying you think CFD takes the pace of windtunnels. That you don't need a wind tunnel. I agree fully that significantly more mathematical modeling is done these days prior to bulding even a scale model for wind tunnel or for track testing. But I merely warn that the use of lower end and more affordable CFD is still probably just a part of the overall process in automotive aerodynamics for a small company like Stohr. Competitors to Stohr who do not have CFD may still indeed achieve better downforce performance. CFD is another tool or design aid to be used carefully in conjunction with other design and verification methods. Another example, for what it is worth: As a part of my job, I model the interactive effects of spacecraft structures upon the antenna patterns of antennas mounted on the structure. The government (ITAR) controlled electromagnetic modeling sofware for this has only only reached a truly useful level in about the last 5 years and it is still not affordable for individuals or even a small company. Showing that a design only requires one antenna instead of 2 for the desired Earth coverage in various spacecraft attitudes may make a $50m difference to a company. However, one can buy $5000 modeling applications that kinda show you some effects. I wouldn't bet $50m on the results however. Chuck --------------------------------- Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. ________________________________ FormulaCar Magazine - A Proud Supporter of Formula 500 The Official Publication of Junior Formula Car Racing Subscribe Today! www.formulacarmag.com or 519-624-2003 _________________________________ _______________________________________________ F500 mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change options please visit: http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500 *** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list! ***
