Gordon Murray Automotive T.50 'rear fan'

[orange4boy]

botsappear

Apologies for filling the thread with off topic stuff. Trying to heard cats with a rolled up TOS is hard.

As a joke on here long ago toyed with the idea of making a big removable duct that ran through the center of my van front to rear to raise wake pressure. It would be made with a big plexiglas tube with a door and smoke trails so I could test the duct mod on a model inside the van while driving the van.

This is car is way more fun.
Thanks for posting

[freebeard]

I was looking for an example for JulianEdgar and found this thread from 2014. From Permalink #17 to #19 you see how polite threadjacking was back then.

ecomodder.com: Introduction & Cross wind solutions to motorcycle Streamliners?

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

Is that what you are thinking?

You try to hold a straight line and gusting sidewinds work against your tail fin.

[orange4boy]

So, I decided to take a look at the diffuser "reference" Julian Edgar posted here.

In the the very first part of the explanation of lift (downforce) it says:

The air passing under the wing has further to travel than the air passing over the top surface. This causes the air under the wing to accelerate, resulting in a drop in air pressure, this creates a difference in pressure between the upper and lower surfaces.

To which I need only let JulianEdgar himself come to the apparently obvious conclusions:

I guess this is why so much misinformation has been disseminated here.

To state the bleeding obvious - it is wrong information that you are spreading. Outright wrong. No nuance here - wrong.

How they say a diffuser *wing* works is simply quite wrong. So what do you do about it?

Am I doing this right?

Here is an excellent video starting at the explanation why "The air passing under the wing has further to travel" is not a correct explanation of lift which, in this explanation, is just the inverse of downforce.

If you want to see a really in depth and fascinating debunking of common aerodynamic myths,

here's another one.

[freebeard]

"An Argumentative Aerodynamicist Gets Old and Cranky and Takes Issue with Just About Everyone" is surprisingly on-topic.

I'm pretty sure this is the video I remember from 2013.

[JulianEdgar]

We covered the various mechanisms by which wings are thought to generate lift a few weeks ago.

Basically:

No one can explain why planes stay in the air

[orange4boy]

Who's this "we" you keep referring to?

That's a nonsense clickbait title and a misunderstanding of science. Aerodynamicists do know how wings create lift but there is a difference between having explanations of all of the key things but not every tiny detail. There are certainly wrong explanations and the one in the reference you posted is a fallacy. Ed Regis, the author has a PhD in Philosophy who interviewed the director of a museum. They are not primary or even secondary sources.

LOL. You are such a hypocrite. Aerohead posts "wrong information" and you blow a gasket and demand he read the references, claim he is trying to deceive people and demand that he do something about it. You post wrong information and follow up with more wrong information.

As you keep saying:

"So it's all good - but only if it applies to others, not them."

When are you going to live up to the principals you demand others follow?

You don't need to answer this. I'm sure you made a mistake since you have posted before to "run when people mention Bernoulli...". I don't expect anyone to respond honestly in this kind of atmosphere. Of course you will avoid admitting fault. That's only natural. This is the entire point of civility. It allows people to post without fear of attack or of losing face if they make a mistake.

I call for a clean slate.

Cheers.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by orange4boy

Who's this "we" you keep referring to?

That's a nonsense clickbait title and a misunderstanding of science. Aerodynamicists do know how wings create lift but there is a difference between having explanations of all of the key things but not every tiny detail. There are certainly wrong explanations and the one in the reference you posted is a fallacy. Ed Regis, the author has a PhD in Philosophy who interviewed the director of a museum. They are not primary or even secondary sources.

LOL. You are such a hypocrite. Aerohead posts "wrong information" and you blow a gasket and demand he read the references, claim he is trying to deceive people and demand that he do something about it. You post wrong information and follow up with more wrong information.

As you keep saying:

"So it's all good - but only if it applies to others, not them."

When are you going to live up to the principals you demand others follow?

You don't need to answer this. I'm sure you made a mistake since you have posted before to "run when people mention Bernoulli...". I don't expect anyone to respond honestly in this kind of atmosphere. Of course you will avoid admitting fault. That's only natural. This is the entire point of civility. It allows people to post without fear of attack or of losing face if they make a mistake.

I call for a clean slate.

Cheers.

I find your posts rather hard to understand.

I linked to a reference to describe the action of diffusers - that was the subject of the discussion; how diffusers do or do not work. You read the reference and decided you wanted to talk about wings - a different subject.

I then linked to an excellent article on how wings are understood to work, in Scientific American no less, and you decided that it was no good.

And now it seems you've decided that you don't really want to talk about wings.

The 'we' are the members of this group - as in, we discussed wings a few weeks ago.

[freebeard]

The subject was diffusers before 'we' gave you-know-who the boot.

T.33 by Gordon Murray: In-Depth First Look with the Creator of the Mclaren F1 | Carfection 4K

The T33 is a T50 without the active diffuser. There is no fan to pull air up into the roof of the diffuser, but ramping up from the midpoint instead of the rear axle line moves the effective point of the downforce forward.

Then there is [apparently] a diffuser ahead of each front wheel that together provide 30% of the total downforce.