When will they test the theoretical downforce of an F1 car upside-down?

[Hampus Andersson]

So the conclusion:

• An F1 car still experiences downforce regardless of it being upsidedown
• In theory it is possible for an F1 car to drive upsidedown in a tunnel
• In practice actually doing it will prove far harder because of certain implications but given the right circumstances it will stick to the roof.
• downforce and lift are the same principle.

 

[Ron Squire]

still test it in rfactor regardless

 

[Rupe Wilson]

http://www.beamthescience.com/index_files/beamdoc/downforcelift.htm

 

[Hampus Andersson]

still test it in rfactor regardless

Yea you do that. See if Gravity works as well. We are still not sure about that one.

 

[Kennett Ylitalo]

if we make this theory on Bobs Track Builder and run it with rfactor and see if this theory will work

But I'm sure rFactor doesn't actually simulate the air forcing the car to the ground it only gives more grip as speed increases thus the car wouldn't go up side down.

Oh, and we can't "make" this theory, it's already been "made" (thought). Hence this very discussion...

Not true, the downforce is given as a negative force pushing the car away from it's reference plane (same as a force pushing "down"..) so, in theory, it should stay up in the ceiling. Except: the vertical surfaces are not simulated correctly, anything close 90 degrees becomes extremely buggy..So the transition is hard to do, i have to check that one out (i may upload the results so others can try it aswell..)

But it just does not increase grip, otherwise a vehicle that is airborne wouldn't have downforce at all and this is simply not the case. Note, i'm in the middle of full conversion arcade mod so i've done research on this exact area and have been able to drive on the ceiling, not due to downforce but centripetal force (the surface was not flat 180 degrees but more like125degrees)

 

[Paul M Jones]

 

[Alberto Casado]

The discussion of downforce vs./same as lift is moot for a physicist, just linguistics. You can define it either way, stick to your definition and all is fine.

There is not an universal rule for arbitrary directions, no matter how much Hampus would like to conclude, settle and engrave it in stone.

 

[Kennett Ylitalo]

Tested in rF: 2,5km, gradient length 1,25km (from 0 degrees to 180) and back. Test vehicle BMW Sauber, wings to max: At 90 degrees it just falls, there is downforce still acting on it but it just falls.

Trying next: loop de loop to use centripetal force to make the car go upside down, then flattening that to perfect upside down straight.. I think i need 10km for that...

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Tested in rF: 2,5km, gradient length 1,25km (from 0 degrees to 180) and back. Test vehicle BMW Sauber, wings to max: At 90 degrees it just falls, there is downforce still acting on it but it just falls.

Trying next: loop de loop to use centripetal force to make the car go upside down, then flattening that to perfect upside down straight.. I think i need 10km for that...

You have to film this sort of stuff

 

[Hampus Andersson]

The discussion of downforce vs./same as lift is moot for a physicist, just linguistics. You can define it either way, stick to your definition and all is fine.

There is not an universal rule for arbitrary directions, no matter how much Hampus would like to conclude, settle and engrave it in stone.

I have said they are two sides of the same coin. And that in this case, downforce is the correct term.

And reading your post above it seems you are saying the same.

 

[Alberto Casado]

I have said they are two sides of the same coin. And that in this case, downforce is the correct term.

And reading your post above it seems you are saying the same.

It was more about the first sentence:

"An F1 car still experiences downforce regardless of it being upsidedown"

That depends, if your definition of downforce is:
- force that points towards the surface that touches the tyres
then yes
if your definition of downforce is:
- force parallel to and in the same sense of gravity
then absolutely no

And both definitions are perfectly valid.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

It was more about the first sentence:

"An F1 car still experiences downforce regardless of it being upsidedown"

That depends, if your definition of downforce is:
- force that points towards the surface that touches the tyres
then yes
if your definition of downforce is:
- force parallel to and in the same sense of gravity
then absolutely no

And both definitions are perfectly valid.

Downforce as in increasing the load on the tires so that would be option 1 i guess.
We all agree that it´s lift no?
But for the sake of the argument and not complicate things more then we really need, we say downforce to separate the two even though it´s the same principle.

Just to make things easier.

 

[Kennett Ylitalo]

You have to film this sort of stuff

Try it yourself: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vpzd0tymlhygitp/upsidedown.zip There's loop de loop and twist.. Neither produces the desired effect. On twist the moment it's 90degrees, there is not enough grip to keep it falling. On loop de loop the required centripetal force is too much for F1 suspension, it drags the bottom and can't keep up the speed. I think that scaling loop de loop so that it does not drag on the ground, makes it way too long to gain enough centripetal force.. At the moment it's ~300m radius and it's not even close.. If anyone has any other road shapes in mind, drop a line and i'll try to reproduce it.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

I don´t have the game anymore but it wasn´t that hugely important, just wanted to see how the game reacted.

Maybe this could be the ultimate realism test, can you drive your car upside down? No? Well AC can.. so... yea.
Classic fanboy comment.

 

[Howard]

why not test the theory

Because it's quite tricky to find a place to drive a F1 car up to 100+mph, then turn it upside down for long enough to take a measurement and go back again. That would need a tunnel, and a long one at that, with no obstacles on the ceiling like fans or lights. I don't think one exists that fits the bill.

I'm not sure how rFactor does it's grip calculations. It probably applies a function to the speed of the car to increase grip, rather than downforce. rFactor Pro would probably work. I could be wrong though.

 

[Chris Jenkins]

I'm pretty sure a restricting factor would be finding a team that would say "sure you can take our car and drive it upside down!"

Also a driver risking potential death if it goes wrong

 

[Dux]

 

[Rupe Wilson]

And we all remember this

maybe fake but looks real cool..

 

[Tony Holder]

Alien tech....

 

[Jimlaad43]

Tested in rF: 2,5km, gradient length 1,25km (from 0 degrees to 180) and back. Test vehicle BMW Sauber, wings to max: At 90 degrees it just falls, there is downforce still acting on it but it just falls.

Trying next: loop de loop to use centripetal force to make the car go upside down, then flattening that to perfect upside down straight.. I think i need 10km for that...

This is more to do with rFactor not letting you drive upside down than reality. The programming doesn't let us test the feature on rFactor.