Can you drive an F1 car on the ceiling?

Sorry but I can't stop laughing after watching this! :D;

 
Tuttle said:
Sorry but I can't stop laughing after watching this! :D;
Click to expand...

Have a second one ;)


I remember watching this live, really long time ago, coolest finish of race ever, I think he did not even loose any places. That is true car control, or maybe bit of luck ;)

Not sure if that should happen if not bolted to air from other car's tire, but it looks bit like what I posted video earlier to this thread.
 

Redbull "Now just drive it on the ceiling please David." :p
 
I wish they would allow me doing this inside tunnels...cameras everywhere, flashes all around, what do you expect...(trucks are trying to get over me while I try to be law abiding...
 
Tuttle said:
Sorry but I can't stop laughing after watching this! :D;

Click to expand...

Lol at least we found our real world test drivers. That is so insane and the safety standards are amazing, Im sure that little hand rail would keep the car away from all the spectators if one of them went a little high. :D

Any track makers want to take up this challenge Id love to do 300kmh in the f1 here and the physics could handle this already.
 
jtbo said:


Front wing was set to maximum angle and rear wing minimum angle, there is little area at bottom at front, I thought that it would not result quite as violent effect. Could it be that angle of attack is defined by road angle instead of angle car travels trough air? Again I don't understand much, but I find it interesting anyway.

I posted drum brakes formulas and information to modding section brake topic I started, those should explain them quite well.
Click to expand...

Thats pretty weird physics things going on there, if you had front wing at max setting what made it lift up? I would have thought front wing max would make it impossible to get airborne unless you mean max reverse angle? The amount of downforce pushing the nose down shouldn't do that unless there is a huge bump just before the crest.

I would have thought that would happen the other way around with min front and max rear as the front would get light coming over the crest and do what it did.
 
martymoose said:
Thats pretty weird physics things going on there, if you had front wing at max setting what made it lift up? I would have thought front wing max would make it impossible to get airborne unless you mean max reverse angle? The amount of downforce pushing the nose down shouldn't do that unless there is a huge bump just before the crest.

I would have thought that would happen the other way around with min front and max rear as the front would get light coming over the crest and do what it did.
Click to expand...

Highest angle number that setup allowed, original physics in ISI F1 car, well except tires have max camber set to 90, so that you can drive on sidewalls too if you want to.

For me it looks like if front wing DF cuts out as front lifts up a bit / downhill begins. There is of course quite bit of momentum as speed is so high, diffusor creates downforce to rear part of the car (I guess close to CG location), also size difference between front and rear wing affects to that, but still, it is like front downforce all of sudden would cut off, which leads me to believe that angle of air meeting wing is related angle of ground or then downforce shuts off from front wing after certain height?

I try to look if I find that from logs and see how DF changes at that moment.

Edit: Logs show that right when front got just tiny bit higher, downforce at front decreases and becomes lift. In 5 meters downforce gets half and front ride height is increased 32mm.
I have found same when trying to jump F1 car, it seems impossible as front races to sky right when ramp ends. Area of bottom at front of car is however quite limited, wing should work just fine at 2m height too if direction of travel is forwards at same velocity as at ground, air does not know which way it is, so there is some issues there and I don't know if that will affect attempts of driving at the ceiling?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If it hits a big enough crest or bump to lift the front off the ground then air will get under the car and do what yours did that is pretty much the same thing that happens to Webber in the Mercedes.



Main difference though is that the cars at Le Mans run very low downforce as they get to crazy top end speeds around 370kmh+ so going over a slight rise was enough to flip them but a F1 car with max front wing should get the front pushed down quite hard. But it could just be the track you tested on because that looks almost like a jump.

What happens if you run max downforce setup over the hill does it still flip? and do normal cars take off coming over that crest?
 
martymoose said:
If it hits a big enough crest or bump to lift the front off the ground then air will get under the car and do what yours did that is pretty much the same thing that happens to Webber in the Mercedes.
Click to expand...

Main difference (as you did say after the vid) is that they run less downforce for the long straights, but also that Webber was running in the slipstream of a Toyota, reducing the downforce even further.

martymoose said:
Main difference though is that the cars at Le Mans run very low downforce as they get to crazy top end speeds around 370kmh+ so going over a slight rise was enough to flip them but a F1 car with max front wing should get the front pushed down quite hard. But it could just be the track you tested on because that looks almost like a jump.

What happens if you run max downforce setup over the hill does it still flip? and do normal cars take off coming over that crest?
Click to expand...
Real life example below. Funny enough, also webber ;)



EDIT::
btw, wasn't the crash you showed not Peter Dumbreck that started to fly? I know Webber crashed as well, but I believe webber did it one crest further, and in warmup (not race).
 
From my memory that was 30 degree climb, then 30 degree downhill other side, I think that it should of at least lift off at level or front should of dipped down with that aero settings I had, air has lot more area at rear so I believe rear should of get bit afloat over air. One must remember that it was over 270kph there, with some inertia calculations it would be perhaps possible to calculate if force actually would be enough to lift front from air, if car can drive at ceiling in theory, it would require some certain force to take it off from road. So far only videos of real world F1 cars flying I have been able to find and see are such that there is some sort of bump or contact that launches car up.

Webber's case seems such that he has not lot of aero there as it is right after corner and also when driving out, so he was probably doing some relatively slow speed, 150kph ? It is bit relative what is slow with those poorly flying aeroplanes.

Of course rF2 is not Flight simulator, but I'm trying to figure out limits of aero code if there are such so I would know if there are aero issues with driving at ceiling.
 
Nimugp said:
Main difference (as you did say after the vid) is that they run less downforce for the long straights, but also that Webber was running in the slipstream of a Toyota, reducing the downforce even further.
Click to expand...

Also, those prototypes had a massive rearword centre of downforce, and the car itself forms a vague wing shape. There's a lengthy article on the flip on Mulsanne's Corner.

EDIT::
btw, wasn't the crash you showed not Peter Dumbreck that started to fly? I know Webber crashed as well, but I believe webber did it one crest further, and in warmup (not race).
Click to expand...

Correct, it was indeed Dumbreck who flipped during the race. Webber did it twice in testing, IIRC. That year there was also a BMW LMR that flipped during the Petite LeMans, and a Porsche 911 GT1 during the Petite the previous year, as well. I don't recall who those drivers were, though, off the top of my head.
 
jtbo said:
From my memory that was 30 degree climb, then 30 degree downhill other side, I think that it should of at least lift off at level or front should of dipped down with that aero settings I had, air has lot more area at rear so I believe rear should of get bit afloat over air. One must remember that it was over 270kph there, with some inertia calculations it would be perhaps possible to calculate if force actually would be enough to lift front from air, if car can drive at ceiling in theory, it would require some certain force to take it off from road. So far only videos of real world F1 cars flying I have been able to find and see are such that there is some sort of bump or contact that launches car up.

Webber's case seems such that he has not lot of aero there as it is right after corner and also when driving out, so he was probably doing some relatively slow speed, 150kph ? It is bit relative what is slow with those poorly flying aeroplanes.

Of course rF2 is not Flight simulator, but I'm trying to figure out limits of aero code if there are such so I would know if there are aero issues with driving at ceiling.
Click to expand...

It looks like webber may have hit a ditch or some sort of big bump in the grass, f1 cars dont lift off on acceleration like funny cars dragsters.
 
I wonder if damage model of rF2 will be this good? Must of been faulty design in some part as two cars had same fate:



Good strong cars as drivers were quite ok after those rides.
 
jtbo said:
Webber's case seems such that he has not lot of aero there as it is right after corner and also when driving out, so he was probably doing some relatively slow speed, 150kph ? It is bit relative what is slow with those poorly flying aeroplanes.
Click to expand...
Count some 100 kph extra ;) It is the corner coming onto the long straight at shanghai. The corner gets wider and wider, and is banked. Just watched the pole lap from this year (incident is also this year), and Rosberg drove somewhere between 250 - 280 kph at the point where this incident happend.

It was just to show that a f1 car probably won't do backflipping when air gets under the front (when front wing is still attached). Off course this all depends on setup, but also how big the angle is compared to the direction traveled (at some angle the front wing wouldnt work, or work less anyway, and the force of the air that hits the bottom would become too great).
 
jtbo said:
I wonder if damage model of rF2 will be this good? Must of been faulty design in some part as two cars had same fate:



Good strong cars as drivers were quite ok after those rides.
Click to expand...

Those were both extenuating circumstances; in both incidents, a tire blew causing the cars to rapidly increase yaw angle. Most cars when travelling sideways at those speeds will flip over. It's because of the flat bottom in section. That's why current prototypes all have chamfered floors; it helps reduce this effect.

Nimugp said:
Count some 100 kph extra ;) It is the corner coming onto the long straight at shanghai. The corner gets wider and wider, and is banked. Just watched the pole lap from this year (incident is also this year), and Rosberg drove somewhere between 250 - 280 kph at the point where this incident happend.

It was just to show that a f1 car probably won't do backflipping when air gets under the front (when front wing is still attached). Off course this all depends on setup, but also how big the angle is compared to the direction traveled (at some angle the front wing wouldnt work, or work less anyway, and the force of the air that hits the bottom would become too great).
Click to expand...

It should be noted that cars always have air under them. You just want the air under them to be moving faster than the air going over them.
 
Ryno917 said:
Those were both extenuating circumstances; in both incidents, a tire blew causing the cars to rapidly increase yaw angle. Most cars when travelling sideways at those speeds will flip over. It's because of the flat bottom in section. That's why current prototypes all have chamfered floors; it helps reduce this effect.
Click to expand...

Those also were both Nissan cars in same race and same tire blew (I'm guessing here that it was tire, bit hard to see).
 
Yep, tire. Not surprised; Fuji used to have a couple long, fast corners that would be pretty hard on tires. I do recall hearing that the Group C cars made so much downforce that tire life was always an issue, too.
 
Ryno917 said:
Yep, tire. Not surprised; Fuji used to have a couple long, fast corners that would be pretty hard on tires. I do recall hearing that the Group C cars made so much downforce that tire life was always an issue, too.
Click to expand...

Hmm, could them be run at ceiling too (in theory)? I'm wondering if F1 is only one or if there actually is others too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top