I'm heading off to the UK for a few weeks after this to visit some F1 teams (Sorry, no cameras allowed!), so there won't be any videos for a bit. Enjoy this one!
KYLE.DRIVES If the mass of unsprung wings themselves will add to unsprung weight, would the effective weight of the downforce they produce also add unsprung weight?
TheBrandonWeir Not really - unsprung weight should be called unsprung mass, as the problems it creates are due to the inertia of the bouncing wheel & suspension components. The name comes from our bad habit of confusing "weight" (how hard is this thing pushing down on the earth) and "mass" (how much stuff is this thing made of) in daily life. While downforce increases the weight on the tires, it doesn't affect the mass. However, if we're splitting hairs there will be an induced effect since a bouncing tire also means the wing attached to it is moving up and down, altering the apparent angle of attack and by extension the amount of downforce the wing creates.
KYLE.DRIVES an open ended shoe box provides downforce! ray mallock noticed when the rear panel of his clubman's race car got ripped off he had more grip on the rear of his u2, wich was at the time a lotus seven lookalike! i tried it on my slot racers and it worked for me too until it was noticed and banned until everyone was allowed to use it. i,m g, using the open ended shoebox idea on my large scale RC fg formula one race car! along with an exhaust blown diffuser!! hoping it will work for the summer season of the south east radio control car club,s formula one challenge in the south east of England!
This has been used in RC cars (1/8 scale track) for 15 years now, the rear body posts are attached to the hubs where the top wishbones are mounted. Never used in front
You say that this solution never made it out of Formula SAE. The Lotus 49b had its rear wing mounted that way. So it actually made its way into Formula SAE. It's really a solution from the early days of Aerodynamics in F1 when most of the interesting, though unoptimized, ideas were born. Legend has it that the extra dynamic load was causing fatigue fractures on the actual hub and there were a few failures there. But that could be F1 folklore...
These videos are fantastic man - not only do you explain things clearly and well enough for an interested layman to understand, you also cover topics that are less mainstream and thus more interesting :) thanks for making these!
Henrix98 same... youtube just allows you to add pics now they don't even have to be in the video. prob find youtubes monthly hits were on a downward trend so the powers that be decided to actively allow clickbait
WodanKlaaschOften I've watched a couple and it doesn't seam to be unsprung nor do the cars in the series... the front wings are like any other set up on an f1 car and the rear wings are just oversized but still attach to the body or frame... not to the axles
Correct, Monash doesnt run unsprung aero devices, the most famous example of unsprung aero is FS Team Delft, although they were not the first to implement it they have had the most success with it.
Monash does run unsprung aero, might want to check your facts there. They've run it since 2002 (I've sat on one of their wings). It's even listed in that spec sheet in the comment above: "Unsprung mounting front/rear wings, Drag Reduction System front/rear wings" "Suspension Type Double Unequal length A-Arm, direct acting, adjustable U-bar integrated with wing mounting" www.monashmotorsport.com/the-car/2014-car/
ISMA supermodifieds use a hybrid of this, the rear wing struts are actually air shocks and the front of the wing is mounted to the chassis in a pivot point so the wing drops at high speeds but stands back up under braking.
Just got home from the shop working on bodywork for our first University of Georgia (US) FSAE car. Never thought of running aero that way. Thanks man! Love your videos 👍🏻
Actually there are even greater benefits to this. The airflow around the back of an airfoil will mimic a "memory" of how the air flowed a split second before which means a sudden sharp increase in angle of attack (a bump in the road) will yield a big spike in downforce without actually delivering the corresponding increase in drag that is normally associated with the higher angle of attack. This is generally why you will see windsurfers "pump" the sail when they feel a bit underpowered in lighter winds. (I believe that's from "Sail Performance" by C A Marchaj)
I didn't mean technically, I meant viewership. EE is pretty helpful for the non-aerodynamic aspects of cars. I am glad they are both willing to educating us!
Marcelo Jardim That diesels make more torque than gasoline engines, that pushrod engines are simpler than OHC engines, and his horsepower and torque video was incredibly misleading and uninformative. I stopped watching his videos because views = $$.
Doesnt this also reduce effectiveness of on body fins and other elements to route wind to spoilers, especially rear? Spoilers will be constantly moving so designing a body would be harder.
But if the undercar aero is unsprung, itll stay a constant distance from the ground through braking and cornering forces And you can use more effective spring and shock setups because you no longer have to account for hundreds of pounds of downforce on your suspension Undercar aero works perfectly when really close to the ground, but immediately stop working if the car bottoms out Bottom out on a corner and you'll fly off the track
Actually if you notice in motorsport tires look like they rarely move up and down, its the body of a racecar that moves around. In street cars youll see the tires move up and down but an unsprung wing would actually look quite still
A general rule that many racecar engineering books stick to is this:- If you lift a car off the ground, anything that lifts up with the car is considered sprung, anything that droops (like wheels) is considered unsprung, anything that connects the sprung to the unsprung (suspension arms etc) is considered "half and half" (within reason, and not taking into account centres of mass of individual components etc etc).
Yes. The Chaparral 2E race cars of 1966 was the first.....He even had a separate foot pedal that allowed him to feather the angle of attack...the 1st active aero car.
I havent seen a comment correctly answering " why unsprung aero was banned." It is unsafe, because when you "hit a bump, wing stalls due to rapid movement, and you get a sudden momentary loss of downforce." - from GameboyRMH on the Grassroots Motorsports forum.
Well there is no excuse to ban it it in F1 when teams are already dumping so much money at least they can dump it into developing just like P1 cars do. It can be argued that at the time it was banned cars were going to fast they pulled to many Gs and safety of race tracks and cars was lower. Now I think they should use even more electronics and in combinations with massive downforce they can make cars that go way faster while keeping the safety in check. In regular races it is understandable since developing means a lot more money that teams need to spend just to compete and in those its just unproductive to allow extra spending when even now they try to keep it minimal. Like for example in GT3.
It was legal in F1 for a brief period in '69 when Aero was just getting started. However, in one race, several crashes were caused when wings were bent in half by a dip in the road at Barcelona. Wings were banned altogether at the next race (Monaco,) then the low, fixed wings were allowed the next season.
Technology is regularly banned to keep F1 and other motorsports fair and interesting. Usually the winning technology is banned so that every year the teams have to come up with something new. Otherwise the victory would always go to the most well funded team.
It is not banned to keep it fair that is non sense. Right now it is not fair to let one team that has huge budget out do team that doesn't, because there is nothing that teams can even do come close to top teams because development on that level is just not possible for them where teams that have money they can still improve upon. So setting hard limit for some teams is just not fair in my book unless you give them some chance to come up with something. Teams with most money will always have better chance to win but right now there is no way that team on top can even come close to them since bar is set so high and margin on developing anything is so small that teams face huge diminishing returns on their money to get there. So i don't see how banning technology and setting so hard limitations helps in this case when as we can all see that team that has most money wins.
I'm guessing this was because the mounting parts were so fragile due to trying to minimize unsprung weight, whereas the body-mounted fixed wings could use more robust mountings since they are sprung mass?
Make sure you are within the rules. We had it on our 2013 car and it snapped off during endurance, because of to much sideways forces. The ground is not as flat as we would like, atleast for Silverstone. mobeck.com/ipsum-lorum-6/ Here you can se the setup, kinda. The rear wing mounted to the rear uprights, and rollbar.
Great channel! I binged, probably, half of the videos and subscribed right there. If you are planning on releasing car aero analysis videos anytime soon, I propose the following: Corvette C7r Ford GT (Endurance Race car) ViperACR Keep up the great content!
What about bump stops and Packers? F1, Indy, LeMans etc, vary the length of their bump stops to make them come in to play before bottoming. The downforce compresses the springs until the car is resting hard on the stops. At this point the downforce is unsprung and the ride height is maintained, eliminating underbody stalling due to bottoming.
You sir just got a new subscriber! I very happily do! At first I was a bit dismayed by the complexity and I had to learn quite a bit to follow you :p But after that steap learning curve I'm actually really enjoying the depth of the explanations! Thank you so much!
Given that adjustable coil overs are one of the most popular modifications track day goers make, could you do a video on how to set up dampers, and what role do they play in the handling of the car? Thanks.
when travelling at a certain speed the wing will be placing a force down on the outboard components of the car as is explained, however you said at the end that the un-sprung mass is increased which makes sense but does the increased downward force due to aero not mitigate the negative effects of un-sprung mass? my understanding was that higher unsprung mass will create larger forces travelling up through the chassis through the suspension components, but my question is will having a wing creating a downward force acting straight down on that mass not counteract that upward force resulting in a nearly negative unsprung mass if the car is at a high enough speed? sorry if thats unclear I find it hard to explain my question
Time out! Yes the weight of the aero device will add up to the unsprung weight but it will also only have to push down the unsprung weight instead of the entire mass of the car (F=ma) making it more responsive to keep the tire on the track at all time.
excellent im no expert and i thought your vid would be stupid , but its far far smarter than me ,, im on bikes and appreciate unsprung mass , good stuff youve introduced me to a new concept, what if you tried to consider unsprung mass relative to the steering on a racing motorcycle , motor cycle steering is complicated , but simple ,
But how would it work with suspension travel? If your wheels drop for whatever reason, it would create a gap between the splitter and the car, oppening a new channel for air between them unless you had an air dam on the splitter behind the body. Or the opposite of that would be the body slamming down on the aero during hard braking. Seems unstable in dynamic conditions.
you do also need strong wings. I remember reading about the brief period where unsprung aero was legal in F1. They were hitting a dip in the road at one race hard enough to bend wings in half.
Is bolting some minor canards to the outside-facing wheel assembly helpful in terms of low speed downforce? Instead of a whole underbody or floor being bolted to the wheel assemblies and causing oscillations and porpoising?
Is an unsprung floor/underbody destined to undergo porpoising after dealing with one bump or pothole? Would it require stiffer springs to control the oscillation of the wheels and the heavy floor to undo any potential oscillations or choked flow, thereby offsetting the mechanical grip benefits?
I know that it is not really related to this channel and maybe part of your knowledge on how to do this, but could you please consider making a video on how exactly to mount this type of aero set-up on a touring type car and if it will have much or any actual significance in downforce vs the typical body bolt-ons for a track style car. Thanks much appreciated.
You mentioned that the disadvantage of mounting the areo to the chassis is that you need harder suspension, have there been any experiments with with a "hybrid system, using 1 type of suspension for the main chassis and another for the areo?
In the mid to late 90s I had a radio controlled race car that had an unsprung wing on the rear. I can remember the setup but not the model or brand. Would be great to find more information on it today.
When I get back to editing videos in two months, I'm going to have a question about something related to this that you may be able to answer. I don't think I've seen it used in motorsports, though. It's complicated enough that I need to make a video to show what I'm asking.
I have a question. We race on ovals not road race, BUT? Unsprung weight is Most Undesired. The calculation is : 1 pound of Unsprung equals 10 pound of Sprung weight. Wouldn't this hurt the tires in cornering?
If you want an underbody skirt to always be at a few mm from the ground then if you attach it to the wheels upright then you won't have to put an extra distance for the suspension travel making it more efficient.
Having unsprung aero doesn't add unsprung mass. In fact, when you are driving, the added mass from the aero makes more force down than the weight of itself, therefor decreasing the feeling of unsprung mass, even less than if it wasn't there. Also, when the wheel "jumps" up, there will be more pressure on top of the wing. With the increased air density, the downforce (and drag) will be even stronger in the moment it "jumps". In addition, when accelerating, the driving wheels don't have to wait for the aero force to go through the springs. This will decrease the time you have to wait to hammer it, especially good for cars without turbocharging. All in all, it will increase the time the wheels have firm contact with the ground. Just wanted to point something out
I just subbed the shit out of this. I am always looking at aero for the old time attach car.. haven't done much but lots of study and the more I know the better off I'll be when I make changes, add aero etc.
If you want to push your wheel down against a bump hopefully your downforce will be a lot bigger then than the force generated by the wing mass inertia going up (unless your wing is made out of cast iron). So it will greatly overcome that problem.
Will you be doing some videos on the 2017 F1 cars? So far the Renault and Sauber cars have been released, and shortly later the Force India car. I gotta say the Renault looks very technical with its revealed aero package and would love to see your inputs on the different cars' approaches to the new regulations.
Yeah, the venturi shell attached to the outboard section of the suspension at each corner so it wouldn't rise and fall with the body of the car, which was massively beneficial since the sliding skirts had been banned. The engine/driver section could then be mounted to the inboard part of the suspension with comparitively soft springs, which reduced wear and tear on the drivers plus more mechanical grip. Mario Andretti said part of why he left F1 was that the ground effect cars in legal form (all aero attached to sprung part of the car) had such brutally stiff suspensions to keep the aero parts in the right spot.
what will be the specific mounting points of the wings for a unsprung aero? coz the down-force can damage the suspension parts, or we should directly mount it to the uprights?
What if you put extra Springs and dampers between the spoilers and the axes (sorry don't know the right Word in english). If you use an (well then tactically Not anymore ) unsprung aero? So you could have a Setup for the chassis and spoilers independently.
Is there a racing series that allows or allowed an unsprung body? The Lotus' double chassis from F1 comes to mind, but I don't know if it's a version of unsprung aero, or if this was featured in other series at one point in time.
How would unsprung aero connect to an independent suspension car? Also what counts and doesn't count as sprung and unsprung in suspension itself? Also wouldn't the aero on a un sprung setup move relative to the body? And what about aerodynamic suspension parts themselves? ( sorry for all the questions)
Ill have a crack! :)1: Usually connects to the outboard upright 2: Uprights/wheels/tyres/a-arms, etc = unsprung. Chassis/body/engine/driver = sprung. 3: Yes it does - this is one of the major benefits of it. Particularly for the front wing which will run at a consistent ride height and angle to the ground for ground effects = higher and more consistent downforce. It also allows you to run lower endplates so you can better seal your front wing. 4: Aerodynamic suspension parts would be considered unsprung aero components.
Wes Partridge so basically the entire suspension is unsprung? Also I believe some racing ( like f1) does have sorta aerodynamic suspension parts but they aren't counted as so because that's not the original purpose? It's just streamlined instead of being designed for downforce Also am I the only one that thinks the ban is stupid? Just like with active suspension and cvt gear boxes ( in f1) Also I can see how you would get a more consistent hight relitive to the ground being mounted on the suspension but I don't really see a feasible way to mount on independent suspension since it would have to have some sort of conformity to being twisted, expansion, and contraction to some degree because of suspension movement ( although that said you'd get much better ground effect in corners ) I can see how especially for rear suspension if it's a live axel it could be pretty easy to do so because it's not independent But for any independent setup you'd have to add some sort of conformity in movement somehow
I am unfamiliar with f1 rules - i suspect the a-arms must be a certain geometry/or size so they dont just turn them into wings. It is possible to have independent suspension and unsprung wings. Have a look at the fsae teams which use it- Monash probably being the best example. It should be easy to see how they mount the rear wing. The harder one to visualise is the front wing. basically this is partially mounted to the chassis of the car - but those links dont resolve any of the downforce. Then you use a link which connects the wing to the upright to resolve the vertical component.
Unsprung aero would probably be easy to put on vehicles with solid axles but that would cost so much weight it would annihilate the benifits. Some older American muscle cars have live rear axles perfect for this though.
This sounds perfect for Bonneville salt Flats. how would you build some thing like thison a pick-up run trusses up through the whee well? with my Aero Tonto probably have to add a Gurney flap,but how much. for a closer look at my shape check out my videos.
I have no engineering background or racing/aero knowledge, I just thought this was a really interesting video! :D Can you explain to me how unsprung mass, that isn't rotational, has a negative effect? I'm assuming it would be mostly detrimental to cornering?
I design air rifle amunition and I really like your channel I'm hoping to be able to wind test my creations soon I just need to figure out how to make a 2000 FPS air tunnel with a camera and smoker fit in my tiny experiment area
what if you do a mixed setup? Unsprung on the rear and sprung on the front.. I can install a Unsprung system on my car with not to much of a breainstorm, but @ the front.. thatś a whole differtent story.. I think it will be beneficial if I do it becouse itś a front wheel drive car to get some extra stability and downforce in the rear..but will it go in conflict if I keep the front sprung?
The front wing and the undertray benefit the most from being unsprung, as they operate in strong ground effect and are therefore very sensitive to pitch, roll and heave. I am a member of an FSAE team and for that reason we decided this year to run the front wing and the undertray unsprung while the rear wing remains sprung.
the guys from saleen did a big mistake on threir s7. they dont considered the downforce of the car, so when you reach a certain speed, the car will be pushed to hard to the ground and the bottom will touch the street :D Pretty american engineering there
just wondering which f1 teams you are visiting? also, can you do videos on the new f1 cars when they come out and also the aero of hypercars and supercars
Very interesting, as usual. If you used an unsprung aero system, couldn't you take advantage of the more consistent ride height to run the car a bit lower, in order to make more effective use of the diffuser, without risking bottoming-out the car? Wouldn't that allow you to use slightly smaller (and therefore lighter) front and rear wings, thereby mitigating the unsprung mass issue? Does that make any sense at all?
It makes sense to me. As I watched the video, I found myself picturing the same scenarios/ asking the same questions. Also (in a street car), would mounting points of said aero elements be "simpler" for the front than the rear, due to proximity of suspension to aero element? Would this then lead to a rear diffuser being more relevant than a rear wing? What effect then would be the constantly variable relationship between a "fixed" postion front splitter and rear diffuser and a constantly moving chassis undertray?
So ideally a hydraulic cylinder connected to the spoiler and hub, but with 50% of the downforce still going through the body to counteract the "lift" from the mounted hydraulic cylinder?
Isn't unsprung aero where it all began in the early Grand Prix days? I was lead to believe it got banned because they couldn't make it reliable enough. If it breaks the loss of traction can be, errrm, quite large...
just put a sprung Mcperson strut between the wing and the wheel then you only have the unsprung mass of the strut not the whole wing and you get faster reaction on the suspension and it just compresses that strut more at speed "someone has probably said this before but im too lazy to read it all":D
Hope the trip is great! I would really like to understand the advantages and disadvantages of a long vs short wheel base for dirty track racing ( oval ) especially in regards to the absolute fastest lap times possible.
I'm heading off to the UK for a few weeks after this to visit some F1 teams (Sorry, no cameras allowed!), so there won't be any videos for a bit. Enjoy this one!
KYLE.DRIVES Enjoy the trip! I'm envious.
KYLE.DRIVES Awsome! When you return could you talk about the aerodynamics of a spinning wheel?
KYLE.DRIVES If the mass of unsprung wings themselves will add to unsprung weight, would the effective weight of the downforce they produce also add unsprung weight?
TheBrandonWeir Not really - unsprung weight should be called unsprung mass, as the problems it creates are due to the inertia of the bouncing wheel & suspension components. The name comes from our bad habit of confusing "weight" (how hard is this thing pushing down on the earth) and "mass" (how much stuff is this thing made of) in daily life. While downforce increases the weight on the tires, it doesn't affect the mass.
However, if we're splitting hairs there will be an induced effect since a bouncing tire also means the wing attached to it is moving up and down, altering the apparent angle of attack and by extension the amount of downforce the wing creates.
KYLE.DRIVES an open ended shoe box provides downforce! ray mallock noticed when the rear panel of his clubman's race car got ripped off he had more grip on the rear of his u2, wich was at the time a lotus seven lookalike! i tried it on my slot racers and it worked for me too until it was noticed and banned until everyone was allowed to use it. i,m g, using the open ended shoebox idea on my large scale RC fg formula one race car! along with an exhaust blown diffuser!! hoping it will work for the summer season of the south east radio control car club,s formula one challenge in the south east of England!
Would be awesome if you could do a video on Formula Student aerodynamics and how to optimize them, you might guess why im asking for it hehe
Wow, I never never knew about this. Fascinating!
This has been used in RC cars (1/8 scale track) for 15 years now, the rear body posts are attached to the hubs where the top wishbones are mounted. Never used in front
You say that this solution never made it out of Formula SAE. The Lotus 49b had its rear wing mounted that way. So it actually made its way into Formula SAE. It's really a solution from the early days of Aerodynamics in F1 when most of the interesting, though unoptimized, ideas were born.
Legend has it that the extra dynamic load was causing fatigue fractures on the actual hub and there were a few failures there. But that could be F1 folklore...
These videos are fantastic man - not only do you explain things clearly and well enough for an interested layman to understand, you also cover topics that are less mainstream and thus more interesting :)
thanks for making these!
Not lying, I came here to see the thumbnail car
Henrix98 it is a car from Monash fsae team. There should be plenty of videos of 'em floating around on the CZcamss.
Henrix98 same... youtube just allows you to add pics now they don't even have to be in the video. prob find youtubes monthly hits were on a downward trend so the powers that be decided to actively allow clickbait
WodanKlaaschOften I've watched a couple and it doesn't seam to be unsprung nor do the cars in the series... the front wings are like any other set up on an f1 car and the rear wings are just oversized but still attach to the body or frame... not to the axles
Correct, Monash doesnt run unsprung aero devices, the most famous example of unsprung aero is FS Team Delft, although they were not the first to implement it they have had the most success with it.
Monash does run unsprung aero, might want to check your facts there. They've run it since 2002 (I've sat on one of their wings). It's even listed in that spec sheet in the comment above:
"Unsprung mounting front/rear wings, Drag Reduction System front/rear wings"
"Suspension Type Double Unequal length A-Arm, direct acting, adjustable U-bar integrated with wing mounting"
www.monashmotorsport.com/the-car/2014-car/
ISMA supermodifieds use a hybrid of this, the rear wing struts are actually air shocks and the front of the wing is mounted to the chassis in a pivot point so the wing drops at high speeds but stands back up under braking.
Just got home from the shop working on bodywork for our first University of Georgia (US) FSAE car. Never thought of running aero that way. Thanks man! Love your videos 👍🏻
Actually there are even greater benefits to this.
The airflow around the back of an airfoil will mimic a "memory" of how the air flowed a split second before which means a sudden sharp increase in angle of attack (a bump in the road) will yield a big spike in downforce without actually delivering the corresponding increase in drag that is normally associated with the higher angle of attack.
This is generally why you will see windsurfers "pump" the sail when they feel a bit underpowered in lighter winds.
(I believe that's from "Sail Performance" by C A Marchaj)
You, Sir, will make it big. I am flabbergasted you haven't caught up with EE.
Caught up? This guy blows EE out of the water. EE has no idea what he's talking about sometimes.
I didn't mean technically, I meant viewership. EE is pretty helpful for the non-aerodynamic aspects of cars. I am glad they are both willing to educating us!
He actually perpetuates a lot of common misconceptions about automotive technology. He does more harm than good for people.
Like what misconceptions? (honest question)
Marcelo Jardim That diesels make more torque than gasoline engines, that pushrod engines are simpler than OHC engines, and his horsepower and torque video was incredibly misleading and uninformative. I stopped watching his videos because views = $$.
Holy moly dude. i am watching your older videos and they are amazing
im so happy.. I tried to look on google for this info with no real result, now I see this in my recommended ... THANKS for answering my questions XD
Doesnt this also reduce effectiveness of on body fins and other elements to route wind to spoilers, especially rear? Spoilers will be constantly moving so designing a body would be harder.
But if the undercar aero is unsprung, itll stay a constant distance from the ground through braking and cornering forces
And you can use more effective spring and shock setups because you no longer have to account for hundreds of pounds of downforce on your suspension
Undercar aero works perfectly when really close to the ground, but immediately stop working if the car bottoms out
Bottom out on a corner and you'll fly off the track
@@jonathanstevenson8948 brake ducts, but yes
Actually if you notice in motorsport tires look like they rarely move up and down, its the body of a racecar that moves around. In street cars youll see the tires move up and down but an unsprung wing would actually look quite still
Have fun, bring back some new stuff to discuss, like heave springs
Mounting to the chassis = sprung. Mounting to any suspension component = unsprung. Correct?
A general rule that many racecar engineering books stick to is this:- If you lift a car off the ground, anything that lifts up with the car is considered sprung, anything that droops (like wheels) is considered unsprung, anything that connects the sprung to the unsprung (suspension arms etc) is considered "half and half" (within reason, and not taking into account centres of mass of individual components etc etc).
Yes. The Chaparral 2E race cars of 1966 was the first.....He even had a separate foot pedal that allowed him to feather the angle of attack...the 1st active aero car.
It would be cool to have a whole unsprung undertray/diffuser
I havent seen a comment correctly answering " why unsprung aero was banned." It is unsafe, because when you "hit a bump, wing stalls due to rapid movement, and you get a sudden momentary loss of downforce." - from GameboyRMH on the Grassroots Motorsports forum.
I never understand why one technology gets band over another. Why is unsprung aero banned?
Well there is no excuse to ban it it in F1 when teams are already dumping so much money at least they can dump it into developing just like P1 cars do. It can be argued that at the time it was banned cars were going to fast they pulled to many Gs and safety of race tracks and cars was lower. Now I think they should use even more electronics and in combinations with massive downforce they can make cars that go way faster while keeping the safety in check.
In regular races it is understandable since developing means a lot more money that teams need to spend just to compete and in those its just unproductive to allow extra spending when even now they try to keep it minimal. Like for example in GT3.
It was legal in F1 for a brief period in '69 when Aero was just getting started. However, in one race, several crashes were caused when wings were bent in half by a dip in the road at Barcelona. Wings were banned altogether at the next race (Monaco,) then the low, fixed wings were allowed the next season.
Technology is regularly banned to keep F1 and other motorsports fair and interesting.
Usually the winning technology is banned so that every year the teams have to come up with something new. Otherwise the victory would always go to the most well funded team.
It is not banned to keep it fair that is non sense. Right now it is not fair to let one team that has huge budget out do team that doesn't, because there is nothing that teams can even do come close to top teams because development on that level is just not possible for them where teams that have money they can still improve upon. So setting hard limit for some teams is just not fair in my book unless you give them some chance to come up with something.
Teams with most money will always have better chance to win but right now there is no way that team on top can even come close to them since bar is set so high and margin on developing anything is so small that teams face huge diminishing returns on their money to get there. So i don't see how banning technology and setting so hard limitations helps in this case when as we can all see that team that has most money wins.
I'm guessing this was because the mounting parts were so fragile due to trying to minimize unsprung weight, whereas the body-mounted fixed wings could use more robust mountings since they are sprung mass?
Very interesting concept! I'm on an FSAE team and am beginning to research aero for next year's (or later's) car
Make sure you are within the rules. We had it on our 2013 car and it snapped off during endurance, because of to much sideways forces. The ground is not as flat as we would like, atleast for Silverstone. mobeck.com/ipsum-lorum-6/ Here you can se the setup, kinda. The rear wing mounted to the rear uprights, and rollbar.
i wish there was a supercar with a full unsprung undertray and wing, it would be incredible
Great channel!
I binged, probably, half of the videos and subscribed right there.
If you are planning on releasing car aero analysis videos anytime soon, I propose the following:
Corvette C7r
Ford GT (Endurance Race car)
ViperACR
Keep up the great content!
What about bump stops and Packers? F1, Indy, LeMans etc, vary the length of their bump stops to make them come in to play before bottoming. The downforce compresses the springs until the car is resting hard on the stops. At this point the downforce is unsprung and the ride height is maintained, eliminating underbody stalling due to bottoming.
That's 1966 Chaparral Technology.
Which also had DRS. Three pedals with no clutch. Good catch!😎
You sir just got a new subscriber! I very happily do! At first I was a bit dismayed by the complexity and I had to learn quite a bit to follow you :p But after that steap learning curve I'm actually really enjoying the depth of the explanations! Thank you so much!
Given that adjustable coil overs are one of the most popular modifications track day goers make, could you do a video on how to set up dampers, and what role do they play in the handling of the car? Thanks.
when travelling at a certain speed the wing will be placing a force down on the outboard components of the car as is explained, however you said at the end that the un-sprung mass is increased which makes sense but does the increased downward force due to aero not mitigate the negative effects of un-sprung mass? my understanding was that higher unsprung mass will create larger forces travelling up through the chassis through the suspension components, but my question is will having a wing creating a downward force acting straight down on that mass not counteract that upward force resulting in a nearly negative unsprung mass if the car is at a high enough speed? sorry if thats unclear I find it hard to explain my question
Time out! Yes the weight of the aero device will add up to the unsprung weight but it will also only have to push down the unsprung weight instead of the entire mass of the car (F=ma) making it more responsive to keep the tire on the track at all time.
excellent im no expert and i thought your vid would be stupid , but its far far smarter than me ,, im on bikes and appreciate unsprung mass , good stuff youve introduced me to a new concept, what if you tried to consider unsprung mass relative to the steering on a racing motorcycle , motor cycle steering is complicated , but simple ,
But how would it work with suspension travel?
If your wheels drop for whatever reason, it would create a gap between the splitter and the car, oppening a new channel for air between them unless you had an air dam on the splitter behind the body.
Or the opposite of that would be the body slamming down on the aero during hard braking.
Seems unstable in dynamic conditions.
you do also need strong wings. I remember reading about the brief period where unsprung aero was legal in F1. They were hitting a dip in the road at one race hard enough to bend wings in half.
Is bolting some minor canards to the outside-facing wheel assembly helpful in terms of low speed downforce? Instead of a whole underbody or floor being bolted to the wheel assemblies and causing oscillations and porpoising?
This could have prevented the 2022 F1 cars porpoising in testing maybe? But an unsprung DRS system could be worse idea
Can you please make videos on purpose and functioning of wheel arch louvres??? thanks
Is an unsprung floor/underbody destined to undergo porpoising after dealing with one bump or pothole? Would it require stiffer springs to control the oscillation of the wheels and the heavy floor to undo any potential oscillations or choked flow, thereby offsetting the mechanical grip benefits?
Seems like a lot of extra stress wheel bearing don't need on a touring type car. Cool video.
I know that it is not really related to this channel and maybe part of your knowledge on how to do this, but could you please consider making a video on how exactly to mount this type of aero set-up on a touring type car and if it will have much or any actual significance in downforce vs the typical body bolt-ons for a track style car. Thanks much appreciated.
I presently run a sprung stack and front splitter on my cowboy hat.
But I think I might try the unsprung setup on my saddle.
You mentioned that the disadvantage of mounting the areo to the chassis is that you need harder suspension, have there been any experiments with with a "hybrid system, using 1 type of suspension for the main chassis and another for the areo?
In the mid to late 90s I had a radio controlled race car that had an unsprung wing on the rear. I can remember the setup but not the model or brand. Would be great to find more information on it today.
When I get back to editing videos in two months, I'm going to have a question about something related to this that you may be able to answer. I don't think I've seen it used in motorsports, though. It's complicated enough that I need to make a video to show what I'm asking.
I have a question. We race on ovals not road race, BUT? Unsprung weight is Most Undesired. The calculation is : 1 pound of Unsprung equals 10 pound of Sprung weight. Wouldn't this hurt the tires in cornering?
If you want an underbody skirt to always be at a few mm from the ground then if you attach it to the wheels upright then you won't have to put an extra distance for the suspension travel making it more efficient.
Please do a video on double diffusers!
Hmmm. So. If you gotta cover the wheels anyways, like a roadlegal caterham 7 or ariel atom... Putting wings over each tyre instead makes sense?
F1 teams have been managing to sneak a bit of this in on the brake ducts, but 2019 regs seem to be banning it.
Having unsprung aero doesn't add unsprung mass. In fact, when you are driving, the added mass from the aero makes more force down than the weight of itself, therefor decreasing the feeling of unsprung mass, even less than if it wasn't there. Also, when the wheel "jumps" up, there will be more pressure on top of the wing. With the increased air density, the downforce (and drag) will be even stronger in the moment it "jumps". In addition, when accelerating, the driving wheels don't have to wait for the aero force to go through the springs. This will decrease the time you have to wait to hammer it, especially good for cars without turbocharging. All in all, it will increase the time the wheels have firm contact with the ground.
Just wanted to point something out
I just subbed the shit out of this. I am always looking at aero for the old time attach car.. haven't done much but lots of study and the more I know the better off I'll be when I make changes, add aero etc.
Very interesting topic. Thanks for the explanation.
If you want to push your wheel down against a bump hopefully your downforce will be a lot bigger then than the force generated by the wing mass inertia going up (unless your wing is made out of cast iron). So it will greatly overcome that problem.
Will you be doing some videos on the 2017 F1 cars? So far the Renault and Sauber cars have been released, and shortly later the Force India car. I gotta say the Renault looks very technical with its revealed aero package and would love to see your inputs on the different cars' approaches to the new regulations.
A gimballed wing with a gyroscope to mitigate pitch and roll could be interesting
Did the lotus 88 count as unsprung aero?
I think it did.
I think he's talking about cars like the 49B:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lotus_49b_rear_view.jpg
(edit: "he" meaning Kyle, not Phos9)
But he asked about 88 and I think it is reason it was banned.
Yes it was, as with most other innovations in downforce brought forward by Lotus
Yeah, the venturi shell attached to the outboard section of the suspension at each corner so it wouldn't rise and fall with the body of the car, which was massively beneficial since the sliding skirts had been banned. The engine/driver section could then be mounted to the inboard part of the suspension with comparitively soft springs, which reduced wear and tear on the drivers plus more mechanical grip. Mario Andretti said part of why he left F1 was that the ground effect cars in legal form (all aero attached to sprung part of the car) had such brutally stiff suspensions to keep the aero parts in the right spot.
Wouldnt the wing shake to bits if you have them mounted directly to the axle?
Holy shit just found your channel. I've always wanted to learn more about auto aerodynamics.
what will be the specific mounting points of the wings for a unsprung aero? coz the down-force can damage the suspension parts, or we should directly mount it to the uprights?
KYLE.DRIVE
Some R/C cars use unsprung aero (rear ends of 1/8 IC on-road and 1/12 EP on-road).
Hi KYLE.DRIVES, when you get back. What do you think about doing a video on the aero of the Aston Martin Vulcan.
So I understand, it how does it connect to the suspension? The rear seems that the sway bar would be easiest, but I really dont understand the front
What if you put extra Springs and dampers between the spoilers and the axes (sorry don't know the right Word in english). If you use an (well then tactically Not anymore ) unsprung aero?
So you could have a Setup for the chassis and spoilers independently.
I feel like a really simple way to build this and make it work is by using a straight axle on both ends of the car.
Is there a racing series that allows or allowed an unsprung body?
The Lotus' double chassis from F1 comes to mind, but I don't know if it's a version of unsprung aero, or if this was featured in other series at one point in time.
Interesting, but 4:31 Are there any examples where bodyworks with unsprung aero have caused harm to drivers?
How would unsprung aero connect to an independent suspension car?
Also what counts and doesn't count as sprung and unsprung in suspension itself?
Also wouldn't the aero on a un sprung setup move relative to the body?
And what about aerodynamic suspension parts themselves? ( sorry for all the questions)
Ill have a crack! :)1: Usually connects to the outboard upright
2: Uprights/wheels/tyres/a-arms, etc = unsprung. Chassis/body/engine/driver = sprung.
3: Yes it does - this is one of the major benefits of it. Particularly for the front wing which will run at a consistent ride height and angle to the ground for ground effects = higher and more consistent downforce. It also allows you to run lower endplates so you can better seal your front wing.
4: Aerodynamic suspension parts would be considered unsprung aero components.
Wes Partridge so basically the entire suspension is unsprung?
Also I believe some racing ( like f1) does have sorta aerodynamic suspension parts but they aren't counted as so because that's not the original purpose? It's just streamlined instead of being designed for downforce
Also am I the only one that thinks the ban is stupid? Just like with active suspension and cvt gear boxes ( in f1)
Also I can see how you would get a more consistent hight relitive to the ground being mounted on the suspension but I don't really see a feasible way to mount on independent suspension since it would have to have some sort of conformity to being twisted, expansion, and contraction to some degree because of suspension movement
( although that said you'd get much better ground effect in corners )
I can see how especially for rear suspension if it's a live axel it could be pretty easy to do so because it's not independent
But for any independent setup you'd have to add some sort of conformity in movement somehow
I am unfamiliar with f1 rules - i suspect the a-arms must be a certain geometry/or size so they dont just turn them into wings.
It is possible to have independent suspension and unsprung wings. Have a look at the fsae teams which use it- Monash probably being the best example. It should be easy to see how they mount the rear wing. The harder one to visualise is the front wing. basically this is partially mounted to the chassis of the car - but those links dont resolve any of the downforce. Then you use a link which connects the wing to the upright to resolve the vertical component.
great content keep spreding this awsome information.
So how on earth would you connect you aero to the front of your suspension? Say in a Arial Atom to make it easier.
Very interesting, never heard of that! Checking out your other vids :)
Shouldn't it lower the effective sprung mass? Upward force vectors from the wheel should be lowered due to the increased downforce on the wheel
Go Left handers.
Just noticed it today.
Do you write down kanjis with your left hand?
Unsprung aero would probably be easy to put on vehicles with solid axles but that would cost so much weight it would annihilate the benifits. Some older American muscle cars have live rear axles perfect for this though.
that was really interesting. thanks!
So what if I have unsprung on one axle of the car; say the front wing is sprung and the rear is unsprung?
Can you explain the mini coupe rear wing? the one is facing up.
PLEASE!
This sounds perfect for Bonneville salt Flats. how would you build some thing like thison a pick-up run trusses up through the whee well? with my Aero Tonto probably have to add a Gurney flap,but how much. for a closer look at my shape check out my videos.
I have no engineering background or racing/aero knowledge, I just thought this was a really interesting video! :D Can you explain to me how unsprung mass, that isn't rotational, has a negative effect? I'm assuming it would be mostly detrimental to cornering?
@kyle.drives are you able to describe how the infinity wings on the HKS GTS800 work? Seem like an interesting concept on front wings
keep up the good videos man!
I design air rifle amunition and I really like your channel I'm hoping to be able to wind test my creations soon I just need to figure out how to make a 2000 FPS air tunnel with a camera and smoker fit in my tiny experiment area
what if you do a mixed setup? Unsprung on the rear and sprung on the front.. I can install a Unsprung system on my car with not to much of a breainstorm, but @ the front.. thatś a whole differtent story.. I think it will be beneficial if I do it becouse itś a front wheel drive car to get some extra stability and downforce in the rear..but will it go in conflict if I keep the front sprung?
Biohazard667 Productions i think it would be really difficult aerodynamic balance wise.
The front wing and the undertray benefit the most from being unsprung, as they operate in strong ground effect and are therefore very sensitive to pitch, roll and heave. I am a member of an FSAE team and for that reason we decided this year to run the front wing and the undertray unsprung while the rear wing remains sprung.
aha okay, thanks for clearing that up
Kyle, the audi quattro from rally group B, did that car feature unsprung aero or where those splitters/wings fixed to the chassis?
Great video
So then shouldn't blown wheel nuts and complex brake ducts in f1 be illegal then?
the guys from saleen did a big mistake on threir s7. they dont considered the downforce of the car, so when you reach a certain speed, the car will be pushed to hard to the ground and the bottom will touch the street :D Pretty american engineering there
just wondering which f1 teams you are visiting? also, can you do videos on the new f1 cars when they come out and also the aero of hypercars and supercars
this video just made me a subscriber!
Thank you for your videos. I am subbed.
Hey Kyle love the videos, just wondering what uni courses you studied and how long each of them took. Cheers :)
Very interesting, as usual. If you used an unsprung aero system, couldn't you take advantage of the more consistent ride height to run the car a bit lower, in order to make more effective use of the diffuser, without risking bottoming-out the car?
Wouldn't that allow you to use slightly smaller (and therefore lighter) front and rear wings, thereby mitigating the unsprung mass issue? Does that make any sense at all?
It makes sense to me. As I watched the video, I found myself picturing the same scenarios/ asking the same questions. Also (in a street car), would mounting points of said aero elements be "simpler" for the front than the rear, due to proximity of suspension to aero element? Would this then lead to a rear diffuser being more relevant than a rear wing? What effect then would be the constantly variable relationship between a "fixed" postion front splitter and rear diffuser and a constantly moving chassis undertray?
I clicked this video expecting to see Engineering Explained.
So ideally a hydraulic cylinder connected to the spoiler and hub, but with 50% of the downforce still going through the body to counteract the "lift" from the mounted hydraulic cylinder?
Why not put aero on its own suspension system? That would add mass and complexity, but could eliminate some of the drawbacks of unsprung aero
good stuff
Could senna's death have been prevented if unsprung wings had been used instead?
Regulation bodies banning all the new or innovative tech is annoying.
When the McLaren F1 came out in the 90's ...the race car had less power and the active aero bits weren't allowed.
This reminds me to Lotus' twin chassis.
Isn't unsprung aero where it all began in the early Grand Prix days? I was lead to believe it got banned because they couldn't make it reliable enough. If it breaks the loss of traction can be, errrm, quite large...
why is it better to have a low unsprung mass?
just put a sprung Mcperson strut between the wing and the wheel then you only have the unsprung mass of the strut not the whole wing and you get faster reaction on the suspension and it just compresses that strut more at speed "someone has probably said this before but im too lazy to read it all":D
Hy can You make video on McLaren F1 long tail, why is faster then normal F1 gtr?
Hope the trip is great! I would really like to understand the advantages and disadvantages of a long vs short wheel base for dirty track racing ( oval ) especially in regards to the absolute fastest lap times possible.