I've determined that RPERYY is simply just another net troll who is screwing around on Apex because he's on a break between showing his flacid member to boys on ChatRoulette.
"Do Not Feed The Trolls" and they'll go away.
I've determined that RPERYY is simply just another net troll who is screwing around on Apex because he's on a break between showing his flacid member to boys on ChatRoulette.
"Do Not Feed The Trolls" and they'll go away.
Awww, come on guys, it's so simple. Maybe you need a refresher course. Hey! It's all ball bearings nowadays.
I see your point, but I don't think the radon and the RFR are in the same boat as far as development goes. I understand the RFR needs/will/already has improved with track time, but it's not a fully new car. The car is next in line from previous FC's and although I absolutely don't claim to know the car well, I understand it's mechanically quite similar to previous cars. At least a lot more than a radon is. The thousands of hours you describe of testing, etc. mean the RFR should need less on track development, though of course it will still need some.Originally Posted by HazelNut
Not much to say to this kind of bull**** other than that it's immature. Are you proud of making comments like that?So far you kind of just seem like an internet troll who just likes to stir **** up.
I've determined that RPERYY is simply just another net troll who is screwing around on Apex because he's on a break between showing his flacid member to boys on ChatRoulette.
"Do Not Feed The Trolls" and they'll go away.
-Robert
I think it's safe to say that no one has ever accused me of being overly mature. (I mean come on, my avatar is "Mr. Hazelnut" with a smirk and giving the finger, look close).Not much to say to this kind of bull**** other than that it's immature. Are you proud of making comments like that?
Mind you, i haven't turned what SHOULD be a positive thread about a very good development for our types of cars into a potshot & paranoid accusation filled bicker-fest.
Last edited by HazelNut; 10.25.12 at 8:35 PM. Reason: typos typos typos!
Awww, come on guys, it's so simple. Maybe you need a refresher course. Hey! It's all ball bearings nowadays.
I believe former McLaren and Ferrari F1 chief designer Steve Nichols was the man responsible for the 1999 VD aero package ('stache) and certainly no stranger to the inside of a wind tunnel... not sure if the VD was in the WT, heard that it was and it's probably a sound bet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Nichols
aaron
Hi,
Just curious, do you know this for a fact that he designed the VD?
The Gentlemen was fired from Jaguar Racing for a very rubbish car. It happens when you struggle to keep up with modern technology and use old school thinking to enforce your ideas.
Hi Wren,
Did you ask your second prep shop owner why he does not like them? I mean, is it that bad the he starts swearing when you mention the Radon wings? Do they stall or what?
There has to be something, right?
I think it's better to let people express their opinions personally, rather than through hearsay. Especially from people who like to rephrase things like a handful of test days into "years of testing." I think "he said, she said" type talk is often unreliable and best left out.
-Robert
Really? http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40012
The rear wing by itself was 2MPH. I can tell you the improvements on the front wing (drag and lift) were definitely larger than the rear. This is expected as the front wing is the much more powerful/sensitive component, due to ground effect.
Here you go with more misinterpretation and misunderstanding. You are, of course, not telling the whole story. You are missing out on LIFT, a pretty essential detail when we're talking about wings, no? Here is the full data:
It's a 1% reduction in drag, but that's with lift increasing simultaneously by 11%. Of course, generating lift causes drag. If you want the true drag equivalence, you have to compare setups at equal lift levels. If you raise the VD lift to equal the radon (or vice versa), the wings give a much larger savings - at least 2-3%.
A quick hand calc shows that each 1% savings is about 3 horsepower at 140MPH. The wings are significantly better.
We're bringing real track, wind tunnel, and CFD to the table to show the improvement. You are saying we're wrong. What do you have to the contrary? Please back up your claims with real information, or stop making them.
Last edited by rperry; 10.26.12 at 5:22 AM.
-Robert
Nichols did the aero, Dave Baldwin designed the car.
aaron
Timing and Scoring, the final arbiter of a designer's work.
aaron
Don't want to start an argument here but I am sorry to say that he did a really bad job from an aero point of view but again, back in the day it was considered a good design.
It is now that after things have progressed you can see how dated those designs are.
If you ask me Radon needs to put a top driver in a car with a full season of support to workout all the kinks and nail setups. That's the only way to see if the car has got what it takes. Someone spend a ton of money developing the car from scratch and decided not to do actual real life track developing??? makes no sense. You can't possibly think that a car is going to be a winner based off drawings and calculations. Most of that crap goes out the window once the rubber hits the pavement. Just selling cars and telling your customer "here you go have at it" isn't going to get the car on the podium and is making the car look like a dud. The car is an awesome well built/thought out car but they have to prove that he car is more than a piece of art. One thing I can say which is very impressive is that Ralf Firman comes into town from England for just about every F2000 to offer support. Radon is a domestic car correct?
According to the guy importing the VD's in the 90's he did.
I agree that getting someone with lots of real world experience is not nearly as good as getting some kid fresh out of FSAE, but I am sure that an ex-F1 designer is the best that Ralph could do.The Gentlemen was fired from Jaguar Racing for a very rubbish car. It happens when you struggle to keep up with modern technology and use old school thinking to enforce your ideas
They listened to Radon as far as what the aero settings should be according to their CFD, missed a test session and then ran them in a big race. Aero balance was AFU. Didn't win.
It is not hearsay to me. But if hearsay is bad...
More hearsay from someone trying to sell something. That should be worth even less.
The reality is that given the tight racing in the front of the F2000 pack, a 4mph advantage would be insurmountable. Out of the top 10 finishers in the F2000 series there is one person running the Radon wing package.
Agreed. I don't know why he chose not to supply that data.
It's a 1% reduction in drag, but that's with lift increasing simultaneously by 11%. Of course, generating lift causes drag. If you want the true drag equivalence, you have to compare setups at equal lift levels. If you raise the VD lift to equal the radon (or vice versa), the wings give a much larger savings - at least 2-3%.
You do realize that pretty much everyone else is using real track, wind tunnel and CFD also. It remains impossible to prove a negative, but the results sheets speak for themselves.We're bringing real track, wind tunnel, and CFD to the table to show the improvement. You are saying we're wrong. What do you have to the contrary? Please back up your claims with real information, or stop making them.
No, timing and scoring is just another part of a massive conspiracy to hold back the Radon.
I want to be clear that I am 100% serious when I say what I am about to say and I genuinely want a serious answer.
I have seen you come in to several threads and make claims about how bad the old VD aero is but you always refuse to give any specifics and it turns into a troll and run thing. I see here that you say, "after things have progressed." Does that mean that you are looking at modern F1 cars or other modern cars and evaluating small bore formula cars against them? Could you explain what you mean or give an example of what is so wrong with the aero on the VD?
I am bringing this back up at the end because it bears some emphasis. I went back through this thread and nowhere did I say "years of testing." This is a pure fabrication on your part. I don't really understand what your penchant for making things up is when they can be so easily checked. Could you explain? I notice that you seem to be dropping your claim about moustache wings having been wind tunnel tested. Why is that?Especially from people who like to rephrase things like a handful of test days into "years of testing."
For anyone following along at home, I claimed that the Radon had been on the track for "over a year" in post #30 of this thread. This is an accurate statement as the car hit the track in July of 2011. There have been multiple cars on the track during F2KCS weekends and at least 8 club events as well as private test days at other tracks. This is an opportunity for thousands of miles of development. If you could not find a way to make use of this time, it is a reflection on you. Others are making productive use of similar time.
That might be a little bit hard now. They did put Fabio in there earlier this year and do development work. They put Macaleer in the car after Fabio but that didn't end well when the car fell apart.
Sure you can, here is what Nathan had to say about it:That's the only way to see if the car has got what it takes. Someone spend a ton of money developing the car from scratch and decided not to do actual real life track developing??? makes no sense. You can't possibly think that a car is going to be a winner based off drawings and calculations.
This was over a year before their car even hit the track. I am glad that no one entered a Radon at the runoffs this year as the FC race was very good at the front and it would have been boring to watch the Radon run off and leave everyone.
Even now, rperry seems to think that there car is superior based on his drawings and calculations.
Just to be clear. The mustache wing development that we (JWR) worked on was done to help with what was a perceived disruption of under body efficiency due to front wing proximity in relation to the t-tray. It is obvious from our testing that the RFR 'stock' wing actually created greater lift, however, it does so at the cost of drag (surprise!) and has a resultant lower top speed.
Secondly, a 1% reduction in drag on the front wing doesn't do much for you when that front wing is on %5 of the cars total drag.
Chris Livengood, enjoying underpriced ferrous whizzy bits that I hacked out in my tool shed since 1999.
It has been a while since I studied the scientific method, but I am pretty sure it goes like this.
Develop Model.
Design and build according to said Model.
Compare real world results to Model.
Discard results because they don't fit Model.
All hail Model because science.
hey all. I've got a great idea!!!!!!
"EVERYONE SHUT THE F*CK UP ABOUT ALL THIS STUPID BICKERING NONSENSE!!!!"
Start a new thread for that ****.
We should all be thrilled that cars very similar to our's are tryign to be positioned as "1st step" in the F1 ladder. AKA keeping the cars we've all got: $$$ time and effort invested in relevant in the world of motorsport.
If you want to bicker and have useless fights, go over to FA and fight over fractional c*nt hair thickness changes to restrictors. Those guys love that sh*t.
Awww, come on guys, it's so simple. Maybe you need a refresher course. Hey! It's all ball bearings nowadays.
Wren, you've been an anti-radon troll following nathan and any mention of radon around the forums and bashing uncontrollably. Johnpaul is absolutely right about it being a great design that needs more track development. Development which would be as well funded as the design under a stable rules environment. You're one of the only ones who sees the car in such a negative light with no potential, which given the intelligence of some of the members on here speaks a lot more about your judgement than the car. You have an illogical and rather embarrassing emotional vendetta against the car that no one should waste their time trying to change.
Pointing out that radon wings are not winning every race ignores the entire rest of the car and the driver. If you want to invite any unhappy radon wing owners into the thread, go for it, but otherwise don't post anything you can't back up. "I know a guy who said bla bla bla" is not proof of anything other than your ability to type. I know 1,000 F1 engineers who all examined both sets of wings and said the radon set were the "greatest wings ever created in the history of mankind."
The radon wings were tested in a wind tunnel and produced a 1% reduction in drag and 11% increase in downforce. Adjusted for equal lift, they reduce drag 2-3%. The rear wing alone was observed to have a 2MPH increase back to back against VD wings with the same driver, driving a real car on a real track. These are all absolute facts. Go ahead and refute them if you can.
I am not aware of any other CFD of any technical merit or wind tunnel tests done on recent FC wings. I don't think you have tested the radon wings back to back, either.
If you want to call us liars for posting the data above, then I guess that's your right. If you want to supply your own data, or disprove ours, go for it.
I agree that a 1% savings on 5% of the car would be meaningless, but the drag savings I am talking about are on the full car.
Last edited by rperry; 10.26.12 at 11:25 AM.
-Robert
pointing out the obvious=trolling. got it.
That didn't answer any of my questions. Nice rant though.Johnpaul is absolutely right about it being a great design that needs more track development. Development which would be as well funded as the design under a stable rules environment. You're one of the only ones who sees the car in such a negative light with no potential, which given the intelligence of some of the members on here speaks a lot more about your judgement than the car. You have an illogical and rather embarrassing emotional vendetta against the car that no one should waste their time trying to change.
Pointing out that radon wings are not winning every race ignores the entire rest of the car and the driver. If you want to invite any unhappy radon wing owners into the thread, go for it, but otherwise don't post anything you can't back up. "I know a guy who said bla bla bla" is not proof of anything other than your ability to type. I know 1,000 F1 engineers who all examined both sets of wings and said the radon set were the "greatest wings ever created in the history of mankind."
The radon wings were tested in a wind tunnel and produced a 1% reduction in drag and 11% increase in downforce. Adjusted for equal lift, they reduce drag 2-3%. The rear wing alone was observed to have a 2MPH increase back to back against VD wings with the same driver, driving a real car on a real track. These are all absolute facts. Go ahead and refute them if you can.
I am not aware of any other CFD of any technical merit or wind tunnel tests done on recent FC wings. I don't think you have tested the radon wings back to back, either.
If you want to call us liars for posting the data above, then I guess that's your right. If you want to supply your own data, or disprove ours, go for it.
Radon has made their name by bashing other cars and screaming from the mountaintops how good their car is. I am happy to admit that is the source of my distaste for all things Radon. It has been a constant since about 2009 and I know that it has annoyed a lot more people than just me and I am far from the first one to point this out. You have continued this trend in this thread, but at least you threw in a new wrinkle by implying your customers are old and slow. I understand that throwing your customers under the bus is a well proven marketing method. Try not to get your panties in such a bunch when someone does the same to you.
Good job sidestepping the real content from my post. Let me bring it down to one line for you:
Can you supply your own wing data/trap speeds, and/or refute ours, or not?
-Robert
I can supply wing data for the wings that I have done. I, of course, cannot supply wing data for your wings. None of that changes the fact that I don't believe your wing data. The wind can change direction at any time down the RA back straight. Without pitot and load cell(or at least good wheel position) measurements I will disregard the advertising claims. Given the propensity for exaggeration or outright lying from the Radon camp, I am comfortable with that. I am also comfortable continuing to review results to make my conclusions. I am applying the "reasonable try-hard" criteria. There are a lot of reasonable people who are trying very hard in the F2KCS.
How did a pleasant little post about the new F4 (Thanks Matt!) turn into such a Radon/RFR/VD clusterfork?
"I love the smell of race fuel in the morning. It smells like victory!"
Barry Wilcock
Pit Crew: Tumenas Motorsports/Houndspeed, Fat Boy Racing
You never know how these things are going to turn out.How did a pleasant little post about the new F4 (Thanks Matt!) turn into such a Radon/RFR/VD clusterfork?
At least it is keeping this thread near the top. This thread was dead before the silly conspiracy claims showed up. We just need a way to force people to stop reading after the OP.
So to summarize, the radon rear wing gave a 2MPH boost in trap speed. In the wind tunnel both wings reduced lift equalized drag by roughly 3%, and worked similarly in CFD. You don't have any conflicting data and are not an aerodynamicist. You do not trust CFD and wind tunnel data without load cells. The only stated reason for that is because you think the "radon camp" falsifies their data.
I think that's all we need to hear.
-Robert
Nathan makes no claim to have even run his single plane upper rear wing for the VD in the wind tunnel. He is quite clear that the 2 mph data is on track data from Atlanta. You seem to be a bit confused about what data is even out there.
indeedYou don't have any conflicting data and are not an aerodynamicist.
Once again you have started just making up things and claiming that I have said them. I don't understand why you have such trouble with the truth.You do not trust CFD and wind tunnel data without load cells.
I made no reference to whether or not I trust CFD. Do I trust your CFD? No, I have reason not to but no reason to. I have fairly regular interaction with professional aerodynamicists in my day job so I certainly understand the value of CFD.
"wind tunnel data without load cells" I am lost. WTF does this even mean? Maybe it is because I am not an aerodynamicist, but I don't know how anyone could take data in a wind tunnel without load cells. Maybe you could explain? While you are explaining, could you also explain what your motivation was for the complete fabrication of this claim and then attributing it to me?
My reference was to the claims of an additional 2mph down the back straight at RA. Is it unreasonable to think that true airspeed and downforce level are neccesary to evaluate a wing change? Someone else in this thread said that relating lift to drag was important. Other claimed aerodynamicists say that you can't simply compare L/D and that improving L/D does not equate to improved lap times. You've already told me I don't know anything about how wings work or how to evaluate them, so I will happily defer to your vastly superior knowledge.
There was no stated reason for "that" as "that" was something you just made up and tried to attibute to me. I do think that Radon has had a truthfullness problem in the past.The only stated reason for that is because you think the "radon camp" falsifies their data.
let's hope notI think that's all we need to hear.
Last edited by Wren; 10.26.12 at 1:33 PM.
I have wet dreams too, it's just ashame that I wake up in the morning.
Chris Livengood, enjoying underpriced ferrous whizzy bits that I hacked out in my tool shed since 1999.
Wet dreams + Apexspeed = end of discussion
OMG!
JP just locked the thread!
I hope this thread is not done. I for one was learning a lot about aerodynamics since a real aerodynamicist had graced us with his presence.
I was also enjoying his making up what data he had and then ignoring it when he was called on it.
I just read this entire thread as I had been ignoring it. A entertaining but painfull experience. The moderator should shut this one down as it has absolutely nothing to do with the original subject matter.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
+1 with Jay.
It seems that in the past people have certainly been cautioned, if not outright banned, for the kind of attitude, baiting, and BS that's gone on here.
Road to nowhere
This thread is closed
Bill Bonow
"Wait, which one is the gas pedal again?"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
