SLCBrandon wrote:I don't know if I want to get involved with this "discussion", as it seems some are getting pretty defensive, but here goes.
I'm a huge F1 fan. Have been for decades. Every season, without fail, one or more of the biggest teams will spend tens of millions on wind tunnel testing and aero data to optimize their aero package ahead of the minimal pre-season testing (they are very limited to on track testing before the season starts so huge money is poured into wind tunnel work) only to have that package be a complete flop when it gets on track.
They spend Parlee, Cervelo, Felt type wind tunnel money in about 1 day. And they get it wrong.
Guys, we are in the VERY VERY early stages of how aero pertains to cycling. Like, chiseling the wheel from rock, type early ages. How the bike performs in the tunnel is just that. Ask the guys making millions as aero engineers in F1.
I'm sure I'll now be directed to many links telling me I'm wrong. Save them. 10 years from now we will laugh at how aero we thought we were.
Link away.
I'm actively involved in CFD development. The low Reynolds number environment and relatively "easy" flow regime is nothing like in F1.
F1 the hardest thing to model is a turned deforming front/rear tire that screws the flow across everything behind it, not to mention vortex generators, lift, ground effects, internal aerodynamics, etc.
Not even in the same league. On another token, teams like Redbull have dominated solely due to aero. Cervelo uses F1 level CFD software with their own additions for a bike environment and correlated it with wind tunnel results for over a decade. They have plenty of data. Including real world (Chung method and velodrome #'s).