almost 50% of the downforce is genereted by the diffuser/undertray, so since the cars bottom was hanging quite far from the roof, the actual car will need even less speed.
+pszotter diffuser doesn't actually almost increase drag cuz the region where the air flows is already separated anyway. Plus increase of traction by downforce is waaaaay bigger than the need of it created by drag.
Hea Mees Yeah but you have to compensate for the total drag acting on the whole car. If you don't have enough traction that means spinning the tires and slowing down, then falling...
Hea Mees If u want more downforce that also increases the coefficient of overall drag. The horizontal drag has to be balanced by the friction on the rear tire. Friction is coefficient times normal force pushing the tire to the ceiling. Therefore you need way more lift then just the weight of the car. With regular tires it cannot work at all actually (if the coefficient is like 0.8. Has to be well over 1).
"CONFIRMED" Formula 1 drivers have the biggest balls on earth, because they really do lose traction if they slow down. It's got to be the most insane mindfuck when seeing a wall fast approaching.
I would say Indycar drivers have more balls than F1 drivers. A F1 car's average speed throughout a race is around 140MPH. With Indycar the average speeds are 230MPH for around 500 miles over 2.5 hours constantly pulling insane levels of G force. When CART / Champcar was around ( especially the year 2000 CART era ) the cars were pulling close to 6 G's through the turns and drivers were almost blacking out with disorientation. At those speeds, one error is basically a death ready to happen
Ian French yea but those indy cars drive in a giant ovel, all you have to concentrate on is turning and the driver in front of you and their draft. in a formula one car, your getting acceleration faster than an inde car, gear shifting up/down, massive brake zones and turns, the 2017 F1 cars are now pulling over 6G in the turns and over 6.5G in the brake zones, not to mention they have to deal with DRS ERS systems and braking in the very last mili second, formula one is much much harder than indy car, F1 drivers become indy drivers all the time, indy drivers dont become F1 drivers, one can do the others job but the other one cant do f1 job, ive talked to an indy driver and he said the endurance is the hardest part, being able to concentrate on driving for 500 laps is harder than any forces applied. try out a simulator some time aswell i have a 1500$ rig, to sim driving an inde car isnt that tough, try to sim an F1 car however 99.9% crash. you dont even have to brake at daytona in an inde car, ever. and if your not scared of speed then its a cake walk, a nascar is harder to drive being you have to brake, and its not aerodynamically sound. also traveling at 200mph
and for the balls part, you try barreling into a hair pin turn at 200mph+ in the DRS zones in an f1 car and take that car down to 40mph for the turn all within 100 meters and tell me that doesnt take more balls then crusing along an ovel at 230mph spread apart from your opponents, almost every f1 race results in a crash or a mechanical error its very rare in indy cars maybe watch some on board cams of inde car, then compare it to modern f1 cars and you tell me what job looks harder
Massive GT wing at the back and alot of aerodynamic work done on the car to produce enough downforce. It can absolutely be done with some modifications to the engine.
What about the Gumpert haha, richard on top gear was saying it could back in the day but no driver was ballsy enough to try They've said it about F1 cars for years Idk they can definitely do a loop but idk about a sustained distance
My main worry is that, in general, they need to keep their speed up to remain upside down: they won't be making sharp, interesting turns upside down because they will lose speed on those turns and fall down. There might still be shallow curves for them to travel upside down. Also, I'm pretty certain that if they get too close behind or next to each other, they will lose their "upforce" an come crashing down, so they would likely also need to remain some distance from each other so their turbulence doesn't cause them to lose "upforce." An interesting idea is that their airfoil could change shape to optimize downforce as it becomes "upforced." Basically, give them wings: as the car moves up the side of the wall and becomes upside down, the wings can change position to match the optimal forces.
Everyone has to realize this: Downforce is used to increase traction of wheels on surface. If the car weights 70 lb, and generates 90lb down force, that is 160lb for traction. But if it drives up-side down, it has 70lb downward, 90 lb upward, for net force up of 20lb . So only has 20 lb for traction. Won't drive well. Without traction, the rear wheels will spin, you will slow down and fall. Unless you engineer enough down force (more than a race car needs) and approach fast enough can you maintain.
Regular settings are fine, you just have to have extra speed because of this problem. Upforce scales as velocity squared, so does the drag, but its coefficient is smaller. About 220km/h is enough considering the standard settings that I could find online. If I remember my result correctly...
220km/h is enough for what? The 'downforce' is pointing up, and gravity is pointing down. So Net force up (for traction) is X. If the car is driving on the ground, the downforce is pointing down and the gravity is pointing down, so the Net for down (for traction) is Y. Y>>X You would have to go much faster than F1 cars can go, to have enough traction to remain stable and in full control.
I'm surprised no one hasn't done this yet. I mean you couldn't put a real man's life at risk, but you could attached the car to a track, and make that track long enough to give it a try. Since the car would be connected to the track if things went wrong upside down the car wouldn't "fall" would only "hang".
Nobody has ever needed to do it. All the variables are known. Hell, the telemetry on an F1 car records how much downward force is being applied through the suspension. I'm sure it will be done for real some day, and I'm sure that Redbull will have their name all over it
If the car weights 70 lb, and generates 90lb down force, that is 160lb for traction. But if it drives up-side down, it has 70lb downward, 90 lb upward, for net force up of 20lb . So only has 20 lb for traction. Won't drive well. Without traction, the rear wheels will spin, you will slow down and fall. Unless you engineer enough down force (more than a race car needs) and approach fast enough can you maintain.
FrozenguyRS An F1 car can generate far more than it's own weight in downforce, but the nerds can figure out if it would work, before anyone ever tries it
At speed, it wont fall. But it wont have much traction because gravity is still pulling it down. The tires wont be pushing as hard on the roof as they would on the ground. So it would be like driving on the moon, a small bump would send it away from the roof much more dramatically than the bump on the floor.
+FrozenguyRS what are you on about. If car weighs lets say about 700kgs and generates 2800kgs,then it means if the car drives upside it would be equal to 2100kg car driving on the ground. And thats more than enough for traction
Hot Wheels actually pulled it off a couple years ago. They twisted the track upside down for a good stretch and had no problems keeping it on the track.
awesome, does aerodynamics scale like that though? what about floor/ under tray aerodynamics, wouldn't they be less effective at the initial further distance from the floor, er mean ceiling.
the proportions look to me more mid to late 90s formula1 than Indy of same era but that's neither here nor there. my question though is wing and sidepod appendages. as these don't appear to be realistically what's on a racecar. not that I'm an aerodynamisist? but these wings appear to me to be for this test as opposed to the aero efficiency of racing. correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't this test be more accurate if they modelled it completely after a real car?
Would have preferred to see more clarity. Weight of wheels and tires and other sprung masses not included. No mention of having enough grip to be able to apply power to overcome the high drag of these cars and give the driver the ability control the car....
Naturally the bigger vehicle would have bigger wings/diffusers etc so it would produce more downforce. F1 cars aren't actually great aerodynamically, look to LMP1 or the older Group C cars, they produce a lot more downforce and they do it more efficiently (less drag)
The car itself produces 3.5 times its own weight in downforce, even at lower than top speed, so it could easily drive upside down. However, nobody has built an F1 track that goes upside down, so it really can't be tested in 1:1 scale.
has anyone done the math on this? like, does the amount of downforce generated scale linearly? what velocity would be needed to keep a real f1 car on the ceiling?
If the car weights 70 lb, and generates 90lb down force, that is 160lb for traction. But if it drives up-side down, it has 70lb downward, 90 lb upward, for net force up of 20lb . So only has 20 lb for traction. Won't drive well. Without traction, the rear wheels will spin, you will slow down and fall. Unless you engineer enough down force (more than a race car needs) and approach fast enough can you maintain.
@@FrozenguyRS ok even with only 20lbs for downforce (which you are only assuming) that is still enough to maintain a consistent speed. 20 pounds of pressure on a very hot very sticky tire designed for maintaining excessive lateral g force. But as I said you are only assuming 20lbs. The vertical g force generated by these cars is more than double it's own weight 3 years ago and is more than triple now. So for a 70lbs model then it was generating more like 175lbs of force to the ceiling bringing the excess to 105lbs. Which is plenty, considering it's still 35lbs more than the car even weighed.
This is a pointless test without a rolling road. We did aero testing at Delft with a high downforce CanAm RC car body in an aircraft tunnel with no rolling road. At max speed (about 60 mph iirc) the car in the tunnel produced lift instead of downforce in excess of the weight of the car. In real racing on a race track they'll pull several g at that speed, downforce in excess of the vehicle weight. Not only was the tunnel downforce not the same, it was literally the opposite direction.
This is an older video so this may have been addressed already. The Dallara chassis used in this video is NOT an IndyCar. It is a IRL car. So regardless of the results, this was a complete waste of time. This is an IndyCar: 1992 Michael Andretti Lola chassis Ford Cosworth XB engine. Top-end on this car was 295 mph detuned to 275 mph. This car was 22 years old at the time of this test and was faster than 2014 IndyCar chassis and faster than all but two F1 chassis. Open wheel Auto racing: it ain't what it was...
With fuel injection it would work, something that every road car has had for like 20 years now and has been around for at least 75 years the Messerschmitt 109 had fuel injection...which is why it was better than the spitfire at flying upside down.
MrArcticShadow I do not know that much, but I think that only by adding a pumping system powerful enought it would fix the problem. Maybe a flat/ boxer engine would help too.
The Lotus 79 was the first effective ground effect F1 car, by no means does this mean it had huge downforce compared to any modern F1 car.... and the BT46B did not generate the majority of its downforce from the air around it, so placing a model of this in a wind tunnel and expecting it to do something would be futile.
@ Andy from Beaverton How many carbonfiber and fiberglass scale models of various classes of formula cars do you happen to have laying around? Im mean ones that are of perfect scale, detail and configuration. Six or seven you say, cost at 8 grand each? Oh, then bring one to the wind tunnel, pay for their time and have them create a rig allowing your expensive model to hang upside down for a proof of concept video that you will then show for free. Oh, you have none of the above. Zip, Zero? Then dont bitch and enjoy what was provided as a visual proof of concept.
AndyFromBeaverton That is going to be Epic! My only doubt is the engine surviving. Even a dry sump needs gravity to feed it and to properly lubricate the engine. Let alone a F1 engine which locks up solid when not at operating temperature due to the extreme tolerances. Hmm. I shall indeed be watching this! Thanks for the heads up!
Aerodinamicamente es posible pero en la realidad no, un motor no puede funcionar invertido, prueben con prender un motor, denlo vuelta y dejará de funcionar. It is impossible, put an engine upside down, it doesn't work.
Sí pueden funcionar boca abajo, pero no aquellos a que estamos acostumbrados en motores normales. Necesitas, por ejemplo, lubricacion por carter seco. Un buen ejemplo de este problema afrontado lo tienes en los aviones Extra 300, que pueden volar boca abajo indefinidamente.
Why go through all this effort and trouble and not include the weight of the tires and rims in the test? Indy and F1 cars are so light that a big percentage of the overall weight is the rims, tires and of course the driver; non of which contributed to the weight that had to be overcome by downforce in this test setup. Just saying... a science experiment should be scientific.
Too bad F1 engines can’t operate upside down. If I’ll give anything to electric cars, they can make this happen. Although obviously we could probably just figure out how to make an engine run upside down.
It was solved in 1930s for aircraft piston engines. Pressurized fuel feed and cooling systems. Lubrication will be a problem but if it's a one-off stunt you might sacrifice the engine and let it run without proper lubrication for a couple of minutes
If a 70lb car can achieve this @ wind speeds of 70 mph , then to successfully drive the 1500 lbs real thing upside down you must be doing 1500 mph. They only go 230 mph 😐 HMM
almost 50% of the downforce is genereted by the diffuser/undertray, so since the cars bottom was hanging quite far from the roof, the actual car will need even less speed.
More, because it needs traction to overcome the drag. The question is more complicated.
+pszotter diffuser doesn't actually almost increase drag cuz the region where the air flows is already separated anyway. Plus increase of traction by downforce is waaaaay bigger than the need of it created by drag.
Hea Mees Yeah but you have to compensate for the total drag acting on the whole car. If you don't have enough traction that means spinning the tires and slowing down, then falling...
pszotter can't really understand your logic, more downforce=less speed acquired to drive upside down afterall
Hea Mees If u want more downforce that also increases the coefficient of overall drag. The horizontal drag has to be balanced by the friction on the rear tire. Friction is coefficient times normal force pushing the tire to the ceiling. Therefore you need way more lift then just the weight of the car. With regular tires it cannot work at all actually (if the coefficient is like 0.8. Has to be well over 1).
"CONFIRMED" Formula 1 drivers have the biggest balls on earth, because they really do lose traction if they slow down. It's got to be the most insane mindfuck when seeing a wall fast approaching.
I think TT drivers have more balls.
Saber Alter ya lol
I would say Indycar drivers have more balls than F1 drivers.
A F1 car's average speed throughout a race is around 140MPH.
With Indycar the average speeds are 230MPH for around 500 miles over 2.5 hours constantly pulling insane levels of G force.
When CART / Champcar was around ( especially the year 2000 CART era ) the cars were pulling close to 6 G's through the turns and drivers were almost blacking out with disorientation. At those speeds, one error is basically a death ready to happen
Ian French yea but those indy cars drive in a giant ovel, all you have to concentrate on is turning and the driver in front of you and their draft. in a formula one car, your getting acceleration faster than an inde car, gear shifting up/down, massive brake zones and turns, the 2017 F1 cars are now pulling over 6G in the turns and over 6.5G in the brake zones, not to mention they have to deal with DRS ERS systems and braking in the very last mili second, formula one is much much harder than indy car, F1 drivers become indy drivers all the time, indy drivers dont become F1 drivers, one can do the others job but the other one cant do f1 job, ive talked to an indy driver and he said the endurance is the hardest part, being able to concentrate on driving for 500 laps is harder than any forces applied. try out a simulator some time aswell i have a 1500$ rig, to sim driving an inde car isnt that tough, try to sim an F1 car however 99.9% crash. you dont even have to brake at daytona in an inde car, ever. and if your not scared of speed then its a cake walk, a nascar is harder to drive being you have to brake, and its not aerodynamically sound. also traveling at 200mph
and for the balls part, you try barreling into a hair pin turn at 200mph+ in the DRS zones in an f1 car and take that car down to 40mph for the turn all within 100 meters and tell me that doesnt take more balls then crusing along an ovel at 230mph spread apart from your opponents, almost every f1 race results in a crash or a mechanical error its very rare in indy cars maybe watch some on board cams of inde car, then compare it to modern f1 cars and you tell me what job looks harder
Stick a Newey car on it and it will lift the roof off.
Yes but then the ERS and alternator will fail randomly.
it will win 4 titles on its own
I'm here because it's rumored that the Aston Martin Vulcan can do this at a speed of +190mph
Massive GT wing at the back and alot of aerodynamic work done on the car to produce enough downforce. It can absolutely be done with some modifications to the engine.
What about the Gumpert haha, richard on top gear was saying it could back in the day but no driver was ballsy enough to try
They've said it about F1 cars for years
Idk they can definitely do a loop but idk about a sustained distance
I would watch a whole F-1 race if they drove upside down, imagine the thrill, and if they miss the conversion point they fly off the track
so thechnicaly you wanna see people put their life into an obvious death
@@harambe7221yes.
get some help or start watching cock fights
My main worry is that, in general, they need to keep their speed up to remain upside down: they won't be making sharp, interesting turns upside down because they will lose speed on those turns and fall down. There might still be shallow curves for them to travel upside down. Also, I'm pretty certain that if they get too close behind or next to each other, they will lose their "upforce" an come crashing down, so they would likely also need to remain some distance from each other so their turbulence doesn't cause them to lose "upforce."
An interesting idea is that their airfoil could change shape to optimize downforce as it becomes "upforced." Basically, give them wings: as the car moves up the side of the wall and becomes upside down, the wings can change position to match the optimal forces.
Everyone has to realize this: Downforce is used to increase traction of wheels on surface. If the car weights 70 lb, and generates 90lb down force, that is 160lb for traction. But if it drives up-side down, it has 70lb downward, 90 lb upward, for net force up of 20lb . So only has 20 lb for traction. Won't drive well. Without traction, the rear wheels will spin, you will slow down and fall. Unless you engineer enough down force (more than a race car needs) and approach fast enough can you maintain.
Regular settings are fine, you just have to have extra speed because of this problem. Upforce scales as velocity squared, so does the drag, but its coefficient is smaller. About 220km/h is enough considering the standard settings that I could find online. If I remember my result correctly...
220km/h is enough for what? The 'downforce' is pointing up, and gravity is pointing down. So Net force up (for traction) is X. If the car is driving on the ground, the downforce is pointing down and the gravity is pointing down, so the Net for down (for traction) is Y. Y>>X You would have to go much faster than F1 cars can go, to have enough traction to remain stable and in full control.
btw I liked your comment. It's correct.
FrozenguyRS I actually solved the equations, I am aware that gravity is not helping this time, but it does the opposite. They can do it no problem.
They can do it, however yes problem. They can't go fast enough to remain stable. But yes, they produce enough 'downforce' to have a net force up.
is this Australia??
No, it's in North Carolina.
*woosh*
This is the oldest Australia meme I've ever encountered on the Internet
Oh, I'm so glad someone did that!
I know this is a 4yo video, but if you guys need some help with video (editing, for instance), I can be of use.
I'm here because of Doug's Saleen video.
I'm surprised no one hasn't done this yet. I mean you couldn't put a real man's life at risk, but you could attached the car to a track, and make that track long enough to give it a try. Since the car would be connected to the track if things went wrong upside down the car wouldn't "fall" would only "hang".
Nobody has ever needed to do it. All the variables are known. Hell, the telemetry on an F1 car records how much downward force is being applied through the suspension. I'm sure it will be done for real some day, and I'm sure that Redbull will have their name all over it
If the car weights 70 lb, and generates 90lb down force, that is 160lb
for traction. But if it drives up-side down, it has 70lb downward, 90 lb
upward, for net force up of 20lb . So only has 20 lb for traction.
Won't drive well. Without traction, the rear wheels will spin, you will
slow down and fall. Unless you engineer enough down force (more than a
race car needs) and approach fast enough can you maintain.
FrozenguyRS
An F1 car can generate far more than it's own weight in downforce, but the nerds can figure out if it would work, before anyone ever tries it
At speed, it wont fall. But it wont have much traction because gravity is still pulling it down. The tires wont be pushing as hard on the roof as they would on the ground. So it would be like driving on the moon, a small bump would send it away from the roof much more dramatically than the bump on the floor.
+FrozenguyRS what are you on about. If car weighs lets say about 700kgs and generates 2800kgs,then it means if the car drives upside it would be equal to 2100kg car driving on the ground. And thats more than enough for traction
(Mute)
Hot Wheels actually pulled it off a couple years ago. They twisted the track upside down for a good stretch and had no problems keeping it on the track.
It was CGI....
What the heck is that music at the start?
How fast would a full scale car need to go to achieve this effect? 40% more speed? Cool experiment!
awesome, does aerodynamics scale like that though? what about floor/ under tray aerodynamics, wouldn't they be less effective at the initial further distance from the floor, er mean ceiling.
In Russia, cars don't stick to the roofs
Roofs stick to you
If someone will build it. I will test it. FYI
the proportions look to me more mid to late 90s formula1 than Indy of same era but that's neither here nor there. my question though is wing and sidepod appendages. as these don't appear to be realistically what's on a racecar. not that I'm an aerodynamisist? but these wings appear to me to be for this test as opposed to the aero efficiency of racing. correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't this test be more accurate if they modelled it completely after a real car?
its a 2000 to 2003 spec short-oval aero setup on a G-Force chassis IRL car
This sounds great on mute
Redbull gives you wings
not even taking into forward motion lessening the downloaded needed
Would have preferred to see more clarity. Weight of wheels and tires and other sprung masses not included. No mention of having enough grip to be able to apply power to overcome the high drag of these cars and give the driver the ability control the car....
So if it was an actual 1:1 scale car weighing 2000 lbs it would need more than 2000lbs of down force? How would it get that?
Naturally the bigger vehicle would have bigger wings/diffusers etc so it would produce more downforce. F1 cars aren't actually great aerodynamically, look to LMP1 or the older Group C cars, they produce a lot more downforce and they do it more efficiently (less drag)
The car itself produces 3.5 times its own weight in downforce, even at lower than top speed, so it could easily drive upside down. However, nobody has built an F1 track that goes upside down, so it really can't be tested in 1:1 scale.
has anyone done the math on this? like, does the amount of downforce generated scale linearly? what velocity would be needed to keep a real f1 car on the ceiling?
If the car weights 70 lb, and generates 90lb down force, that is 160lb
for traction. But if it drives up-side down, it has 70lb downward, 90 lb
upward, for net force up of 20lb . So only has 20 lb for traction.
Won't drive well. Without traction, the rear wheels will spin, you will
slow down and fall. Unless you engineer enough down force (more than a
race car needs) and approach fast enough can you maintain.
FrozenguyRS et
This guy FrozenguyRS is wrong... weed smoking
@@FrozenguyRS ok even with only 20lbs for downforce (which you are only assuming) that is still enough to maintain a consistent speed. 20 pounds of pressure on a very hot very sticky tire designed for maintaining excessive lateral g force. But as I said you are only assuming 20lbs. The vertical g force generated by these cars is more than double it's own weight 3 years ago and is more than triple now. So for a 70lbs model then it was generating more like 175lbs of force to the ceiling bringing the excess to 105lbs. Which is plenty, considering it's still 35lbs more than the car even weighed.
So... you need, like, magnets to keep high traction at slow speeds and not risk spinning out?
why noone have done this irl
so at which speed did it stick to the roof?
speed
Tip: Turn volume off You won't be sorry...
The music ruins this video
This is a pointless test without a rolling road. We did aero testing at Delft with a high downforce CanAm RC car body in an aircraft tunnel with no rolling road. At max speed (about 60 mph iirc) the car in the tunnel produced lift instead of downforce in excess of the weight of the car. In real racing on a race track they'll pull several g at that speed, downforce in excess of the vehicle weight. Not only was the tunnel downforce not the same, it was literally the opposite direction.
good,but so simple.
If you watched this video & did not hit the like 👍🏽 button…. You should delete youtube.😂😂😂
This is an older video so this may have been addressed already. The Dallara chassis used in this video is NOT an IndyCar. It is a IRL car. So regardless of the results, this was a complete waste of time. This is an IndyCar: 1992 Michael Andretti Lola chassis Ford Cosworth XB engine. Top-end on this car was 295 mph detuned to 275 mph. This car was 22 years old at the time of this test and was faster than 2014 IndyCar chassis and faster than all but two F1 chassis. Open wheel Auto racing: it ain't what it was...
A toy f1?
What about the fuel? Can it work upside down?
I don't think so, but it can surely be modified.
With fuel injection it would work, something that every road car has had for like 20 years now and has been around for at least 75 years the Messerschmitt 109 had fuel injection...which is why it was better than the spitfire at flying upside down.
wiamoaw
No, I think what Rubertoe was saying was that the fuel tank would need to be changed so that gas can flow to the injectors upside down too.
MrArcticShadow I do not know that much, but I think that only by adding a pumping system powerful enought it would fix the problem. Maybe a flat/ boxer engine would help too.
Fuel injection involves having a high pressure fuel pump capable of working upside down and a baffled tank would prevent any fuel pick up issues :)
now do a bigger one!
My Mazda 2 could do that!
.
.
.
In a dream I had, atleast.
Still wouldn’t be possible cause engine will fail when upside down
GOD MY EARS THAT INTRO WAS SO LOUD AHH!
Thats not a myth its pressure
You can't scale this down, that's not how aerodynamics works. You have to test it with a 1:1.
What a terrible car to use as the model. How about a Lotus 79 or a Brabham BT46B Fancar?
The Lotus 79 was the first effective ground effect F1 car, by no means does this mean it had huge downforce compared to any modern F1 car.... and the BT46B did not generate the majority of its downforce from the air around it, so placing a model of this in a wind tunnel and expecting it to do something would be futile.
@ Andy from Beaverton
How many carbonfiber and fiberglass scale models of various classes of formula cars do you happen to have laying around? Im mean ones that are of perfect scale, detail and configuration. Six or seven you say, cost at 8 grand each? Oh, then bring one to the wind tunnel, pay for their time and have them create a rig allowing your expensive model to hang upside down for a proof of concept video that you will then show for free. Oh, you have none of the above. Zip, Zero? Then dont bitch and enjoy what was provided as a visual proof of concept.
pegalis Looks like we'll find out next year who was right: www.fox5vegas.com/clip/10861508/las-vegas-f1-driver-to-attempt-upside-down-stunt
AndyFromBeaverton
That is going to be Epic! My only doubt is the engine surviving. Even a dry sump needs gravity to feed it and to properly lubricate the engine. Let alone a F1 engine which locks up solid when not at operating temperature due to the extreme tolerances. Hmm. I shall indeed be watching this! Thanks for the heads up!
Andy from Beaverton How about a beaver?
Aerodinamicamente es posible pero en la realidad no, un motor no puede funcionar invertido, prueben con prender un motor, denlo vuelta y dejará de funcionar.
It is impossible, put an engine upside down, it doesn't work.
Sí pueden funcionar boca abajo, pero no aquellos a que estamos acostumbrados en motores normales. Necesitas, por ejemplo, lubricacion por carter seco. Un buen ejemplo de este problema afrontado lo tienes en los aviones Extra 300, que pueden volar boca abajo indefinidamente.
Why go through all this effort and trouble and not include the weight of the tires and rims in the test? Indy and F1 cars are so light that a big percentage of the overall weight is the rims, tires and of course the driver; non of which contributed to the weight that had to be overcome by downforce in this test setup. Just saying... a science experiment should be scientific.
unfortunately, F1 rules didnt allowed F1 cars to be designed as indy car
What are u trying to say
Look at that rear wing angle. What a joke.
alluminati cunfirned
Trust your math.
it still couldn't do that, the engine would choke hte moment it's upside down
No it wouldn't.
Too bad F1 engines can’t operate upside down. If I’ll give anything to electric cars, they can make this happen. Although obviously we could probably just figure out how to make an engine run upside down.
It was solved in 1930s for aircraft piston engines. Pressurized fuel feed and cooling systems. Lubrication will be a problem but if it's a one-off stunt you might sacrifice the engine and let it run without proper lubrication for a couple of minutes
If a 70lb car can achieve this @ wind speeds of 70 mph , then to successfully drive the 1500 lbs real thing upside down you must be doing 1500 mph. They only go 230 mph 😐 HMM
Nice logic
that's not how the equation for lift works but nice try
You ruined the video by adding annoying music and not commenting
Terrible music
WORST MUSIC