Fantastic work again Robin!! Great to see how you are applying a very pragmatic approach to this - iterating quickly between 3D models and CFD simulations!
This is real motorsport. Someone designing, building and racing there own machine with freedom to innovate while also having to compromise within the constraints of complexity, cost and time. When you see the good stuff you realise how crappy all the spec and pay to win race series out there are... Thanks for sharing so much!
Thank you once more for your process explained. This brings aero to life (at least for me) and I appreciate it very much. Btw, I'm with you on the visually stickiness. That fully enclosed 1st model looked sooo good. I look forward to the next presentation. Thank you.
Very cool work. I would be cautious with the "basic" Airshaper settings and comparing designs with that. The level of tessellation and geometry collapsing that the mesh is getting with those settings isn't just lowering resolution, but probably not modeling the aerodynamics correctly. Usually in CFD we wouldn't trust results from meshes that coarse.
I understand what you are staying, and started with that viewpoint. But what I've found is it has been useful nonetheless when looking at big, basic, configurations like I have been discussing. I have been double checking the results with higher resolutions to confirm findings.
@@thesendyclub yeah checking with higher resolution makes sense and using lower resolution, while not ideal, makes sense as well depending on resources. I never mess with lower resolution meshes since it can create unrealistic tire wakes and de-feature geometry that is essential to the aerodynamic function, like slot gaps and rotating wheel spokes.
How much of this design is "build a permanant foundation" that can be added to later? i.e. the main body as a 'permanant' componenet that could work with a future updated front wing and enclosed front wheels, maybe even redesigned rear wing. Would you design a main body aero package that is prioritizes the future optimal front package even if you know you qont have that ready this year? ...I think it looks quite fantastic
Exactly the philosophy I have taken. Although I am quite far down the rabbit hole of aero development now.... Further than I wanted to be at this point!
I'm building a single seater as well, it's purpose is quite a bit different, the intent being to build a small light ultra efficient electric vehicle, this is my first project so I'm a noob at most things, i love to see the build, how you make body parts and the frame. Fantastic work anyway, can't wait to see how this project evolves.
Working with 3D modeling years ago I was surprised by how many surfaces the helmet was made of. In mine world it would reduce animations considerably but it might not affect the performance in these conditions
Fascinating! The flaps in the diffuser are a brilliant (and safer in failure mode) way to bleed off downforce while maintaining a static centre of pressure compared to active front and rear elements. I assume this will only be implemented later on for circuits as the weight penalty likely isn't offset in this low drag configuration at low air density and hillclimb speeds? So excited to see this project progress!
The little vertical screen does a really good job of deflecting the air over the driver's helmet. The geometry is sensitive, but it works like a gurney flap in that a very small part acts like a much larger part.
While I do vastly prefer how the original car looks (especially with the double decker rear wing) getting a car on track and getting miles is far more important and I think you are also correct in saying that less is more in this case.
in orther to generate more high pressure under the nose boxe, you can upper the nose a bit more, like in 2010 f1 cars, and extend the floor foward all you can. You will create more downfore with the floor
I say this becouse the floor is the more efficent aero part of the car. So I would start making the best with the floor and the other parts of the car. Look for example how the Empire Wraith floor and diffuser is built, and also the PP version
There are quite a few ways to feed air to the floor. You're right, in the early 2010's they found the high noses gave them some gains based on that ruleset. The nose you see on the car is the stock Tatuus item, the final nose will be a little different
I have no clue of all of this (apart from using Fusion and vectorworks and blender) but getting all these details explained is amazing and super great to watch !! Thanks a bunch and. Fingers crossed for 2025 🏎🏁🏁🏁🏁
Wouldn't it be the best idea to cover the rear wheels? Makes an absolutely massive difference in terms of drag, and I'm assuming brake cooling isn't nearly as big of an issue on the rear wheels (and can likely be solved in other ways).
When using the simple surface models, does AirShaper “understand” to any degree that all the air going into the radiator openings won’t be just an unrestricted flow straight out the back?
The current design looks like the combination of the front end of a 2010s Formula (1/2/3) car and the rear of a Can Am car. Given that you're relatively unrestricted in engineering and aerodynamic decisions, and building around a FIA-approved tub, that's perhaps not surprising! Interested to see if front wheel fairings come back
For the model, are the floor and body actually connected, or are they separate pieces positioned as close as possible to each other? If they are connected, how do you do so with the surfaces?
Are you using centrifugated, loaded, and inflated tire shapes? Or are they simple revolves? I'm always amazed how important tire shape is on tire wakes.
If you want something a bit more visually striking I would modify or just redesign the front wing. I think the body looks fine, not as cool as the Manta concept, but close. It’s the front wing that makes it look old school. Replace/modify that to be like the concept with the front wheel covers and tied back into that low body plane and I think it will be more striking. Also I love that this is following the arc of a real engineering project, start with wild concepts, buy into a few constraints, make some tough decisions on compromises to meet budget and schedule and hope you end up where you wanted.
Are you simulating with no yaw? If so are you able to split the model along the centerline and apply a symmetric boundary condition? Gets you more detail for a given number of mesh elements but obviously less useful with asymmetric air inlets, radiators etc
Good question! For a lot of development I did straight ahead and a fixed ride height. But there has also been work done at Yaw and whole ride-height sweeps
Hello good sir, I have this question that might just be silly. I was wondering if the material that is used for the vehicle would affect how the vehicle performed aerodynamically? For example would a carbon fiber body outperform fiberglass not in terms or weight or strength but aerodynamically. I really was just curious
Chances that you could send your final(ish) design(s) to Adrian Newey and have him look them over and make some tweaks? While he's waiting to join Aston Martin, twiddling his thumbs... :)
Weight or Drag? I was shocked at the Cd listed compared to street car numbers I'm familiar with. Then a little research and yours is comparable to F1 body types. It's all about downforce. Since you must have downforce which creates drag. Then the lowest weight possible (I know you are already doing that) makes the greatest difference. I would think undertray for negative lift would center the downforce, vs the wings which puts it on the extreme ends. Center seems more stable/predictable for handling. Really this is all a thought experiment to me. I don't have any practical experience (which is obvious). Thank you for sharing your process with us.
I'm sure you get this question a lot, but with "active aero" aka just sucking the car to the ground with EDFs spreading like wildfire among Formula student (electric) have you considered looking into it? I'm guessing the showstopper there is needing to bring a heavy ass battery or just opposition to the concept on principle.
Weewil! Just in case it hadn't been nicknamed, yet;) Now, onwards with the video, haha. Oh, not a weewil anylonger, not after it lost the canopy. That's alright, it makes sense to go with the minimal approach and hopefully get on the mountain this year:)
A question on the relationship between aerodynamics and handling. Cars struggle to change direction as they get heavier (increase in mass). How does this differ from a handling standpoint when adding downforce? Both add weight to the car although more downforce is good but more mass is bad. Sorry if I am phrasing this badly but it has always baffled me and I'm hoping to understand the difference
@@thesendyclub Aww it's 'easy' just take the imperial equivalent of a metric thread diameter then use this handy example to derive all subsequent values; A 1/4W Whitworth wrench is the same size as a 5/16BS British Standard wrench. Both have a measurement across the flats of 0.525 inches, or 13.34 millimeters. Simples! 🙂
Body styling wise it becomes very hard to do something that nobody has done before and be aerodynamically effective at the same time . I tend to agree with you , the open cockpit is the better looking though not a great looker . In my mind the coke bottle profile looks to fat at the rear and out of proportion. I’d have a dabble at making a fancy aero section between the front arches and the top of the tub either flat or dihedral . A bit like a canard but full width. If that gave you more front end then you could balance it out with a better rear aerofoil. I’d appreciate some detailed analysis of suspension geometry and your options on roll Center heights, caster camber gain / settings on a double wishbone setup. Mainly , do double wishbone cars have less than Mcphearson strut type vehicles. ? And for what reason .👍
maybe a little dumb, but shouldn't a driver sitting in the car also impact the aero? maybe adding in a helmet/driver model would make it more accurate, though that should affect all the open canopy models the same so idk
The single element front wing was making me slightly panicked. From what I understand, a single large surface for a front wing is highly sensitive to pitch.
I thought the idea was to design a base car which had many opportunities for improvement and refinement over time because the wolf had gone as far as possible. Is this still the goal with a stripped down simplified model?
i have a idea to add to a piks peak car that is just cant get out of my head. english is not my first langwitch and its rikky to explaine. but if u are curius jest DM me or react to this coment and i will try.
oke let me try. u use a fan to pull the air true the radiators, u use a simple and un controlled dynamo on the crankshaft at the distribution side of the block. u then place the radiators length wise at the side. so that forward motion of the car will not feed the radiated. it sound stupid but it has some surprising benefits. the force to push air thou the radiator will skip the entire drive line, needs no grip from the tire. the drag form the side pot can be eliminated and the power to overcome drag from the radiator core will come from the crack shaft. Reducing load on the drive train and tires. u can have maximum cooling 100% of the run. Instead of no cooling in the corners wile going 40MPH and having side pod blead over at top speed. so it wont need to be oversized at top speed at the bottom of the hill. so for 50% of the run time u can go white 80% fan power and the last 50% 100% fan power. leaving HP for top speed at the bottom of the hill instead of wasting it dragging a radiator thou the air with a thermostat have closed. the radiator can also be a lot smaller because u can have maximum cooling wilsed slowing down for a corner, going true the corner and the initial acceleration. the time spend under optimal air flow for the radiator, say 80MPH can be as big as 33% of the run time. 1500BHP will need about 3000BHP of cooling minimum. but u will get only maximum cooling when the motor produces 1500 BHP. but if u cool all the time u can have radiators that do 2500 or 2000BHP of cooling. smaller compactor and lighter. and it whoned be a band fan car if the air is pulled from the side above the floor and bleed out true the engine cover. adding no downforce it will reduce drag because no side pod. Maybe some small scoops the bend the airflow at high speed. and it removes skin drag for the radiator section. With the dynamo/alternator directly on the crankshaft u have extra rotating mass so u can go for a ligher flywheel. i can explain it mutch better in a call if u want. u can have this idea for free, i just whant stuff to go fast.
Very interesting! Do you expect/have you ever experienced porpoising? Your floor looks very F1 like, but since Pikes Peak is quite bumpy I suppose you are not running nearly as low, so I suppose it's not really a problem? Also, I've seen that you mainly use your front wing as a downforce creating design. Because it is so low to the ground it is generally quite easy to hit downforce targets, and it's usually seen as a device to manipulate the airflow to make the parts behind it work better (think Y250 vortex and such). So if you go into the details, you should probably start looking there and what you would like to achieve at the rear.
Yes, porpoising will be an issue with this much underfloor downforce. The shortened floor I have shown will be very susceptible to that, and I have since adjusted the floor's geometry to help. But that will always be an issue I am fighting. You're right about the front wing also, a lot more development has come there also
@@thesendyclub At least you have unlimited regs so you can play around with "ice skates" and stuff like that, that should offset your lack of experience and tools compared to the F1 guys
As an automive engineering student, thank you sow much for making these video's! There an absolute breath of knowledge aplied to the real world.
You're welcome!
Agreed! Small thing, breadth
I love the way you’ve broken down the optimization workflow. It’s really cool to see how accessible these advanced design tools can be.
Glad it was helpful!
It's shocking how similar the numbers are between the swoopy fully-enclosed car and the "bare bones" version. So much interesting info in this series!
Fantastic work again Robin!!
Great to see how you are applying a very pragmatic approach to this - iterating quickly between 3D models and CFD simulations!
This is real motorsport. Someone designing, building and racing there own machine with freedom to innovate while also having to compromise within the constraints of complexity, cost and time. When you see the good stuff you realise how crappy all the spec and pay to win race series out there are...
Thanks for sharing so much!
01:19 Jag called, They want their XJR14 wing back.
gorgeous car though
Guilty as charged....
It's great to see the design process and explaining it.
thank you for the video series
Send it bro!
Thank you once more for your process explained. This brings aero to life (at least for me) and I appreciate it very much. Btw, I'm with you on the visually stickiness. That fully enclosed 1st model looked sooo good. I look forward to the next presentation. Thank you.
Favorite youtube channel rn. Thank you so much for documenting your process. I love this
Really good content looking forward to the next video keep it up
Awesome, thanks for the continued sharing!
Very cool work. I would be cautious with the "basic" Airshaper settings and comparing designs with that. The level of tessellation and geometry collapsing that the mesh is getting with those settings isn't just lowering resolution, but probably not modeling the aerodynamics correctly. Usually in CFD we wouldn't trust results from meshes that coarse.
I understand what you are staying, and started with that viewpoint. But what I've found is it has been useful nonetheless when looking at big, basic, configurations like I have been discussing. I have been double checking the results with higher resolutions to confirm findings.
@@thesendyclub yeah checking with higher resolution makes sense and using lower resolution, while not ideal, makes sense as well depending on resources. I never mess with lower resolution meshes since it can create unrealistic tire wakes and de-feature geometry that is essential to the aerodynamic function, like slot gaps and rotating wheel spokes.
@@thesendyclub when oyu say higher resolutions did you run a mesh convergence study or something like that>?
@@onlythingicantstandairshaper has 3 resolution levels.
How much of this design is "build a permanant foundation" that can be added to later? i.e. the main body as a 'permanant' componenet that could work with a future updated front wing and enclosed front wheels, maybe even redesigned rear wing.
Would you design a main body aero package that is prioritizes the future optimal front package even if you know you qont have that ready this year?
...I think it looks quite fantastic
Exactly the philosophy I have taken. Although I am quite far down the rabbit hole of aero development now.... Further than I wanted to be at this point!
Love from italy keep un the good work ❤
I'm building a single seater as well, it's purpose is quite a bit different, the intent being to build a small light ultra efficient electric vehicle, this is my first project so I'm a noob at most things, i love to see the build, how you make body parts and the frame. Fantastic work anyway, can't wait to see how this project evolves.
Very informative. With I could make the Peak this year. Good Luck! Cheers. 🏁
Working with 3D modeling years ago I was surprised by how many surfaces the helmet was made of. In mine world it would reduce animations considerably but it might not affect the performance in these conditions
Fascinating! The flaps in the diffuser are a brilliant (and safer in failure mode) way to bleed off downforce while maintaining a static centre of pressure compared to active front and rear elements. I assume this will only be implemented later on for circuits as the weight penalty likely isn't offset in this low drag configuration at low air density and hillclimb speeds? So excited to see this project progress!
Good run down on why you use it
Very cool
What will happen if you discard the lip in front of the cockpit in place of a gradual inclined perspex? nothing fancy just a bit less vertical.
The little vertical screen does a really good job of deflecting the air over the driver's helmet. The geometry is sensitive, but it works like a gurney flap in that a very small part acts like a much larger part.
While I do vastly prefer how the original car looks (especially with the double decker rear wing) getting a car on track and getting miles is far more important and I think you are also correct in saying that less is more in this case.
idk what u r talking about, that car is beautiful i cannot wait to see what you come up with
This is the way
I'm really hoping this new design is exactly what you need to take the record away from the iDR.
Me too! I think it is. It's just a question of how much development is required
I said it before and I'll say it again, "5 Time King of the Mountain and All Time Record holder Robin Shute," has a nice ring to it.
in orther to generate more high pressure under the nose boxe, you can upper the nose a bit more, like in 2010 f1 cars, and extend the floor foward all you can. You will create more downfore with the floor
I say this becouse the floor is the more efficent aero part of the car. So I would start making the best with the floor and the other parts of the car. Look for example how the Empire Wraith floor and diffuser is built, and also the PP version
There are quite a few ways to feed air to the floor. You're right, in the early 2010's they found the high noses gave them some gains based on that ruleset. The nose you see on the car is the stock Tatuus item, the final nose will be a little different
I have no clue of all of this (apart from using Fusion and vectorworks and blender) but getting all these details explained is amazing and super great to watch !! Thanks a bunch and. Fingers crossed for 2025 🏎🏁🏁🏁🏁
Wouldn't it be the best idea to cover the rear wheels? Makes an absolutely massive difference in terms of drag, and I'm assuming brake cooling isn't nearly as big of an issue on the rear wheels (and can likely be solved in other ways).
When using the simple surface models, does AirShaper “understand” to any degree that all the air going into the radiator openings won’t be just an unrestricted flow straight out the back?
Nope, straight flow through. But the regular and advanced settings use a porosity model, so that is properly accounted for
The current design looks like the combination of the front end of a 2010s Formula (1/2/3) car and the rear of a Can Am car. Given that you're relatively unrestricted in engineering and aerodynamic decisions, and building around a FIA-approved tub, that's perhaps not surprising! Interested to see if front wheel fairings come back
For the model, are the floor and body actually connected, or are they separate pieces positioned as close as possible to each other? If they are connected, how do you do so with the surfaces?
Are you using centrifugated, loaded, and inflated tire shapes? Or are they simple revolves? I'm always amazed how important tire shape is on tire wakes.
The nose really reminds me of the Tatuus F4, which is a good trait
If you want something a bit more visually striking I would modify or just redesign the front wing. I think the body looks fine, not as cool as the Manta concept, but close. It’s the front wing that makes it look old school. Replace/modify that to be like the concept with the front wheel covers and tied back into that low body plane and I think it will be more striking.
Also I love that this is following the arc of a real engineering project, start with wild concepts, buy into a few constraints, make some tough decisions on compromises to meet budget and schedule and hope you end up where you wanted.
Are you simulating with no yaw? If so are you able to split the model along the centerline and apply a symmetric boundary condition? Gets you more detail for a given number of mesh elements but obviously less useful with asymmetric air inlets, radiators etc
Ride Height too?
Good question! For a lot of development I did straight ahead and a fixed ride height. But there has also been work done at Yaw and whole ride-height sweeps
8:43 So, it is basically a single seater wolf?
Kinda...... You'll see 😉
Just curious if you were able to put skinner front wheels are experiment with smaller diameter wheels with the lighter setup
I didn't, the tire package with Yokohama is already defined
@ thanks just wondered if it would have helped aero wise. Enjoying you videos and comments and learning!
so excited for this video. We use ANSYS fluent for our Formula SAE team and it definitely is hellish compared to airshaper
Hello good sir, I have this question that might just be silly. I was wondering if the material that is used for the vehicle would affect how the vehicle performed aerodynamically? For example would a carbon fiber body outperform fiberglass not in terms or weight or strength but aerodynamically. I really was just curious
Any chance the car comes to other hillclimb races? I'm on the east coast so Climb to the Clouds on Mt Washington is about all there is over here.
Chances that you could send your final(ish) design(s) to Adrian Newey and have him look them over and make some tweaks? While he's waiting to join Aston Martin, twiddling his thumbs... :)
Weight or Drag? I was shocked at the Cd listed compared to street car numbers I'm familiar with. Then a little research and yours is comparable to F1 body types. It's all about downforce. Since you must have downforce which creates drag. Then the lowest weight possible (I know you are already doing that) makes the greatest difference. I would think undertray for negative lift would center the downforce, vs the wings which puts it on the extreme ends. Center seems more stable/predictable for handling.
Really this is all a thought experiment to me. I don't have any practical experience (which is obvious). Thank you for sharing your process with us.
I'm sure you get this question a lot, but with "active aero" aka just sucking the car to the ground with EDFs spreading like wildfire among Formula student (electric) have you considered looking into it? I'm guessing the showstopper there is needing to bring a heavy ass battery or just opposition to the concept on principle.
Weewil!
Just in case it hadn't been nicknamed, yet;)
Now, onwards with the video, haha.
Oh, not a weewil anylonger, not after it lost the canopy. That's alright, it makes sense to go with the minimal approach and hopefully get on the mountain this year:)
The shape of the roll cage would still allow a closed cockpit. Is that still on the cards later?
No, it just isn't worth the effort.
That front diffuser doesn't allow for much steering angle???
Just enough!
Got confused by the keywords, was really hoping you'd be taking an old Opel Manta rally car up to Colorado
A question on the relationship between aerodynamics and handling. Cars struggle to change direction as they get heavier (increase in mass). How does this differ from a handling standpoint when adding downforce? Both add weight to the car although more downforce is good but more mass is bad.
Sorry if I am phrasing this badly but it has always baffled me and I'm hoping to understand the difference
Why did you not attach a lot of aerodynamic devices to the wheels?
All fasteners defined in BSW equivalent sizes? 🤔
I haven't reached that level of Engineer just yet🤣
@@thesendyclub 😄
@@thesendyclub Aww it's 'easy' just take the imperial equivalent of a metric thread diameter then use this handy example to derive all subsequent values;
A 1/4W Whitworth wrench is the same size as a 5/16BS British Standard wrench. Both have a measurement across the flats of 0.525 inches, or 13.34 millimeters.
Simples! 🙂
Body styling wise it becomes very hard to do something that nobody has done before and be aerodynamically effective at the same time . I tend to agree with you , the open cockpit is the better looking though not a great looker . In my mind the coke bottle profile looks to fat at the rear and out of proportion. I’d have a dabble at making a fancy aero section between the front arches and the top of the tub either flat or dihedral . A bit like a canard but full width. If that gave you more front end then you could balance it out with a better rear aerofoil.
I’d appreciate some detailed analysis of suspension geometry and your options on roll Center heights, caster camber gain / settings on a double wishbone setup. Mainly , do double wishbone cars have less than Mcphearson strut type vehicles. ? And for what reason .👍
The open top looks better 👍
I think it looks cooler now
maybe a little dumb, but shouldn't a driver sitting in the car also impact the aero? maybe adding in a helmet/driver model would make it more accurate, though that should affect all the open canopy models the same so idk
You can always upgrade to the better wings later on
The single element front wing was making me slightly panicked. From what I understand, a single large surface for a front wing is highly sensitive to pitch.
I thought the idea was to design a base car which had many opportunities for improvement and refinement over time because the wolf had gone as far as possible.
Is this still the goal with a stripped down simplified model?
Yes!
All Hail The Algorithm
i have a idea to add to a piks peak car that is just cant get out of my head.
english is not my first langwitch and its rikky to explaine.
but if u are curius jest DM me or react to this coment and i will try.
oke let me try.
u use a fan to pull the air true the radiators, u use a simple and un controlled dynamo on the crankshaft at the distribution side of the block.
u then place the radiators length wise at the side.
so that forward motion of the car will not feed the radiated.
it sound stupid but it has some surprising benefits.
the force to push air thou the radiator will skip the entire drive line, needs no grip from the tire.
the drag form the side pot can be eliminated and the power to overcome drag from the radiator core will come from the crack shaft.
Reducing load on the drive train and tires.
u can have maximum cooling 100% of the run.
Instead of no cooling in the corners wile going 40MPH and having side pod blead over at top speed.
so it wont need to be oversized at top speed at the bottom of the hill.
so for 50% of the run time u can go white 80% fan power and the last 50% 100% fan power.
leaving HP for top speed at the bottom of the hill instead of wasting it dragging a radiator thou the air with a thermostat have closed.
the radiator can also be a lot smaller because u can have maximum cooling wilsed slowing down for a corner, going true the corner and the initial acceleration.
the time spend under optimal air flow for the radiator, say 80MPH can be as big as 33% of the run time.
1500BHP will need about 3000BHP of cooling minimum.
but u will get only maximum cooling when the motor produces 1500 BHP.
but if u cool all the time u can have radiators that do 2500 or 2000BHP of cooling.
smaller compactor and lighter.
and it whoned be a band fan car if the air is pulled from the side above the floor and bleed out true the engine cover. adding no downforce
it will reduce drag because no side pod.
Maybe some small scoops the bend the airflow at high speed.
and it removes skin drag for the radiator section.
With the dynamo/alternator directly on the crankshaft u have extra rotating mass so u can go for a ligher flywheel.
i can explain it mutch better in a call if u want.
u can have this idea for free, i just whant stuff to go fast.
At this point. Why not just re engine the Wolf? All this $$ and effort to build the same style (but unproven) car with small changes.
Very interesting! Do you expect/have you ever experienced porpoising? Your floor looks very F1 like, but since Pikes Peak is quite bumpy I suppose you are not running nearly as low, so I suppose it's not really a problem?
Also, I've seen that you mainly use your front wing as a downforce creating design. Because it is so low to the ground it is generally quite easy to hit downforce targets, and it's usually seen as a device to manipulate the airflow to make the parts behind it work better (think Y250 vortex and such). So if you go into the details, you should probably start looking there and what you would like to achieve at the rear.
Yes, porpoising will be an issue with this much underfloor downforce. The shortened floor I have shown will be very susceptible to that, and I have since adjusted the floor's geometry to help. But that will always be an issue I am fighting. You're right about the front wing also, a lot more development has come there also
@@thesendyclub At least you have unlimited regs so you can play around with "ice skates" and stuff like that, that should offset your lack of experience and tools compared to the F1 guys
Do you ever sleep? 😲
Do you draw any inspiration from F1 Cars or other monocoque racers ?! Or is the pure visual inspiration a rather useless approach ?!
14:36 man, functional over fashion every time