The CR26E assembly line covering the whole side aero package.
Groups the downforce-producing side aero stacks, the rear tire wall concept and the upwash elements. All three are new investigations rather than proven parts.
No part-specific design process is documented. The Side Aero subsystem design process applies: 1. 2D sweeps to find airfoil placement within a stack. 2. 3D placement of the stack itself, judged on whole-car downforce, drag, efficiency and center of pressure. 3. Compare against the current combined-run baseline rather than against an isolated case. 4. Accept only where the gain is outside the CFD margin of error.
From the CR25 Side Aero Design Report: minimal weight gain so subsystem goals are not affected; stay within the bounding boxes and work around other aero components; and do not negatively affect other aero components' performance. Rules: T.7.1.3 all aerodynamic devices must have a mounting system providing sufficient rigidity in the static condition, and must not oscillate or move excessively when the vehicle is moving. T.7.1.4 all forward facing edges that could contact a pedestrian must have a minimum radius of 5 mm for horizontal edges and 3 mm for vertical edges, either as the edge radius itself or as permanently attached pieces. T.7.1.5 other edges a person may touch must not be sharp.
CR25 tested three concepts and none survived. A full-sized rear wall the exact height of the rear tire reached CFD and showed a significant decrease in rear wing lift and an overall drag increase: the plate blocks the rear tire but heavily disrupts the air coming from the side of the car to the rear wing. A half-sized plate, intended as a better compromise between weight gain and drag saving, negatively affected the rear wing in the same way and lost performance in all aspects. A rear wedge and a front tire outwash model were never tested because of time constraints. The report names its own biggest weakness: there was no sidepod model in the CFD model until the end of the process, and verification runs with sidepods should be compared against these results before the conclusions are trusted.
From the cost report drawings: Carbon Fiber (Side Aero Assembly).
None recorded. This part has no entry in Knowledge_Transfer/Issue Logging/Fault Vault.xlsx, in either Issue Log.xlsx, in CR22/Issue Tracking/Shakedown 7-15-23.xlsx, or in any design review issue list found in CrimsonStorage or Box.
Recorded next steps: determine whether the rear tire can be blocked without compromising rear wing performance; and, because an EV car will likely have no sidepods, focus on maximising the space beside the driver with airfoil elements. Specific references given are a 2023 idea to use a two-element airfoil to block the rear tire, other teams' side aero concepts at TU Graz, ETS Montreal and NC State, and investigating an inverted airfoil over the front suspension to affect front wing wake.
Nothing in CrimsonStorage covers these yet.