Can I get it on Xbox ??

Personally I unsubscribe from KZfaqrs who love to lie. F1 is a racing division.... Convoluting it into what ever you want is dumb

@@RekySai 💀

@@RekySai F1 also refers to the chassis on the F1 car

Maybe a rubber skirt and tape at the bottom just to let it glide over the bumps?

Every tunel has a ceiling, doesn't have to be flat either.

Build a tunnel with flat ceiling

​@@junatah5903should be flat to drive this car on the ceiling I guess

@@ivanmirandawastaken just go to the London Underground on a slow day, plenty of flat tunnels there lol

There’s a guy trying to do that full scale and they’re building their own track for it. Project Air should do a scaled down version lol

Driver 61 YT channel if you want to see someone do it for real. hasn't done it YET but preparations are running for a year now. and he is really adamant about that, he has surrounded himself with very smart F1 ppl to transform a Formula car into a specialized "upside down car". he got a big building company to build a dedicated tunnel just for that. I can't wait until he announces the date.

He needs to have a skirt on hinges. Which is how every car now days does it.

I was about to start yapping about this car when I saw your comment. Clearly a man of culture, or Carwow enjoyer

You can’t forget the Gordon Murray T.50 as well

the t.50 uses the fan in a very different way which only produces downforce at high speed and does little to increase the actual downforce of the car. it is mostly to make the car "stand out"

@@Losthewaronemus Bit of both 😉 But also had an interest in MyEnergi for a while.

Yes

That’s right, why a propeller instead of an impeller?

The brush idea is good but does add friction as it is in actual contact with the ground.

Windscreen wiper blades might be good source, have metal spine with rubber in them.

I think thick rubber would be the best bet! Maybe a bike inner tube, or a piece of old tire!

@@superbmediacontentcreator my reasoning would be that a brush is flexible enough to deal with rough terrain, while doing a reasonable job at blocking airflow. The brush hair would also be trimmed through usage, by contacting the ground, reducing friction and tuning the system over time. The problem with a hard barrier as we saw in the video is that once it hits the ground the wheels suddenly lose traction, which could be reduced by using a brush skirt. Some hovercraft designs use brush skirts, which is why I thought of it. Granted there they try to keep air in instead of out. edit: I'm not sure where I saw it and cant find it atm.

I remember that! Wow - that makes me feel old 👴

One of my fave quotes is from that, when Alan Jones complains about the ride quality of the car when they tried solid suspension. Frank Williams replies, "perhaps you could sit on your wallet, Alan?"

@@TheBillzilla The most gentlemanly burn ever. They don't make them like sir Frank anymore.

BBC💀

iirc, it was also sprung so the skirts stayed in contact with the road surface.

Was about to say the same thing. Can-Am allowed innovations like this because F1 had too many restrictions. Once proven, F1 adopted it.

@@benkirkland5354 As I was growing up I cheered this and the STP turbine car both of which failed for different technical reasons. Had they foreseen the things that ultimately killed them they would have revolutionized the sector before being simply "ruled off" the tracks. I think the electric boost shows the most promise in the near term for F1 unless that like the Grid Girls it gets banned...

As a gran turismo player, I remember having a lot of fun with this car

The Jim Hall's Chaparral 2J was also closer in concept to this than the Brab, as the on the 2J had a separate snowmobile engine, so fan rotation speed wasn't a direct relation of 'main' engine speed. More consistent 'suck' across the entire speed range of the car, rather than more 'suck' at higher main enginer RPM.

I'm sure it would throw a bunch of stuff around, but because it mostly made all of its downforce from the fan system if for whatever reason the suction between the car and the track, like a big enough bump or a skirt was broken it would lose all grip and be very dangerous. Imagine it just launching mid corner straight off the track. Great system in an ideal world but potentially deadly in a real world

You're right in concept but there is difficulty with this sort of thing at scale. There are just some technologies and materials that don't scale down well. This is the case with your skirting material. It is very heavy and thick and hard to reproduce at a small size and get the same robust survival enjoyed in a 1:1 environment.

Maybe the rubber squeegee from a wiper blade may work. Semi rigid but flexible/durable edge

Brush strips work too.

⁠@@petearundel166Thats what I’m thinking! :D

I thought maybe a spring-loaded sliding door-style wall with a low friction material at the bottom might work, or just some replaceable steel bits.

I wouldn't say it outpaced the brabham because the brabham got banned after 1 race. If that car also got developed i reckon it would still stay ahead of the fanless ground effect cars.

@@neblolthecarnerd It only participated in one race, it was banned after the season but voluntarily not run, partly because of not seeing the point, but also because of practical issues - such as the fact it was connected to the engine's crankshaft. This meant shifting in corners would cause abrupt changes in traction and made it very dicey to drive at the limits.

@@iskierka8399 I thought the mutual agreement was kinda a more polite way of withdrawing so they didn't actually get banned until the rules got rewritten. Especially given how easily it won the race it did do.

Bernie Eccelstone already had his eye on taking over the running of the sport at that stage, he withdrew the car to stay pally with the organisers. I don’t think golden Murray and the rest of the team knew this at the time

@@neblolthecarnerd The Brabham was in Lotus' sights to get it banned after they sank so much R&D money into aero downforce, so I think you're right. Edit: I also believe the Brabham team put a filter on it to fix the complaints of drivers getting slightly smoked out by the low levels of road dust and the few pebbles pelting their cars, and it only reduced the downforce slightly.

Actually, he could have achieved this with a spring-loaded frame under the vehicle with a segmented rolling edge. The challenge as I mentioned in a previous comment is that some materials just don't scale well and many solutions add drag from their contact with the surface. Remember the aggregate in the roadway is 1:1 not scaled to the car used for testing. This naturally hampers and intrudes on any of the solutions and improvements.

That sounds like the Lotus ground effect skirt solution. I've not seen the Brabham layout to be fair

@@TimInertiatic they all worked on the same principle, either a sheet of plastic or one with draft excluders on the bottom.

@@superbmediacontentcreator in this case, size matters then lol

@@testpilotian3188 Lol it sure does, because we know the Square-Cube law and the exponential relationship between velocity and fluid drag makes "RC Scale Speed" one of those measurements that don't mean anything. It not only affects the material properties, but the physical properties and the vehicle behavior. These RC cars also have a power to weight ratio that is immense compared to actual cars, the Traxxas Maxx V2 for example has just shy of a 1 to 1 power to weight ratio if my quick maths were right (and they may not be since I'm not full awake yet), weighing about 0.2 kilos but making 0.16 horsepower from a 6 volt, 20 amp peak draw. Edit: Actually, its likely far above a 1 to 1 power to weight, now that I think about it. Since those things supposedly draw like up to 100 amps or more, and the motor gets to see the full 4s 16 or so volts, and that's 1.6kW, which means 2.15 horsepower. On a 200 gram vehicle. That's over a 10 to 1 power to weight ratio. Come on stupid brain, work with me today! The rocks ain't rocking right right now XD

The problem with your idea is that the contact adds drag. What you are envisioning is a reverse hovercraft which is valid but hard to do at scale...

I think sprung segmented skirts would be best, its what Chaparral did with the 2J, and it worked beautifully. The only difficulty is doing so effectively at RC scales.

@@redmk3t You might want to read previous comments before bestowing us with your brilliance.

@superbmediacontentcreator The problem with your idea is that it's NOT valid on any scale. You probably shouldn't come up with ideas

@@redmk3t Iditol leaving a comment that matches their personality... stupid.

Yeah, rubber is the way to go. Much more flexible and durable than foamboard.

😆🤣

Tf is bro talking about 💀🤣

Nobody cares gang

💀

Yes thank you. You're the only comment I could find that mentioned KV. I think Optimizing for a KV with a sustained desirable RPM with the 10 blade fan of a more static optimized blade design is the key. I also think that for the skirt the foam should be a single piece with a large void cut out of it for more strength. Maybe ad some kind of thin tubular uhmwpe edge to it for wear resistance. or maybe a skirt like on actual hover crafts. Hope he makes a v2 of this video.

i would guess it's because it wouldn't be loaded a lot, since it's made to create a pressure differential, it ideally wouldn't get to move much air.