Since the ‘mericans have always used lbf, and no one can be bothered to convert from lb to kg to N whem unless your NASA* g is always a constant.

*who use lbf but still define it on earth

Before I read any geek links, presumably any car that can generate more than 1G of downforce, irrespective of the car weight, can be driven upside down?

“1G of force”..? 🙂

And yet I reckon everyone understands exactly what was meant by it.

From recollection, F1 cars at top speed generate over 2000kg of force ( 😆 ) and currently weigh 691kg with an empty tank (or 100kg more with a full tank) so they’d very comfortably drive upside down. Or at least they would if they were designed to actually work upside down

helix, or loop the loop, very comfortably

drive, ie with enough upforce for the car to be able to put enough power down (err up) on the ceiling to be able to maintain enough velocity to generate that aero force? not convinced.

needs 2 * 691kg of aero “force” at 0 km/h just to stick to the ceiling with the same force as a car pulling out from the pits. we’ll go with empty tank cos it’ll need all the help it can get. don’t recall if that mass is with or without driver?

anyone got a plot of a typical F1 car aero force vs velocity in Monaco spec ?

691kg of force is including the driver. And DF is related to (IIRC!) the square of the speed.

G is a ratio unit used in aeronautics, as well as the constant in physics.

You wouldn’t do it for very long, before the fuel /oil pumps sucked air and you “fell off”……….(………..)

It’s possible for a human to run around a complete loop, without falling off, so a high-speed vehicle with enormous amounts of downforce ought to be able to do it.

The sky advert doesn’t show it doing a loop. It shows it driving upside down and claims this is reality. I call BS but I think we have to discount the engine failing upside down. Andy rocketeer has some interesting numbers. I have some aerodynamicists I know working on this! Will report back!

Yes it’s possible, has been for decades. Even the new Maclaren Road car produces 6KN of downforce at full speed, and can go over speed humps.

If the engine works upside down and the car can get up to speed before gradually turning upside down then yes easy.

The sky advert doesn’t show it doing a loop. It shows it driving upside down and claims this is reality.

Really?

Slowoldman – yes! A CGI sequence shows the car zipping along inverted and says ‘these cars produce so much downforce they can even drive upside down’.

Even the new Maclaren Road car produces 6KN of downforce at full speed, and can go over speed humps

F1 car needs 14kN to stick to the ceiling just to overcome gravity and have the same downforce (upforce?) as a parked F1 car. Or the same downforce as a car the right way up where all the wings fell off at high speed (I’m assuming that all downforce comes from the wings here, for simplicity). We’ve certainly seen how little braking ability they have in that situation, but never how little drive traction they have when the rear wing falls off.

Downforce gives you grip for corners, but makes you slower on the straights, so its a balance that is adjusted by circuit. Its also why you have thing like DRS so you can reduce the downforce generated by the wing

Downforce has nothing to do with forward speed along a straight section of track. It’s drag that makes you slower going forwards. The wings job is to create downforce but this cannot be done without creating drag at the same time, the trick is to get the balance of the two right. DRS reduces the drag (by effectively making the rear wing smaller but this also reduces the downforce – which it why they only use it on straight sections of the track.

Slowoldman – yes! A CGI sequence shows the car zipping along inverted and says ‘these cars produce so much downforce they can even drive upside down’.

CGI you say? I wonder why they didn’t show actual footage.

yes but the tarmac lorry would need to go upside down too, and they are much much slower.