[HN Gopher] MIT largest open-source car design dataset, incl aer...
___________________________________________________________________
MIT largest open-source car design dataset, incl aerodynamics, to
speed design
Author : toss1
Score : 127 points
Date : 2024-12-06 18:07 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (news.mit.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.mit.edu)
| WhatsName wrote:
| I recently wanted to design a flying wing/rc plane. Is there any
| FOSS to get reasonable results for aerodynamics?
| jpb0104 wrote:
| This guy seems to have a good handle on diy aero. Both air and
| water.
|
| https://youtube.com/@rctestflight
| nickmcc wrote:
| Check out: https://ecalc.ch/wingdesigner.htm
| BoostandEthanol wrote:
| OpenFOAM I think is the go to for open source CFD, although
| I've never tried it myself. There's also XFOIL which, since
| you're talking about a flying wing, might be enough for your
| use case.
|
| Even for a finicky flying wing, I think if you keep an eye on
| the way the pitching moment shifts with pitch, I don't see why
| picking an airfoil shape for the frame and hand calcs couldn't
| get you to a design that flies reasonably.
| Stevvo wrote:
| The usual way is to use a wing with known aerodynamics. Choose
| one on airfoiltools.com
| SonicScrub wrote:
| Using a computational fluids model like OpenFOAM is overkill
| for reasonable estimates of aerodynamic performance and
| stability, provided you stick to normal-ish designs. The term
| you want to Google is "vortex lattice" and/or "potential flow"
| solvers, of which there are many open source softwares
| available specifically geared towards typical aircraft
| configurations, with simple, easy to use interfaces.
|
| Some good ones to look at to get started with nice guis
|
| - VSP Aero
|
| - XFOIL (for 2D airfoil analysis only, also generates inputs
| for 3D VLM solvers)
|
| - AVL
|
| And some others if you want perhaps a little higher fidelity,
| and don't mind text/code interfaces:
|
| -FreeWake
|
| - Datcom (not technically a potential flow models, but a
| database)
|
| To get the most value out of these softwares, you will need
| some background in aeronautics. You need to have an
| understanding of what a potential flow models can and cannot
| accurately model. It also helps to have knowledge about what
| forms aircraft stability/control and performance data is
| typically communicated in, as these softwares will use that
| terminology.
| kingkongjaffa wrote:
| I used xfoil in my aerodynamics masters degree, it absolutely
| good enough for hobby applications
| SonicScrub wrote:
| The 2D model alone maybe be sufficient for OPs needs, but
| I'd advocate for going at least a little further with some
| form of 3D model. The wing tip effects are significant
| enough to warrant some form of "next step" after the
| initial 2D analysis. Although simple algebraic
| relationships are likely good enough to satisfy this end.
|
| However, the 3D tools above give you a little bit more,
| that I feel warrant their consideration by the op. These
| models can yield performance of wing-tail-body
| configurations that include wake effects. They also can
| give stability analysis in both longitudinal/lateral axes.
| The stability effects being especially important if OP
| wants to design a flying-wing, which are a tad more
| challenging to get right than just slapping a "good-enough"
| sized tail on a classic config plane.
| addaon wrote:
| For this type of problem, unless you are trying to set range or
| climb rate records, understanding lift and moment (and control
| derivatives) is more important than accurately modeling drag.
| Panel methods shine at this, and are both easier to use and
| much much faster than CFD -- enough that wrapping them in
| optimizers is trivial. I personally prefer AVL, but there are
| other open source alternatives as well.
| ericjmorey wrote:
| Datafiles available at:
| https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/DrivAerNet
|
| Issue tracking at: https://github.com/Mohamedelrefaie/DrivAerNet
| Y_Y wrote:
| Did they verb speed? Verbing bads otherwise readable prose.
| liamdgray wrote:
| Yes. They had verbed it by the 12th century, according to:
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speed#word-histor...
| Y_Y wrote:
| Only in the archaic sense 3a, "to prosper in an undertaking",
| which is surely not what's meant in the TFA.
| liamdgray wrote:
| Have you known anyone who received a ticket (citation) for
| "speeding" while driving?
| anon291 wrote:
| I sped read the title so didn't notice
| mmooss wrote:
| While I don't always love 'denominalization' (if I that's the
| right word), the verb 'speed' is a common one, e.g., 'speed
| up'.
|
| Every word we use was created at some point, often in the same
| way. There is nothing magical about the people and the words
| they created in 1824 that makes them better than us and words
| we create in 2024, except perhaps that the 1824 words we still
| use have stood the test of time.
|
| Also, as far as I can tell, the verb form is as old as the noun
| form.
| senkora wrote:
| (CW: pedantry)
|
| Well actually, "speed up" is a phrasal verb that is
| semantically distinct from "speed".
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_phrasal_verbs
|
| But that all's irrelevant because this article uses verb
| definition 5 from Wiktionary for "speed":
|
| > (transitive) To increase the rate at which something
| occurs.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_phrasal_verbs
| wrycoder wrote:
| "He was speeding." Love English!
| navane wrote:
| I read moby dick for the first time last summer. That guy verbs
| nouns, adjects verbs and nouns adjects like he's building
| language from first principles. It takes a bit getting used to,
| but eventually it both speeds up and broadens language. Why use
| different roots for each category? And with each root connoting
| slightly different, why not use that and pick the exact root
| that means best?
| morphle wrote:
| Its a few hundred gigabyte. You can only login with an
| institutional account. My research institute is very small, can I
| borrow someone's login credentials? (email in profile).
| hackernewds wrote:
| It is not meant for non credentialed individuals?
| gus_massa wrote:
| From the repo
|
| > _Please note the (CC BY-NC 4.0) license terms, as outlined
| in the License section._
|
| In spite of the title and the article says "open souce" many
| times, it's free as in "source abailable".
| MichaelTheGeek wrote:
| Very nice.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| O great. More cars that look identical.
| dietr1ch wrote:
| Isn't this more efficient? Cheaper parts, everyone benefits
| from improvements to it.
|
| I wouldn't mind if there were only a handful of designs around
| with some tweaks depending on performance/comfort. Also,
| nowadays many different models share parts, like lights or
| rearview mirrors, showing there's a need for efficiency and
| scale bigger than the made-up need for fashionable cars.
| grecy wrote:
| I've always been shocked there are not way more common parts
| between vehicles and brands.
|
| Alternators, starters, ac compressors and so much more could
| just be small, medium, large, extra large.
|
| The price would drop dramatically.
| psychlops wrote:
| > The price would drop dramatically.
|
| Aaaaand, that's why they aren't modular. Take a look at
| something with obvious common parts like a side mirror.
| They are all intentionally designed adding special shapes
| to make them as unique as possible to the car. Never a
| simple square or rectangle.
| cwayon wrote:
| Good design is emotional. It adds spark to most of our
| everyday sightseeing, inspires and is too often overlooked-
| at least in recent times. Regarding the recent trends among
| car design... We are in a dark age.
|
| I agree that many parts can be interchangeable but modularity
| can be done in a way that doesn't result in every car looking
| like the blobs we see about today. I wouldn't mind if there
| were only a handful of designs around with slight variations
| in trim and specs -so long as I like those designs of course!
| I know that is subjective so lets keep things interesting and
| focus on making things that get the job done but also in
| varying styles. Both can be achieved.
|
| The need for fashion is made up, yes- but so is everything
| else. There's a balance between overly individualistic cars
| and the most cost efficient, reliable and uninspiring 4 door.
| Lately we have been leaning too far into the latter.
| spookie wrote:
| No one wants that. Neither consumer nor business.
|
| Think about every GPU having 8GB VRAM. Nobody wants that.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Aerodynamics is aerodynamics, but we should embrace wild paint
| jobs.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| > Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
|
| Non-commercial licenses are not open source.
| csours wrote:
| I wonder if you might say something more substantial? This
| seems like a low effort nitpick as written.
| spookie wrote:
| Fails at criteria 6.
| bmitc wrote:
| For what use is this?
| aquafox wrote:
| Somewhat related: Can someone tell me why all those new electric
| cars are so poorly designed in terms of size and weight? Most of
| them weight over 2t and have a large frontal area (VW ID.4 is the
| prime example). I just want an economical family vehicle
| (lightweight, hatchback design) and there aren't that many
| options. Isn't that something loads of people want or am I the
| exotic one?
| bagels wrote:
| People are not buying as many compact cars.
|
| Electric cars need large, massive batteries to have a useful
| range.
|
| It's as simple as those two things.
| wyager wrote:
| > I just want an economical family vehicle
|
| Then buy an ICE vehicle. It's a more mature, cost-effective,
| and power/energy-dense technology
| aquafox wrote:
| But the efficiency factor of an EV is 60% as opposed to 20%
| for an ICE, which means you can get a similar range with much
| lower energy density.
| sedatk wrote:
| ...at the expense of door handles and good looking tires.
| carabiner wrote:
| Now you're seeing why electric aircraft are struggling.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-07 23:00 UTC)