Ferrari F14T

[luke!]

Fixed it for you

Thanks.

[CBeck113]

Well, they also have the old (I believe that this is their base-line wing for testing) wing on the car, it may not have all the bells and whistles, but a specific improvement / test part installed for evaluation. But I also think that they could get more DF out of this area, where it would have the best effect on grip.

[tok-tokkie]

imo, redbull has very different design philosophy .....just look at their radiator position (&shape) and the 'silver box' behind it .....they are put above sidepod duct, it may related to CoG, and the cooling air flow....that's why they never change the rear cooling hole, shape & position

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img703/7106/hma0.jpg
Is the 'silver box' not the air intercooler? One each side?

[el-Magico]

Why do my eyeballs see Red Bull pictures in this F14T topic?
If you want to compare, than use this topic CLICK!!!!

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Hey guys, what updates do ferrari have for this race?

Nobody knows until free practice. And that's only if we can spot the updates. Many times there are updates that go unnoticed and sometimes there are updates that simply not visible.

[Owen.C93]

So many desperate Ferrari fans come to this thread asking what updates they will bring like we would know heh. Does anyone have an opinion on where the water to air intercooler is on this car? Not really enough pics to locate it so far.

[turbof1]

Try to keep it moderate with pictures of other cars, guys. I know it's easy reference to take pictures from the red bull to say "look this this and this is different, but that looks similar", but if it can be avoided, please do so. Preferable, use a link to the image instead of using the image tags. I changed the involved posts to that now.

Anyway, I'm enjoying the tech talk. Keep it up on that front!

[bhall]

So, I was thinking (sorry) about what happens when air flow from the air box winglet interacts with the rear wing.



Is it possible for the vortices shed from the winglet to both increase downforce from the rear wing and break up the vortices shed by the rear wing, which would simultaneously reduce drag? Or are those ideas mutual exclusive? (Or are they impossible altogether?)

You have counter-rotating vortices shed from the winglet aimed roughly at the spot where other counter-rotating vortices are shed from the rear wing, but with opposite directions of rotation. Regardless of whether I'm right or wrong about their effects, those things will happen (I think). It's any possible interaction between the two that's up in the air (again, I think).

The first image below is totally unaltered; the second is color-inverted and seems to depict signs of rotating, or at least outward, flow on the wing. Look at the "fire-thing" and the "er" in the Santander logo. The third image is a graphic representation of what I think I see.


(Right click>View Image)

Things to consider: the flow patterns could be the result of pressure bled from the top of the wing through the end plate slots. It could be a design flaw. It could even be a complete misinterpretation of the FloVis patterns shown. That said, "energizing" flow over the rear wing would be a good thing. So would reducing the strength of vortices shed from it. I'm also not an aerodynamacist.

Ideas?

EDIT: Another thing to keep in mind is that vortices are typically shed prior to the region I've highlighted in yellow below. That's the reason for the cutout on the end plates: they allow high-pressure air flow from outside the wing to diffuse into the area of lower pressure air flow in order to minimize the pressure differential that leads to the formation of vortices.

[Ganxxta]

Hey guys, are those white vortex generators (?) on the highest/last element new?
Whats the purpose of them?

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Hey guys, are those white vortex generators (?) on the highest/last element new?
Whats the purpose of them?

http://s30.postimg.org/9e9755v1t/image.jpg

The piece you see at the most outboard position is a camera and the piece on the inboard side is how the team adjust the wing angle.

[flyboy2160]

So, I was thinking (sorry) about what happens when air flow from the air box winglet interacts with the rear wing....

The pictures might be misleading, but it looks to me like the air box winglets have a camber to them that would make them provide lift / turn the flow down along the top of the engine cover. Yes, I know that seems wrong, but look at their camber line: It seems to turn down at the trailing edge, like an aircraft wing. Granted we don't know the local flow field, so maybe they do provide down force, not lift.

But if they are providing lift, then their vortices will be in the opposite direction to those of the rear wing.

The higher pressure air on top of the wing is trying to 'get to' the lower pressure air on the bottom of the wing, so the votices rotate that way. The lifting winglet air rotates the other way, from bottom to top, like airplane votices.

edit: The more I look at the engine cover slope, the more I think those little winglets are in a downward flow field and do provide down force.

[bhall]

[...]

But if they are providing lift, then their vortices will be in the opposite direction to those of the rear wing.

Exactly. And I do agree that at least the "roots" of the winglets do appear to have trailing edges pointed down, presumably to direct air over the engine cover to provide cooling flow for all those cooling inlets along the "spine." Otherwise, the camber points to lift.



In any case, if cooling, or just straight up downforce, is the reason for the winglets, wouldn't it make sense to use something more like this...



...but inverted? Why suffer the drag penalty of tip vortices if you don't have to?

[stefan_]

Malaysia 2014 - Wednesday/Thursday (26/27.03.2014)

[beelsebob]

Which rule do you think disallows them?

The rules don't generally name parts, and then make up rules for those parts, instead, they specify bounding boxes that you can do stuff in. I'd bet that this simply exists in the bounding box for the air box, and that's it.

I have no idea. That's why I asked.

But, teams frequently call things by different names in order to justify their legality, because the regulations tend to to apply more restrictions to "bodywork" than to anything else. Think of every car's elaborate "brake ducts" as just one example.

It's not that they "call them different things". It's that they argue that the rules defined them as being those things. McLaren for example argue that their aero devices are defined in the rules as being suspension, not aero devices, and hence are not movable aero. Here, Ferrari are quite happy to admit that this is bodywork, and that it fits inside the bodywork bounding boxes.

[Tomi]

Malaysia Gp
Friday Fp1