Ferrari F1-75

[mzso]

Oh man, what a car! I love it!

It's absolutely unique. The shape of the sidepods.

Overall really aggressive looking.

To me its ominous. I can't remember a radical design becoming successful since I've been watching F1.

The 2009 Brawn and 2017 Ferrari would like a word with you...

Brawn looked like all the others, only they had a trick that the immediate competition didn't have. And the Red Bull was faster after they implemented the double diffuser.
Bah, the Ferrari, fuel and/or oil and/or ERS cheating is not radical, it's only cheating.

But I do remember the walrus Williams and the asymmetric Lotus, both failed.

[LM10]

To me its ominous. I can't remember a radical design becoming successful since I've been watching F1.

The 2009 Brawn and 2017 Ferrari would like a word with you...

Brawn looked like all the others, only they had a trick that the immediate competition didn't have. And the Red Bull was faster after they implemented the double diffuser.
Bah, the Ferrari, fuel and/or oil and/or ERS cheating is not radical, it's only cheating.

But I do remember the walrus Williams and the asymmetric Lotus, both failed.

The 2017 Ferrari was the most radical looking car on the grid and performed the best on chassis/aerodynamic side. They interpreted the rule changes like no other team back then and eventually their concept was copied by everyone. It was before ERS and fuel flow were even a thing.

[mzso]

Merc turned up with a pretty radical engine back in 2014. They won 8 WCC next.

Brawn was a radical design, but I get your point.

In the case of Ferrari IMO they can quite easily change the shape of sidepods and produce something along the lines of McLaren.

I think you guys confuse "radical" with "very good".

Well, as far as I know the whole F1 car's aero is designed to work together. So it might not be as simple as mounting a new sidepod.

[Emag]

The 2009 Brawn and 2017 Ferrari would like a word with you...

Brawn looked like all the others, only they had a trick that the immediate competition didn't have. And the Red Bull was faster after they implemented the double diffuser.
Bah, the Ferrari, fuel and/or oil and/or ERS cheating is not radical, it's only cheating.

But I do remember the walrus Williams and the asymmetric Lotus, both failed.

The 2017 Ferrari was the most radical looking car on the grid and performed the best on chassis/aerodynamic side. They interpreted the rule changes like no other team back then and eventually their concept was copied by everyone. It was before ERS and fuel flow were even a thing.

Yes, the 2017 car was radical and performed very good. But let's not forget Mercedes had a completely different concept that year and they had on average, the faster car.

So radical does not automatically mean the best.

[mzso]

It was before ERS and fuel flow were even a thing.

??? ERS and fuel flow measurements were a thing since 2014.

The 2017 Ferrari was the most radical looking car on the grid and performed the best on chassis/aerodynamic side. They interpreted the rule changes like no other team back then and eventually their concept was copied by everyone.

I guess it's to a degree a matter of perspective. I would call it innovative. And reserve radical to something drastically distinguished.

[Zynerji]

To me its ominous. I can't remember a radical design becoming successful since I've been watching F1.

The 2009 Brawn and 2017 Ferrari would like a word with you...

Brawn looked like all the others, only they had a trick that the immediate competition didn't have. And the Red Bull was faster after they implemented the double diffuser.
Bah, the Ferrari, fuel and/or oil and/or ERS cheating is not radical, it's only cheating.

But I do remember the walrus Williams and the asymmetric Lotus, both failed.

Brawns radical front wing philosophy dominated F1 until like 2018, and Ferrari's 2017 sidepods were winning races before the 2019 cheating.

[SmallSoldier]

To me its ominous. I can't remember a radical design becoming successful since I've been watching F1.

The 2009 Brawn and 2017 Ferrari would like a word with you...

Brawn looked like all the others, only they had a trick that the immediate competition didn't have. And the Red Bull was faster after they implemented the double diffuser.
Bah, the Ferrari, fuel and/or oil and/or ERS cheating is not radical, it's only cheating.

But I do remember the walrus Williams and the asymmetric Lotus, both failed.

Brahbam BT46
Lotus 78

A couple of very “radical” very successful cars.

I guess you need to define “radical”? Is radical different? Different interpretation? The Brawn GP was radical, not only because of the double diffuser (which everyone tends to think is the only new solution), but because it was the first car that used outwash from the front wing instead of in-wash… I remember comments from Brawn saying how happy they were that everyone was focus on the rear car and not understanding what they were doing at the front of it.

The RB6 use of a “blown diffuser” could also be considered radical and something that made that car very successful.

[DragonSGC]

Looking at how this Italian show has visualized the flows it does at least make sense (if that's what Ferrari are doing). Similarly to what Williams are doing splitting what air flows through what louvres, so the radiator air on the rear half of the louvres (which would neatly clear the beam wings) and then the pass through air on the front half flowing through the valley which will then interact with the beam wings.

[LM10]

??? ERS and fuel flow measurements were a thing since 2014.

What I meant was that there was no ERS or fuel flow cheating in 2017.

[mzso]

Brahbam BT46
Lotus 78

Indeed. Before my time though.

I guess you need to define “radical”? Is radical different? Different interpretation? The Brawn GP was radical, not only because of the double diffuser (which everyone tends to think is the only new solution), but because it was the first car that used outwash from the front wing instead of in-wash… I remember comments from Brawn saying how happy they were that everyone was focus on the rear car and not understanding what they were doing at the front of it.

Cool. I didn't know that.

The RB6 use of a “blown diffuser” could also be considered radical and something that made that car very successful.

Some time ago I read an article about that. It's a nice recycled decades old idea, turned up to eleven.

[LM10]

Brawn looked like all the others, only they had a trick that the immediate competition didn't have. And the Red Bull was faster after they implemented the double diffuser.
Bah, the Ferrari, fuel and/or oil and/or ERS cheating is not radical, it's only cheating.

But I do remember the walrus Williams and the asymmetric Lotus, both failed.

The 2017 Ferrari was the most radical looking car on the grid and performed the best on chassis/aerodynamic side. They interpreted the rule changes like no other team back then and eventually their concept was copied by everyone. It was before ERS and fuel flow were even a thing.

Yes, the 2017 car was radical and performed very good. But let's not forget Mercedes had a completely different concept that year and they had on average, the faster car.

So radical does not automatically mean the best.

Ferrari with a Mercedes engine would have walked to the title in that year - on raw pace.

I know very well that radical does not automatically mean the best. No one has claimed so. However, mzso claimed that radical looking cars have not performed well in the past, which is simply not true.

[Shrieker]

Now there's an eye opener, and no mistake..

That's how a Ferrari should be.

[siskue2005]

" it doesn’t look like a potentially race-winning car."

Ok Gary

If Gary says that it means it will win the championship

[bagajohny]

My only question is what happens when it rains? With those kind of sidepods.

The race will be red flagged by the time we get enough rain to have an effect on the sidepods.

Sent from my 21061119AG using Tapatalk

It won’t start and points will still be awarded

But yeah, rain will be a non issue. The cars already eat a ton of rain through their sidepod inlets anyway, and always have.

I see. Thanks for the replies

[JordanMugen]

" it doesn’t look like a potentially race-winning car."

Ok Gary

If Gary says that it means it will win the championship

Gary Anderson then said: "Hopefully, I will be proved wrong – and that’s something that has happened on many occasions!"

So he is self-aware about that!

The F1-75 itself is a rather a strange looking car. The design of the sidepods is very, very odd.

https://youtu.be/Eqmp3J4Wv6s
Looking at how this Italian show has visualized the flows it does at least make sense (if that's what Ferrari are doing). Similarly to what Williams are doing splitting what air flows through what louvres, so the radiator air on the rear half of the louvres (which would neatly clear the beam wings) and then the pass through air on the front half flowing through the valley which will then interact with the beam wings.

So the reason the sidepods are large is because the new engine has an enormous exhaust manifold?

Or past some faux-cooler (as the rules require the sidepods inlets to feed cooling) like a bent piece of oil line, as an excuse to through-flow air through the sidepods (Williams also suspected of this)?

Edit - Nevermind, I see it's because the sidepod top is very, very concave. That is not so obvious from other photographs.

They are ginourmous intentionally, if they removed the concave factor(which i'm pretty sure isn't necessary for cooling)

I'm pretty sure it is, they're dropping the pressure there by sheilding it with the raised outer sidepod area

But that will raise the pressure, not drop the pressure? Shielded areas that are more stagnant have higher pressure.

Unless they are extremely confident that air will follow the top surface and be accelerated like the curve of the suction side (longer path) of an aerofoil.