Ferrari F1-75

[Andi76]

I keep reading about positioning of the COG, but as far as I know its longitudinal position is fixed by rule (with small margin). I think that the balance of the car is way more based on the aerodynamic balance, which ahs little to do with the COG position.

CoG came up because sadly, someone didn't understand how porpoising works and though the CoG was the cause (it isn't! ). This dead topic continues to proliferate when it has no real rationale behind it. It is known for years since the longitudinal CoG is fixed that F1 teams don't lose sleep for CoG height either. Supporting this, Roll center designs over the last 20 years and the fact they started putting radiators high above the engine suggest that CoG height is not a big differentiating facor for these cars anymore. Remeber the 2021 Alpine with its three radiators and intercooler up on top of the engine? That car had pretty sweet handling too if Alonso is to be believed.

CoG height was very important when the width of the cars was reduced to 1800mm. With the wheelbases growing it was still important, but less, and with cars becoming 2000mm wide height of CoG became even less important. But for lateral load transfer/roll its always beneficial to keep the CoG as low as possible.

[tpe]

[
Interesting

What is interesting? The way marbes travel outside of the rear wheels?

[Ced]

[
Interesting

What is interesting? The way marbes travel outside of the rear wheels?

Position of the sidepod when potential turbulent air (illustrated by the gravel) coming for the front left tyre

[Big Tea]

[
Interesting

What is interesting? The way marbes travel outside of the rear wheels?

Is the car still sliding sideways in that pic? it could even be still 'bobbing' up and down.
I think they are thrown forward off the spinning tyre and ricocheting off the sidepod.

[RZS10]

It's right at the beginning of this video and then also at 1:45

[vorticism]

Particle physics in action. I appreciate that some of those gravels appear to be downwashing. Soothes my CFD eyes.

[Andi76]

Particle physics in action. I appreciate that some of those gravels appear to be downwashing. Soothes my CFD eyes.

I think the outwash is pretty interesting, too. Especially how the sidepod seems to push the gravel away from the car and the rear tyre. It would be great to have a similar video of the Mercedes, too. I still think we would see more of the gravel hitting the rear tyre on the Mercedes, causing drag, illustrating why "bigger"-sidepods are the way to go. Of course you also have to put into account other things like the small roll-hoop, engine-cover and rear-wing to get the full picture of some of the trade-offs and advantages of the aero-concept, but it would be a comparison to start with. But of course these are still my thoughts and i can be wrong.

[Vanja #66]

Never take rain, let alone gravel, into account regarding exact aerodynamics of a car. Water spray from rain goes all over the place and only sometimes helps with vortex visualization, only flow viz applied directly to car surface and itself being a special mixture of paraffin and pigment can show the flow on the car, but not around it. With gravel, gravitational and inertial forces are way bigger for a piece of stone than aerodynamic forces.

[JethroJet]

What I find interesting is the dust that is kicked up appears to get sucked in behind the side-pod and over the diffuser/beam wing - do you think this is Coanda at play or just the large 'slip angle'?

[Andi76]

Never take rain, let alone gravel, into account regarding exact aerodynamics of a car. Water spray from rain goes all over the place and only sometimes helps with vortex visualization, only flow viz applied directly to car surface and itself being a special mixture of paraffin and pigment can show the flow on the car, but not around it. With gravel, gravitational and inertial forces are way bigger for a piece of stone than aerodynamic forces.

Don't you think the gravel which follows the leading edge of the floor, can give an indication of the direction of the air and the outwash thats probably created and probably gets supported by the sidepod? That was my thought was.

[Owen.C93]

The yaw angle is far to extreme to be representative unfortunately. None of the aero would be working.

[Vanja #66]

Don't you think the gravel which follows the leading edge of the floor gives can give anindication of the direction of the air and the outwash thats probably created and probably gets supported by the sidepod. That was my thought.

As far as I can tell, most of the gravel is moving forward in the same direction like the car after the car impacts the gravel trap. If it was a sand trap or a flat run-off with sand and dirt, then there would be some meaningful flow visualization.

[SiLo]

Gravel also has far more mass than air, it's never going to follow the same path.

[Andi76]

What do you guys think about this?

[LostInTranslation]

Agree. Especially when you consider that it is not the front left wheel (not in axis with the rear one) that lifts the gravel, but instead it is the bottom of the machine that tears the earth. Not to mention the lack of depth and the squashing of the image due to the front view.