CFD - 2022 Ferrari F1-75 (sidepod analysis)

[yallkok]

You can find some information here: viewtopic.php?t=30214
The conformation of f1-75 sidepods decrease the drag of the rear wheels by lowering their consumption.
I also expect much higher consumption on the rear tires of the W13.
The RB is practically somewhere in between

Why would tyre aerodynamic drag influence tyre degradation?

I believe that greater resistance on the rear wheels (which contribute approximately 20% of total) implies a lower aerodynamic efficiency which usually translates into less traction and on average greater consumption of the wheels and an average greater consumption (SF1000).
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/energ ... -05183.pdf

[Vanja #66]

I believe that greater resistance on the rear wheels (which contribute approximately 20% of total) implies a lower aerodynamic efficiency which usually translates into less traction and on average greater consumption of the wheels and an average greater consumption (SF1000).
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/energ ... -05183.pdf

That could be the case, but not always. The fact is - good aero load on the rear tyres is good for tyre degradation. You could have more drag and worse efficiency and still carry more downforce and extend tyre life with it.

[Mchamilton]

I believe that the advantage of the F1-75 sidepods will materialize with the increase in temperatures and the consequent greater wear of the rear tires.
I think that in the SF they expected a higher consumption of tires also in these first 2 gp.
Especially in the second gp the Safety car upset their plans ...reducing tire wear

Why do you expect this concept to aid rear tyre degredation?

You can find some information here: viewtopic.php?t=30214
The conformation of f1-75 sidepods decrease the drag of the rear wheels by lowering their consumption.
I also expect much higher consumption on the rear tires of the W13.
The RB is practically somewhere in between

No i think youve misunderstood what Vanja has presented. A reduction in aero drag on the rear wheels, because theres less air physically hitting the tyre face, will have no bearing on tyre wear.
If anything it may have a tiny detremental effect on tyre wear as there could be less tyre surface cooling on the straights.

[Mchamilton]

You can find some information here: viewtopic.php?t=30214
The conformation of f1-75 sidepods decrease the drag of the rear wheels by lowering their consumption.
I also expect much higher consumption on the rear tires of the W13.
The RB is practically somewhere in between

Why would tyre aerodynamic drag influence tyre degradation?

I believe that greater resistance on the rear wheels (which contribute approximately 20% of total) implies a lower aerodynamic efficiency which usually translates into less traction and on average greater consumption of the wheels and an average greater consumption (SF1000).
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/energ ... -05183.pdf

Why does a lower aerodynamic efficiency lead to less traction? You can have less efficiency and the same downforce. Which is quite probably the mercedes case as theyre not far behind in the corners, yet miles behind in the straight.. Which points to just being less efficient

[yallkok]

Why would tyre aerodynamic drag influence tyre degradation?

I believe that greater resistance on the rear wheels (which contribute approximately 20% of total) implies a lower aerodynamic efficiency which usually translates into less traction and on average greater consumption of the wheels and an average greater consumption (SF1000).
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/energ ... -05183.pdf

Why does a lower aerodynamic efficiency lead to less traction? You can have less efficiency and the same downforce. Which is quite probably the mercedes case as theyre not far behind in the corners, yet miles behind in the straight.. Which points to just being less efficient

I believe that a worse aerodynamic efficiency at the rear with the same load of the competitors means a higher consumption of the rear tires given by an insufficient incidence of the rear wing.
To make up for this inefficiency you need to have more rear wings and a super engine.
Currently the F1-75 generates a high vertical load, but not with the bottom as the RB does.
The RB, in fact, is faster on the forehand, but it has a higher consumption than the SF both for the weight and for a greater Drag which forces it to have a more discharged rear wing.
With the optimization of the bottom of the car and the maximum available power, I believe that the F1-75 is on average 1 second faster than its competitors.
The next GPs will tell if I'm wrong or not

[godlameroso]

I believe that greater resistance on the rear wheels (which contribute approximately 20% of total) implies a lower aerodynamic efficiency which usually translates into less traction and on average greater consumption of the wheels and an average greater consumption (SF1000).
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/energ ... -05183.pdf

Why does a lower aerodynamic efficiency lead to less traction? You can have less efficiency and the same downforce. Which is quite probably the mercedes case as theyre not far behind in the corners, yet miles behind in the straight.. Which points to just being less efficient

I believe that a worse aerodynamic efficiency at the rear with the same load of the competitors means a higher consumption of the rear tires given by an insufficient incidence of the rear wing.
To make up for this inefficiency you need to have more rear wings and a super engine.
Currently the F1-75 generates a high vertical load, but not with the bottom as the RB does.
The RB, in fact, is faster on the forehand, but it has a higher consumption than the SF both for the weight and for a greater Drag which forces it to have a more discharged rear wing.
With the optimization of the bottom of the car and the maximum available power, I believe that the F1-75 is on average 1 second faster than its competitors.
The next GPs will tell if I'm wrong or not

What's to stop others from optimizing their floors further, and unleash more available power?

[yallkok]

Why does a lower aerodynamic efficiency lead to less traction? You can have less efficiency and the same downforce. Which is quite probably the mercedes case as theyre not far behind in the corners, yet miles behind in the straight.. Which points to just being less efficient

I believe that a worse aerodynamic efficiency at the rear with the same load of the competitors means a higher consumption of the rear tires given by an insufficient incidence of the rear wing.
To make up for this inefficiency you need to have more rear wings and a super engine.
Currently the F1-75 generates a high vertical load, but not with the bottom as the RB does.
The RB, in fact, is faster on the forehand, but it has a higher consumption than the SF both for the weight and for a greater Drag which forces it to have a more discharged rear wing.
With the optimization of the bottom of the car and the maximum available power, I believe that the F1-75 is on average 1 second faster than its competitors.
The next GPs will tell if I'm wrong or not

What's to stop others from optimizing their floors further, and unleash more available power?

Aerodynamic potential, reliability and development block
The change of rules is clearly in SF's favor and I believe they therefore have a huge technical advantage over the others.
I think they are hiding so as not to lose interest in the world championship

[yallkok]

https://www.fuoritraiettoria.com/4-ruot ... pance-cfd/

[Vanja #66]

Thanks for sharing!

[SiLo]

https://www.fuoritraiettoria.com/4-ruot ... pance-cfd/

Isn't this just a rehash of the work Vanja had already done on the forum? I guess it's good to get it out there though.

[SiLo]

Just wondering if there has been any more CFD runs on the sidepods - specifically the W13 updated ones to go along with all the others in this thread?

[Vanja #66]

Just wondering if there has been any more CFD runs on the sidepods - specifically the W13 updated ones to go along with all the others in this thread?

Unfortunately, no. For a while now I've got a lot of other things to take care of, both professionally and privately, so no time for this.

[Andi76]

I believe that greater resistance on the rear wheels (which contribute approximately 20% of total) implies a lower aerodynamic efficiency which usually translates into less traction and on average greater consumption of the wheels and an average greater consumption (SF1000).
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/energ ... -05183.pdf

Why does a lower aerodynamic efficiency lead to less traction? You can have less efficiency and the same downforce. Which is quite probably the mercedes case as theyre not far behind in the corners, yet miles behind in the straight.. Which points to just being less efficient

I believe that a worse aerodynamic efficiency at the rear with the same load of the competitors means a higher consumption of the rear tires given by an insufficient incidence of the rear wing.
To make up for this inefficiency you need to have more rear wings and a super engine.
Currently the F1-75 generates a high vertical load, but not with the bottom as the RB does.
The RB, in fact, is faster on the forehand, but it has a higher consumption than the SF both for the weight and for a greater Drag which forces it to have a more discharged rear wing.
With the optimization of the bottom of the car and the maximum available power, I believe that the F1-75 is on average 1 second faster than its competitors.
The next GPs will tell if I'm wrong or not

Where do you know from that the Red Bull generates more vertical load from the floor than the F1-75? No one has any numbers...and i think its widely recognized that the F1-75 is the car that generates the most vertical load. Most experts i talked and listened to also said that the F1-75 generates more vertical load from the floor than the RB. But anyway - RBs "philosophy" is said to be more about less drag and high Topspeed than maximum downforce. The differences in performance on straights/corners also suggest exactly that. There was an interesting article a few days ago in the RB18 thread that also suggests that and makes a lot of sense:

https://www.formulapassion.it/opinioni/ ... 30222.html

So i wonder where you know that from and i would be interested in your source, because i think its fair to say that most experts think its the F1-75 that generates most vertical load in general and from the floor.

[Andi76]

I was thinking this. Ferrari have cleaner air to the rear wing, and can run a smaller one, but Mercedes may have less drag on it because of blockage further up the car.

For what it's worth, I'm still sticking to my claim about Ferrari having lower drag than Merc. That Merc mirror wing is very draggy for its size...

I'm getting more intruiged by their design, might try to find the time to model and simulate new sidepods as well...

I think after Spa, with almost the whole Mercedes team admitting(again) that this car carries too much drag, we finally can say that your simulations gave a very clear and perfect indication of the different designs from the very beginning. What also proves that the details do not have to be 100% accurate to do this.

[Vanja #66]

I think after Spa, with almost the whole Mercedes team admitting(again) that this car carries too much drag, we finally can say that your simulations gave a very clear and perfect indication of the different designs from the very beginning. What also proves that the details do not have to be 100% accurate to do this.

To be honest, it was quite clear after Bahrain Q that Merc concept was fundamentally high-drag, even if Wolf hadn't said what he said...

Overall, rear tyre drag treatment is mandatory, this is easiest to achieve with wide sidepods. The other thing is to design the floor for rake, this is not easy to achieve, RB doing that from very beginning gives them an edge. I don't think they will lose that edge until 2026.