Ferrari SF23

[gordonthegun]

The new cooling outlet on the sides of the exhaust pipe in contact with the pylon attachment.

[gordonthegun]

[Vanja #66]

Let's bust some latest myths, again

New SF-23 Sidepods are NOT DOWNWASH Sidepods

Even if this was mentioned already, I want to go into more detail about this myth. Also a lesson on why you can't trust simple geometry to do eyeball CFD

First, let's take a more detailed look at what changed in sidepod flow conditioning and why. Starting from 2022 car, the 23 car was much tighter around the sidepod transition area and it's rightfully believed this was done to cut some chassis drag. However, now the extended section of same width is back - but moved a lot further back. Naturally, the whole undercut geometry is much smoother now, but not as smooth as RB19 of course.



If we now take a look at the shape of this full undercut line, we will see just how very different this line is. And, unlike RB18/19, it still retains Coke Bottle shape, although it is a lot wider than launch-spec SF-23. The widest point is not nearly as wide as before, which is curious since we know there was no change in radiator layout. Making this visual comparison made me wonder if there was any separation in this area on the outer sidepod while cornering, since the transition between outwash and inwash sections was very, very sharp and had very little curvature in Z-section.

Another thing worth pointing out is the SIS bulge, which grew from bubble to a very unappealing bulge. However, the bulge is actually much longer than the old bubble. This has a simple explanation, Ferrari engineers wanted to amplify some of its influence on the flow structures so they extended it. So it's not a bug, it's a feature! My best guess is that it really does have a lot to do with local outwash characteristics, even if it does look very unnatural and counter-intuitive.



Let's also take a look and compare new geometry to RB19. Top 3/4 view shows that the top surface on SF-23 is much longer than RB19. This suggest a much tighter transition of the downward ramp towards diffuser roof.



And when you look at how different this rear corner area is compared to RB19, you can start noticing there's a lot of things working very differently between these two designs:



So let's take another look at the ramp geometry in 3D. RB19 has a ramp that starts going down right away and stays as wide as diffuser between rear wheels. New SF-23 sides are much tighter and can't possibly provide the same downwash effect as RB19. Also worth mentioning, top surface of RB19 sides is almost flat, but points downwards to ensure there's no "leakage" of downwash flow.



Therefore, there can be no mistake, new SF-23 sides do not provide downwash flow towards diffuser ramp at all. Proof is in the flow vis, open for full-size picture since I made a smaller comparison to show everything on the same picture.



Comparing these flow vis photos and streak lines, we can see just how very different things are on Sauber and new Ferrari sidepods compared to RB19 sides. There is a very clear distinction between RB's downwash flow on diffuser ramp and inwash flows of Sauber and Ferrari. So, indisputably, Ferrari's new sidepods are in fact still inwash sidepods. Well, at least of the diffuser ramp surface Arguably, this is where it counts the most, but it does also point us to a potential mixed overall flow direction in this area. It's impossible to say for sure since we have a lot of different vortex structures coming towards this area as well, but the inwash flow component is still there - that much is clear.



Why did things change so much, only to seemingly stay the same? They most definitely are not the same, even if the philosophy did not change a lot. The whole rear end of the SF-23 was designed for inwash flow, starting from pull rod suspension which would need to be a push rod design to optimise the downwash flow coming off the sidepods. Then there are both wishbones and other details sitting ahead of beam wing. If you mess this up, you mess the beam wing and the whole floor.

In my view, Ferrari had good reasons to re-extend the length of maximum-width section of sidepod undercut, otherwise they wouldn't have done so much work for this upgrade. Things are most likely in connection with rear tyre squirt management, to stop sudden changes in aero balance during the race and sometimes even in the same lap (as was reported). These mechanisms have certainly changed a lot for Ferrari after TD39 last year and clearly they are still suffering. A big part in all of this is also played by floor edge treatment, which is potentially the single biggest change on any car since last year. No doubt, new floor edge can only work well with these new sides and so the changes had to be made.

[S D]

Let's bust some latest myths, again

Why did things change so much, only to seemingly stay the same? They most definitely are not the same, even if the philosophy did not change a lot. The whole rear end of the SF-23 was designed for inwash flow, starting from pull rod suspension which would need to be a push rod design to optimise the downwash flow coming off the sidepods. Then there are both wishbones and other details sitting ahead of beam wing. If you mess this up, you mess the beam wing and the whole floor.

In my view, Ferrari had good reasons to re-extend the length of maximum-width section of sidepod undercut, otherwise they wouldn't have done so much work for this upgrade. Things are most likely in connection with rear tyre squirt management, to stop sudden changes in aero balance during the race and sometimes even in the same lap (as was reported). These mechanisms have certainly changed a lot for Ferrari after TD39 last year and clearly they are still suffering. A big part in all of this is also played by floor edge treatment, which is potentially the single biggest change on any car since last year. No doubt, new floor edge can only work well with these new sides and so the changes had to be made.

Excellent post. Very informative.

[AR3-GP]

Another thing worth pointing out is the SIS bulge, which grew from bubble to a very unappealing bulge. However, the bulge is actually much longer than the old bubble. This has a simple explanation, Ferrari engineers wanted to amplify some of its influence on the flow structures so they extended it. So it's not a bug, it's a feature! My best guess is that it really does have a lot to do with local outwash characteristics, even if it does look very unnatural and counter-intuitive.

This might sound silly, but the "bulge" kind of just looks like what happens when you apply an R= fillet in CAD to an intersection of the pod and and offset surface of the SIS. It really is just a "not ideal but we have no choice" kind of solution imo. This "detail" would not exist if not for the SIS.

[Sevach]

I have 1 doubt, is the forward sidepod hole a S-duct pass-through or a radiator exit, it looks S-duct to me given how fat it is, radiator would probably be split into multiple slots/gills.

Also the cooling became close to simetric as the day went on(just one extra slot at the left hand side) and less dependent on the gills with the cannon and redesigned lower ones next to the suspension.

[Andi76]

Let's bust some latest myths, again

New SF-23 Sidepods are NOT DOWNWASH Sidepods

Even if this was mentioned already, I want to go into more detail about this myth. Also a lesson on why you can't trust simple geometry to do eyeball CFD

First, let's take a more detailed look at what changed in sidepod flow conditioning and why. Starting from 2022 car, the 23 car was much tighter around the sidepod transition area and it's rightfully believed this was done to cut some chassis drag. However, now the extended section of same width is back - but moved a lot further back. Naturally, the whole undercut geometry is much smoother now, but not as smooth as RB19 of course.

https://i.ibb.co/xYX3H90/Fo7-OXgk-X0-AIEe4-D.jpg

If we now take a look at the shape of this full undercut line, we will see just how very different this line is. And, unlike RB18/19, it still retains Coke Bottle shape, although it is a lot wider than launch-spec SF-23. The widest point is not nearly as wide as before, which is curious since we know there was no change in radiator layout. Making this visual comparison made me wonder if there was any separation in this area on the outer sidepod while cornering, since the transition between outwash and inwash sections was very, very sharp and had very little curvature in Z-section.

Another thing worth pointing out is the SIS bulge, which grew from bubble to a very unappealing bulge. However, the bulge is actually much longer than the old bubble. This has a simple explanation, Ferrari engineers wanted to amplify some of its influence on the flow structures so they extended it. So it's not a bug, it's a feature! My best guess is that it really does have a lot to do with local outwash characteristics, even if it does look very unnatural and counter-intuitive.

https://i.ibb.co/b5Q0p2z/Fxn-EZhk-WIAAZ2-YE.jpg

Let's also take a look and compare new geometry to RB19. Top 3/4 view shows that the top surface on SF-23 is much longer than RB19. This suggest a much tighter transition of the downward ramp towards diffuser roof.

https://i.ibb.co/BwYdbv8/Fxo-Lg0-MWYAUp4n3.jpg

And when you look at how different this rear corner area is compared to RB19, you can start noticing there's a lot of things working very differently between these two designs:

https://i.ibb.co/mqfpJKH/Fxobq-Oj-WAAs-UXz-I.jpg

So let's take another look at the ramp geometry in 3D. RB19 has a ramp that starts going down right away and stays as wide as diffuser between rear wheels. New SF-23 sides are much tighter and can't possibly provide the same downwash effect as RB19. Also worth mentioning, top surface of RB19 sides is almost flat, but points downwards to ensure there's no "leakage" of downwash flow.

https://i.ibb.co/V29zbCc/dEKA2DH.jpg

Therefore, there can be no mistake, new SF-23 sides do not provide downwash flow towards diffuser ramp at all. Proof is in the flow vis, open for full-size picture since I made a smaller comparison to show everything on the same picture.



Comparing these flow vis photos and streak lines, we can see just how very different things are on Sauber and new Ferrari sidepods compared to RB19 sides. There is a very clear distinction between RB's downwash flow on diffuser ramp and inwash flows of Sauber and Ferrari. So, indisputably, Ferrari's new sidepods are in fact still inwash sidepods. Well, at least of the diffuser ramp surface Arguably, this is where it counts the most, but it does also point us to a potential mixed overall flow direction in this area. It's impossible to say for sure since we have a lot of different vortex structures coming towards this area as well, but the inwash flow component is still there - that much is clear.

https://i.ibb.co/92HNSKp/zhou-flowvis.jpg

Why did things change so much, only to seemingly stay the same? They most definitely are not the same, even if the philosophy did not change a lot. The whole rear end of the SF-23 was designed for inwash flow, starting from pull rod suspension which would need to be a push rod design to optimise the downwash flow coming off the sidepods. Then there are both wishbones and other details sitting ahead of beam wing. If you mess this up, you mess the beam wing and the whole floor.

In my view, Ferrari had good reasons to re-extend the length of maximum-width section of sidepod undercut, otherwise they wouldn't have done so much work for this upgrade. Things are most likely in connection with rear tyre squirt management, to stop sudden changes in aero balance during the race and sometimes even in the same lap (as was reported). These mechanisms have certainly changed a lot for Ferrari after TD39 last year and clearly they are still suffering. A big part in all of this is also played by floor edge treatment, which is potentially the single biggest change on any car since last year. No doubt, new floor edge can only work well with these new sides and so the changes had to be made.

Excellent! Thanks for that!

[gordonthegun]

Let's bust some latest myths, again

New SF-23 Sidepods are NOT DOWNWASH Sidepods

Even if this was mentioned already, I want to go into more detail about this myth. Also a lesson on why you can't trust simple geometry to do eyeball CFD

First, let's take a more detailed look at what changed in sidepod flow conditioning and why. Starting from 2022 car, the 23 car was much tighter around the sidepod transition area and it's rightfully believed this was done to cut some chassis drag. However, now the extended section of same width is back - but moved a lot further back. Naturally, the whole undercut geometry is much smoother now, but not as smooth as RB19 of course.

https://i.ibb.co/xYX3H90/Fo7-OXgk-X0-AIEe4-D.jpg

If we now take a look at the shape of this full undercut line, we will see just how very different this line is. And, unlike RB18/19, it still retains Coke Bottle shape, although it is a lot wider than launch-spec SF-23. The widest point is not nearly as wide as before, which is curious since we know there was no change in radiator layout. Making this visual comparison made me wonder if there was any separation in this area on the outer sidepod while cornering, since the transition between outwash and inwash sections was very, very sharp and had very little curvature in Z-section.

Another thing worth pointing out is the SIS bulge, which grew from bubble to a very unappealing bulge. However, the bulge is actually much longer than the old bubble. This has a simple explanation, Ferrari engineers wanted to amplify some of its influence on the flow structures so they extended it. So it's not a bug, it's a feature! My best guess is that it really does have a lot to do with local outwash characteristics, even if it does look very unnatural and counter-intuitive.

https://i.ibb.co/b5Q0p2z/Fxn-EZhk-WIAAZ2-YE.jpg

Let's also take a look and compare new geometry to RB19. Top 3/4 view shows that the top surface on SF-23 is much longer than RB19. This suggest a much tighter transition of the downward ramp towards diffuser roof.

https://i.ibb.co/BwYdbv8/Fxo-Lg0-MWYAUp4n3.jpg

And when you look at how different this rear corner area is compared to RB19, you can start noticing there's a lot of things working very differently between these two designs:

https://i.ibb.co/mqfpJKH/Fxobq-Oj-WAAs-UXz-I.jpg

So let's take another look at the ramp geometry in 3D. RB19 has a ramp that starts going down right away and stays as wide as diffuser between rear wheels. New SF-23 sides are much tighter and can't possibly provide the same downwash effect as RB19. Also worth mentioning, top surface of RB19 sides is almost flat, but points downwards to ensure there's no "leakage" of downwash flow.

https://i.ibb.co/V29zbCc/dEKA2DH.jpg

Therefore, there can be no mistake, new SF-23 sides do not provide downwash flow towards diffuser ramp at all. Proof is in the flow vis, open for full-size picture since I made a smaller comparison to show everything on the same picture.



Comparing these flow vis photos and streak lines, we can see just how very different things are on Sauber and new Ferrari sidepods compared to RB19 sides. There is a very clear distinction between RB's downwash flow on diffuser ramp and inwash flows of Sauber and Ferrari. So, indisputably, Ferrari's new sidepods are in fact still inwash sidepods. Well, at least of the diffuser ramp surface Arguably, this is where it counts the most, but it does also point us to a potential mixed overall flow direction in this area. It's impossible to say for sure since we have a lot of different vortex structures coming towards this area as well, but the inwash flow component is still there - that much is clear.

https://i.ibb.co/92HNSKp/zhou-flowvis.jpg

Why did things change so much, only to seemingly stay the same? They most definitely are not the same, even if the philosophy did not change a lot. The whole rear end of the SF-23 was designed for inwash flow, starting from pull rod suspension which would need to be a push rod design to optimise the downwash flow coming off the sidepods. Then there are both wishbones and other details sitting ahead of beam wing. If you mess this up, you mess the beam wing and the whole floor.

In my view, Ferrari had good reasons to re-extend the length of maximum-width section of sidepod undercut, otherwise they wouldn't have done so much work for this upgrade. Things are most likely in connection with rear tyre squirt management, to stop sudden changes in aero balance during the race and sometimes even in the same lap (as was reported). These mechanisms have certainly changed a lot for Ferrari after TD39 last year and clearly they are still suffering. A big part in all of this is also played by floor edge treatment, which is potentially the single biggest change on any car since last year. No doubt, new floor edge can only work well with these new sides and so the changes had to be made.

Very good, I would only change the title of the post in:

New SF-23 Sidepods are NOT PURE DOWNWASH Sidepods but AllDrections-wash Sidepods

[Andi76]

Let's bust some latest myths, again

New SF-23 Sidepods are NOT DOWNWASH Sidepods

Even if this was mentioned already, I want to go into more detail about this myth. Also a lesson on why you can't trust simple geometry to do eyeball CFD

First, let's take a more detailed look at what changed in sidepod flow conditioning and why. Starting from 2022 car, the 23 car was much tighter around the sidepod transition area and it's rightfully believed this was done to cut some chassis drag. However, now the extended section of same width is back - but moved a lot further back. Naturally, the whole undercut geometry is much smoother now, but not as smooth as RB19 of course.

https://i.ibb.co/xYX3H90/Fo7-OXgk-X0-AIEe4-D.jpg

If we now take a look at the shape of this full undercut line, we will see just how very different this line is. And, unlike RB18/19, it still retains Coke Bottle shape, although it is a lot wider than launch-spec SF-23. The widest point is not nearly as wide as before, which is curious since we know there was no change in radiator layout. Making this visual comparison made me wonder if there was any separation in this area on the outer sidepod while cornering, since the transition between outwash and inwash sections was very, very sharp and had very little curvature in Z-section.

Another thing worth pointing out is the SIS bulge, which grew from bubble to a very unappealing bulge. However, the bulge is actually much longer than the old bubble. This has a simple explanation, Ferrari engineers wanted to amplify some of its influence on the flow structures so they extended it. So it's not a bug, it's a feature! My best guess is that it really does have a lot to do with local outwash characteristics, even if it does look very unnatural and counter-intuitive.

https://i.ibb.co/b5Q0p2z/Fxn-EZhk-WIAAZ2-YE.jpg

Let's also take a look and compare new geometry to RB19. Top 3/4 view shows that the top surface on SF-23 is much longer than RB19. This suggest a much tighter transition of the downward ramp towards diffuser roof.

https://i.ibb.co/BwYdbv8/Fxo-Lg0-MWYAUp4n3.jpg

And when you look at how different this rear corner area is compared to RB19, you can start noticing there's a lot of things working very differently between these two designs:

https://i.ibb.co/mqfpJKH/Fxobq-Oj-WAAs-UXz-I.jpg

So let's take another look at the ramp geometry in 3D. RB19 has a ramp that starts going down right away and stays as wide as diffuser between rear wheels. New SF-23 sides are much tighter and can't possibly provide the same downwash effect as RB19. Also worth mentioning, top surface of RB19 sides is almost flat, but points downwards to ensure there's no "leakage" of downwash flow.

https://i.ibb.co/V29zbCc/dEKA2DH.jpg

Therefore, there can be no mistake, new SF-23 sides do not provide downwash flow towards diffuser ramp at all. Proof is in the flow vis, open for full-size picture since I made a smaller comparison to show everything on the same picture.



Comparing these flow vis photos and streak lines, we can see just how very different things are on Sauber and new Ferrari sidepods compared to RB19 sides. There is a very clear distinction between RB's downwash flow on diffuser ramp and inwash flows of Sauber and Ferrari. So, indisputably, Ferrari's new sidepods are in fact still inwash sidepods. Well, at least of the diffuser ramp surface Arguably, this is where it counts the most, but it does also point us to a potential mixed overall flow direction in this area. It's impossible to say for sure since we have a lot of different vortex structures coming towards this area as well, but the inwash flow component is still there - that much is clear.

https://i.ibb.co/92HNSKp/zhou-flowvis.jpg

Why did things change so much, only to seemingly stay the same? They most definitely are not the same, even if the philosophy did not change a lot. The whole rear end of the SF-23 was designed for inwash flow, starting from pull rod suspension which would need to be a push rod design to optimise the downwash flow coming off the sidepods. Then there are both wishbones and other details sitting ahead of beam wing. If you mess this up, you mess the beam wing and the whole floor.

In my view, Ferrari had good reasons to re-extend the length of maximum-width section of sidepod undercut, otherwise they wouldn't have done so much work for this upgrade. Things are most likely in connection with rear tyre squirt management, to stop sudden changes in aero balance during the race and sometimes even in the same lap (as was reported). These mechanisms have certainly changed a lot for Ferrari after TD39 last year and clearly they are still suffering. A big part in all of this is also played by floor edge treatment, which is potentially the single biggest change on any car since last year. No doubt, new floor edge can only work well with these new sides and so the changes had to be made.

The more I compare Ferrari's solution with others (seen from above) the more I notice how much they resemble Williams, Alpine and Aston Martin. These teams basically took Ferrari's bathtub idea and then turned it into a very deep, steeply sloping "moat." Ferrari is now doing the same thing and Mercedes is going in that direction as well. Definitely a completely different path than Red Bull here as well. I'm curious to see if Ferrari's solution with the bathtub doesn't end up being something "better" than Red Bull's way. Time will tell, but in any case, more and more teams seem to be going this way now.

[Vanja #66]

This might sound silly, but the "bulge" kind of just looks like what happens when you apply an R= fillet in CAD to an intersection of the pod and and offset surface of the SIS. It really is just a "not ideal but we have no choice" kind of solution imo. This "detail" would not exist if not for the SIS.

At first glance it looks like a hack job, but when you look at how bigger and wider it is than before, you realise they decided to use it to achieve something locally. Otherwise, it wouldn't be as wide as sidepods all of a sudden.

The more I compare Ferrari's solution with others (seen from above) the more I notice how much they resemble Williams, Alpine and Aston Martin. These teams basically took Ferrari's bathtub idea and then turned it into a very deep, steeply sloping "moat." Ferrari is now doing the same thing and Mercedes is going in that direction as well. Definitely a completely different path than Red Bull here as well. I'm curious to see if Ferrari's solution with the bathtub doesn't end up being something "better" than Red Bull's way. Time will tell, but in any case, more and more teams seem to be going this way now.

Ferrari's new geometry is unique in how it combines different philosophies. However, the rear corner itself is mostly like Sauber but has even less of the actual ramp. In my view, the only reason they combined the shapes into such a ramp is because they wanted to achieve some pressure recovery there to cut the drag. Judging by comparative speeds at their FP1 fastest laps, Leclerc's car was 2kmh faster, so new parts may have increased the drag actually. Insufficient data to extract reliable conclusion, but this is what we have.

For all intents and purposes, these sides are a different evolution of F1-75 sidepod philosophy if you ask me. Wide for a considerable length and generating inwash just ahead of the rear tyre. This wide section was moved back a lot and the whole rear shape blending was done in the best way possible to achieve the pressure distribution they wanted.

New photos - there are actually some small changes to internals and radiators, but not as big as Mercedes definitely.

[Farnborough]

Thank-you for your interpretation Vanja.

I associate air volume directed toward the gap between the inside of rear tire and outer wall of diffuser with helping to seal that diffuser function (virtual wall) at varying heights above track.
In other words, a diffuser performance more linear over much greater chassis pitch variance, this view formed from the exhaust blowing era, albeit with virtually flat floor then. RB scheme appears to major on this now.

New SF23 appears to proportion more flow into that channel with this iteration.

[pantherxxx]

The Maranello team has designed a car that is very fast in qualifying, but then shows significant disadvantages in the race.

The package of aerodynamic updates introduced in Spain should make the Ferrari less sensitive to minimal changes in variables that have previously put it in crisis due to an excessively narrow operating window: a gust of wind, a temperature increase or decrease, or refueling could disrupt the balance and trigger tire degradation, causing the car to suddenly lose performance.

The red car has changed its appearance. It shows that it is the product of extensive wind tunnel optimization, like a cut and sew garment. There is an attempt to move towards Red Bull’s construction philosophy, but it cannot be said that Ferrari has copied the RB19. Not at all: the orientation is more in line with Aston Martin and Alpine.

And indeed, the Ferrari remains a hybrid car (in terms of aerodynamic choices) that tries to coexist with very different concepts. Upon closer inspection, the “fish tank” above the floor has not completely disappeared: the recess is still there, but it is much narrower in the portion of the sidepod adjacent to the cockpit. It originates from the periscope of the S-duct, although the airflow from below the radiator intake has been increased because there is a new inlet for fresh flow.

The “losses” that were generated by the hot air vents on the floor have been moved further back to create a less disturbed area: we have seen the asymmetric gills on the sides of the engine cover, but the additional vents at the rear of the bodywork are less noticeable. The attempt is quite evident: to move the hot flow higher to avoid influencing the beam wing, making it more efficient. The fluid dynamics inside the sidepods have been changed, following a trend that is being followed by many, as explained by Motorsport Italy.

The external part of the floor has become flat in the front section and then slopes down towards the bottom: even Ferrari, therefore, feeds the flow to be directed towards the diffuser. It is not coincidental that a slot has been opened in front of the rear wheel, which serves to fill the extractor.

Enrico Cardile’s engineers have also tried to streamline the floor beneath the radiator inlets: we cannot see a hollowed-out undercut like that of Red Bull and Aston Martin because there is a design constraint imposed by the lower anti-intrusion cone, which disrupts the flows in that area.

The intention of Diego Tondi’s aerodynamicists was quite clear: to increase the energy brought to the floor, aiming for a car that is less sensitive to changes in ride height. Yesterday’s practice sessions indicated that Ferrari seems to have taken the right path: the long runs were considerably better than in the past, which is encouraging. However, the substantial package of modifications has brought back the issue of porpoising, the great enemy of ground-effect cars.

The Maranello team has taken every possible step to adapt the SF-23 (we didn’t see the rear suspension, which was parked before the deliberation, but it definitely existed). Now, it must not become a victim of bottoming out because, otherwise, what it has found positive may be lost by having to raise the SF-23 car.

[ing.]

Another thing worth pointing out is the SIS bulge, which grew from bubble to a very unappealing bulge. However, the bulge is actually much longer than the old bubble. This has a simple explanation, Ferrari engineers wanted to amplify some of its influence on the flow structures so they extended it. So it's not a bug, it's a feature! My best guess is that it really does have a lot to do with local outwash characteristics, even if it does look very unnatural and counter-intuitive.

This might sound silly, but the "bulge" kind of just looks like what happens when you apply an R= fillet in CAD to an intersection of the pod and and offset surface of the SIS. It really is just a "not ideal but we have no choice" kind of solution imo. This "detail" would not exist if not for the SIS.

Indeed, the whole essence of the upgrade is to make the best out of the package they had on hand within the constraints of cost and schedule:

— SIS blister was faired in as benignly as possible and without concern of increasing projected frontal area—as it’s shadowed by the wider sidepods behind—and any benefit, like creating a +ive pressure zone to help direct flow would have been a serendipitous happenstance. Let’s see if it gets copied or carried over to next year when they probably further increase the undercut—doubt it.

— Radiators were reworked for reduced width, either by redistributing the surface area or, maybe, after having access to actual data from first races, the radiators were just reduced in size. They weren’t relocated (possibly higher) due to the amount of effort required for this.

— The cooling exits at the rear of the sidepods were moved from just behind the flick-up at the trailing edge of the bathtubs—which always looked curious and not aligned to the local flow—to a slightly higher and more neutral position. Also, some of the cooling exit was moved from louvres to the the sort of canny at the rear.

— The biggest change is getting rid of the ridge along the side of the pods at the Coke-bottle where they must have been shedding a lazy vortex sheet for not obvious reason.

— The floor edge redesign looks much more interesting and is hopefully indicative of some useful underfloor performance gains too.

Nice, simple visual to appreciate changes here:

[christian.falavena]

This is interesting.
I did a CFD of a simplified model of the bargeboard.
Also if it's not the completely realistic geometry, this could be a little helpful in the understanding of the way Ferrari's developing the SF23. There's so much inwash, maybe more than the natural downwash, so they're trying to put the flow to the center of the car like with the previous concept, but in a different way. It's interesting to see how the S-Duct influences the flow and that the bulge given by the SIS is exactly where maybe there's separation due to the depression (see cp plot)
Any considerations?

[Vanja #66]

This is interesting.

Any considerations?

I posted my full reply in an appropriate topic here viewtopic.php?p=1137911#p1137911 so feel free to continue any further discussion there

In short, I always applaud any effort in race-car CFD, but in this case the simulation is done in such a way that there are way to many known errors in its preparation, so the results cannot be considered anywhere near accurate and illustrative enough