Ferrari SF23

[christian.falavena]

Yeah surely it’s true and I know. The main goal was only to clarify the question about downwash/inwash and I think it’s enough to represent that there’s still inwash feature in the geometry. Anything else is unuseful and I agree with you

[ing.]

Yeah surely it’s true and I know. The main goal was only to clarify the question about downwash/inwash and I think it’s enough to represent that there’s still inwash feature in the geometry. Anything else is unuseful and I agree with you

Good effort and better than all the eyeball CFD and defence of a failed concept by some in here.

[Andi76]

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.

Considering that they kept the inwash as you wonderfully showed, of course you can say that the side boxes are actually an evolution of the F1-75. It's a solution that keeps the original concept and mixes it with others in its own way. On the top side, however, and this is what I was really getting at, there seems to be a trend emerging. High sides, a "trench" inside. This was actually brought to my attention by Sam Collins through his show today. It certainly started with the F1-75.



bild laden




I read your article regarding the Red Bulls underbody. Excellent work! Two thoughts occurred to me, based on Katz diagrams and what you wrote about Ferraris floor. There are diagrams of a wing and diffuser in ground effect (downforce and drag) and you describe Ferrari's floor as a more classic ground effect floor, which were effectively inverted wings. Is it possible that Red Bull's low drag comes from the fact that Red Bull's underbody has this special geometry and shaped "roof" and therefore it produces drag more like a diffuser and the floors of the others actually produce drag more like a wing (exaggerated but you know what i mean, don't you?)?

The second thought concerns Red Bull's dominance, Ferrari's and Mercedes' problems, and ride height. As you explain, the Strake Vortex can roll up better in Red Bull's floor, which is logical and probably the explanation why they can use lower ride heights. Wouldn't it then also be the reason for Ferrari's and Mercedes' problems? Couldn't it be that the low roof compresses the vortices and makes them elliptical and changes their vector field when the car compresses or under yaw and roll? Even burst when they use lower ride heights? The consequences
would probably be exactly what we observe such as loss of downforce, unconsistent or changing downforce or even worse. The worse control over the aeroplatform would of course make the whole thing worse, as it does actually happen. Couldn't this be the reason for their problems? Unfortunately, this would also mean that there is nothing left but to develop a new floor concept a la Red Bull....

[CaribouBread]

How could the car be higher with more weight, without active suspension?

The current conjecture is that during optimal conditions (weight, grip) the car can take corners at such a speed that the downforce generated pushes the floor to its best operating window, a positive feedback loop. However, during suboptimal conditions (high fuel, worn tyres) the car can't corner at the same speed, it doesn't generate enough downforce and the floor is too high up to create the right amount of downforce.

Thus, when the car is loaded with fuel, counterintuitively the car's dynamic ride height is higher than when the car doesn't have all that weight and can leverage its mechanical grip to generate the proper aero load. Its just a theory but it tracks well with the car's dubious performances in the early phases of the race, low grip conditions, its strange quali competence.

[sucof]

How could the car be higher with more weight, without active suspension?

The current conjecture is that during optimal conditions (weight, grip) the car can take corners at such a speed that the downforce generated pushes the floor to its best operating window, a positive feedback loop. However, during suboptimal conditions (high fuel, worn tyres) the car can't corner at the same speed, it doesn't generate enough downforce and the floor is too high up to create the right amount of downforce.

Thus, when the car is loaded with fuel, counterintuitively the car's dynamic ride height is higher than when the car doesn't have all that weight and can leverage its mechanical grip to generate the proper aero load. Its just a theory but it tracks well with the car's dubious performances in the early phases of the race, low grip conditions, its strange quali competence.

Ah I see, thanks for describing this idea. Well it makes sense. This is a very specific situation, which I presume requires advanced modelling softwares and rigging, and so on, to get it right. Meaning, it is something that can create big differences between teams.

[gordonthegun]

A new and better rear suspension was the first thing that should have arrived.

It was planned for Imola, then for Monaco, now in Barcelona everything has arrived except the suspension.

Without a working rear suspension every other change won't bring any improvement.

Edit:
I read now that Vasseur would have said after the GP that if they knew where to work on the car they would have already done it. I think this is a very serious statement that indicates a team in disarray and in my opinion the new suspension doesn't even exist.

[VacuousFlamboyant]

TD039 apart, every team converged into a design separating brake duct airflow from that on top of the diffuser, yet Ferrari (and Mclaren for that matter) has a smooth transition. Look how the flow-vis spills into the downwash area and even the baby bathtub, potencially negating the benefits of the S-duct's increased airflow.



Much of the pain Ferrari is experiencing right now is because they had a competitive car last year. That's dull, but true. They haven't learned it the hard way. One of the key strong points about the F1-75 was how it kept the floor sealed despite the peaky floor. Ferrari abandoned its underbelly and with it they compromised their development cycle.

I do not think all is lost, but these sidepods need rework asap. I'm affraid they are trying too many things at once. The target should be a baseline stable aero platform. Much of the lost potencial of the SF-23 revolves around not streamlining the airflow around this area. At the end of last year I thought they would develop a design similar to that of the Aston Martin AMR23. Instead, they have gone the other way around. They can still do something similar with the sidepod walls, but now Ferrari is behind most teams in the development curve.

[Stu]

If the flo-vis shown above was applied to the floor, I would be very worried at how far it travels up the rear of the side-pod!!

[Vanja #66]

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

New sides and engine over are designed in a very modular fashion, we can expect a lot of changes here during this season. Cooling outlets look slightly oversized (compared to louvre-only cooling so far) so hopefully they can lose some of the drag they seem to have had to add with this design. We may even see the tubs regain in size a bit later in the season.

Right around the Ray of Ray Ban ad we can see the "ramp" is blended completely with radii and back down where the sides meet the floor (near the pull rod) the whole intersection is a completely inwash geometry. Everything definitely looks like they took a step back to F1-75 sides and then made a step in different way from there, seemingly completely opposite from launch spec SF-23.

[organic]

[inox]

Are they actually able to increase volume of venturi tunnels when taking downwash sidepods to use?

I have though they have been running as big tunnels as allowed by the rules, but having seen the floor now, started to think could there be some kind of loophole to increase the volume.

[gordonthegun]

Is there a new rear suspension in the plans or not?
That should've been the first update to arrive but it didn't.
I think that the rear suspension was the first thing to change.

[VacuousFlamboyant]

If the flo-vis shown above was applied to the floor, I would be very worried at how far it travels up the rear of the side-pod!!

Are you sure there's nothing wrong with that flow-vis pattern? If it was a single strake, ok, but that's not minor.


Anyways, I was talking about the package as a whole, the aero mapping, not how vortices may intereact with each other.
<personal stuff removed>

[mzso]

I read your article regarding the Red Bulls underbody. Excellent work!

Where can I find that article?

[Andi76]

I read your article regarding the Red Bulls underbody. Excellent work!

Where can I find that article?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uncovere ... novi%C4%87