Ferrari 150° Italia

[Crabbia]

I doubt it giblet, the beam wing is held on both sides by the rear wing uprights. There is no chance of the uprights deflecting inward to allow the beam wing to flex and bow downward. If that's what u meant. If u meant that it could twist I think it's entirely possible. Anyway, I thought a slot performed a slight stalling function does it not?

Would be interesting to know if there are any load/deflection tests that the beam wing must pass. It could still twist and 'flatten out'. Anyone know anything about this? I know the wings are regulated from a couple years back with all the flexible rear wing shenanigans but I can't remember anything about the beam wing...

[bot6]

I bet that beam wing flexes down closer to the crash structure above a certain speed to partially stall out the underside.

The whole point of the little slot in the middle of the wing is precisely to prevent stalling, at high speed, so I doubt they will want to artificially stall this part of the wing.

[Crabbia]

I bet that beam wing flexes down closer to the crash structure above a certain speed to partially stall out the underside.

The whole point of the little slot in the middle of the wing is precisely to prevent stalling, at high speed, so I doubt they will want to artificially stall this part of the wing.

Ok well then I had it bassakwards. Thanks for the clarification.

[PlatinumZealot]

The crash structure itself probably doesn't produce much downforce, it'll be the area they open up under the beam wing.

I think it still produces a significant amount. Similar to a very large guide vane, directing air upwards therefore making downforce. More drag yes but it creates a good impulse.

[shelly]

Agree with diesel.
You need to make the crash structure curve just to make the beam wing work.

[Just_a_fan]

I bet that beam wing flexes down closer to the crash structure above a certain speed to partially stall out the underside.

The whole point of the little slot in the middle of the wing is precisely to prevent stalling, at high speed, so I doubt they will want to artificially stall this part of the wing.

The slot allows them to run that little section at a high angle of attack and so make more d/f. Also, and perhaps more importantly, it helps the diffuser's efficiency.

They'd run a slot along the whole beam wing if they could. The beam wing used to be flapped before the rules prevented this. The beam wing is very powerful in assisting the diffuser work more efficiently and thus helps the floor develop more d/f.

These things all work together and one can't just look at one element and say "this is much better than that on another car" because we can't know how the things are designed to interact.

[PlatinumZealot]

Agree with diesel.
You need to make the crash structure curve just to make the beam wing work.

Are you sure???



You don't seem so sure to me..

[Formula None]

The crash structure shape is merely the result of some very constraining rules for that part (a link between the end of the gearbox and the safety light region that per the regs has to be a banana shape, in effect). The aspect ratio is just too low to provide anything but drag. What's different this year is that the beam wings have been raised a little, and the crash structure lowered a little to decouple the two in order to make the beam wing itself wider. You can be sure any downforce made by the CS itself is consequential and would be small relative to the gains you get from making the beam wing 150mm wider.

[i70q7m7ghw]

The crash structure shape is merely the result of some very constraining rules for that part (a link between the end of the gearbox and the safety light region that per the regs has to be a banana shape, in effect). The aspect ratio is just too low to provide anything but drag. What's different this year is that the beam wings have been raised a little, and the crash structure lowered a little to decouple the two in order to make the beam wing itself wider. You can be sure any downforce made by the CS itself is consequential and would be small relative to the gains you get from making the beam wing 150mm wider.

+1 Exactly. Equally, moving the crash structure down a little pushes it closer to the top side of the diffuser, restricting airflow in this area. It's trade off and you could easily argue the beam wing is more important now as the diffuser is so basic.

[ringo]

Is the part with the gold foil the tank?
It's purposefully chamfered there for cooling flow.

[Pedro]

My piece about major upgrade Ferrari introduced in Barcelona 2



More here (machine translation):
http://translate.google.cz/translate?js ... rcelone%2F

[Hush]

Is the part with the gold foil the tank?
It's purposefully chamfered there for cooling flow.

Is there a high-res pic of this?

[Lurk]

It is the thermal shield. The tank should be just beneath.

[PlatinumZealot]

The crash structure shape is merely the result of some very constraining rules for that part (a link between the end of the gearbox and the safety light region that per the regs has to be a banana shape, in effect). The aspect ratio is just too low to provide anything but drag. What's different this year is that the beam wings have been raised a little, and the crash structure lowered a little to decouple the two in order to make the beam wing itself wider. You can be sure any downforce made by the CS itself is consequential and would be small relative to the gains you get from making the beam wing 150mm wider.

Mclaren's beam wing is not raised.

+1 Exactly. Equally, moving the crash structure down a little pushes it closer to the top side of the diffuser, restricting airflow in this area. It's trade off and you could easily argue the beam wing is more important now as the diffuser is so basic.

There is no double diffuser anymore. Check williams fw33. An this area is only what? 3.5 inches wide.



And the curved crash structure does create downforce. This is something that is glaringly fundamental. The first turbines were impulse turbines and the blades use a similar shape. I am not arguing, I am stating a fact that curving the crash structure makes down-force, regardless of the beam wing. So with the beam wing it is a double whammy as I said orgininally. nothing there to argue?

[i70q7m7ghw]

Notice how the gurney is missing in the middle of the diffuser?

Nevermind though, just go be stubborn and sit in your corner.