Ferrari F2012

[Chuckjr]

Gazzetta dello Sport's analysis of the F2012. Maybe Ecapox can translate?

http://i43.tinypic.com/1zdm0qx.png

I try to translate

First part: Exhausts
They initially try an extreme solution that needs a bit more development, so they decide to change without project analysis but directly in days of testing, it gives an enormous amount of data. They've not abandoned the first solution and want to improve that because they are convinced that is the better way to set the exhaust.

Do you or does anyone here know what the aero benefit is to an inboard exhaust compared to an outboard exhaust? It seems big and smaller teams alike are opting for exhausts that are mounted far from the centerline save Ferrari 2.0 and Red Bull 1.0.

Is basically the idea that outboard mounting is typically for sealing the outer edges of the diffusor and inboard is more for the lower rear wing? I'm sorry if my questions annoy folks, I just want to understand better. Thank you for your time.

[bhall]

There's a reasonably heated debate over in the RB8 thread about just exactly what their new exhaust is aimed at accomplishing. I personally think it's to scavenge as much of a pre-2012 EBD effect as possible, i.e. sealing the diffuser.

Ferrari is clearly blowing the beam wing with its new inboard exhaust solution, and I think most inboard exhausts are configured with this in mind. It's a far simpler and more stable proposition, but I don't think those benefits outweigh the outboard solution's potential.

Extracting that potential is another story altogether, though. I don't think even Red Bull has gotten it quite right just yet. The air flow interaction at that part of the car is simply too complex to master the first time around; I'm convinced of that much.

Ferrari tried a direct approach by using exhaust housings that attempted to inject the exhaust into the desired location. This concept operated in sheer defiance of the new exhaust rules that make sealing the diffuser very difficult. Red Bull, on the other hand, are trying to coax the exhaust into that location by using the rules to their advantage. If you believe the reports, neither has gotten it right yet - that's obviously the case for the F2012.

[captainmorgan]

How are flo-vis patterns supposed to be interpreted?

I mean, it looks to me like the flow lines go vertical below and behind the cockpit canard. Is it supposed to do that? Is that from high pressure collecting at the cooling inlet?

[NoDivergence]

Aside from the high amount of flow diverted upwards over the sidepod caused by the proximity of the cockpit winglet, my eye was mostly focused upon this. Only half the undercut is being effectively utilized.

[Raptor22]

explain this "Sealing the diffuser" phrase that is thrown around like soiled panties at a bear fight.
I would really like to know what people are refering to because it is nigh impossible to seal a fluid device with another fluid flow.

I believe the phrase is misused in the scenario where the exhaust flow was directed to the side of the diffuser because that location was the shortest flow path

[Raptor22]

Another thing, I believe their poor handling is due to the pull rod front. Suboptimal geometry has not been offset by a large enough aerodynamic grip gain.
They have too many thng to fix this year, It will take another 4 months before the car is sorted out.

[amouzouris]

well...technicaly you can seal a fluid using another fluid using vortices...vortices are easy to aim and they have a sealing effect...but i agree with Raptor that this phrase is used all the time and mostly misused...
also...i thought that the suspension geometry wasnt suboptimal...i thought that they i achieved the desirable geometry with the pullrods as well...and so there was the advantage of lower CoG and a slight aero effect..

[Crabbia]

Aside from the high amount of flow diverted upwards over the sidepod caused by the proximity of the cockpit winglet, my eye was mostly focused upon this. Only half the undercut is being effectively utilized.

there is no flow in this area, or rather no flow viz, because the sidepod sheild is infront of the area you've marked out. The sidepod shield pushes the centre of pressure forward and controls the flow so it joins with the rest of the flow you see bleeding off from the inlet, around the side pod. atleast thats the way i see it.

[Mr.G]

Interesting information about the tyres. Hope stil alive

BTW I was just wondering if exhaust hole opening in the bodywork should be created like this and create a chanel to the diffuser?

[raymondu999]

Gazzetta suggests that Ferrari redesigned the sidepods and went through another crash test.

[Holm86]

Interesting information about the tyres. Hope stil alive

BTW I was just wondering if exhaust hole opening in the bodywork should be created like this and create a chanel to the diffuser?

[img]http://papermodelers.sk/hostimages/wYnL ... vn.png[img]

Doesnt the cut in the exhaust have to be perpendicular to the floor??

[raymondu999]

It has to be perpendicular to the pipe - a square cut. Not to the floor.

[Hail22]

Gazzetta suggests that Ferrari redesigned the sidepods and went through another crash test.

Your quotted source is correct, this would coincide with Crucial_Extremes view of the flow being blocked by the sidepods during flo vis testing.

Guessing that tomorrow gazetta will post about a new front wing being tested?

[ledzep4pm]

Interesting information about the tyres. Hope stil alive

BTW I was just wondering if exhaust hole opening in the bodywork should be created like this and create a chanel to the diffuser?

[img]http://papermodelers.sk/hostimages/wYnL ... vn.png[img]

Doesnt the cut in the exhaust have to be perpendicular to the floor??

That would only be allowed if ferrari could unequivocally prove that the exhaust flow wasn't passing through the bodywork. Somewhere in the new regs it states that after the end of the exhaust the gases arn't allowed to pass inside any bodywork ect.

I'm sure someone can provide you with the exact wording of the regulation

[Hail22]

1.7 bar is quite high (I believe recomended its 1- 1.2.
Some people aims this means about 12-15% less grip and about 30ºC less in tyres.

If they have been using this tyre pressure for tests, it could explain why the car looks so nervous and has high degradation on tyres.
Ferrari could be playing with everyone to make other teams believe they are in "bad shape" when they are not...

i dont think they would sabatage their data like that i think it would be pretty hard to corrolate it back to 'normal' tyre pressures.

They could have done that. The paper has the date of March 2 which was the third test and if Ferrari had collected all date they need, they could have done this during their long run just to fool other teams.

But it's just me thinking though....

Possibly...this may lead to the thinking however Ferrari are trying the ploy they similarly used in 2003...problem is that they only narrowly won the WDC with Coulthard biting at the heels if i'm not mistaken?

Alonso also broke his silence today saying that Ferrari are not in such "Dire" circumstances? guessing Ferrari wanted their drivers from talking to media about the car in order to cast a dark shadow while they worked in peace on the new sidepods/rear DF?

Or pure hogwash?