Ferrari F2012

[Crucial_Xtreme]

I agree with Crucial. If, as suggested, there is a problem with internal flow drag, pointing out the vertical position of the radiator would lead to a contradiction when comparing ferrari to sauber, which shares the same radiator position but does not semm to suffer from drag.

I think that part of the difference lies in what is not shown in the two pictures, that is the radiator outlet, which has roughly the shape of the sidepod.
So the difference between the acer ducts and the sauber solution is twofold: it does not only influence the external flow, as already been pointed out, but also the internal flow.

The flow velocity through the radiator is not constant across its surface: it will be greater or smaller depending on the shape of the inlet and the outlet.

Ferrari and sauber inlets seem similar, but their outlets are completely different: that could have an effect on the local through velocity distribution.
I do not know if those difference could be significant enough to cause an offset in the drag of the whole system (inlet+radiator+outlet).

Also we do not know anything about the permeability of the radiators (sauber vs ferrari): logic suggests it should be roughly the same, but maybe there is some surprise there.

On a side note (it belongs to another thread), I keep thinking that it is interesting that mclaren has gone for an opposite route, with almost horizontal radiators.

I'm sure as you say Shelly the radiator outlets are different between the two cars(wish I could get a picture of both to compare), so do you think it could be the packing of the radiator which is inhibiting efficient flow through the radiator, or would be down to the outlet position, if in fact the radiator is a problem at all?

[shelly]

I do not have elements for a good answer.
As for the outlet shape: the bodywork itself is the outlet, so the shape of the outlet is the shape of the sidepod, and that is significantly different between sauber and frrari

[Crucial_Xtreme]

I do not have elements for a good answer.
As for the outlet shape: the bodywork itself is the outlet, so the shape of the outlet is the shape of the sidepod, and that is significantly different between sauber and frrari

Ok. Well considering that teams usually use slanted position radiators to maximize the surface area of the rads, it's quite "aggressive" for Ferrari(and Sauber) to go the vertical route no? It seems to work so far in there are no reported overheating problems, I just don't see what advantages the vertical radiators are bringing to the table.

[Vanja #66]

Here's what the update for Mugello/Spain might look like? I think the Acer Ducts may be history.

Great pic, Crucial!

But you forgot to add 4th slit on RW sides, and those V slits on the upper section...

F2012 looks better this way, should be faster too...

[imightbewrong]

I would say that their rads are still slated, just on a different axis. So the end result is more or less the same I would think. This illustration is just to "illustrate" obviously, but I think my point gets across:

[f1316]

And yet with all this talk of exhausts, it doesn't seem clear to me that there's really that much benefit being gained by teams because of their exhaust positioning. Case in point is Red Bull - they don't know where to point the exhaust because there's not a significant enough difference between the two placements. Rather, the lack of the large performance benefit derived from the EBD has exposed which cars have good fundamental aerodynamics and mechanical performance.

Ferrari's placement seems to be causing a negative rather than just not providing a positive, and that's an important distinction. Therefore, whatever solution they go for would likely have more to do with which approach fits in best with the overall aerodynamics of the car, since the relative benefits of exhaust placement seem comparatively minor.

It may therefore be that the "cleaner" line of the Sauber/RB approach works better with how the air flow reaches that part of the car, rather than sticking two bumps on the car which could be detrimental. Don't forget that McLaren's approach was considered when designing the entire car's aerodynamics and therefore would have been built around the notion that these bumps (for want of a better word) would be there. It may not be so simlpe as bolting this kind of solution onto a car that was not designed with this idea in mind.

[amouzouris]

And yet with all this talk of exhausts, it doesn't seem clear to me that there's really that much benefit being gained by teams because of their exhaust positioning. Case in point is Red Bull - they don't know where to point the exhaust because there's not a significant enough difference between the two placements. Rather, the lack of the large performance benefit derived from the EBD has exposed which cars have good fundamental aerodynamics and mechanical performance.

Ferrari's placement seems to be causing a negative rather than just not providing a positive, and that's an important distinction. Therefore, whatever solution they go for would likely have more to do with which approach fits in best with the overall aerodynamics of the car, since the relative benefits of exhaust placement seem comparatively minor.

It may therefore be that the "cleaner" line of the Sauber/RB approach works better with how the air flow reaches that part of the car, rather than sticking two bumps on the car which could be detrimental. Don't forget that McLaren's approach was considered when designing the entire car's aerodynamics and therefore would have been built around the notion that these bumps (for want of a better word) would be there. It may not be so simlpe as bolting this kind of solution onto a car that was not designed with this idea in mind.

actually i think we saw the difference in qualy in china...vettel was far away from webber..

[raymondu999]

3 tenths isn't exactly disastrously far...

[aleks_ader]

3 tenths isn't exactly disastrously far...

And in still on some ocasions car is not so agresive in terms of tyre wear...

Side exhaost is maybe not so importand advantage (accord 0.3-0.5s), but i supouse that is influence of external flow (coke bottle rear) on side exhaoust is much greater like we could imagine... There is serious "obsticle" to overcome... For example Bulls try solve that with bridge... So for FERRARI are there plenty options... For my opinion if they turn on the "side" "ebd" exhaoust placmend is maybe better to make deeper upper undercut (some sort shallov "canal" or u pods)... Yes there are A LOT of compromises, but somewere Ferrari must find rought 1,3s!!

And yet with all this talk of exhausts, it doesn't seem clear to me that there's really that much benefit being gained by teams because of their exhaust positioning. Case in point is Red Bull - they don't know where to point the exhaust because there's not a significant enough difference between the two placements. Rather, the lack of the large performance benefit derived from the EBD has exposed which cars have good fundamental aerodynamics and mechanical performance.

You nailed with that statemend! Yes for Ferrari seem fundamental aero is very weak... Traction seems okay... Ferrari easy in the race follow teams (drag) like Mclaren/Bulls...

Even Fry admited that they crucial rebuild the basis of the devenelope of the car. So maybe was that change to much to overcome and the whole team of engineersis is still lit a bit uncertain! And that mirriored of this year car let say "bad" aerodynamics...

[amouzouris]

and this year they supposedly focus on aerodynamics...anyway..am i the only one who thinks that the mclaren solution would be easier to implement and suit the car better??

[aleks_ader]

and this year they supposedly focus on aerodynamics...anyway..am i the only one who thinks that the mclaren solution would be easier to implement and suit the car better??

Yes you have right, but with that solution i have none vision hove to upgrade it!!! All compoments are limited!!! Ecpecially front wing play crucial role... For ferrari that will be the far away the most cheapest option! Yes but all design is sligt similar to the last year front exhaoust! For sure that is my opinion...

[bhall]

And yet with all this talk of exhausts, it doesn't seem clear to me that there's really that much benefit being gained by teams because of their exhaust positioning. [...]

I think the irony of this whole ordeal is that it seems Ferrari would have done themselves a huge favor had they stuck to their bread and butter design philosophy of expertly refining conventional wisdom, something no team does better. The regulations appear to be tailor-made for that kind of approach.

[Nando]

The whole reason we have a car that looks like this is because they weren´t competitive by simply refining year by year.

[amouzouris]

the top part of the monocoque is not structural...is it?


could i t be a new chassis...are there any similar photos from previous race weekends? sauber style nose hole possible??

[godlameroso]

The reason the exhaust works to help generate more downforce is the same reason hurricanes and tornadoes form. In F1's case, the bodywork is essentially generating a vortex by interacting with the air stream(by moving through it really freaking fast). The faster you go the stronger the vortex, so far so good right? Ok, here's where the exhausts come in, hurricanes need nice warm air to increase in strength right? So do tornadoes, so by process of association what does that teach us? Feed your vortex some hot air, and bam! stronger vortex. The greater the local temperature difference between the center and the outer edges of the vortex, the greater vortex speed. No EBD, means you're essentially choking the full potential of your vortex. A moot point this year. If you aim your hot air stream incorrectly(as Ferrari have done), what happens is that you also choke off your vortex, because duh, hot air is also more viscous and forces your vortex to dissipate. In short if you aim your hot air in the right places, more downforce is made because a stronger vortex causes greater pressure differential etc.