Ferrari F138

[Huntresa]

How much in actual space under nose is the gain ?

[BorisTheBlade]

How much in actual space under nose is the gain ?

There is no space gained under the nose. The benefit is that you also get that portion of air under the nose, that is between 550 and 625 mm above the reference plane. Otherwise it would be directed above the nose.

[turbof1]

How much in actual space under nose is the gain ?

There is no space gained under the nose. The benefit is that you also get that portion of air under the nose, that is between 550 and 625 mm above the reference plane. Otherwise it would be directed above the nose.

So they did gained space. By shifting bodywork from the structural nose to the slightly less restricted panel, they could maintain the same length but let the nose rise with a steeper angle, effectively they removed bodywork on the underside of the nose that would otherwise block air from getting there.

I'll make some calculation later. Its not very difficult to do so.

[BorisTheBlade]

How much in actual space under nose is the gain ?

There is no space gained under the nose. The benefit is that you also get that portion of air under the nose, that is between 550 and 625 mm above the reference plane. Otherwise it would be directed above the nose.

So they did gained space. By shifting bodywork from the structural nose to the slightly less restricted panel, they could maintain the same length but let the nose rise with a steeper angle, effectively they removed bodywork on the underside of the nose that would otherwise block air from getting there.

I'll make some calculation later. Its not very difficult to do so.

Well, I'm curious about your calculation. I would have guessed that the angle and general shape of the underside of the nose is a function of components (legs, etc.) that you have to place somewhere and aero demands. A too steep angle would get you into trouble which is why we see all those slits that FER, RBR and Sauber have. But I have no clue how the vanity panel could help you with that.

Edit: and don't forget that there's a minimum diameter for the bulkhead. I can't see how you could "move" bodywork around.

[hollus]

I tried to measure where the 625 and 550mm lines are. The perspective of the picture is not perfect, but both the nose and the front of the floor are central in the car. The two purple lines are parallel, just outside the floor and above the nose, I hope the top one is indeed parallel to the real 625 line. The ruler has fat lines every 100mm and the green line is then the 550mm parallel to the purple lines.

The tip of the nose is well below the 550mm line, and nothing structural needs hang from it, there is enough real nose below the green line to support the nose pillars. So I don't think this is a Z625 nose as Scarbs meant it.

[BorisTheBlade]

Thanks for the pic. To me that says that FER aren't using the panel in a way Scarbs described. A similar picture of the Williams would be interesting.

[aral]

I tried to measure where the 625 and 550mm lines are. The perspective of the picture is not perfect, but both the nose and the front of the floor are central in the car. The two purple lines are parallel, just outside the floor and above the nose, I hope the top one is indeed parallel to the real 625 line. The ruler has fat lines every 100mm and the green line is then the 550mm parallel to the purple lines.

The tip of the nose is well below the 550mm line, and nothing structural needs hang from it, there is enough real nose below the green line to support the nose pillars. So I don't think this is a Z625 nose as Scarbs meant it.

Your lower purple line follows the floor line, rather than allowing for rake. This would/could make a difference?

[beelsebob]

I tried to measure where the 625 and 550mm lines are. The perspective of the picture is not perfect, but both the nose and the front of the floor are central in the car. The two purple lines are parallel, just outside the floor and above the nose, I hope the top one is indeed parallel to the real 625 line. The ruler has fat lines every 100mm and the green line is then the 550mm parallel to the purple lines.

The tip of the nose is well below the 550mm line, and nothing structural needs hang from it, there is enough real nose below the green line to support the nose pillars. So I don't think this is a Z625 nose as Scarbs meant it.

Your lower purple line follows the floor line, rather than allowing for rake. This would/could make a difference?

All the bounding boxes of the car are specified relative to the reference plane (i.e. the floor), not to the ground. He is correct to make it follow the floor.

[Huntresa]

Thanks for the pic. To me that says that FER aren't using the panel in a way Scarbs described. A similar picture of the Williams would be interesting.

I think its quite clear that the crash structure ends where Kaspersky starts on the front of the car, and the rest of the underside going upwards is modesty panel hanging over

[beelsebob]

Thanks for the pic. To me that says that FER aren't using the panel in a way Scarbs described. A similar picture of the Williams would be interesting.

I think its quite clear that the crash structure ends where Kaspersky starts on the front of the car, and the rest of the underside going upwards is modesty panel hanging over

No, that's not the bounding box in which the modesty panel is allowed.

[ringo]

It's main function is breaking up the boundary layer, this air then is indeed used to cool components

It's a simple cooling hole.
Breaking up the boundary layer was just a wild guess.

The boundary layer height under there will vary little between tracks, and if it were the case that there is a variation, ferrari will simply vary the size of the hole to suit the variation.

There is a stronger and less wacky case for the hole to simply be for cooling as was stated in the beginning of the thread.
Now that we're over the winter testing hype you probably wont see much coming from the journo blogs in terms of some of the wilder ideas that were postulated.

[beelsebob]

It's main function is breaking up the boundary layer, this air then is indeed used to cool components

It's a simple cooling hole.
Breaking up the boundary layer was just a wild guess.

The boundary layer height under there will vary little between tracks, and if it were the case that there is a variation, ferrari will simply vary the size of the hole to suit the variation.

There is a stronger and less wacky case for the hole to simply be for cooling as was stated in the beginning of the thread.
Now that we're over the winter testing hype you probably wont see much coming from the journo blogs in terms of some of the wilder ideas that were postulated.

However small the advantage, I have no doubt that there is an advantage in stripping the boundary layer under the nose. If there were not, sauber and RedBull would not be stripping their non-cooling air from the exact same place.

[wesley123]

It's main function is breaking up the boundary layer, this air then is indeed used to cool components

It's a simple cooling hole.
Breaking up the boundary layer was just a wild guess.

It was used by Red Bull since 2011(in the form of a slit) and Sauber used the S-duct on top of the chassis feeding air from the bottom. Red Bull in 2012 had the letterbox on the top of the chassis.

These all were reported to make use of breaking up the boundary layer, and the function here is not different. However, it also takes over the function of the nose hole(or what Red Bull used the letterbox for) was to cool the components in that area.

The boundary layer height under there will vary little between tracks, and if it were the case that there is a variation, ferrari will simply vary the size of the hole to suit the variation.

Ferrari closed it off in Melbourne, but not in sepang, so there you have your difference.

There is a stronger and less wacky case for the hole to simply be for cooling as was stated in the beginning of the thread.
Now that we're over the winter testing hype you probably wont see much coming from the journo blogs in terms of some of the wilder ideas that were postulated.

I dont think it is a wild idea as such devices(albeit smaller in size) have been used in the years before.

[ringo]

However small the advantage, I have no doubt that there is an advantage in stripping the boundary layer under the nose. If there were not, sauber and RedBull would not be stripping their non-cooling air from the exact same place.

They aren't. We were just fed the same story for the holes. But the holes could be for something else.
Redbull's nose cone is quite interesting if we actually look on the inside of it. I don't think there is any evidence to imply what they are doing with it other than cooling.
In fact it's ironic but boundary layer shedding on the top surface is more plausible with the redbull design than it is for the underside of the nose. Sometimes i wish when journos say things technical they'd put numbers to it. Cause if the did it would reveal if they were talking crap right away and we'd be more cautious when accepting their opinions.

That hole probably produces more drag than it would to benefit drag reduction with boundary layer stripping.

My understanding for the hole is placing the cooling hole somewhere else other than the tip of the nose, for either aerodynamic reasons, legal reasons in regards to frontal area, crash tests etc. The noses nowadays are very sharp and have extreme geometry.

Funny enough the 2009 BMW car pioneered the desirable features of the F1 car suitable for the new regulations. the ALBERT computer they were using did in fact do a good job of iteration. I believe this car was way ahead of it's time, but was simply executed poorly or poorly developed. The F1 cars today have this style of aggressive high nose. So aggressive the cooling holes simply cannot be placed on the tip. they will be an obstruction to either the strength or aerodynamic requirements.
Notice where the cooling holes are for the BMW F109? (look on top the chassis)

This car had all the right features first, side sweep end-plates, high nose etc. maybe more skilled engineers would have done a better job with it. But to stick to discussion the cooling holes are else where, maybe not in the ideal place, and maybe not as well thought out as the f138, the rb9 or sauber, but they had the right idea more than 4 years ago.
Any how this is just demonstrating logical reasons as to why the hole is where it is on the F138. That boundary layer idea is just a knee jerk red meat idea to throw to the masses.

[wesley123]

However small the advantage, I have no doubt that there is an advantage in stripping the boundary layer under the nose. If there were not, sauber and RedBull would not be stripping their non-cooling air from the exact same place.

They aren't. We were just fed the same story for the holes. But the holes could be for something else.

Yeah, maybe they do something else, just like the Red Bull letterbox, for example like cool the internals located there?

Redbull's nose cone is quite interesting if we actually look on the inside of it. I don't think there is any evidence to imply what they are doing with it other than cooling.

Breaking up boundary flow

In fact it's ironic but boundary layer shedding on the top surface is more plausible with the redbull design than it is for the underside of the nose. Sometimes i wish when journos say things technical they'd put numbers to it. Cause if the did it would reveal if they were talking crap right away and we'd be more cautious when accepting their opinions.

Sure you know things better than Scarbs and such other journalist.

Also our fellow member Armouzouris(I hope I spelled his name right) did CFD on it;

http://technicalf1explained.blogspot.nl ... -hole.html
And he also did it on the S-duct.
http://technicalf1explained.blogspot.nl ... -duct.html

Also Scarbsf1 wrote about the S-duct and nose duct.

http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2013/02/17/re ... ose-slots/
http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2013/02/17/fe ... nose-slot/

That hole probably produces more drag than it would to benefit drag reduction with boundary layer stripping.

Maybe you can back it up with some numbers?

My understanding for the hole is placing the cooling hole somewhere else other than the tip of the nose, for either aerodynamic reasons,

Like breaking up the boundary layer?

legal reasons

I dont see what legal reasoning would apply here.

in regards to frontal area,

Frontal area wouldnt differ too much with different nose solutions due to the fixed ruling on the front bulkhead.

crash tests etc.

How would a nose slot help with crash tests?

This car had all the right features first, side sweep end-plates, high nose etc.

High nose is like 1997 tech, nothing "pioneered" here. Also Honda ran a 2009 Front wing on their 2008 car, also featuring outwash end plates.

maybe more skilled engineers would have done a better job with it. But to stick to discussion the cooling holes are else where, maybe not in the ideal place, and maybe not as well thought out as the f138, the rb9 or sauber, but they had the right idea more than 4 years ago.

Duct on top of the tub are old too. But I dont really see your point with bringing the F1.09 in. Is it to say that the hole is for cooling? If so, no one really doubted that.

Any how this is just demonstrating logical reasons as to why the hole is where it is on the F138. That boundary layer idea is just a knee jerk red meat idea to throw to the masses.

It is much more likely that the rest of the world is wrong and you are right. Nope it is not, and to say it is a "just a knee jerk red meat idea to throw to the masses" is just plain respectful towards respected tech journalists like Scarbs who know much more than you and me about subjects like these.