Ferrari F14T

[muelte]

New engine cover analysis:

http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/ ... /1194.html

[Pilatus]

I think Ferrari's upper wing flaps are quite old in design; intricate wing flaps have never been a priority for Ferrari. I think that needs to change with this formula. Ferrari needs to adopt the newer concept as any advantage is welcomed at this point. I won't be surprised if they introduced a new wing with the Vertical turning vane and aggressively turned upper flaps in a few races. (Silverstone?)

FW is the first part of the car in contact with the airflow, and it mandates shape of every other car part.
Turning vanes shape, bargeboard shape, sidepod shape...just everything.

You can't put radically changed front wing on unaltered car (even if that kind of a wing works great on some other F1 car), and expect good results.

[PlatinumZealot]

I think Ferrari's upper wing flaps are quite old in design; intricate wing flaps have never been a priority for Ferrari. I think that needs to change with this formula. Ferrari needs to adopt the newer concept as any advantage is welcomed at this point. I won't be surprised if they introduced a new wing with the Vertical turning vane and aggressively turned upper flaps in a few races. (Silverstone?)

FW is the first part of the car in contact with the airflow, and it mandates shape of every other car part.
Turning vanes shape, bargeboard shape, sidepod shape...just everything.

You can't put radically changed front wing on unaltered car (even if that kind of a wing works great on some other F1 car), and expect good results.

As Obama would say: Yes you can. ** If you do your home work downstream of it.
I say this because Mercedes has changed front wing design a few times this year. So have Mclaren. And these have been major changes too. The reason you can get away with it in 2014 more than recent years because the regs have simplified the middle and rear quarters of the cars so much. There is not much scope for Change downstream of the car anyway you cut it; not much different design paths you can take.

Ferrari just like Mclaren in 2009 need to make a radical aero change and do it fast! There approval system is too multi-tiered and drawn out.. not the best for bringing upgrades thick and fast like Williams or RedBull.

[bhall II]

Regarding the effective span of the front wing & consistent front downforce. This quote taken from the McLaren thread is germane:

Interesting about Mp4-29's behaviour in Turn 3. The Mclaren car has less understeer than even the Mercedes and Red Bull.
"Turn Three is understeer city, everyone is locking up here," reports Martin Brundle from trackside. "The best front-end here with less understeer is the McLaren, followed by the Mercedes. The worst is the Ferrari, it looks like they have terminal understeer."

What does that tell us? I honestly have no idea, because I can think of a few reasons why a car might experience understeer through a downhill hairpin. Plus, Massa was second-quickest through S2 in qualifying, and the FW36 applies the same concept as the F14T and the RB10. Ricciardo and Alonso weren't far behind, which would seem to muddy the waters even more.

[wesley123]

I think Ferrari's solution is actually better.

Mercedes' aggressive outwash design appears to be an attempt to provide more consistent downforce at the expense of peak downforce. The flaps direct more air flow around the high pressure area in front of the wheels, but the effective span of the wing is compromised in order to accommodate the sharper bend.

http://i.imgur.com/03kIvWa.jpg

The more subtle bend of the Ferrari design, on the other hand, allows for a longer span, because it relies more on the steering angle of the wheels to direct air flow around them. That means there will tend to be a bigger variance between peak downforce created in turns, where it's needed most and where drag is relatively inconsequential, and downforce created along straights, where it's largely unneeded and induced drag is a penalty. That makes it more efficient.

http://i.imgur.com/TGyNGWF.jpg

However, the dependence on that complex interaction between the wing and the wheels also makes it difficult to get right. Ferrari has been working on it since 2012. But, I suspect there's a good reason why Red Bull, the undisputed Kings of Aero, have copied (and probably perfected) this concept.

http://i.imgur.com/RP0BIUM.jpg

As always, of course, I could be completely wrong, though.

Imo, both solutions are pretty much the same.

Both rely on the wing and it's round connection to the footplate to get air under the wing and pull it through. The shape of the wing pushes it around the tire.

They both essentially do the same thing, only Mercedes uses more of the footplate and the end plate to push air aside, while Ferrari/Red Bull etc. rely on the wing to do that job.

[Pilatus]

As Obama would say: Yes you can. ** If you do your home work downstream of it.

And that would mean complete redesign of the car.

W05 has different nose, different turning vanes, it has batwing.... just too many differences for drastical Merc-esque FW/FW endplate change.

Ferrari just like Mclaren in 2009 need to make a radical aero change and do it fast! There approval system is too multi-tiered and drawn out.. not the best for bringing upgrades thick and fast like Williams or RedBull.

Why radical aero change?

Ferrari needs PU change (more or less radical), not aero change. Especially not radical aero change.

[PlatinumZealot]

As Obama would say: Yes you can. ** If you do your home work downstream of it.

And that would mean complete redesign of the car.

W05 has different nose, different turning vanes, it has batwing.... just too many differences for drastical Merc-esque FW/FW endplate change.

These things you mention do not sum up to the redesign of the car as you put it.

Did mercedes redesign their car? Did Mclaren? Nope. Front wing changes have been a regular, if infrequent occurrence in Formula 1.

You can change your Front wing concept to give the required flow structures needed to make the rear of the car work, work better. Why would you want the same flow structures as your old front wing if you want to make your car better? That is the whole point of a front wing design change; to get the rest of the car working better. It is not really disputable. Just Saying that I feel that Ferrari will benefit by changing their Front wing and nose concept. It is nothing new in 2014 when you look at Force India, Maclaren, Mercedes and Torro Rosso.

[The Moderator]

As alonso show in this race, Ferrari just need perfect PU

[bhall II]

Imo, both solutions are pretty much the same.

Both rely on the wing and it's round connection to the footplate to get air under the wing and pull it through. The shape of the wing pushes it around the tire.

They both essentially do the same thing, only Mercedes uses more of the footplate and the end plate to push air aside, while Ferrari/Red Bull etc. rely on the wing to do that job.

You had me until that last bit. Perhaps I wasn't very clear before - it's been known to happen from time to time.

Just so we're on the same page, here's Adrian Newey talking about this year's front wings:

What sounds like quite a small change, a 75mm reduction in the width of the front wing on each side, has had a big aerodynamic effect.

Previously, the front wing end plate allowed us to put the flow off the tip of the wing outside of the front wheel, but now the front wing end is right in front of the wheel – about the worst possible place. It's not inside or outside, so that means the majority of the flow now stagnates in front of the front wheel. A little bit finds its way outside and the rest comes inside, and in doing so makes quite a mess. The front wheel wake becomes much bigger and that causes all sorts of problems downstream as you approach the side pod and diffuser.

Now, because we know static pressure is highest where speed is lowest, we know the wheels have areas of high pressure in front of them where flow stagnates. That means this year's wings don't operate anywhere near peak efficiency (most of the time), because the end plates are directly in front of high-pressure areas that constitute blockages through which air cannot easily flow.

This changes, however, when the wheels are steered for a corner. The steering angle removes the high-pressure area in front of the outside end plate, which increases air flow and thus downforce. The net result is that front wings tend to create more downforce through turns, where it's needed, and less downforce along straights, where it's not.



With a relatively low-radius arc, the front wing on the W05 requires less of a steering angle change in order to begin creating downforce more efficiently. I think that makes overall downforce production more consistent, but it comes at the price of lower potential peak downforce, because the area required to accommodate the low-radius bend shortens the effective wingspan.



That's in contrast to the relatively high-radius arc on the Ferrari wing that requires a bigger steering angle change in order to efficiently create downforce. I think the resultant longer wingspan affords the potential to create higher peak downforce, but it comes at the expense of consistency, and its efficacy is dependent upon the difficult task of managing the interaction between the wheels and the wing. However, I feel like those problems can largely be overcome, which is why I feel like it's the better solution. In fact, I think Red Bull's take on the concept might be ideal.



I don't think it's coincidental that the three teams who run this type of front wing - Ferrari, Red Bull, and Williams - have all experimented at some point with blown front axles in an attempt to improve the wing's outwash capability. The idea is to narrow the gap in the response time between steering input and the state of higher wing efficiency. If that gap is too large, the front end of the car won't "bite" during turn-in.

[lkm9719]

Not so innovative on the front wing, and the flow under the nose also quite simple

[trinidefender]

Not so innovative on the front wing, and the flow under the nose also quite simple

What? That's it? Any evidence to support any of these claims? What's wrong with simple?

[wesley123]

Now, because we know static pressure is highest where speed is lowest, we know the wheels have areas of high pressure in front of them where flow stagnates. That means this year's wings don't operate anywhere near peak efficiency (most of the time), because the end plates are directly in front of high-pressure areas that constitute blockages through which air cannot easily flow.

Agreed.

This changes, however, when the wheels are steered for a corner. The steering angle removes the high-pressure area in front of the outside end plate, which increases air flow and thus downforce. The net result is that front wings tend to create more downforce through turns, where it's needed, and less downforce along straights, where it's not.

I'm not entirely sure. When the wheel is turned, one part of the wing is blocked less, while the other is not. This leaves for a inconsistency in downforce production when the steering is changed(as you have pointed out). I find it hard to figure out of they actually make more downforce when turning because of this inconsistency.

With a relatively low-radius arc, the front wing on the W05 requires less of a steering angle change in order to begin creating downforce more efficiently.

They both will still have the same area of blockage. The W05 wing has less wing area to create downforce on. Thus I'd say is less affected by these changes(Is that exactly what you are saying?) in steering, or even pitch.

I think that makes overall downforce production more consistent

Agreed.

but it comes at the price of lower potential peak downforce, because the area required to accommodate the low-radius bend shortens the effective wingspan.

Agreed

http://i.imgur.com/JldvnSV.jpg

That's in contrast to the relatively high-radius arc on the Ferrari wing that requires a bigger steering angle change in order to efficiently create downforce. I think the resultant longer wingspan affords the potential to create higher peak downforce, but it comes at the expense of consistency, and its efficacy is dependent upon the difficult task of managing the interaction between the wheels and the wing. However, I feel like those problems can largely be overcome, which is why I feel like it's the better solution. In fact, I think Red Bull's take on the concept might be ideal.

Agreed. Although rear shots of the Front wing(which I can't get to atm) show that an similar amount of outwash is visible, the flaps itself are quite highly cambered. Like I said. The solution of Ferrari/Red Bull relies more on getting the wing to work to get air around the tire rather than using fancy flaps and whatnot.

http://i.imgur.com/EBFLfdY.jpg

I don't think it's coincidental that the three teams who run this type of front wing - Ferrari, Red Bull, and Williams - have all experimented at some point with blown front axles in an attempt to improve the wing's outwash capability. The idea is to narrow the gap in the response time between steering input and the state of higher wing efficiency. If that gap is too large, the front end of the car won't "bite" during turn-in.

http://i.imgur.com/z6xLpJp.jpg

Seeing how these outboard wings(And they certainly did last year) create a low pressure zone on the outside of the wing this pulls the dirty air from the wheel with it, away from the floor. This is beneficial further down the car as the floor isn't affected as much from the dirty air from the front wheels. It's not surprising that teams experiment by ducting air through the front brake/hub assembly to augment this.

Overall, I'd say none of the solutions is best in it's own right. The Merc style wing is more "forceful" in it's nature and will push air around the tire much more actively. This will pull the dirty air away a bit stronger.
On the inside of the wheel the wing tips generate vortices, that together with barge boards and nose vanes keep the air away from the floor and generate a seal. It works together in getting the dirty air away from the floor. Thus, by having this stronger low pressure effect, the seal the vortices/bargeboards/vanes create become less of an importance.

In the end, both solutions will receive the same blockage, and the air is going to get affected either way by the tire. The trick is to manage it so that it can improve airflow further down. And Merc does so by actively directing air outside, while Ferrari and Red Bull are more reliant on the vortices shed by the wing tips to keep the dirty air away from the floor.

[Gilles 27]

As Obama would say: Yes you can. ** If you do your home work downstream of it.

And that would mean complete redesign of the car.

W05 has different nose, different turning vanes, it has batwing.... just too many differences for drastical Merc-esque FW/FW endplate change.

Ferrari just like Mclaren in 2009 need to make a radical aero change and do it fast! There approval system is too multi-tiered and drawn out.. not the best for bringing upgrades thick and fast like Williams or RedBull.

Why radical aero change?

Ferrari needs PU change (more or less radical), not aero change. Especially not radical aero change.

After or at the same time they need change the front suspension! The Pull Rod doesn't work as expected, the prove is Kimi still has problem to find a decent setup. I'm agree that the aerodynamic philosophy from Ferrari isn't up to date, they still one two step behind the other.

[f300v10]

Updated diffuser. The shape of the central part of the tunnel is completly new from the one used earlier in the year. This may have been introduced in Canada testing but I was unable to find a good shot of the diffuser from that race.

[Xwang]

According to me the wrong, if any, of the Ferrari pull rod front implementation is the huge angle the front arms create with the ground.
With such an angle when the car rolls, the front tyres (but especially the external one) "see" an additional lateral velocity which is given by the projection of the external wheel movement on the ground.
Moreover the pull rod being very horizontally placed must be heavier in order to sustain vertical loads multiplied by a huge factor given by it being pretty horizontal.
However why a more conventional pull rod with horizontal front suspension arms and 45° pull rod should not be taken into consideration now that the front chassis in lower than in the past?
It should permit to have a lower CG and it should be lighter since it sustains the vertical load in traction instead of compression.
Is there something I'm not considering and which makes the push rod preferable?