Ferrari F14T

[bhall II]

[...]

How are we going to dial this all back to the F14T wing?

Well, this whole thing got started after it was asserted that Ferrari needs to adopt a more W05-like wing, because that design is somehow better. I disagree with that, and everything I've said since are the reasons why.

Yes, the W05 wing is certainly more consistent by virtue of its design. But, as I've defined them, I tend to think it's probably easier to make an inherently high-downforce wing more consistent than it is to make an inherently consistent wing produce more downforce. For me, it's about potential.

[trinidefender]

What Gary said in that piece was right (not often I say that about him), but again the conclusion is that the cascade is one tool, not the tool.

[...]

This is the part I wanted you to see in the Gary Anderson piece.

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

I lost credibility in this article when he said "when it stalls, it takes more air through the slot gaps." The slot gaps are there to PREVENT stalling. Something like 75% to 85% of the force of a wing comes from the drop in pressure on the low pressure side rather than the increase in pressure on the high pressure side of the wing. Having the upper winglets does create more downforce, the reason they decrease in chore toward the outside is to encourage outward flow more.

[turbof1]

[...]

How are we going to dial this all back to the F14T wing?

Well, this whole thing got started after it was asserted that Ferrari needs to adopt a more W05-like wing, because that design is somehow better. I disagree with that, and everything I've said since are the reasons why.

Yes, the W05 wing is certainly more consistent by virtue of its design. But, as I've defined them, I tend to think it's probably easier to make an inherently high-downforce wing more consistent than it is to make an inherently consistent wing produce more downforce. For me, it's about potential.

I also disagree with that specific statement, merely saying my gut is telling me that the F14T's front wing looks too simple, underdeveloped. Ferrari for instance still uses 2012 endplates (largely). We also haven't seen a single update since the wing got introduced.

[bhall II]

[...]

By how they looks it seems the Red Bull cars are very drivable as well as being on rails which is what makes them so fast in the corners. Yet this doesn't agree with your theory so guess which one I'll agree with.

[...]

Speaking of fallacy, I think it's a huge mistake to compare the appearance of two cars' driveability and assume any differences therein are the result of a single variable. In case you haven't noticed, there are new powerplants this year, the characteristics of which are imparting an effect on driveabilty far bigger than any other factor by a wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide margin.

Beyond that, rear downforce has been reduced substantially this year, which can easily lead to...

"I hate it when there's no front end in the car and right now if I put any front end on, we lose the rear completely," [Raikkonen] grumbled.

"We try to balance it out and somehow get it to work but this seems to be very difficult and we still have a lot of work to do before we are happy with things. It will take time but for sure we'll get there at some point."

What I've said here, and what I still support, is based upon what I know about aerodynamic efficiency. However, no one is obliged to agree with me.

[bhall II]

I also disagree [that Ferrari's wing has more potential], merely saying my gut is telling me that the F14T's front wing looks too simple, underdeveloped. Ferrari for instance still uses 2012 endplates (largely). We also haven't seen a single update since the wing got introduced.

2012 Ferrari front wing end plate:



2014 Red Bull front wing end plate:



Simple =/= inferior

(Adrian Newey copied Ferrari. That should speak volumes about Ferrari's design.)

[turbof1]

(Adrian Newey copied Ferrari. That should speak volumes for Ferrari's design.)

I disagree both that Adrian copied the endplate solution, and with the assumption I said the endplate itself was simple (I wasn't perfectly clear on that, sorry; the point was that it didn't change much in 3 years, pointing at the undervelopment and not the simplicity):

-The endplate holes/slots are indeed inspired by Ferrari, but Ferrari themselves have a long history of failed concepts on this. However, that's where the similarities end. Ferrari have a very, very specific treatment of the back end part of the endplate:

Essentially, the only thing that changed within 3 years is that the small strake changed into a full horizontal plate. That and the numorous slots trialled and discarded.

This is from 2012:

Notice how similar it is to the current spec. And notice it has substantial differences in the backend treatment with red bull ones, no small forward bending lip, no straight endplate at the front. The top edge at the back of the endplate bends outwards at the red bul. etc.

Essentially, I find this front wing way underdeveloped. It's not a simple one, relative complex even, but 3 years of developed brought too few of updates. Perhaps they finally found a slot solution that works for them, but it took them 3 seasons to get there. More worringly, this could imply that, solely looking at the endplate, the only solution to the new 2014 front wing rules is an extension of the backend straight to a slotted plate.

[bhall II]

It's not that Red Bull made a carbon copy of Ferrari's front wing; it's that they copied the concept of Ferrari's front wing.

And why not? A wing with an effective span that extends beyond the end plates increases downforce by way of additional surface area, and it narrows the gap between steering input and "wing response," for lack of a better term.

In other words, it's the best of both worlds.

I imagine Ferrari's recent "correlation issues" have hindered their attempts to fully exploit the potential of the concept, because it relies heavily on very complex interactions between the wing, wheels, brake ducts, etc, etc. But, that says nothing whatsoever about the prudence of the design.

Ironically, Ferrari and Red Bull have "swapped" end plates this year.


RB9


F14T

So, even if I had no understanding of the rationale for either design, it doesn't make much sense to me that Red Bull would adopt Ferrari's concept if it wasn't a better solution, as teams never willfully regress from year to year.

Whatever the case may be, I don't know that I can say much more here without repeating myself. I guess you either see it, or you don't.

EDIT: As a note, I wholeheartedly agree with the following:

“Simplicity is a great virtue but it requires hard work to achieve it and education to appreciate it. And to make matters worse: complexity sells better.” ~ Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

[wesley123]

Ferrari's and Red Bull's end plates are mainly the same. They didn't really swap them, the wing shape just dictated something differently.

Last year, we saw a trend moving towards having a remote end plate that connects on the last wing elements(as in what red Bull did) Imo this worked back then as it "forced" air under the wing via the slots, where it could create downforce as well as enhance flow around the tire.

Both Ferrari and Red Bull utilised this end plate design, and they still do. They tend to look different because of the shape of the main profile. Last year Ferrari ran a full width main profile and they added slots in the design to grab more air under the wing. This year it is Red Bull doing that.

That design worked great last year, but imo having an more radiused design works better because air needs to be directed further outboard to get around the tire and pull the dirty wake away. Like said, the outwash end plates both have an positive effect in itself, as well as further down the car, due to the low pressure zone they create. To keep that same effect, the outboard area either needs to work harder, or needs a larger outward shape to keep that same effect.

[turbof1]

“Simplicity is a great virtue but it requires hard work to achieve it and education to appreciate it. And to make matters worse: complexity sells better.” ~ Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

I find the catchphrase "simple is better" nowadays a bit overused. People said the same thing a few years back about the mclaren front wing. Until they struggled and found themselves in a very dead end in the development path and had to start from scratch. But everytime somebody brings up the argument of not having complexity, it gets washed away by stating "it's simple and works for them". No doubt it works for them, and I whole heartly agree that adding complexity isn't suddenly going to make things better, in a lot of cases it also means development has stagnated and stalled.

It's a combination of underdevelopment and simplicity that make me frown in the case of ferrari. Mercedes came in at Melbourne with a heavily revised wing, and made further obvious enhancements in both Spain and Monaco. Ferrari still hasn't done anything with the wing, even though they both introduced their wings around the same time roughly speaking.

About the red bull copying ferrari, vice versa whatever: I don't think we'll get to agree on that. Concepts tend to converge into one another through the years, and an endplate has to be there by regulation, so you'll certain things popping up at several teams, but I don't think red bull followed ferrari in its complete design. But I guess that's how you interpret the details and doesn't really matter either.

[SpainFAN]

About the red bull copying ferrari, vice versa whatever: I don't think we'll get to agree on that. Concepts tend to converge into one another through the years, and an endplate has to be there by regulation, so you'll certain things popping up at several teams, but I don't think red bull followed ferrari in its complete design. But I guess that's how you interpret the details and doesn't really matter either.

I agree that they tend to converge, but the major difference in the Mec wing to Ferrari is the inner winglets which gives them the added value of reduce drag on the straits IMHO, Ferrari might be more inclined to create higher DF, but it's a little dragger albeit lower aspect ratio compared to Merc.

[Ferraripilot]

new turbo supplier in 2015? Ferrari say Honeywell's turbo (made in u.s.) is one of the p.unit weaknesses
http://autosprint.corrieredellosport.it ... 015/16665/

Honeywell is just the parent company to Garrett who makes the turbos in Switzerland. Most of Garrett's business is in the EU with them doing some business with US based tractor manufacturers too.

[TechF1]

Sounds like Ferrari fans grasping at straws and trying to blame the only supplier they know of, in this case Honeywell has been the only confirmed 2014 Turbo manufacturer.

Marmorini is not a Ferrari fan but engine chief. This is the link with translation
https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... tCg_geQjgQ

yes, but it's an Alberto Antonini's hypothesis not a Marmorini thought!

[godlameroso]

Isn't Garett the biggest turbo manufacturer? Aside from them who are the big players when it comes to turbos? IHI, KKK, Cummins, Fujitsubo?

[Ferraripilot]

Isn't Garett the biggest turbo manufacturer? Aside from them who are the big players when it comes to turbos? IHI, KKK, Cummins, Fujitsubo?

Honeywell and Borg Warner are the largest manufacturers, Honeywell is easily the larger of the two. Just about Everyone is a subsidiary of one or the other including kkk (Borg Warner).

[donskar]

Isn't Garett the biggest turbo manufacturer? Aside from them who are the big players when it comes to turbos? IHI, KKK, Cummins, Fujitsubo?

Honeywell and Borg Warner are the largest manufacturers, Honeywell is easily the larger of the two. Just about Everyone is a subsidiary of one or the other including kkk (Borg Warner).

Who provides the M-B turbo?