Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

[MuseF1]

That is part of my point though. We haven't yet seen a good enough image that shows us that this air is being allowed around the perimeter of the mirror. That's most likely what is happening, but the fact we don't have a good image of it yet makes me quite dubious.

I didn't agree with Scarb's interpretation of the mirrors, reading your comment I don't think you do either? So, with that being said, if it transpires that the air is not being sent around the sides of the mirrors, and you don't want to direct the air that interacts with the mirror towards the intake, then the alternative must be that is is being diverted elsewhere via the mirror support legs?

[Vanja #66]

Mirror brackets, in my opinion, most likely guide the air towards that top inlet. I've written already a bit on mirrors here, but I'll gladly add to it.



This is the first mirror bracket design in 2017, and as far as I remember, only used in winter testing. Throughout the season, Ferrari used the same bracket design as current one. Design on picture is lifting the mirrors as high up as possible and is using additional flap to get some of the air flowing on the inner side of mirror bracket (closer to the driver) to the top inlet. Current design is doing that as well, but with a curved design they are using more air for less drag (slots induce drag, that flap in launch spec design caused a vortex which induced drag as well) and have lowered the mirrors for better visibility (look how far down the list their primary function lies).

As for current mirror fairing design, it's there to reduce drag. If they wanted to move the air from the mirror to the inlet with this design, they'd lower the mirrors even more. Mirror position (in terms of height) hasn't changed from last year's final design. Last year mirrors weren't flow-trough, ergo - they were a problem, they caused turbulence (as ever) and they needed to be as high as possible not to obstruct air flow, but as low as possible not to hinder driver visibility even further.

To end this with something basic - you don't want turbulent air in your radiator intake and even if you did, you can't make it go to the high pressure zone of top inlet.

Some things are simple, some are not and not everything in F1 is complicated.

[Daliracing]

Flowviz on the rear wing of the SF71H (photos are from yesterday)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXIpWPHWkAA4D1u.png

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXIpWOHXcAAafY3.png

Via @RacecarEngineer

What's that line on the floor? Some fluid lines?

[Kalsi]

I spent a couple of minutes looking backwards in the car topic and it seems there are a couple of interesting details which are left un-noticed. (Sorry if not)

I made a couple of drawings to put them in evidence (Click on images to view in original size)

1) This article from Giorgio Piola at motorsport.com
https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferra ... a-1010302/
is showing off an interesting new "vent" underneath rear crash structure.


Considering the rear suspension upper and lower wishbones layout and the "crankcase oil breather hole" (engine topic) Ferrari is playing a lot with the airflow at the rear of the car...

2) Another interesting detail is a second border coming off the front part of the floor directly behind the front wheel... not sure if there are some holes where the air is being turned outwards (yellow circle)


What is going on there, any ideas?

[paddyf1]

Mirror brackets, in my opinion, most likely guide the air towards that top inlet. I've written already a bit on mirrors here, but I'll gladly add to it.

http://i64.tinypic.com/33a4adi.jpg

This is the first mirror bracket design in 2017, and as far as I remember, only used in winter testing. Throughout the season, Ferrari used the same bracket design as current one. Design on picture is lifting the mirrors as high up as possible and is using additional flap to get some of the air flowing on the inner side of mirror bracket (closer to the driver) to the top inlet. Current design is doing that as well, but with a curved design they are using more air for less drag (slots induce drag, that flap in launch spec design caused a vortex which induced drag as well) and have lowered the mirrors for better visibility (look how far down the list their primary function lies).

As for current mirror fairing design, it's there to reduce drag. If they wanted to move the air from the mirror to the inlet with this design, they'd lower the mirrors even more. Mirror position (in terms of height) hasn't changed from last year's final design. Last year mirrors weren't flow-trough, ergo - they were a problem, they caused turbulence (as ever) and they needed to be as high as possible not to obstruct air flow, but as low as possible not to hinder driver visibility even further.

To end this with something basic - you don't want turbulent air in your radiator intake and even if you did, you can't make it go to the high pressure zone of top inlet.

Some things are simple, some are not and not everything in F1 is complicated.

The height could be well be the same as last years, now check and see if that top inlet is still in the same place?

[Sieper]

the top inlet and the mirror are in the exact same plane when viewed from above (as opposed to last year). If the mirror was not intended to play any role in getting air towards the inlet then why is that?

I too think it will not be powerful enough to bend the air at higher speeds (if at all) but an interesting idea was posed (forgot by whom) that at lower speeds it might be able to bend the air a bit better.

If it is just about drag reduction, then why make the mirror essentially a bit bigger (to accommodate for the slots above and below the mirror glass) this will increase total front facing surface. Now it might help as it will likely pull the air through at higher speeds possibly decreasing overall drag.

[Kalsi]

the top inlet and the mirror are in the exact same plane when viewed from above (as opposed to last year). If the mirror was not intended to play any role in getting air towards the inlet then why is that?

I too think it will not be powerful enough to bend the air at higher speeds (if at all) but an interesting idea was posed (forgot by whom) that at lower speeds it might be able to bend the air a bit better.

If it is just about drag reduction, then why make the mirror essentially a bit bigger (to accommodate for the slots above and below the mirror glass) this will increase total front facing surface. Now it might help as it will likely pull the air through at higher speeds possibly decreasing overall drag.

I too believe this is to work "side by side" with the top sidepod inlet but reading what you wrote also makes 3 more things come to my mind:

- As for the "view from above allignment" this could be explained by the presence of the halo... mirrors just needs to be placed in a different way to avoid the visual obstruction of the halo when looking at them from the driver's POV

- As for the speed question, i can assume the mirror is not intended to guide the air inside the top inlet in a DIRECT-WAY... maybe instead is about direct the flow in a such convenient manner in order to make the top inlet also work as some sort of "stall" area as the SF70H was doing

- Assuming this is for drag reduction, even if it is bigger, the inner flaps could allow air being guided in a more controlled way THROUGH the mirror itself allowing for a better flow (and less resistance) rather than with the usual shape

[g70]

I'm Ferrari fan and these are my very personal considerations:
The car looks nice, but actually it's aerodynamically came back or is at the same level as last year.
All our attention turned to the mirrors (0.0000000001 sec of gain?) and not to the other details
Unlike Red Bull, the center of gravity has been moved up to improve the rear exits, but the comparison with Mercedes rear is ruthless.
Unchanged nose and front provide too much drag and air resistance. Is rough and to correct the aerodynamic faults have applied a wing to direct the air in the engine sockets that causes even lift. Other than reduction of the resistance to progress!
The suspensions have remained unchanged and their design seems really elementary as crude appear the cooling inlets of the brakes both front and rear.
The front wing seems to come out of a nightmare, with an incredible wall (air resistance!, air resistance!) to direct the air. The rear wing is that of last year (large and not particularly advanced). Also the floor is that of last year.
For the engine, everything is shrouded in mystery. I do not think that the problems of high consumption or, consequently, the heat to be disposed of have been resolved.
The extra power for Q3 remains a dream.
Too little to beat the Mercedes and, I hope not, the Red Bull.
I am very very embittered,for us fans definitely another nightmare year.
But if I should be wrong, or Ferrari will be the car to beat, Mercedes will adopt its measures, as it has done in the past years:
- They convinced Schumaker not to take the place of Massa and then they took him as a driver
- They talked to Costa and hired him.(££)
- They talked to Allison after learning that Paddy Lowe would go away and then hired him.(££)
- They talked to Sassi and suddenly the Ferrari engines broke down. Then they hired him.(£££)

My english is bad, these are, I repeat, my personal convictions, so I to strengthen and take responsibility also publish them in Italian :
<Sono tifoso Ferrari e queste sono le mie personalissime considerazioni:
La macchina sembra bella, ma in effetti aerodinamicamente è tornata indietro o è allo stesso livello dell'anno scorso.
Tutta la nostra attenzione si è rivolta agli specchietti (0.0000000001 sec di guadagno?) e non agli altri particolari
Al contrario della Red Bull il baricentro è stato spostato in alto per migliorare le uscite posteriori, ma il confronto con la Mercedes è impietoso.
Le sospensioni sono rimaste invariate ed il loro disegno sembra veramente elementare così come rozze appaiono le prese di raffreddamento dei freni sia anteriori che posteriori.
L'ala anteriore sembra uscita da un incubo notturno, mentre la posteriore è quella dell'anno scorso (non particolarmente avanzata). Anche il fondo è quello dell'anno scorso.
Il musetto è rozzo e per correggerne i difetti aeorodimaci hanno applicato un'ala per indirizzare l'aria nelle prese motore che provoca addirittura portanza. Altro che riduzione della resistenza all'avanzamento!
Per quanto riguarda il motore tutto è avvolto dal mistero. Non credo che si siano risolti i problemi del consumo elevato né, di conseguenza, per il calore da smaltire.
L'extra potenza per la Q3 resta un sogno.
In definitiva un altro anno da incubo.
Poi se mi dovessi sbagliare, ovvero la Ferari sarà la macchina da battere, la Mercedes prenderà i suoi provvedimenti, come ha fatto negli anni passati:
-Hanno convinto Schumaker a non rimpiazzare Massa e poi l'hanno preso come pilota
-Hanno preso Costa.
-Hanno parlato con Allison dopo aver saputo che Paddy Lowe sarebbe andato via e poi lo hanno ingaggiato.
-Hanno parlato con Sassi ed improvvisamente i motori Ferrari si sono rotti. Poi lo hanno ingaggiato.

[Vanja #66]

The height could be well be the same as last years, now check and see if that top inlet is still in the same place?

No need to check anything, already did it a few days ago.

4) Mirrors are a bit further back (and as low as final-spec in 2017), but overall at the same distance from top side pod inlet as last year [ADDED: Just to clarify, but I honestly don't see how anyone can see anything else on this picture - the trailing edges of mirror fairings are at the same longitudinal distance from leading edges of top inlets on both cars. The lateral distance has slightly changed at the dirsta race in 2017, as well as height and was the same as now.]. Unlike Scarbs, I'm not sure they are used to guide the air down (although that would be very very clever), as I'll explain and show further down this text.

***



13) Different position of mirrors, very similar to final spec in 2017. More on them later down, there's a better picture to explain my thoughts.

***



On this picture you can see that inside surface of mirrors seems symmetrical. This would indicate only drag reduction for mirrors, in ways discussed on this thread. I honestly don't see it as an attempt to guide the air down towards the top side pod inlet, no matter how cool that would be. I'd like to see it happen, I just don't see it now.

To continue with this discussion is pointless, in my view. Those who believe mirror fairings are there to bend the airflow into top inlets (in spite of laws of aerodynamics) have the right to do so, but please don't bring down the level of discussion with (more) pointless arguments.

[MuseF1]

Vanja, the quality of your posts are great but I think it's a bit of a shame to finish one by suggesting that if other's views on the matter aren't the same as your own, that it is bringing down the level of discussion. It is not like we are bickering over whose driver is better.

I think I wasn't quite making my thoughts clear yesterday, I don't think I explained using the right words. Forgetting entirely about sidepod intakes, my question is: Could these mirrors be enabling some sort of ducting down the inside of the mirror support arms to another location on the car? Even for something as simple as driver cooling?

[PhillipM]

Could be venting into the halo shroud I suppose, I've noticed a few cars have open sections in the back of their halo covers.

[wesley123]

The arguments given ignore the fact that a mirror is an obstruction. No matter how you would place them; they are an obstruction. If they weren't mandatory, no one would run them.
Knowing this, it is most likely that any clever trick with the mirrors is aimed at reducing this obstruction.

I don't think it's shape lends it very well to direct airflow in any way. And remember; There is a large area in between the mirror and sidepod; This will be air that would be affected, and affects airflow from the mirror. I can only imagine that this would bring in quite a bit of drag, and ruins airflow further back.

It also doesn't make much sense if you consider that this is an area that in top view is essentialy free. Which in turn would allow it to apply the desired effect much closer, and thus requires less effort to apply the same effect, as there will be less loss due to the distance.

Personally I think Ferrari's goal with the mirrors is to reduce it's obstruction, nothing more, nothing less.

[DVB]

Mirrors screw up the air towards the rear wing. That's why they are trying to get the least amount of turbulence out of it.

Only the mirror support has any function of bending air somewhere.

[paddyf1]

The height could be well be the same as last years, now check and see if that top inlet is still in the same place?

No need to check anything, already did it a few days ago.

https://ibb.co/fsPdHc

4) Mirrors are a bit further back (and as low as final-spec in 2017), but overall at the same distance from top side pod inlet as last year [ADDED: Just to clarify, but I honestly don't see how anyone can see anything else on this picture - the trailing edges of mirror fairings are at the same longitudinal distance from leading edges of top inlets on both cars. The lateral distance has slightly changed at the dirsta race in 2017, as well as height and was the same as now.]. Unlike Scarbs, I'm not sure they are used to guide the air down (although that would be very very clever), as I'll explain and show further down this text.

***

https://ibb.co/dQaJHc

13) Different position of mirrors, very similar to final spec in 2017. More on them later down, there's a better picture to explain my thoughts.

***

https://ibb.co/cORd0x

On this picture you can see that inside surface of mirrors seems symmetrical. This would indicate only drag reduction for mirrors, in ways discussed on this thread. I honestly don't see it as an attempt to guide the air down towards the top side pod inlet, no matter how cool that would be. I'd like to see it happen, I just don't see it now.

To continue with this discussion is pointless, in my view. Those who believe mirror fairings are there to bend the airflow into top inlets (in spite of laws of aerodynamics) have the right to do so, but please don't bring down the level of discussion with (more) pointless arguments.

So both are virtually in the same place as last years car, and the distance relevant to each other?

[paddyf1]

The height could be well be the same as last years, now check and see if that top inlet is still in the same place?

No need to check anything, already did it a few days ago.

https://ibb.co/fsPdHc

4) Mirrors are a bit further back (and as low as final-spec in 2017), but overall at the same distance from top side pod inlet as last year [ADDED: Just to clarify, but I honestly don't see how anyone can see anything else on this picture - the trailing edges of mirror fairings are at the same longitudinal distance from leading edges of top inlets on both cars. The lateral distance has slightly changed at the dirsta race in 2017, as well as height and was the same as now.]. Unlike Scarbs, I'm not sure they are used to guide the air down (although that would be very very clever), as I'll explain and show further down this text.

***

https://ibb.co/dQaJHc

13) Different position of mirrors, very similar to final spec in 2017. More on them later down, there's a better picture to explain my thoughts.

***

https://ibb.co/cORd0x

On this picture you can see that inside surface of mirrors seems symmetrical. This would indicate only drag reduction for mirrors, in ways discussed on this thread. I honestly don't see it as an attempt to guide the air down towards the top side pod inlet, no matter how cool that would be. I'd like to see it happen, I just don't see it now.

To continue with this discussion is pointless, in my view. Those who believe mirror fairings are there to bend the airflow into top inlets (in spite of laws of aerodynamics) have the right to do so, but please don't bring down the level of discussion with (more) pointless arguments.

So both are virtually in the same place as last years car, and the distance relevant to each other?

It was people a lot brighter than i am that came up with the concept i believe, i just happen to agree.