Tiny hole in the tip of the nosecone, also appearing on other images from test 2
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Team: Mattia Binotto (CTO), Simone Resta (CD), Loic Bigois (HA), David Sanchez (CA), Jock Clear (ED), Corrado Onorato (DCD), Rory Byrne (Tech Advisor), Massimo Rivola (SD), Matteo Togninalli (CRE), Maurizio Arrivabene (TP), Sergio Marchionne (Chairman)
Drivers: Sebastian Vettel (5), Kimi Raikkonen (7), Esteban Gutierrez (reserve)
Tiny hole in the tip of the nosecone, also appearing on other images from test 2
To call someone else`s idea nonsense is the right way to go, you were doing so well up until your last paragraph.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑05 Mar 2018, 14:28The Ferrari's Top Entry Radiator Duct (TERD) alters the airflow over the sidepod and hence to the rear wing (and the top of the diffuser, to a degree). Most teams run devices on top of the sidepod (e.g. a wing-like structure /and/or VGs) to help air flow over the sidepod without separating - especially at the leading edge where the flow is being worked hard. The TERD prevents this system from being used for obvious reasons.
Normally, the mirrors will affect flow behind them to a degree - quite marked in some cases. See here how the mirror generates a vortex :https://www.totalsimulation.co.uk/wp-co ... 68x389.png
That vortex wouldn't help the TERD to entrain air in to the sidepod. So by bringing air through the mirror, Ferrari weaken the downstream effect of the mirror. The result is cleaner flow to the TERD as well as a minor reduction in drag from the mirror. The TERD benefits and the rear wing/diffuser upper surface both benefit too.
The idea that the mirror turns air in to the TERD is nonsensical when one looks at how much the flow would need to be turned.
The paper also includes images of the wind tunnel models.A reduction in the turbulent fluctuation of the wake can be observed in addition to a decrease of the recirculation region velocity. Using 2D/3C Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV), two models with different inlet sizes are tested. The large flow rate model is designed with an inlet area 4.7 times greater than the other JBT prototype. The wind tunnel experimental results show a substantial reduction in the wake width and depth for the two models, which indicates a significant drag reduction.
If they would run the same downforce levels, yes. A rear wing is, compared to the floor, a very inefficient way to generate downforce. But it's testing, they would run different levels of DF to test the car and the correlation to the sim. Having the best package for Barcelona isn't the test.Morteza wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 13:24https://imgr3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/S ... 150800.jpg
Via AMuS
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXmeAMYW4AAXc_8.jpg
Via @F1debrief
I'm still clueless.
Interesting ducting for a simple aero improvement....
Agreed, will do it soon.manchild wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 01:09If you're going to do a CFD, make it as simpe as it gets. A rectangular box with rounded front, facing the air stream at 90°, with stem/branch but without a car at all.
Than try the same with ducting trough stem/branch of approximate size and ducting towards sidepod. Both on identical speeds, let's say 100kph 200kph and 300kph. I estimate that without ducting they'll choke at 50-100kph.
the photo is not of the 2017 car?
