Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

[roon]

They could word the mirror mounting regs akin to suspension arm regs and the front wing neutral section. "No more than one member connecting..." "No redundant connections..." "...the singular mirror supporting stalk must have a normal cross section of the following coordinates..." "The singular mirror supporting stalk must be no longer than..."

But that wouldn't be any fun.

[Vanja #66]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/why- ... 37543/?s=1

Mr Gary A:

Ferrari has opened a can of worms by becoming the first team to move its rear-view mirror mountings from the chassis to the halo.

Clearly, its objective was to get a higher-mounted turning vane to help pull more mass airflow down into the top opening of the sidepods.

This upper turning vane is quite a distance from that opening, but getting the flow to turn in that direction means that the low pressure behind the internal radiator will pull airflow into the inlet duct, and hence through the radiator.

I am 100% bamboozled.

[Sevach]

Still on to that "air into the radiator" theory rather than the obvious clean airflow to the rear wing.

[DiogoBrand]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/why- ... 37543/?s=1

Mr Gary A:

Ferrari has opened a can of worms by becoming the first team to move its rear-view mirror mountings from the chassis to the halo.

Clearly, its objective was to get a higher-mounted turning vane to help pull more mass airflow down into the top opening of the sidepods.

This upper turning vane is quite a distance from that opening, but getting the flow to turn in that direction means that the low pressure behind the internal radiator will pull airflow into the inlet duct, and hence through the radiator.

I am 100% bamboozled.

That "turn air into the radiator" theory was bad at the start of the season with the hollow mirror, but acceptable. Now they're saying that a flap half a meter above the inlet will turn air into the radiator? WTF?

Also, if people think Ferrari's sidepods are in such desperate need of appendages to guide the air in, why didn't they have anything for that purpose last year?

[roon]

Think of it like a stacked wing--biplane, triplane setup. As in aircraft. The air deflected by the mirror and winglet will not directly flow into the radiator. But it will influence the volume of air beneath those components; that volume of air which does flow into the radiator. This is what I argued earlier in the thread.

...consider that the lift-producing profile of the mirror will direct air downward. This will also influence the flow field around it. The air passing through the mirror may not make it to the radiator inlet, but the air beneath it may.

If the mirrors aren't being used to direct airflow into the top sidepod intake than can someone explain why they would have a downward swooping trailing edge to them?

[trinidefender]

I'm really not a fan of how the FIA is dealing with this wing mirror issue. They are introducing subjective criteria into the regulations. I guess the best they can do is try to come up with wording that allows the mirrors to be attached to the halo and should a team be able to find a loophole then so be it, just change the wording if that is the case.

Half of game in F2 has always been about looking for loopholes in the regs.

[roon]

The aero cone ahead of all the the mirrors used in F1 in recent decades, is not integral to the function of the mirror. It is redundant bodywork which exists only for aero benefit, and should therefore be banned. F1 mirrors should henceforth resemble the following.

[DiogoBrand]

Think of it like a stacked wing--biplane, triplane setup. As in aircraft. The air deflected by the mirror and winglet will not directly flow into the radiator. But it will influence the volume of air beneath those components; that volume of air which does flow into the radiator. This is what I argued earlier in the thread.

...consider that the lift-producing profile of the mirror will direct air downward. This will also influence the flow field around it. The air passing through the mirror may not make it to the radiator inlet, but the air beneath it may.

https://i.imgur.com/XppVpsa.jpg

If the mirrors aren't being used to direct airflow into the top sidepod intake than can someone explain why they would have a downward swooping trailing edge to them?
http://i.imgur.com/O2atIaZ.jpg

There is a downward facing surface, but it doesn't point even remotely at the air inlet. If you had taken the time at the CFD studies that were shown at this very forum you'd have seen that the turbulence it creates will actually flow over the sidepod, and will make roughly the same function of the vortex generators that other teams put behind their air intakes.

The aero cone ahead of all the the mirrors used in F1 in recent decades, is not integral to the function of the mirror. It is redundant bodywork which exists only for aero benefit, and should therefore be banned. F1 mirrors should henceforth resemble the following.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... OqNYe0bBnS

https://www.carid.com/ic/k-source/side- ... 1401_6.jpg

I'm really not sure what's your point here. But the regulations clearly state that there's a 20mm space around the halo to fit aerodynamic devices to reduce its negative effects in aerodynamics.
The Ferrari mirror, and especially the flap above it, are aerodynamic devices fitted to the halo which go far beyond those 20mm. You don't even need to change the regulations to outlaw it.

[Nickel]

The issue isn't that the mirror is attached to the halo, it's the secondary wing above it. This wing or turning cane is being banned due to its sole purpose being aerodynamic and not having any mirror related function. Thus, the post about the mirror shroud is kind of relevant...

[graham.reeds]

It's easy to test. Charlie tells Ferrari to remove the black "support" and then do 10 laps at race speeds. If it breaks then they can keep it. If it doesn't break then it is banned because it is not a support but an aero aid.

[Holm86]

I think there is still a possibility they could keep the function of the winglet, by letting the mirror stalk connect to the outside of the mirror instead of the inside, then it would only have one connection point.

So the stalk goes out from the halo, and then above the mirror, and connects the the outside point, so the part af the stalk that runs above the mirror, could be used as a winglet, diverting air to the rear wing??

Edit* rough sketch added

[djones]

Anybody seen a picture yet of what mirror config they are using in testing?

[MtthsMlw]

Anybody seen a picture yet of what mirror config they are using in testing?

The new one.

[marvin78]

Perhaps the old one landed in the trash?!

[pimpwerx]

It's easy to test. Charlie tells Ferrari to remove the black "support" and then do 10 laps at race speeds. If it breaks then they can keep it. If it doesn't break then it is banned because it is not a support but an aero aid.

Can't put it past the team sabotaging the structural integrity of the mirror housing to prove their point.

This is a simple "spirit of the rule" issue. Whiting's explanation fits that pretty perfectly. The only thing that wing would be supporting is the flexing of the mirror housing. Mirror housings haven't had flex issues, it's always the mounting pylon itself. This should never have cleared scrutineering, but it would have required a lot of effort to undo in a race weekend.