Scuderia Ferrari SF90

[muramasa]

The size of the Ferrari rear wing is crazy. Do you guys think that with the smaller top intake they will use a big rear wing more often or will they use a thinner one as the test progresses. It's.funny how to said he was surprised to see Ferrari make that front wing work with less AOA but not only it works but seem to balance with the barn door on the rear

Ferrari belongs to relatively bigger rear wing camp but so do RP Renault etc, I do not see how Ferrari's is particularly crazy.
Also front wing, the tapered down wings (all teams bar Merc and RBR) looks smaller but actually not, basically it's conventional wing left right reversed, ◺◿ or ◿ ◺ , so actual surface area is not so different.

[Mr.G]

The size of the Ferrari rear wing is crazy. Do you guys think that with the smaller top intake they will use a big rear wing more often or will they use a thinner one as the test progresses. It's.funny how to said he was surprised to see Ferrari make that front wing work with less AOA but not only it works but seem to balance with the barn door on the rear

Ferrari belongs to relatively bigger rear wing camp but so do RP Renault etc, I do not see how Ferrari's is particularly crazy.
Also front wing, the tapered down wings (all teams bar Merc and RBR) looks smaller but actually not, basically it's conventional wing left right reversed, ◺◿ or ◿ ◺ , so actual surface area is not so different.

But the AoA is quite different...

[matteosc]

Trying to post again...

No way an F1 team tries to have higher CoG. It must be as low as possible to reduce lateral load transfer and improve turning performance. Movements in pitch and roll are not only a function of the CoG: you can have softer suspensions and having high pitch angle under breaking with a low CoG. Then you can balance the roll with anti-roll bars. The difficult part is to tune the pitch during breaking in a proper way, since you want a car as stable as possible, for both suspension geometry and aerodynamics. The hydraulic rear suspension helps in this, but all the car needs to work together...

[muramasa]

But the AoA is quite different...

I do not see how AoA is different for ferrari RW compared to RP Renault Williams etc. Front wing as well, tapered down wings have bigger scoop up towards the center so overall there is not much difference between Merc or conventional wing in terms of average area and AoA.

[DCM]

It doesn't look much for Ferrari but Red Bull and Mercedes seem like they are not moving at all under braking!

Here is the Red Bull, just for comparison. It is a very stark difference.

http://i.picpar.com/2zhd.gif

Could simply be the way they have their suspension rebound set

[giantfan10]

The size of the Ferrari rear wing is crazy. Do you guys think that with the smaller top intake they will use a big rear wing more often or will they use a thinner one as the test progresses. It's.funny how to said he was surprised to see Ferrari make that front wing work with less AOA but not only it works but seem to balance with the barn door on the rear

Ferrari belongs to relatively bigger rear wing camp but so do RP Renault etc, I do not see how Ferrari's is particularly crazy.
Also front wing, the tapered down wings (all teams bar Merc and RBR) looks smaller but actually not, basically it's conventional wing left right reversed, ◺◿ or ◿ ◺ , so actual surface area is not so different.

I forgot where i read or saw this but the gist of it was that the portion of the 2018 front wing in front of the front wheel of the car was next to useless as far as creating downforce was concerned and most of that area was used to turn the airflow outboard of the front wheel.
the 2019 ferrari wing in essence more than likely produces the same amount of downforce using the same portion of the wing as the 2018 version with the only difference being how the outboard portion of the wing attempts to turn airflow.

[miguelalvesreis]

Regarding the tilt effect on braking and the sat effect on acceleration, can the 3rd hydraulic element consist of a couple of valves set to allow flow of some fluid at a given pressure, allowing it to sat on acceleration and, reversing the flow when the car breaks and the load on both suspension arms is lighter?



Enviado do meu SM-T820 através do Tapatalk

[roon]

[shady]

The gifs dont look like weight transfer.

Even if we get gifs with DRS, the aero load is decreasing as the car decelerates into the corner BUT the moment it closes there is an increase in the load in the rear, if the car still hops then, there there may be something. Before 2017 and the 'inovative' suspension ban the RBR during testing had a similar hop, the rear would kick up when the DRS closed which makes little sense; the car should either be neutral or squat a touch, but not kick up and lean forward.

e: Can anyone pull up Haas and see if it behaves similarly?

[Vanja #66]

No way a F1 car is trying to have a high center of gravity. They always lover it as much as possible as it improves corner performance (less weight transfer). Movements of the car has little to do with CoG height and way more to do with suspensions settings. You can have softer suspensions, increasing the pitch, and use stiffer anti-roll bars to reduce the roll (you don't want roll because of suspension geometry changes and aerodynamics). The point is being able to have the right amount of pitch and being able to control it: here the importance of the hydraulic rear suspension.

We were just joking a bit.

[SiLo]

The gifs dont look like weight transfer.

Even if we get gifs with DRS, the aero load is decreasing as the car decelerates into the corner BUT the moment it closes there is an increase in the load in the rear, if the car still hops then, there there may be something. Before 2017 and the 'inovative' suspension ban the RBR during testing had a similar hop, the rear would kick up when the DRS closed which makes little sense; the car should either be neutral or squat a touch, but not kick up and lean forward.

e: Can anyone pull up Haas and see if it behaves similarly?

I just posted this in another thread. But I watched some footage at 0.25x speed and it was clear just before they hit the brakes that the nose lifts after the DRS flap closes.

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YwY7Eir_gE
Set timestamp to 7m16s and speed to 0.25. It's quite obvious then.

[LM10]

The gifs dont look like weight transfer.

Even if we get gifs with DRS, the aero load is decreasing as the car decelerates into the corner BUT the moment it closes there is an increase in the load in the rear, if the car still hops then, there there may be something. Before 2017 and the 'inovative' suspension ban the RBR during testing had a similar hop, the rear would kick up when the DRS closed which makes little sense; the car should either be neutral or squat a touch, but not kick up and lean forward.

e: Can anyone pull up Haas and see if it behaves similarly?

Why does it make little sense? The surface area of the RW increases massively when DRS is closed. This should put the rear of the car down and logically lift the nose up. Of course this would just make sense when first DRS closes and right after that brake is applied.
Maybe a more knowledgeable person can tell if I’m completely wrong.

Edit: I think I misunderstood your post. You tell that it does make little sense that the rear of the car lifts up whereas I was referring to SiLo’s answer to your comment in which he, on the other hand, mentioned the lift up of the nose right after DRS closes.

Why do you think that lift up of the rear under braking doesn’t make sense? Every car does that to a certain extent.

[CriXus]

[Tzk]

Looks like regular load transfer to me. Maybe with a softer heave element which results in the rear lifting a bit more than merc and redbull.

[MartijnA3]

The gif was very interesting, I've merged two frames into one.