Ferrari pulled the covers off from its 2019 contender. The prancing horse did so in its annual event at its homebase in Maranello in an event where symbolism was key.
A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
When the real world error was replicated in the simulator, a test driver found the car was 0.3sec slower around Barcelona. The implication being that the car has been carrying 0.3sec-worth of mapping error for all seven races. That 0.3sec difference, apparently, pretty much tallies with the discrepancy between simulator and reality the team has been experiencing. Is this the SF90’s silver bullet that Ferrari had despaired of ever finding? Let’s see, but there is a certain suppressed excitement about the combined effect of the correction and the upgrade coming into this weekend.
... well, if they can solve that now, that would really help make the season at least on track, a lot more competitive! (I still think the points-deficit is likely too much to overcome).
well, if they can solve that now, that would really help make the season at least on track, a lot more competitive! (I still think the points-deficit is likely too much to overcome).
anyone know what exactly "the aero mapping" is in this context? different from correlation? i mean it's not just the correlation between the 60% wind tunnel model, the CFD and the track data? Something that escaped them for 7 weekends, seems weird!
But yes this could be the breakthrough they needed couldn't it, depending how long it takes them to do new parts and get them on the car
The way I read it, in testing/simulating that new front wing, they had some results that were 0,3s better than in other simulations, pointing them to where the difference between expectation and actual on track pace was.
That then matched with what a lap in the simulator for all 7 race-tracks visited in 2019 confirmed (ie. showing them the pace they had, not the pace they thought the should have had) if they used a car that showed the corrected, about +0,3s slower, pace of the car - so, pointing to them having a systematic - but apparently within a somewhat small area, when a change in FW-endplate can show it up! - miscalculation in the CFD, ie. the way the air flows around their car, that led them to design the car that way. I would guess this is something to do with slow speed corners, where they were slower than last year.
So indeed, they hadn't been able to confirm or find this, rather large, discrepancy for some three months at least (well, likely, was there all through winter, but didn't find it in winter testing, and when Australia showed - did it? - that also didn't make someone go 'ah'). But, at least serendipity has lead them to find it now.
I do have to say, having such a large but unexplained discrepancy validates some of their seeming lack of confidence since the start of the season, so let's hope now they know what's there, that helps focus them on getting the car in order.
The way I read it, in testing/simulating that new front wing, they had some results that were 0,3s better than in other simulations, pointing them to where the difference between expectation and actual on track pace was.
I do have to say, having such a large but unexplained discrepancy validates some of their seeming lack of confidence since the start of the season, so let's hope now they know what's there, that helps focus them on getting the car in order.
that sounds quite likely doesn't it, but i'm wondering if 'mapping' is significant. As I understand it, that's normally the relationships between a number of variables, i mean as one changes what all the others do, as opposed to 'correlation' which is how closely each variable is consistent across the different real and virtual environments
The way I read it, in testing/simulating that new front wing, they had some results that were 0,3s better than in other simulations, pointing them to where the difference between expectation and actual on track pace was.
I do have to say, having such a large but unexplained discrepancy validates some of their seeming lack of confidence since the start of the season, so let's hope now they know what's there, that helps focus them on getting the car in order.
that sounds quite likely doesn't it, but i'm wondering if 'mapping' is significant. As I understand it, that's normally the relationships between a number of variables, i mean as one changes what all the others do, as opposed to 'correlation' which is how closely each variable is consistent across the different real and virtual environments
That too sounds quite likely, though a bit complicated - and if you put it that way, it probably better shows why they weren't able to find it before, only getting there thanks to serendipity now as it's a complicated thing to fish out of the haystack of data.
That too sounds quite likely, though a bit complicated - and if you put it that way, it probably better shows why they weren't able to find it before, only getting there thanks to serendipity now as it's a complicated thing to fish out of the haystack of data.
Aero map will be taken to the circuit by the race engineer. Race engineers can then use these maps to help them choose the best settings for a particular wing on particular circuit. This tells him the most efficient way of obtaining a certain level of downforce or performance using the wing elements he has. If the driver wants more downforce on the rear, it shows him how best to achieve it, and then what angle of flap is required on the front wing to balance this change. It's all there on paper! Map is used to determine the effect of every single change of front ride height, car rake, front wing angle, rear wing angle, gurney flap height and yaw angle on the front downforce, rear downforce, drag and lift-to-drag ratio of the car. Basically, an aero map is aerodynamic data, signature of the specific car configuration, numbers on a piece of paper, or more likely in a computer.
On the track, data aero mapping is used to correlate in real time what the wind tunnel figures say about aero element.
this doesn't really tell us what went wrong exactly, i don't think, but something mathematical perhaps. Anyway hopefully a step in a good direction now they've found it
Asked how the new parts on the SF90 felt on Friday, Vettel admitted: "Not so good, to be honest, a lot of work ahead of us.
"Yeah, [they] didn't bring what we were expecting, so we'll see what we can try and find overnight, to maybe be a bit better off tomorrow."
Binotto:
"Not perfect," he said about the progress.
"I think we brought here some parts which were important for us to test to understand the direction of development.
"We tested a few parts, some of them will be kept on the car for the rest of the weekend so it is not an entire package that has been cancelled or not.
"A few parts will be kept and considered positive, and the ones that have been removed are considered part of our test plan but not intended to be raced for the weekend."
Binotto explained that the team would be keeping the modified brake ducts, plus the new front and rear wings, as well as other updates that were not so visible.
Mattia is saying there isn't a correlation / aero mapping issue at all. From espn.co.uk:
"I read that point but it is not true at all," Binotto said. "We do not have correlation issues. So I would say unfortunately [it's not true], because if that would have been the case then maybe we would have solved part of the performance. But it is not a correlation issue and what I read does not correspond to the truth."
