Ferrari side pod aero

[hardingfv32]

If you want more flow routed under the floor, why not remove the floor shelf/splitter below this area? Would this not just be a case of increased pressure making more downforce on top of the floor shelf/splitter?

Brian

[stez90]

For sure they use high pressure above floor to gain downforce, but i think that in f1 they try to use all the advantages that a solution can give, not focusing on only one aspect. So probably there is something else..

[wesley123]

I disagree about packaging being the cause for that shape. See the example I have cited: aero is the driving factor especilly for changes like this or those I cited, which happened mid season with no systems repackaging.

I know this is the case, but like stated I believe this is the best in worst solutions.

[/quote]Putting boxes in that zone is standard - I think the boxes have not changed, just their fairing has, of course going wider instead than tighter. But going wider you build an igher pressure in that zone a force a bit more air under the floor.[/quote]
You want as little air under the floor and the air you got there you certainly dont want to be forced. You suggesting mixing high pressure flow and bleed it into an area where as low pressure flow as possible is desired.

[wesley123]

If you want more flow routed under the floor, why not remove the floor shelf/splitter below this area? Would this not just be a case of increased pressure making more downforce on top of the floor shelf/splitter?

Brian

Because you dont want more air routed below the floor

[flynfrog]

If you want more flow routed under the floor, why not remove the floor shelf/splitter below this area? Would this not just be a case of increased pressure making more downforce on top of the floor shelf/splitter?

Brian

Because you dont want more air routed below the floor

you would want the highest mass possible at the front end of the diffuser.

[shelly]

I agree with flyingfrog. wesley: why do you think one would want as little air as possible under the floor? It is the opposite: the more air under the floor, the better

[wesley123]

You'd want as low possible pressure under the floor. Forcing air under the floor by bleeding under it wont help anything, and high pressure flow is even worse.

[superdread]

You'd want as low possible pressure under the floor. Forcing air under the floor by bleeding under it wont help anything, and high pressure flow is even worse.

You want a low static pressure, so the air has to be as fast as possible. But massflow is not very beneficial till you come to the diffuser which creates more downforce and less drag the more air you move through it. Sacrificing downforce in the middle of the car (who would need it there?) pays off.

[wesley123]

Thanks for the explaination. Thought it was also done by as little flow as possible(like in a vacuum), but I guess that isnt applicable here

[superdread]

Thanks for the explaination. Thought it was also done by as little flow as possible(like in a vacuum), but I guess that isnt applicable here

That was the idea behind the first ground effect cars (the ones with the skirts) and the fan cars, they tried to have as little air mass as possible under the car. But they also didn't have diffusers.

A question: As comes to DF-for-drag is ground effect (and by extension suction assisted ground effect) more efficient than a diffuser?

[Nando]

You can see Red Bull almost fusing the sidepod and the floor to i guess try and spill out some of the air and get it under the car instead?
There isn´t much left of the floor at the sidepods widest area.

[mep]

you assumed wrong it is because of internal packaging.

Eelectronics etc. are located in that area. And yes they have required this space in the past. Actually I do not know of a ferrari that doesnt have that area like this

I am really surprised how you can make statements with such a certainty.
The fact that there are electronics behind does not mean it is for packaging reasons. It is a question what was first: The chicken or the egg? The bulky shape or the electronics?

It is quite save to say that almost everything on a F1 car is done for aerodynamic reasons. Especially when where are talking about such a critical and even big area like the intake to the floor and to the radiator. The reason for aerodynamic shapes is often not obvious. First thing to note is that even though it does look bulky the flow around it is actually very linear and nicely controlled. The area is especially critical because some of the excessive air coming from the high nose has to be guided around the side pots. The slightly higher pressure generated there can push on the short extension of the floor and produce a little bit of downforce. It will also help to have high pressure in front of the floor to make sure mass flow is entering the floor from the front. Air pushed in there can already have higher velocity and therefore lower static pressure. Also note how the black surface coming from the middle of the car is twisted. This can bring the air into a rotation. The area is nicely designed but only for aero purpose. If the electronics behind it are disturbing they would be placed somewhere else, even if they had to be placed higher. A slight increase in CoG height is of minor importance than aerodynamic efficiency as can be seen with the high nose design.

But massflow is not very beneficial till you come to the diffuser which creates more downforce and less drag the more air you move through it. Sacrificing downforce in the middle of the car (who would need it there?) pays off.

The center of pressure location is somewhere around the center of gravity so you actually need the sum of the downforce to be in the middle of the car.

[superdread]

But massflow is not very beneficial till you come to the diffuser which creates more downforce and less drag the more air you move through it. Sacrificing downforce in the middle of the car (who would need it there?) pays off.

The center of pressure location is somewhere around the center of gravity so you actually need the sum of the downforce to be in the middle of the car.

But when you create it there you cannot adjust balance that easily and you put more stress on the chassis. Best solution is to create downforce where it's needed in the end (at the tires) or near them (e.g. splitter).

[wesley123]

you assumed wrong it is because of internal packaging.

Eelectronics etc. are located in that area. And yes they have required this space in the past. Actually I do not know of a ferrari that doesnt have that area like this

I am really surprised how you can make statements with such a certainty.
The fact that there are electronics behind does not mean it is for packaging reasons. It is a question what was first: The chicken or the egg? The bulky shape or the electronics?

It is quite save to say that almost everything on a F1 car is done for aerodynamic reasons. Especially when where are talking about such a critical and even big area like the intake to the floor and to the radiator. The reason for aerodynamic shapes is often not obvious. First thing to note is that even though it does look bulky the flow around it is actually very linear and nicely controlled. The area is especially critical because some of the excessive air coming from the high nose has to be guided around the side pots. The slightly higher pressure generated there can push on the short extension of the floor and produce a little bit of downforce. It will also help to have high pressure in front of the floor to make sure mass flow is entering the floor from the front. Air pushed in there can already have higher velocity and therefore lower static pressure. Also note how the black surface coming from the middle of the car is twisted. This can bring the air into a rotation. The area is nicely designed but only for aero purpose. If the electronics behind it are disturbing they would be placed somewhere else, even if they had to be placed higher. A slight increase in CoG height is of minor importance than aerodynamic efficiency as can be seen with the high nose design.

I understand what you are saying. But like I explained further I believe it is packaged there because it is the best of bad solutions. Place it further back and ou got less of a coke bottle. Place it higher and you got a CoG disadvantage as well as fatter top bodywork. I believe it is best to house the electronics here.

The high pressure happening in this area might be used benificial, but from last year didnt Ringo name the smooth shape of the Red bull as an advantage for much lower drag? A thing most of us agreed with?

I certainly do believe that no team would have gone with a shape like this if there was nothing to be housed there, although I would love to be proven otherwise

[wesley123]

But massflow is not very beneficial till you come to the diffuser which creates more downforce and less drag the more air you move through it. Sacrificing downforce in the middle of the car (who would need it there?) pays off.

The center of pressure location is somewhere around the center of gravity so you actually need the sum of the downforce to be in the middle of the car.

But when you create it there you cannot adjust balance that easily and you put more stress on the chassis. Best solution is to create downforce where it's needed in the end (at the tires) or near them (e.g. splitter).

I dont believe it is really possible to create the df at the tire. They do it yes with the winglets there, but that is about the maximum. Imo best would be to create max downforce everywhere with the bodyshape, you can easily use the wings to balance it out. A possible plus to this might be less sensitive wings as they dont need to be pushed to extremely high angles.