Ferrari F2012

[fritticaldi]

In the days when private testing was permitted this problem would have been corrected probably within one week. In the Ferrari-Schumacher era, Luca Badoer would test at Fiorano almost everyday.

[hardingfv32]

With all the millions of dollars they have for r&d, why on earth can they not make some sort of pulsing fan or something to simulate an exhaust in the wind tunnel model?

We do not know for sure that they can not simulate the exhaust flow in the tunnels. There are ways to use gas burners, but is the cooling capacity of the tunnel able to disipate this heat gain?

Is all this additional expense to the tunnel worth the possible gains from the latest exhaust systems? We have no idea how important the exhaust layout is this year. Look at the grid and notice all the various exhaust treatments, yet the performance spectrum is the same as last year. No one is jumping out as having an unusual performance advantage.

Also remember the teams have been using the exhaust flow for many years. They have a lot of data to draw on. The current rules may very well have neutered the importance or the exhaust location. The new rules were developed by a committee of team engineers.

Brian

[Gridlock]

OR...

The team is completely full of sh*t when they report that "correlation between the wind tunnel, CFD and the track are fine."

(If you believe they don't have issues in that realm, it pretty much forces you to believe that they don't know what they're doing.)

Exactly; they're saying "our tunnel and CFD models are also twitchy, slow and razor edge to tune, and we can't fix it".

Always be careful what you deny

I'm sure I read the new pirelli tyre profile is only different by 2-3mm seen in profile. I wonder if this is too small a change to model but big enough to mess around with actual performance.

[Chuckjr]

Wow. This is very helpful. Thank you. 

I guess considering the amount of historical aerodynamic information, experience, budget, brainpower, determination, structure, extensive time, and pressure it is almost impossible to fathom how all of that can equate to a car that is about par with Williams. Its almost impossible to be logical and say there is no correlation problem. That's almost the level conspiracy it's so impossible. Ferrari is an incredible organization that I greatly respect, but my god. 

Is it concluded the idea of their original exhaust output was to use hot, expanding, exhaust gasses to "pull" air faster through the side pod and direct it down to seal the diffuser the idea of the original? It would seem if they could figure that out, as close and directed as the Acer duct was, the car would gain well over a second, possibly two and then some, per lap? Wouldn't a seal that efficient be much tighter that Macca? Theirs is just spilling over with Coanda effect, this would be more pressurized, and thus incredibly effective, no? That would justify the reason they think they have something.

[Lycoming]

I know Mclaren at the very least has facilities to simulate the exhausts in the wind tunnel and have been doing so for some time (ie. MP4-23 ish days) but trying to simulate exhaust behavior accurately on a model like that is, I would imagine, quite difficult. I believe CFD may provide better results on that front, given the use of CFD software for things like the internals of jet engines.

[C Plinius Secundus]

Ok excellent. That really helps.

With all the millions of dollars they have for r&d, why on earth can they not make some sort of pulsing fan or something to simulate an exhaust in the wind tunnel model? Why is it not possible to make some sort of wind generating motor under the models casing (which would be hollow I assume) blowing through a 60% exhaust toob at the side pod exits? Surely something could be built to accurately simulate this? Could they not also attach a heater to it (like a million dollar blow dryer or something) so heat mapping/effect could also be modeled? Or are these reduculous considerations?

Just seems that would save them countless hours guessing on the track.

An ingenious proposal.
Some teams have computational exhaust simulation software, wich has been used for quite a while.
They could use an actual internal combustion engine, with the appropriate cubic capacity, routing the exhaust pipes to the model.
The thing is, would this really be helpful? I don't think the sensor inside the wind tunnel could cope with the extreme heat generated by an actual exhaust pipe. If the sensors don't melt, could they deliver accurate measurements?, I don't know for sure, I suspect they cannot.
If any team make this work reliably, it's quite an advantage.

[Gridlock]

I still think they wouldnt have half these problems if they hadn't built their wind tunnel using an Italian spirit level.

[Chuckjr]

LOL

I know there is a regulation that the last bit if the exhaust pipe has to be seen. Would it be legal to use some sort of thick anti burn plexiglass and bury the exhaust pipe in the tunnel of the Acer duct directing the entire output downward right in the sweet spot, and even though the pipe faces 10% up its entire output is still directed downward. That would be legal because you can see it through the high temp plastic. Sorry if that's a reduculous question. 

[Lycoming]

I believe 5.8.4 prevents that.

Also, instead of plexiglas, you could just use real glass.

[xpensive]

x,I´m well aware of this .
And to be honest i think the pull rod is not their main problem...but then alonso already bagged his win of the year already so what...
The points haul upto now would justify forking out the money to design a new tub which is essentially what they´d need .

The F2012-B will be a red MP4-27, perhaps with an even lower nose to keep the pull-rod, but with a decent geometry?

Than the F2012 will look great. I would like to see something similar, not necessary copy Mclaren. Unfortunately I don't think they will do that.

It would make some technical sense as the nose needs to come down anyway with new rules in 2014, when the pull-rod
could be back big time, while the F2012-B would get a more sensible geometry for both wishbones and pull-rod.

But most of all, it would save some face in Maranello; "We were on he right track, but we just went a little too far."

At timbo; Try to dynamically simulate the low-nose MP4-27 geometry and I will comment on that.

[banibhusan]

LOL

I know there is a regulation that the last bit if the exhaust pipe has to be seen. Would it be legal to use some sort of thick anti burn plexiglass and bury the exhaust pipe in the tunnel of the Acer duct directing the entire output downward right in the sweet spot, and even though the pipe faces 10% up its entire output is still directed downward. That would be legal because you can see it through the high temp plastic. Sorry if that's a reduculous question. 

I guess someone already suggested that idea in the early days of testing.

[Postmoe]

I can imagine that heating level around tyres and diffuser sealing are difficult to develop through WT and CFD, specially if you are bad at CFD and your main car concept is new.

I supose that at Ferrari they were expecting some level of heating and sealment at Jerez but they found they cannot handle it (that's CFD and poor conmprehension of new concepts) resulting of, probably, the rumoured tyre overheating. Once they got this problem they were pretty much --- because they needed to switch to a handmade mode.

That situation ultimately led to a non diffuser-sealed car with poor rake and an enourmous amount of drag, pitch sensititvity and no rear DF at low speeds. That is consistent with the high drag and low rake theory. The car has a bad gasses extraction in the rear and it simply won't work at low speeds, when the wing DF is also poor and dependent on how the car is switching its CoG and its DF CoG.

It seems to me data in Oz was crucial, as their handmade approach gave some results and they decided to make a big step in three thirds during three races, acording to surprisingly accurate twitter rumours.

I think that they will seal the diffuser at all means, because no car has reached a 2010-2012 superiority. What rivals have done is finding a decent level of DF in a straight way to have a good relative aero efficiency. Not a lot more.

What I find rather funny is that these problems would have been much less dramatic with a F150º Bspec. It's funny how media pressure can change things. A F150 B evolving towards a F2012 with the Mugello test and Barcelona race would have been a very interesting approach.

[timbo]

At timbo; Try to dynamically simulate the low-nose MP4-27 geometry and I will comment on that.

Oh my, why not MP4-13? You kept repeating that Ferrari should change pull-rod for push-rod, is it now that they must have flatter angles at the wishbones? Well, where is some sense in that, but a lot of cars this year and last year all have funny angles and seem to cope with it.

[xpensive]

...
Well, where is some sense in that, but a lot of cars this year and last year all have funny angles and seem to cope with it.

Xcept for those with pull-rods that is?

[timbo]

...
Well, where is some sense in that, but a lot of cars this year and last year all have funny angles and seem to cope with it.

Xcept for those with pull-rods that is?

So, once again, you said pull-rod have less movement than pull-rod, I shown it is not true. What's wrong with pull-rod?