Ferrari F138

[tony77g]

This is the Grand Prix of Japan has always been there

[Matt Somers]

Thanks Stefan I actually hadn't realised they'd been mounting it on the older spec conditioners

[emmepi27]

They are running with pre-season monkey seat

[emmepi27]

Both cars with new barge boards and old monkey seat:

[stefan_]

Brazil 2013 - Saturday (23.11.2013)

[Huntresa]

So in the last race of the year Ferrari manages to make an update stick, thats quite amazing

[Matt Somers]

A little video showing the vortices present during FP1 including the formation of the Front Wing flap Vortices..

http://telly.com/1F9AXX6

[shelly]

Nice movie - it seems to confirm that the front flap vortex on the f138 is more affected by instabilities compared to the rb9.
Would be nice to have a full sequence on a fixed part of the track to compare cars in the same condition; maybe the race today if it does not rain will give us that opportunity

[PlatinumZealot]

Sometimes mediocre cars are not so mediocre in the wet... so will see..

[timbo]

Nice movie - it seems to confirm that the front flap vortex on the f138 is more affected by instabilities compared to the rb9.

They seem to use completely different flow structure. The thin vortex on RB is created by a curved up inner edge of the front wing upper flap. Ferrari creates bigger vortex with the edge of the both flaps.

[emmepi27]

The last "rolling battle"

[321apex]

re: "The last "rolling battle""
From this picture it is clearly visible to the naked eye, that RB has less projected cross-sectional height of the rear wing. To be sure, I expanded the picture on my monitor and made a simple measurement.
Relative measurements - Ferrari RW height is 27.0mm, whereas RB is 21.7mm

In absolute terms - 21.7/27x100%=80%

In my opinion that is significant. To put it in words now. RB runs significantly less RW downforce, while it is notably faster over a lapped distance. Which means, that it gets it's downforce elsewhere or perhaps as someone wrote on RB page - it's body package has LESS uplifting effect in the wind.

[turbof1]

It also doesn't have a Y75 winglet. It is save to say the red bull still has more downforce.

I am not convinced that the uplift makes the difference here. It is a combination of several things: better exhaust gas control, better vortex control, better packaging, better internal airflow... . Red bull just sits on a higher step on the technological ladder concerning aero. Back in the early 2000's ferrari also had that step ahead on everybody else; there wasn't a silver bullet that they found; it was the complete car being 1 year ahead of the competition.

[321apex]

re: "I am not convinced that the uplift makes the difference here."

To be sure, any vehicle/car in the flowing air generates uplift from the upper body surface AND downforce from added design elements such as wings, diffusers, ground effects, etc.

The sum of those determines how much NET downforce the wheels feel. As an example, 500 kg of combined front/rear wing/diffuser downforce minused by 300kg of body up-lift force yields 200kg of net push at the wheels. Body of any vehicle is not flat on top, as a result it must be subject to the same fluid dynamics rules as an airfoil of an airplane - generating some lift.

What is being suggested is that Newey is far better in managing the amount of body uplift his design generates.

[turbof1]

re: "I am not convinced that the uplift makes the difference here."

To be sure, any vehicle/car in the flowing air generates uplift from the upper body surface AND downforce from added design elements such as wings, diffusers, ground effects, etc.

The sum of those determines how much NET downforce the wheels feel. As an example, 500 kg of combined front/rear wing/diffuser downforce minused by 300kg of body up-lift force yields 200kg of net push at the wheels. Body of any vehicle is not flat on top, as a result it must be subject to the same fluid dynamics rules as an airfoil of an airplane - generating some lift.

What is being suggested is that Newey is far better in managing the amount of body uplift his design generates.

I know what is meant . Basicilly you reduce uplift by lowering the pressure zones underneath and raising them on top. Still I don't believe that that is making the difference. Might be part of it, but based purely on body uplift I don't think you can gain that kind of advantage. You could argue that a better working diffuser is in essence a better management of uplift due you accelerate air underneath, thus loweing pressure and by that reducing lift. But it isn't common to speak in that case of "less uplift". Neither are we doing that when we speak about downforce. You'd only add downforce if it produced more pressure on top of it then below it.