CFD - 2022 Ferrari F1-75 (sidepod analysis)

[Tzk]

Might this be a reason why Mercedes’ used bigger wings than other teams in the past?

Very interesting nevertheless. I didn’t expect the huge side pods to actually give less drag on the whole car. So we can expect that Ferrari, Aston and the likes went with less df and a more efficient car than Merc?

[LM10]

Might this be a reason why Mercedes’ used bigger wings than other teams in the past?

Very interesting nevertheless. I didn’t expect the huge side pods to actually give less drag on the whole car. So we can expect that Ferrari, Aston and the likes went with less df and a more efficient car than Merc?

Aston Martin has different sidepods and overall concept than Ferrari.

[Fer.Fan]

As promised, here are the results for W13-like sidepods as well. Once again, I opted mostly for comparisons, that's really the most interesting and the most relevant for us. To avoid any confusion, as we can discuss these concepts only to an extent - since we don't have actual geometries with all the details - let's call them tub-pods and micro-pods.

https://i.ibb.co/sqXQXK9/comp1-iso.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/ZgPpS4S/comp-iso-detail.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/R78VY64/comp1-iso-details.jpg

Both simulations had their problems with various eddies and separations where probably there isn't any. With that in mind, I'm happy that both had roughly the same amount of problematic areas. Micro-pods are really slim and really low drag altogether, lot less than tub-sidepods percentage wise. I've added the rear part of engine cover to sidepod surface to have a better comparison base, I think it can be seen easily.

As can be seen on iso views, the rear tyre of micro-pods has a larger stagnation zone. It naturally had comparatively more drag as well. This was unexpected for me, as micro-pods, just like W13, feature an outwash "flick" along the inlet and I expected this is used to throw the air out and let it hit the tyre. It might as well be that other W13 elements help with this and the overall effect is better, but this is what we have. Sidepod and rear-tyre mixed together - tub-pods are slightly less draggy.

https://i.ibb.co/TrBZgbV/comp1-top.jpg

From the top view, the difference is astonishing and one could easily confuse these two cars for completely different series. Micro-pods, being micro, leave a large floor surface exposed, where the air can slow down a bit and build up some pressure to add to the overall downforce. And this is not insignificant over such a large surface.

However, for some reason the top surface of the rear wing generates less downforce, being "less red" This was also unexpected for me and I couldn't find the proper reason for this. Seeing these results gives another angle at why W13 has such a huge rear wing angle over the entire span, along with the huge airbox.

https://i.ibb.co/VLhYhF4/comp1-vplot-0-3m.jpg

This is a velocity plot at 0.3m above ground, just like before. The difference is huge and very telling on just how different these cars actually are. The way the slow air hits the rear tyre affects a lot of different areas as well, such as diffuser sealing, diffuser and floor overall, maybe even rear wing to some extent.

Overall, micro-pods-car generated more downforce and more drag, for those who believe this information might be valuable. I won't mention downforce and drag percentages and such, but I think it could be noted that the difference in drag is twice as big as the downforce difference - meaning micro-pods-car generated more downforce but with lower downforce/drag ratio.

Well done Vanja
Which car would you choose? W13 or F1-75? Based on your input and information?

[jumpingfish]

Great research and interesting results, thank you

[timoth]

As promised, here are the results for W13-like sidepods as well. Once again, I opted mostly for comparisons, that's really the most interesting and the most relevant for us. To avoid any confusion, as we can discuss these concepts only to an extent - since we don't have actual geometries with all the details - let's call them tub-pods and micro-pods.

https://i.ibb.co/sqXQXK9/comp1-iso.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/ZgPpS4S/comp-iso-detail.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/R78VY64/comp1-iso-details.jpg

Both simulations had their problems with various eddies and separations where probably there isn't any. With that in mind, I'm happy that both had roughly the same amount of problematic areas. Micro-pods are really slim and really low drag altogether, lot less than tub-sidepods percentage wise. I've added the rear part of engine cover to sidepod surface to have a better comparison base, I think it can be seen easily.

As can be seen on iso views, the rear tyre of micro-pods has a larger stagnation zone. It naturally had comparatively more drag as well. This was unexpected for me, as micro-pods, just like W13, feature an outwash "flick" along the inlet and I expected this is used to throw the air out and let it hit the tyre. It might as well be that other W13 elements help with this and the overall effect is better, but this is what we have. Sidepod and rear-tyre mixed together - tub-pods are slightly less draggy.

https://i.ibb.co/TrBZgbV/comp1-top.jpg

From the top view, the difference is astonishing and one could easily confuse these two cars for completely different series. Micro-pods, being micro, leave a large floor surface exposed, where the air can slow down a bit and build up some pressure to add to the overall downforce. And this is not insignificant over such a large surface.

However, for some reason the top surface of the rear wing generates less downforce, being "less red" This was also unexpected for me and I couldn't find the proper reason for this. Seeing these results gives another angle at why W13 has such a huge rear wing angle over the entire span, along with the huge airbox.

https://i.ibb.co/VLhYhF4/comp1-vplot-0-3m.jpg

This is a velocity plot at 0.3m above ground, just like before. The difference is huge and very telling on just how different these cars actually are. The way the slow air hits the rear tyre affects a lot of different areas as well, such as diffuser sealing, diffuser and floor overall, maybe even rear wing to some extent.

Overall, micro-pods-car generated more downforce and more drag, for those who believe this information might be valuable. I won't mention downforce and drag percentages and such, but I think it could be noted that the difference in drag is twice as big as the downforce difference - meaning micro-pods-car generated more downforce but with lower downforce/drag ratio.

Thank you for the effort vanja.
Can I ask your opinion about the following reasoning? Do you think it's justified?

It seems so counterintuitive that these massive sidepods produce less drag. But when you consider that tires were responsible for about 40% of the total drag of the car until last year and with the new cars, not only the diameter of the tires increased, but also the bodywork of the new cars produce less drag, so you expect the tires to be responsible for more than 40% of the drag (maybe even the majority of the drag). So focusing to reduce the drag created by tires may not be a bad choice actually.

[Vanja #66]

Any reason why the W13 sidepods were placed so far back? From the images I've seen it seems that the inlets should be further forward, in line with the cockpit opening/steering wheel.

While I can't say all the details are perfect, I was very careful about the inlet placement and I can guarantee it is within 20mm of the real thing. The halo is a very nice reference and I used it as much as possible.

Well done Vanja
Which car would you choose? W13 or F1-75? Based on your input and information?

Very different cars and I can't make any kind of educated guess even with this information. I would say F1-75, not because of sidepods but because of tiny airbox. I think working the rear wing will be even more important for the floor performance with these cars and a small airbox has a lot of benefits.

Thank you for the effort vanja.
Can I ask your opinion about the following reasoning? Do you think it's justified?

It seems so counterintuitive that these massive sidepods produce less drag. But when you consider that tires were responsible for about 40% of the total drag of the car until last year and with the new cars, not only the diameter of the tires increased, but also the bodywork of the new cars produce less drag, so you expect the tires to be responsible for more than 40% of the drag (maybe even the majority of the drag). So focusing to reduce the drag created by tires may not be a bad choice actually.

I feel that's very safe to say. Front tyres no longer have complex wing arches ahead of them and multiple vortices hitting them to reduce drag and all kinds of things. This means total tyre drag is even bigger from the start and not much you can do about front tyres obviously. So to focus on reducing rear tyre drag seems very desirable.

[Just_a_fan]

As promised, here are the results for W13-like sidepods as well. Once again, I opted mostly for comparisons, that's really the most interesting and the most relevant for us. To avoid any confusion, as we can discuss these concepts only to an extent - since we don't have actual geometries with all the details - let's call them tub-pods and micro-pods.

https://i.ibb.co/sqXQXK9/comp1-iso.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/ZgPpS4S/comp-iso-detail.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/R78VY64/comp1-iso-details.jpg

Both simulations had their problems with various eddies and separations where probably there isn't any. With that in mind, I'm happy that both had roughly the same amount of problematic areas. Micro-pods are really slim and really low drag altogether, lot less than tub-sidepods percentage wise. I've added the rear part of engine cover to sidepod surface to have a better comparison base, I think it can be seen easily.

As can be seen on iso views, the rear tyre of micro-pods has a larger stagnation zone. It naturally had comparatively more drag as well. This was unexpected for me, as micro-pods, just like W13, feature an outwash "flick" along the inlet and I expected this is used to throw the air out and let it hit the tyre. It might as well be that other W13 elements help with this and the overall effect is better, but this is what we have. Sidepod and rear-tyre mixed together - tub-pods are slightly less draggy.

https://i.ibb.co/TrBZgbV/comp1-top.jpg

From the top view, the difference is astonishing and one could easily confuse these two cars for completely different series. Micro-pods, being micro, leave a large floor surface exposed, where the air can slow down a bit and build up some pressure to add to the overall downforce. And this is not insignificant over such a large surface.

However, for some reason the top surface of the rear wing generates less downforce, being "less red" This was also unexpected for me and I couldn't find the proper reason for this. Seeing these results gives another angle at why W13 has such a huge rear wing angle over the entire span, along with the huge airbox.

https://i.ibb.co/VLhYhF4/comp1-vplot-0-3m.jpg

This is a velocity plot at 0.3m above ground, just like before. The difference is huge and very telling on just how different these cars actually are. The way the slow air hits the rear tyre affects a lot of different areas as well, such as diffuser sealing, diffuser and floor overall, maybe even rear wing to some extent.

Overall, micro-pods-car generated more downforce and more drag, for those who believe this information might be valuable. I won't mention downforce and drag percentages and such, but I think it could be noted that the difference in drag is twice as big as the downforce difference - meaning micro-pods-car generated more downforce but with lower downforce/drag ratio.

Interesting analysis. It's limited by having the wrong floors on both, of course.

The Mercedes has a large "bargeboard" fence on top of the outer strake, along with the infamous ripple floor edge. The Ferrari also has its own details.

No doubt these items - especially the big fence on the floor - have an important impact on the airflow around the rear of the floor.

Everyone who, in future, cites your project as "evidence" of the failings of one design or another needs to remember these variations between your models and the real things.

+1 vote from me.

[cooken]

Any reason why the W13 sidepods were placed so far back? From the images I've seen it seems that the inlets should be further forward, in line with the cockpit opening/steering wheel.

While I can't say all the details are perfect, I was very careful about the inlet placement and I can guarantee it is within 20mm of the real thing. The halo is a very nice reference and I used it as much as possible.

Cheers for that. Appreciate your efforts on this, and equally your considerate replies!

[Mchamilton]

As promised, here are the results for W13-like sidepods as well. Once again, I opted mostly for comparisons, that's really the most interesting and the most relevant for us. To avoid any confusion, as we can discuss these concepts only to an extent - since we don't have actual geometries with all the details - let's call them tub-pods and micro-pods.

https://i.ibb.co/sqXQXK9/comp1-iso.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/ZgPpS4S/comp-iso-detail.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/R78VY64/comp1-iso-details.jpg

Both simulations had their problems with various eddies and separations where probably there isn't any. With that in mind, I'm happy that both had roughly the same amount of problematic areas. Micro-pods are really slim and really low drag altogether, lot less than tub-sidepods percentage wise. I've added the rear part of engine cover to sidepod surface to have a better comparison base, I think it can be seen easily.

As can be seen on iso views, the rear tyre of micro-pods has a larger stagnation zone. It naturally had comparatively more drag as well. This was unexpected for me, as micro-pods, just like W13, feature an outwash "flick" along the inlet and I expected this is used to throw the air out and let it hit the tyre. It might as well be that other W13 elements help with this and the overall effect is better, but this is what we have. Sidepod and rear-tyre mixed together - tub-pods are slightly less draggy.

https://i.ibb.co/TrBZgbV/comp1-top.jpg

From the top view, the difference is astonishing and one could easily confuse these two cars for completely different series. Micro-pods, being micro, leave a large floor surface exposed, where the air can slow down a bit and build up some pressure to add to the overall downforce. And this is not insignificant over such a large surface.

However, for some reason the top surface of the rear wing generates less downforce, being "less red" This was also unexpected for me and I couldn't find the proper reason for this. Seeing these results gives another angle at why W13 has such a huge rear wing angle over the entire span, along with the huge airbox.

https://i.ibb.co/VLhYhF4/comp1-vplot-0-3m.jpg

This is a velocity plot at 0.3m above ground, just like before. The difference is huge and very telling on just how different these cars actually are. The way the slow air hits the rear tyre affects a lot of different areas as well, such as diffuser sealing, diffuser and floor overall, maybe even rear wing to some extent.

Overall, micro-pods-car generated more downforce and more drag, for those who believe this information might be valuable. I won't mention downforce and drag percentages and such, but I think it could be noted that the difference in drag is twice as big as the downforce difference - meaning micro-pods-car generated more downforce but with lower downforce/drag ratio.

Would you be able to get some images of the flows higher up? More inline with the sidepod "bargeboards" and wing mirror turning vane?

[LM10]

Interesting analysis. It's limited by having the wrong floors on both, of course.

The Mercedes has a large "bargeboard" fence on top of the outer strake, along with the infamous ripple floor edge. The Ferrari also has its own details.

No doubt these items - especially the big fence on the floor - have an important impact on the airflow around the rear of the floor.

Everyone who, in future, cites your project as "evidence" of the failings of one design or another needs to remember these variations between your models and the real things.

+1 vote from me.

Of course Mercedes found ways to decrease the drag in front of the rear tyres. But I think the main objective of the CFD analysis was to show the differences between both sidepod concepts. And the thing is that the tub-sidepod itself already leads to less drag in front of the rear tyres, without considering any additional flaps or “bargeboards”.

Isn’t it fascinating that one of the chunkiest cars on the grid produces overall less drag than the slimmest car?

[Just_a_fan]

Interesting analysis. It's limited by having the wrong floors on both, of course.

The Mercedes has a large "bargeboard" fence on top of the outer strake, along with the infamous ripple floor edge. The Ferrari also has its own details.

No doubt these items - especially the big fence on the floor - have an important impact on the airflow around the rear of the floor.

Everyone who, in future, cites your project as "evidence" of the failings of one design or another needs to remember these variations between your models and the real things.

+1 vote from me.

Of course Mercedes found ways to decrease the drag in front of the rear tyres. But I think the main objective of the CFD analysis was to show the differences between both sidepod concepts. And the thing is that the tub-sidepod itself already leads to less drag in front of the rear tyres, without considering any additional flaps or “bargeboards”.

Isn’t it fascinating that one of the chunkiest cars on the grid produces overall less drag than the slimmest car?

In a simulation that doesn't simulate the actual cars? Yes, it's fascinating. The problem is that people will take this forward and say "this is proof" without understanding the very important limitations of the models and thus the relevance of the results to the real cars.

If the Mercedes car has more downforce and then uses the extra bits to deal with the drag, then it's a "better" design.

But we can't know any of that from this study.

It would be great if the real cars could be modelled, but there's no way our CFD gurus will have enough detail to do that.

With any simulation / model, we must always remember it's a simulation / model with assumptions and simplifications in it. That always colours the outcome and needs to be remembered when using the results.

[NoDivergence]

Interesting analysis. It's limited by having the wrong floors on both, of course.

The Mercedes has a large "bargeboard" fence on top of the outer strake, along with the infamous ripple floor edge. The Ferrari also has its own details.

No doubt these items - especially the big fence on the floor - have an important impact on the airflow around the rear of the floor.

Everyone who, in future, cites your project as "evidence" of the failings of one design or another needs to remember these variations between your models and the real things.

+1 vote from me.

Of course Mercedes found ways to decrease the drag in front of the rear tyres. But I think the main objective of the CFD analysis was to show the differences between both sidepod concepts. And the thing is that the tub-sidepod itself already leads to less drag in front of the rear tyres, without considering any additional flaps or “bargeboards”.

Isn’t it fascinating that one of the chunkiest cars on the grid produces overall less drag than the slimmest car?

You can't make that assertion for sidepods based on this kind of modeling. If the Merc floor/front wing/flap adjuster/tunnel strakes push more outwash than is shown here, the total end result can be flipped. Less stagnation on the rear tire. Vortices are important, we've seen that in the past years of aero development. This analysis likely has completely different vorticity and position.

Also, isn't the Ferrari sidepod inlets way smaller than they really are on the actual car? They look same volume as the Merc or even smaller here, whereas the real one is massively bigger than Merc. Not to mention the sidepod in the model for Merc has significantly less downwash and more mid sidepod weight than the actual W13.

Honestly having standardized floors/swings/suspension/wings doesn't tell you anything about these concepts. The base level is so far from the optimized level that it doesn't offer much in terms of comparing sidepod concepts

[mantikos]

As promised, here are the results for W13-like sidepods as well. Once again, I opted mostly for comparisons, that's really the most interesting and the most relevant for us. To avoid any confusion, as we can discuss these concepts only to an extent - since we don't have actual geometries with all the details - let's call them tub-pods and micro-pods.

https://i.ibb.co/sqXQXK9/comp1-iso.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/ZgPpS4S/comp-iso-detail.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/R78VY64/comp1-iso-details.jpg

Both simulations had their problems with various eddies and separations where probably there isn't any. With that in mind, I'm happy that both had roughly the same amount of problematic areas. Micro-pods are really slim and really low drag altogether, lot less than tub-sidepods percentage wise. I've added the rear part of engine cover to sidepod surface to have a better comparison base, I think it can be seen easily.

As can be seen on iso views, the rear tyre of micro-pods has a larger stagnation zone. It naturally had comparatively more drag as well. This was unexpected for me, as micro-pods, just like W13, feature an outwash "flick" along the inlet and I expected this is used to throw the air out and let it hit the tyre. It might as well be that other W13 elements help with this and the overall effect is better, but this is what we have. Sidepod and rear-tyre mixed together - tub-pods are slightly less draggy.

https://i.ibb.co/TrBZgbV/comp1-top.jpg

From the top view, the difference is astonishing and one could easily confuse these two cars for completely different series. Micro-pods, being micro, leave a large floor surface exposed, where the air can slow down a bit and build up some pressure to add to the overall downforce. And this is not insignificant over such a large surface.

However, for some reason the top surface of the rear wing generates less downforce, being "less red" This was also unexpected for me and I couldn't find the proper reason for this. Seeing these results gives another angle at why W13 has such a huge rear wing angle over the entire span, along with the huge airbox.

https://i.ibb.co/VLhYhF4/comp1-vplot-0-3m.jpg

This is a velocity plot at 0.3m above ground, just like before. The difference is huge and very telling on just how different these cars actually are. The way the slow air hits the rear tyre affects a lot of different areas as well, such as diffuser sealing, diffuser and floor overall, maybe even rear wing to some extent.

Overall, micro-pods-car generated more downforce and more drag, for those who believe this information might be valuable. I won't mention downforce and drag percentages and such, but I think it could be noted that the difference in drag is twice as big as the downforce difference - meaning micro-pods-car generated more downforce but with lower downforce/drag ratio.

Any reason why the W13 sidepods were placed so far back? From the images I've seen it seems that the inlets should be further forward, in line with the cockpit opening/steering wheel.

and also the outwash angle on the sidepods is larger and the downward angle on the engine cover is also steeper

[morepowerplease]

@Vanja #66 this is very interesting but as always with learning I'm most curious about the questions you didn't get to just yet. Specifically, I'm curious which concept you think is more fixable. You made a comment about Mercedes getting more downforce from just having more exposed floor and I'm worried that might be an innate limitation to Ferrari's concept that they just can't do much about. Or do you think there are other ways they could be increasing downforce? With Mercedes is their rear wing just permanently going to be weaker due to the larger air box or are there other causes that they could be fixing? Do you see anything on their car that could be improving the rear tyre drag that isn't in your model or does it seem like that is just an inherent trade from small sidepods?

[dialtone]

@Vanja #66 this is very interesting but as always with learning I'm most curious about the questions you didn't get to just yet. Specifically, I'm curious which concept you think is more fixable. You made a comment about Mercedes getting more downforce from just having more exposed floor and I'm worried that might be an innate limitation to Ferrari's concept that they just can't do much about. Or do you think there are other ways they could be increasing downforce? With Mercedes is their rear wing just permanently going to be weaker due to the larger air box or are there other causes that they could be fixing? Do you see anything on their car that could be improving the rear tyre drag that isn't in your model or does it seem like that is just an inherent trade from small sidepods?

Sent from my RMX3085 using Tapatalk

You can't answer these questions without having the actual model, including floor, in hand. I think the primary question answered by this incredible CFD modeling is that Ferrari isn't a bunch of bozos that just drew a few lines in CAD and made a carbon sausage sidepod. They obviously worked at it with the likely goal to reduce drag in the rear wheels. Trying to draw actual comparisons between the 2 models is unlikely to be realistic. However it really does seem like Ferrari worked well on this, and even if they are completely different, they don't look to be completely wrong.

As an example, even if Mercedes generates more drag with less efficient aero, but they have a much more powerful engine like in 2014, they will run away with it again. I'm pretty excited that Ferrari really pushed the envelope on the whole car, can't wait to see how it performs.