CFD - 2022 Ferrari F1-75 (sidepod analysis)

[bosyber]

This remains great stuff; yes, clearly we cannot draw definite conclusion about which car is better. It does show (some) of what teams intend with their design IMO.

Also, from the W13-model calculations we can derive where Mercedes and Ferrari are likely to focus attention in checking and improving the car (M:increasing/maintaining outwash, likely; F: checking wind and air-angle of attack issues in how the air flows over the sidepods and rear of the car?), which will be an interesting exercise to check on the understanding these models give as a minimum.

[mantikos]

Am I just seeing things or does the merc seem to have the cleanest front to rear airflow on the top surface of the floor out of the "big three" teams?

Ferrari have their chunky flat sidepods that have dramatic direction changes to airflow above the floor.

Red Bull seem to be trying to spill most of the air above the floor at the front of the sidepods under the car to the point where it looks like the point of the top surface if their floor is to purposely not have a continuous flow across the top of it. Maybe this goes for Ferrari too with their chunky flat sidepod.

CFD analysis suggests Ferrari's sidepods are actually more efficient (downforce vs. drag) than the Merc-style sidepods.

At first glance, it does look like Merc has missed a trick with the sidepod lips and forward extension of the floor. I guess time will tell.

Its a totally flawed analysis on several levels, but the most glaring is that the position, shape, and size of sidepods was incorrect.

[Hoffman900]

Am I just seeing things or does the merc seem to have the cleanest front to rear airflow on the top surface of the floor out of the "big three" teams?

Ferrari have their chunky flat sidepods that have dramatic direction changes to airflow above the floor.

Red Bull seem to be trying to spill most of the air above the floor at the front of the sidepods under the car to the point where it looks like the point of the top surface if their floor is to purposely not have a continuous flow across the top of it. Maybe this goes for Ferrari too with their chunky flat sidepod.

CFD analysis suggests Ferrari's sidepods are actually more efficient (downforce vs. drag) than the Merc-style sidepods.

At first glance, it does look like Merc has missed a trick with the sidepod lips and forward extension of the floor. I guess time will tell.

Its a totally flawed analysis on several levels, but the most glaring is that the position, shape, and size of sidepods was incorrect.

This. It was a quick and dirty cfd project that ignores the entire package.

It was cool, much appreciated, but I don’t think you can read too much into it. Hell the teams have the cfd and wind tunnel data on their designs, and they’re still likely going to have correlation issuses.

[Vanja #66]

Its a totally flawed analysis on several levels, but the most glaring is that the position, shape, and size of sidepods was incorrect.

Feel free to fully elaborate. Be prepared for a very deep dive and be 100% certain of your aero understanding if you choose to elaborate. I don't go easy on anyone belittling my work.

If you don't elaborate, I will understand you took this statement back fully.

[NoDivergence]

Its a totally flawed analysis on several levels, but the most glaring is that the position, shape, and size of sidepods was incorrect.

Feel free to fully elaborate. Be prepared for a very deep dive and be 100% certain of your aero understanding if you choose to elaborate. I don't go easy on anyone belittling my work.

If you don't elaborate, I will understand you took this statement back fully.

I mean, your Merc W13 sidepod geometry is just wrong. Everything behind the inlet is different. The amount of downwash, the amount of outwash from the floor strakes, wavy floor exit, not having the right vortex flows from the front wing, etc etc. All of these have downstream effects that you're trying to make as simple as, oh the flow hits the tire and the rear wing has less downforce now.

What angular velocity do you have the tires at in this model? And at what camber/castor/tire deformation geometry (which is a function of load)? Do you have the W13's reverse rake modeled? All kinds of small details that can impact virtually everything of conclusion that you're trying to state

[MuseF1]

Its a totally flawed analysis on several levels, but the most glaring is that the position, shape, and size of sidepods was incorrect.

Feel free to fully elaborate. Be prepared for a very deep dive and be 100% certain of your aero understanding if you choose to elaborate. I don't go easy on anyone belittling my work.

If you don't elaborate, I will understand you took this statement back fully.

I appreciate the efforts even if it isn't bang on. It's still an interesting comparison to look at. Don't see anybody else pulling their finger out and providing analysis...

[Hoffman900]

Its a totally flawed analysis on several levels, but the most glaring is that the position, shape, and size of sidepods was incorrect.

Feel free to fully elaborate. Be prepared for a very deep dive and be 100% certain of your aero understanding if you choose to elaborate. I don't go easy on anyone belittling my work.

If you don't elaborate, I will understand you took this statement back fully.

I appreciate the efforts even if it isn't bang on. It's still an interesting comparison to look at. Don't see anybody else pulling their finger out and providing analysis...

I think you can appreciate the efforts in that it provides a 1000’ view of the situation, but it’s not to be read into too deeply for the reasons stated above.

This is a good article explaining how things can be wrong, even with a better model, and all the assumptions that have to be made:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simulati ... vid-penner

[S E C T I O]

Am I just seeing things or does the merc seem to have the cleanest front to rear airflow on the top surface of the floor out of the "big three" teams?

Ferrari have their chunky flat sidepods that have dramatic direction changes to airflow above the floor.

Red Bull seem to be trying to spill most of the air above the floor at the front of the sidepods under the car to the point where it looks like the point of the top surface if their floor is to purposely not have a continuous flow across the top of it. Maybe this goes for Ferrari too with their chunky flat sidepod.

CFD analysis suggests Ferrari's sidepods are actually more efficient (downforce vs. drag) than the Merc-style sidepods.

At first glance, it does look like Merc has missed a trick with the sidepod lips and forward extension of the floor. I guess time will tell.

Its a totally flawed analysis on several levels, but the most glaring is that the position, shape, and size of sidepods was incorrect.

It is something. We can take it as a clue. The author is fully aware of it, as I understand it, and unlike those who rely on his eyes or on his own preconceptions he has used some of his precious time to provide us with more data. I'm very grateful to him,i hope he don't stop this.

[mantikos]

Its a totally flawed analysis on several levels, but the most glaring is that the position, shape, and size of sidepods was incorrect.

Feel free to fully elaborate. Be prepared for a very deep dive and be 100% certain of your aero understanding if you choose to elaborate. I don't go easy on anyone belittling my work.

If you don't elaborate, I will understand you took this statement back fully.

I am not disrespecting you, your passion, or your hard work, rather to the contrary I tip my hat to you for doing what you do for I lack the time or the knowhow to do it and commend you for adding so much to the forum and all of our collective aero understanding.

That however has no impact on my post. Moreover, everything I had to say I have said - the position and shape of the sidepods, and other ancillary appendages that affect flow up to that point are all not accurate as also pointed out by others including NoDivergence and Hoffman900. So no, I am not taking anything back because those are the facts and are clear as day. I am not sure there is going to be more than a passing resemblance (if any at all) between your model and the real Mercedes' aero. For starters if you modified the location and shape of the sidepods that would perhaps be more representative from a layman's perspective.

My appreciation for your work, and the thought that it isn't very representative of the real world aren't mutually exclusive.

[DP_CFD]

Feel free to fully elaborate. Be prepared for a very deep dive and be 100% certain of your aero understanding if you choose to elaborate. I don't go easy on anyone belittling my work.

If you don't elaborate, I will understand you took this statement back fully.

I appreciate the efforts even if it isn't bang on. It's still an interesting comparison to look at. Don't see anybody else pulling their finger out and providing analysis...

I think you can appreciate the efforts in that it provides a 1000’ view of the situation, but it’s not to be read into too deeply for the reasons stated above.

This is a good article explaining how things can be wrong, even with a better model, and all the assumptions that have to be made:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simulati ... vid-penner

I was wondering why there was an influx of people liking my article, looks like I found my answer!

[Vanja #66]

I am not disrespecting you, your passion, or your hard work, rather to the contrary I tip my hat to you for doing what you do for I lack the time or the knowhow to do it and commend you for adding so much to the forum and all of our collective aero understanding.
***

To say a result of someone's work is "totally flawed" and not being able to explain in detail how exatcly "totally flawed" it is - is "totally" disrespectful.

There are many inaccuracies in those simulations and all of those can be graded and their impact assessed. Even with all of those inaccuracies combined, simulations are very useful as they show a percentage difference in drag 10 times bigger than what teams are trying to chase and lower during a season. That difference is way beyond a margin of error and represents a conceptual difference in drag reduction. And having promised not to share details of a simulation verification from an F1 insider I got, I won't - but I did get it.

Anyway, the difference in drag is so large I can confidently say F1-75 in this launch configuration generates substantially (more than 5%) less drag than W13 - coming from the substantially smaller airbox, smaller rear wing and rear tyre drag. Without the simulation and seeing the effects of different geometries on overall flowfield, I wouldn't claim this in my wildest dreams.

This is what I claim, not what I know. So anyone (including myself) saying F1-75 is 5% less draggy than W13 and stating it as a fact in the future (without actual data from teams) is wrong and shouldn't do it.

[NoDivergence]

I am not disrespecting you, your passion, or your hard work, rather to the contrary I tip my hat to you for doing what you do for I lack the time or the knowhow to do it and commend you for adding so much to the forum and all of our collective aero understanding.
***

To say a result of someone's work is "totally flawed" and not being able to explain in detail how exatcly "totally flawed" it is - is "totally" disrespectful.

There are many inaccuracies in those simulations and all of those can be graded and their impact assessed. Even with all of those inaccuracies combined, simulations are very useful as they show a percentage difference in drag 10 times bigger than what teams are trying to chase and lower during a season. That difference is way beyond a margin of error and represents a conceptual difference in drag reduction. And having promised not to share details of a simulation verification from an F1 insider I got, I won't - but I did get it.

Anyway, the difference in drag is so large I can confidently say F1-75 in this launch configuration generates substantially (more than 5%) less drag than W13 - coming from the substantially smaller airbox, smaller rear wing and rear tyre drag. Without the simulation and seeing the effects of different geometries on overall flowfield, I wouldn't claim this in my wildest dreams.

This is what I claim, not what I know. So anyone (including myself) saying F1-75 is 5% less draggy than W13 and stating it as a fact in the future (without actual data from teams) is wrong and shouldn't do it.

You may think that 10 times bigger may be sufficient to be statistically significant, but given that I'm 100% confident that your flow field is not accurate (front wing flow structure, bargeboard/vane/brake duct/floor geometry, sidepod geometry, etc, I wouldn't make any kind of claim if I were you. Vortex flow and wake management is the most complex part of these car's designs and have massive effects on the end results. I wouldn't be surprised if there was over 10% CDA difference between a completely unoptimized design like yours.(using standardized floor, wing, nose, etc letting the flo flow hit whatever it hits instead of being targeted and positioned) and something like what the W13 has, even in this testing state.

PS, one of the reasons for the amount of cranked front wing on the W13 is likely to maximize the amount of spanwise flow to power these vortices.

The concept of the sidepod cannot be separated from the optimizations intended to position these vortices and flow structures.

You mean to tell me that if I move the outwash an inch or several inches that the drag won't change significantly? How about if the car is at yaw? Or with the wheels turned and car is rolling?

[cheeRS]

I am not disrespecting you, your passion, or your hard work, rather to the contrary I tip my hat to you for doing what you do for I lack the time or the knowhow to do it and commend you for adding so much to the forum and all of our collective aero understanding.
***

To say a result of someone's work is "totally flawed" and not being able to explain in detail how exatcly "totally flawed" it is - is "totally" disrespectful.

There are many inaccuracies in those simulations and all of those can be graded and their impact assessed. Even with all of those inaccuracies combined, simulations are very useful as they show a percentage difference in drag 10 times bigger than what teams are trying to chase and lower during a season. That difference is way beyond a margin of error and represents a conceptual difference in drag reduction. And having promised not to share details of a simulation verification from an F1 insider I got, I won't - but I did get it.

Anyway, the difference in drag is so large I can confidently say F1-75 in this launch configuration generates substantially (more than 5%) less drag than W13 - coming from the substantially smaller airbox, smaller rear wing and rear tyre drag. Without the simulation and seeing the effects of different geometries on overall flowfield, I wouldn't claim this in my wildest dreams.

This is what I claim, not what I know. So anyone (including myself) saying F1-75 is 5% less draggy than W13 and stating it as a fact in the future (without actual data from teams) is wrong and shouldn't do it.

You may think that 10 times bigger may be sufficient to be statistically significant, but given that I'm 100% confident that your flow field is not accurate (front wing flow structure, bargeboard/vane/brake duct/floor geometry, sidepod geometry, etc, I wouldn't make any kind of claim if I were you. Vortex flow and wake management is the most complex part of these car's designs and have massive effects on the end results. I wouldn't be surprised if there was over 10% CDA difference between a completely unoptimized design like yours.(using standardized floor, wing, nose, etc) and something like what the W13 has, even in this testing state.

PS, one of the reasons for the amount of cranked front wing on the W13 is likely to maximize the amount of spanwise flow to power these vortices.

Totally agree - thank you for stating this.

[ryaan2904]

Its a totally flawed analysis on several levels, but the most glaring is that the position, shape, and size of sidepods was incorrect.

Feel free to fully elaborate. Be prepared for a very deep dive and be 100% certain of your aero understanding if you choose to elaborate. I don't go easy on anyone belittling my work.

If you don't elaborate, I will understand you took this statement back fully.

I am not disrespecting you, your passion, or your hard work, rather to the contrary I tip my hat to you for doing what you do for I lack the time or the knowhow to do it and commend you for adding so much to the forum and all of our collective aero understanding.

That however has no impact on my post. Moreover, everything I had to say I have said - the position and shape of the sidepods, and other ancillary appendages that affect flow up to that point are all not accurate as also pointed out by others including NoDivergence and Hoffman900. So no, I am not taking anything back because those are the facts and are clear as day. I am not sure there is going to be more than a passing resemblance (if any at all) between your model and the real Mercedes' aero. For starters if you modified the location and shape of the sidepods that would perhaps be more representative from a layman's perspective.

My appreciation for your work, and the thought that it isn't very representative of the real world aren't mutually exclusive.

So basically backed out of it with very contradictory statements, as if he hadn't just said the whole analysis was 'totally flawed' before, then reused arguements throwed around by others which I'm not sure he understands to literally contradict himself since even though he lacks the 'time and knowhow', the 'facts are still clear as day' for him.

Honestly, it's this 2nd post which I find more disrespectful. Bruh Vanja's whole analysis was a comparison of the ferrari sidepods to the basic F1 design. You lot made it about Mercedes.
I find it pretty hard to believe your 'appreciation for his work' when you hardly understand the motive of it

[mantikos]

I am not disrespecting you, your passion, or your hard work, rather to the contrary I tip my hat to you for doing what you do for I lack the time or the knowhow to do it and commend you for adding so much to the forum and all of our collective aero understanding.
***

To say a result of someone's work is "totally flawed" and not being able to explain in detail how exatcly "totally flawed" it is - is "totally" disrespectful.

There are many inaccuracies in those simulations and all of those can be graded and their impact assessed. Even with all of those inaccuracies combined, simulations are very useful as they show a percentage difference in drag 10 times bigger than what teams are trying to chase and lower during a season. That difference is way beyond a margin of error and represents a conceptual difference in drag reduction. And having promised not to share details of a simulation verification from an F1 insider I got, I won't - but I did get it.

Anyway, the difference in drag is so large I can confidently say F1-75 in this launch configuration generates substantially (more than 5%) less drag than W13 - coming from the substantially smaller airbox, smaller rear wing and rear tyre drag. Without the simulation and seeing the effects of different geometries on overall flowfield, I wouldn't claim this in my wildest dreams.

This is what I claim, not what I know. So anyone (including myself) saying F1-75 is 5% less draggy than W13 and stating it as a fact in the future (without actual data from teams) is wrong and shouldn't do it.

You mean the "smaller airbox, smaller rear wing" that you didn't even model in your CFD analysis? so like others are saying, your analysis is a good reference model, but has enough inaccuracies that using this as anything other than just a general guess is probably not very representative. Stop making this a pissing contest with me since I am not interested - although I am flattered my opinion means so much to you.