Ferrari F1-75

[GrrG]

The artificially wet track in Barcelona created an opportunity to observe the differences between the aerodynamic flows of the various cars in the area between the front bellies and the rear wheels.

https://www.formulapassion.it/motorspor ... 06239.html

[GrrG]

F1-75

F1-75

MCL36

W13

RB18

[f1316]

The rear of the sidepods looks like the McLaren MP4-26 sidepods, just with a conventional intake rather than the L shape.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ia_FP3.jpg

In reality McLaren copied Rory Byrne with these sidepods. Rory did this on the B195 and F399 more than a decade before. Interesting is that Rory Byrne was advising Ferraris Design Departement for this car.

I wish Rory wasn't as old as he is. Rory vs Newey would be a sight to see.

I think we had Rory vs Newey ~1994-2006 (ish). I think a case could certainly be made that Rory’s cara came out on top for more years than they were behind - albeit lots of factors play into that (eg Eddie Irvine would say that Michael was the only one able to win outside a Newey car for much of that period).

[JPower]

Looks like the car will be staying fairly untouched when Testing 2 starts.

[warpomex]

F1-75
https://www.formulapassion.it/wp-conten ... lona-2.jpg

Is that a cracked cover on the sidepod towards the rear or an opening done on purpose?

[AR3-GP]

F1-75
https://www.formulapassion.it/wp-conten ... lona-2.jpg

Is that a cracked cover on the sidepod towards the rear or an opening done on purpose?

It appears the hatch is getting sucked open by pressure differential.

[Sevach]

I guess this a usual trick for Ferrari now, a FW with reduced chord by using a dip where the adjustable flap connects with the rest o the wing.



Top down view just because...

[ojir19]

[ryaan2904]

Info on the new spec floor.
https://www.formu1a.uno/rimbalzo-aerodi ... ospensivi/

Ferrari, for example, suffered the most during the filming day, when it took to the track with a rather soft set-up, but then retraced its steps, managing to manage it satisfactorily during the first day. It returned, in part, on the second day of testing as they tried out the set-up sought the previous evening in the Maranello simulator.

The problem is not impossible to solve and not even that difficult in general. All it would take is a few tweaks, which would lose a lot of performance. However, this is F1. The primary objective of the teams is not just to eliminate the problem, but first and foremost to maintain the aerodynamic load set, working on containing the problem. Teams are always looking for the limit between the stable condition and where the problem starts to occur.

On the third day of testing, Ferrari took to the track an updated version of the underbody, which goes in the direction of being able to go to slightly lower heights without porpoising. A change, even of a few millimetres, in ground clearance in fast driving does in fact lead to drastic changes (increase or decrease) in aerodynamic load. A cut-out has been created precisely where the Venturi tunnels have their smallest section at high speeds; this helps to vent the air externally and limit aerodynamic lock-up. That area is then monitored with sensors that measure its flexing because that's where the teams try to flex the outer parts of the bottom.

Is porpoising purely a function of downforce or should floor design also be considered a part of the problem?
All the solutions I've seen up till now (even the floor notch ones) are aimed at reducing peak downforce, either by increasing ride heights or as the above post says, providing relief for the air but reducing downforce. This implies (to my armchair senses atleast) that it's purely a function of downforce.
Also, on this basis can we conclude that the teams suffering the most are making more peak downforce?

[Andi76]

In reality McLaren copied Rory Byrne with these sidepods. Rory did this on the B195 and F399 more than a decade before. Interesting is that Rory Byrne was advising Ferraris Design Departement for this car.

I wish Rory wasn't as old as he is. Rory vs Newey would be a sight to see.

I think we had Rory vs Newey ~1994-2006 (ish). I think a case could certainly be made that Rory’s cara came out on top for more years than they were behind - albeit lots of factors play into that (eg Eddie Irvine would say that Michael was the only one able to win outside a Newey car for much of that period).

A lot of factors played into this indeed. Windtunnel time was essential. Williams, the team Newey designed the cars for, had its own 50% rolling road windtunnel. And that was a huge advantage, because Newey was able to spend much more time in the windtunnel than other designers, who had to rent windtunnel-time. Benetton rented a Windtunnel at Farnborough untill they built their own one(the Renault/Alpine tunnel of today) in 1998. The Ferrari windtunnel was not fully operational before mid 1999 and the F1-2000 was the first car completely built in this new windtunnel. The Rory cars following, the F2001, F2002, F2003 GA and F2004 - were without a doubt, superior to the cars Newey built at McLaren, and other drivers than Schumacher were able to win in these cars than Schumacher. Obviously. Even Irvine himself was able to - in 1999 he almost won the championship outside a Newey built car...by the way - the last car that was actually designed by Rory was the F2004. The F2005 was designed by Aldo Costa, as was the F248 and the F2007. Rory just got more active in the design again after the disastrous 2005 Season. He gave more guidance again in the design of the F248 and F2007(but they were still designed by Aldo, not Rory).

But as you said - a lot of factors played into that. Rory had disadvtanges when he designed the Benettons, because he had less time in the windtunnel than Newey. 2001-2004 Newey had a disadvantage because his relationship to Ron Dennis had suffered and Dennis had put a system in place that harmed Neweys creativity and Neweys influence was restricted. Its always a lot of factors that are important while designing a F1 Car. Infrastructure, Resources, Teamstructure and Harmony within the Design Team certainly are a few of them. But i think its fair to say that in that era the Byrne/Newey cars were the ones to beat and Byrne and Newey were without a doubt the best Designers of this era.

[Andi76]

Info on the new spec floor.
https://www.formu1a.uno/rimbalzo-aerodi ... ospensivi/

Ferrari, for example, suffered the most during the filming day, when it took to the track with a rather soft set-up, but then retraced its steps, managing to manage it satisfactorily during the first day. It returned, in part, on the second day of testing as they tried out the set-up sought the previous evening in the Maranello simulator.

The problem is not impossible to solve and not even that difficult in general. All it would take is a few tweaks, which would lose a lot of performance. However, this is F1. The primary objective of the teams is not just to eliminate the problem, but first and foremost to maintain the aerodynamic load set, working on containing the problem. Teams are always looking for the limit between the stable condition and where the problem starts to occur.

On the third day of testing, Ferrari took to the track an updated version of the underbody, which goes in the direction of being able to go to slightly lower heights without porpoising. A change, even of a few millimetres, in ground clearance in fast driving does in fact lead to drastic changes (increase or decrease) in aerodynamic load. A cut-out has been created precisely where the Venturi tunnels have their smallest section at high speeds; this helps to vent the air externally and limit aerodynamic lock-up. That area is then monitored with sensors that measure its flexing because that's where the teams try to flex the outer parts of the bottom.

Is porpoising purely a function of downforce or should floor design also be considered a part of the problem?
All the solutions I've seen up till now (even the floor notch ones) are aimed at reducing peak downforce, either by increasing ride heights or as the above post says, providing relief for the air but reducing downforce. This implies (to my armchair senses atleast) that it's purely a function of downforce.
Also, on this basis can we conclude that the teams suffering the most are making more peak downforce?

Porpoising is about the air in the venturi tunnels stalling when the floor gets too close to the ground or touching it. This can happen with more downforce as it can happen with less downforce. So you cannot say in general that the car suffering most from porpoising is the car creating the most amount of downforce. But on the other hand - when the aerodynamic load increases, the car gets closer to the ground because of that load. But now the ride-height settings you have chosen come into play...and also how stiff you run the car. So you can have a car with less peak downforce and low ride-height settings and a soft suspension-setting suffering from porpoising, while a car with a lot of peak downforce and high ride-height and a stiff suspension is suffering less. But usually high ride height means less downforce, because the floor works best when it is close to the ground. So usually you indeed have more peak downforce with low ride height-settings. But it isn't also that easy to say that peak downforce is the reason for porpoising. Its influenced by a few things. And of course, as with every aerodynamic device, the amount of downforce you create also goes hand in hand with the design. And also how the other aerodynamical devices work together. So porpoising is influenced by different things- Ride Height-Settings, Suspension-Settings, Floor Design, other aerodynamic devices.

[ryaan2904]

Info on the new spec floor.
https://www.formu1a.uno/rimbalzo-aerodi ... ospensivi/

Is porpoising purely a function of downforce or should floor design also be considered a part of the problem?
All the solutions I've seen up till now (even the floor notch ones) are aimed at reducing peak downforce, either by increasing ride heights or as the above post says, providing relief for the air but reducing downforce. This implies (to my armchair senses atleast) that it's purely a function of downforce.
Also, on this basis can we conclude that the teams suffering the most are making more peak downforce?

Porpoising is about the air in the venturi tunnels stalling when the floor gets too close to the ground or touching it. This can happen with more downforce as it can happen with less downforce. So you cannot say in general that the car suffering most from porpoising is the car creating the most amount of downforce. But on the other hand - when the aerodynamic load increases, the car gets closer to the ground because of that load. But now the ride-height settings you have chosen come into play...and also how stiff you run the car. So you can have a car with less peak downforce and low ride-height settings suffering from porpoising, while a car with a lot of peak downforce and high ride-height is suffering less. But usually high ride height means less downforce, because the floor works best when it is close to the ground. So usually you indeed have more peak downforce with low ride height-settings. But of course, as with every aerodynamic device, the amount of downforce you create also goes hand in hand with the design. And also how the other aerodynamical devices work together. So porpoising is influenced by different things- Ride Height-Settings, Suspension-Settings, Floor Design, other aerodynamic devices.

This makes it much harder to make predictions or reach any kind of conclusion really
If we could've seen the testing footage, we would have atleast some measure of ride height or suspension stiffness characteristics.

[JPBD1990]

I could be naive but I honestly don’t expect porpoising to be AS big a deal as it’s being made out to be. The media just needs a story and here’s one to cling to.

Several things can be done to assist/resolve porpoising. B Sport mentioned several in his testing round up YouTube vids, which I recommend watching. Some suspension related and some aerodynamic related, or a combo of both.

Already stories of the Ferrari and Mercedes’ porpoising being much resolved on day 3. Adding to this the fact we know that they’ve been testing setups, etc, possibly even so they understand the ‘upper limits’ in terms of set up range before inducing porpoising also.

Now they’ve got 2 weeks to figure it out and see where they all land. Imo not overly concerning

[Andi76]

Is porpoising purely a function of downforce or should floor design also be considered a part of the problem?
All the solutions I've seen up till now (even the floor notch ones) are aimed at reducing peak downforce, either by increasing ride heights or as the above post says, providing relief for the air but reducing downforce. This implies (to my armchair senses atleast) that it's purely a function of downforce.
Also, on this basis can we conclude that the teams suffering the most are making more peak downforce?

Porpoising is about the air in the venturi tunnels stalling when the floor gets too close to the ground or touching it. This can happen with more downforce as it can happen with less downforce. So you cannot say in general that the car suffering most from porpoising is the car creating the most amount of downforce. But on the other hand - when the aerodynamic load increases, the car gets closer to the ground because of that load. But now the ride-height settings you have chosen come into play...and also how stiff you run the car. So you can have a car with less peak downforce and low ride-height settings suffering from porpoising, while a car with a lot of peak downforce and high ride-height is suffering less. But usually high ride height means less downforce, because the floor works best when it is close to the ground. So usually you indeed have more peak downforce with low ride height-settings. But of course, as with every aerodynamic device, the amount of downforce you create also goes hand in hand with the design. And also how the other aerodynamical devices work together. So porpoising is influenced by different things- Ride Height-Settings, Suspension-Settings, Floor Design, other aerodynamic devices.

This makes it much harder to make predictions or reach any kind of conclusion really
If we could've seen the testing footage, we would have atleast some measure of ride height or suspension stiffness characteristics.

I observed, on the first day of testing, that Ferrari runs their car much stiffer than the other teams. So i assume that Ferrari knew that porpoising would become a problem and stiffer-suspension set-ups would be required. As i said in a previous post - i think Ferrari has the advantage of having Rory Byrne as an adviser. Rory designed the first generation of ground-effect cars and knows a lot about the problems and how to solve them, what you have to look after etc.

So maybe, Ferrari is a little bit ahead of the other teams i think. But its also possible that another team found something in the windtunnel or a loopwhole in the regulations they have not shown yet - you cannot make any predictions at the moment, i think.

At the end of they day i totally agree to what was said above. Porpoising will not be a big problem and that the media made more of it than there actually was. The teams probably just checked out when it became a problem in relation to suspension settings and aerodynamic-set-up and collecting track data.Now they will try to make the best trade-off in terms off design changes/updates and settings.

[Macklaren]

I could be naive but I honestly don’t expect porpoising to be AS big a deal as it’s being made out to be. The media just needs a story and here’s one to cling to.

Several things can be done to assist/resolve porpoising. B Sport mentioned several in his testing round up YouTube vids, which I recommend watching. Some suspension related and some aerodynamic related, or a combo of both.

Already stories of the Ferrari and Mercedes’ porpoising being much resolved on day 3. Adding to this the fact we know that they’ve been testing setups, etc, possibly even so they understand the ‘upper limits’ in terms of set up range before inducing porpoising also.

Now they’ve got 2 weeks to figure it out and see where they all land. Imo not overly concerning

Solving porpoising is not hard. BUT solving it in a way where you don't give up downforce is very tricky. So a team can quickly change suspension and floor settings to temporarily make the car easier to drive in the middle of a test but that is hardly likely to be an acceptable solution for the full season because the car will be slow. This is why finding the right compromise is drawing so much attention/worry right now