CFD - 2022 Ferrari F1-75 (sidepod analysis)

[Vanja #66]

To wrap up this short series of posts on 2022 sidepod designs via CFD, I'm presenting the visualization on RB18-like sidepods. To note ahead, the flow around the sidepods and on the floor is overall better than on tub-pods and micro-pods, which might make the numerical results somewhat better than with the previous two simulations. I'll be posting previous results for direct comparison between different designs and I'd like to reiterate that we should only take these as rough visual aid in understanding how different sidepods are managing the flow in different way.





You can see that there is a lot less separation on RB sidepods than previous simulations. However, overall pressure distribution is not that different, even if it is slightly better in this RB simulation.

Also an important note, this has come to my attention only now. The fact that Ferrari and RB have pushed lower inlet leading edge so far forward has major influence on the flow on top of the floor and leading edge, especially the treatment of floor leading edge separation (induced by front wing upwash). However, it seems RB influences the pressure build-up a lot less in this area, as expected considering how streamlined the undercut geometry is.







The outwash of RB sidepods is less than tub-pods in these simulations, which is not surprising taking into account very streamlined geometry. This left the rear tyres with less turbulence ahead of them and consequentially more drag than tub-pods. This is also visible on v-plot at 0.3m from ground.

Top view comparisons show how very different geometries, yet not too different pressure distributions the 3 cars exhibit. Of course, this depends a lot on person's view on what's different and what not.





Lastly - the v-plots:





RB18-like sidepods generated a flow field ahead of rear tyres closer to micro-pods, but there is some drag reduction on rear tyres. Overall, this latest model generated both drag and downforce just in the middle between tub-pods and micro-pods. Does this mean anything? Not really on it's own, since there are a lot of other areas which are very different on these 3 cars, other than tub-pods creating a significant separation hitting the rear tyres.

In my view, these retracted sidepods seem to be aimed at significant conditioning of the flow between the rear tyre and diffuser ramp. Without more accurate geometries of the 3 floors, it's impossible to quantify just how all these areas work on the 3 cars.

[Just_a_fan]

Usual caveats apply regarding the models, but it's interesting to see that the RB design hits the driver with more air but the roll hoop inlet with less air than the other two. The "Mercedes" has high pressure in the roll hoop and sidepod inlets which presumably is a good thing on both counts. The "Ferrari" has less in the sidepods but good in the roll hoop.

Of course, the front wings and suspension will have a big effect on what actually goes where, so this is unlikely to be what happens on the real cars. It is, however, interesting to see that the design of the sidepods - particularly the leading edges - has an effect well away from where we might intuitively expect.

[LM10]

Does the RB-model work the rear wing even more than the tub-sidepod?

[jjn9128]

Does the RB-model work the rear wing even more than the tub-sidepod?

I'd guess it's the more local downwash increasing the effective rear wing angle of attack - whereas the "merc" sidepod does it's downwashing around the middle of the car so the flow is straighter by the rear!?

[Vanja #66]

Usual caveats apply regarding the models, but it's interesting to see that the RB design hits the driver with more air but the roll hoop inlet with less air than the other two. The "Mercedes" has high pressure in the roll hoop and sidepod inlets which presumably is a good thing on both counts. The "Ferrari" has less in the sidepods but good in the roll hoop.

Of course, the front wings and suspension will have a big effect on what actually goes where, so this is unlikely to be what happens on the real cars. It is, however, interesting to see that the design of the sidepods - particularly the leading edges - has an effect well away from where we might intuitively expect.

I'm not sure we can take this particular area too seriously, since I didn't redesign the engine cover of Ferrari and Merc and what I did with RB18 engine cover is an unoptimized monstrosity As LM10 noted, the pressure on top of rear wing is higher, I guess this has a lot to do with that cannon outlet design. In turn, this higher pressure might have had an influence upstream, including the airbox.

Does the RB-model work the rear wing even more than the tub-sidepod?

Yes, thanks for noticing this, I completely missed it

[Just_a_fan]

Usual caveats apply regarding the models, but it's interesting to see that the RB design hits the driver with more air but the roll hoop inlet with less air than the other two. The "Mercedes" has high pressure in the roll hoop and sidepod inlets which presumably is a good thing on both counts. The "Ferrari" has less in the sidepods but good in the roll hoop.

Of course, the front wings and suspension will have a big effect on what actually goes where, so this is unlikely to be what happens on the real cars. It is, however, interesting to see that the design of the sidepods - particularly the leading edges - has an effect well away from where we might intuitively expect.

I'm not sure we can take this particular area too seriously, since I didn't redesign the engine cover of Ferrari and Merc and what I did with RB18 engine cover is an unoptimized monstrosity As LM10 noted, the pressure on top of rear wing is higher, I guess this has a lot to do with that cannon outlet design. In turn, this higher pressure might have had an influence upstream, including the airbox.

Does the RB-model work the rear wing even more than the tub-sidepod?

Yes, thanks for noticing this, I completely missed it

It would be fascinating to see the entire cars modelled although I realise that would be a massive undertaking. It would interesting to seehow the front wings and the underfloor strakes of each design affect the flow structures.

I had hoped we see plenty of flow viz shots from Barcelona, but I've only seen the occasional one so far.

[jjn9128]

It would be fascinating to see the entire cars modelled although I realise that would be a massive undertaking. It would interesting to seehow the front wings and the underfloor strakes of each design affect the flow structures.

I had hoped we see plenty of flow viz shots from Barcelona, but I've only seen the occasional one so far.

That is asking FAR too much

[Vanja #66]

Sad, but true

[DiogoBrand]

It's interesting to see that the Ferrari has a lower pressure on the upper side of the rear wing as a result of the upwash from the sidepods in comparison to the Red Bull.
What's strange is that the pressure on the Merc is even lower.

Edit: Is there a way to analyze the causes and solutions to the porpoising issue?

[Just_a_fan]

It would be fascinating to see the entire cars modelled although I realise that would be a massive undertaking. It would interesting to seehow the front wings and the underfloor strakes of each design affect the flow structures.

I had hoped we see plenty of flow viz shots from Barcelona, but I've only seen the occasional one so far.

That is asking FAR too much

Oh, I know!

[FDD]

Vanja
HVALA PUNOOO
THANK YOU SO MUCH

[Vanja #66]

It's interesting to see that the Ferrari has a lower pressure on the upper side of the rear wing as a result of the upwash from the sidepods in comparison to the Red Bull.
What's strange is that the pressure on the Merc is even lower.

Edit: Is there a way to analyze the causes and solutions to the porpoising issue?

Rear wing pressure distribution has little to do with sidepod upwash/downwash in these simulations from what I've seen. Seems to be multiple factors. Tub-sidepods don't create an upwash, as they have a radius of trailing edge which locally negates the effect of upward flow in the tub.

Causes to ground effect bouncing are well known. As are the solutions - seal the floor, raise the car and stiffen the rear. Determining what exactly influences the critical height of each car would require exact car model and each team's exact CFD methodology.

[Andi76]

To wrap up this short series of posts on 2022 sidepod designs via CFD, I'm presenting the visualization on RB18-like sidepods. To note ahead, the flow around the sidepods and on the floor is overall better than on tub-pods and micro-pods, which might make the numerical results somewhat better than with the previous two simulations. I'll be posting previous results for direct comparison between different designs and I'd like to reiterate that we should only take these as rough visual aid in understanding how different sidepods are managing the flow in different way.

https://i.ibb.co/qBM8Jrb/comp2-rb18-iso.jpg

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

You can see that there is a lot less separation on RB sidepods than previous simulations. However, overall pressure distribution is not that different, even if it is slightly better in this RB simulation.

Also an important note, this has come to my attention only now. The fact that Ferrari and RB have pushed lower inlet leading edge so far forward has major influence on the flow on top of the floor and leading edge, especially the treatment of floor leading edge separation (induced by front wing upwash). However, it seems RB influences the pressure build-up a lot less in this area, as expected considering how streamlined the undercut geometry is.

https://i.ibb.co/FD3k4Wg/comp2-rb18-iso-details.jpg

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

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

The outwash of RB sidepods is less than tub-pods in these simulations, which is not surprising taking into account very streamlined geometry. This left the rear tyres with less turbulence ahead of them and consequentially more drag than tub-pods. This is also visible on v-plot at 0.3m from ground.

Top view comparisons show how very different geometries, yet not too different pressure distributions the 3 cars exhibit. Of course, this depends a lot on person's view on what's different and what not.

https://i.ibb.co/gZX18hm/comp2-rb18-top.jpg

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

Lastly - the v-plots:

https://i.ibb.co/4t9TgCW/comp2-rb18-v-top-0-3m.jpg

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

RB18-like sidepods generated a flow field ahead of rear tyres closer to micro-pods, but there is some drag reduction on rear tyres. Overall, this latest model generated both drag and downforce just in the middle between tub-pods and micro-pods. Does this mean anything? Not really on it's own, since there are a lot of other areas which are very different on these 3 cars, other than tub-pods creating a significant separation hitting the rear tyres.

In my view, these retracted sidepods seem to be aimed at significant conditioning of the flow between the rear tyre and diffuser ramp. Without more accurate geometries of the 3 floors, it's impossible to quantify just how all these areas work on the 3 cars.

I am a little bit confused - when i look at the first CFD-Pictures you can clearly see more red and yellow on the Ferrari beam-wing. Also the rear-wing- more red....but on the top view one, the RBs rear wing seems to create more downforce....anway- just looking at the first one it seems like the tube-sidepods let more clean air flow over the beamwing and let the beamwing work harder than on the RB and Mercedes. This will also make the diffusor work harder. I think you did not redesign the airbox, because i think Ferraris small airbox makes it possible for the rear-wing to get a better airflow hence more downforce. But as the airbox are probably the same - the tube sidepods seem to influence the rear-wing, too, because on the first CFD Ferraris rear-wing also has more red than RBs and Mercedes. So from the first CFDs i would say the tube sidepods have and advantage regarding rear-and beamwing. And because of that also in the diffusor area. Maybe i am wrong, but as most downforce is generated with the underfloor, i would say Ferrari makes the beamwing and rear-wing work harder, get more downforce because of that, all with the gain of less drag because of the tube-sidepods which also keep the front tyre-wake away from the car. But i am not an expert on CFD, so correct me if i am wrong.

[Vanja #66]

I wouldn't draw all those conclusions from these simulations, there are too many differences in actual and simulated geometry to conclude anything useful.

There are significant differences in airflow with all 3 sidepod designs, and discussing the downforce performance benefits without the rest of the geometry is far fetched. The only thing I stated earlier regarding F1-75 and W13 drag came from siginificant drag differences and other obvious drag influences with airbox and rear wing. We can't say anything about downforce.

[timbo]

This is great work!
I know, it's probably too much to ask, but could you, if time permits, try these models in a yaw condition?
IMO, it would be extremely interesting to learn, how consistent the aero performance is. Probably all the same tendencies maintain, but what if suddenly something unexpected shows up?