NoDivergence wrote: ↑11 Mar 2022, 21:03
Andi76 wrote: ↑11 Mar 2022, 21:00
mkay wrote: ↑11 Mar 2022, 20:33
They can easily re-design sidepods; it's just bodywork at the end of the day. Question is how would they have to amend front/beam wings, floors, etc.
Also, why would they go for less drag? And is their concept inherently less drag, especially after we've been told that it probably doesn't deal as well with tyre wake and drag as wider sidepods?
Its not as easy to just make bigger sidepods. They are part of the whole Aero-Concept, so i do not think you just can change your sidepods. That would conpromise your whole Aero-Philosophy.
And like you say - it would not solve their problem with the rear and beamwing. They cannot do that without redesigning their car completely.
Less drag without sacrificing downforce is always beneficial...thats the reason why they could do it. I do not think we were told that wider sidepods mean less drag...we were told Ferraris tube-sidepods mean less drag. For sure the tyre wake management is better with wider sidepods, and this can reduce drag, but at the end of the day drag depends on much more than that. You cannot say that a wider sidepod necessarily means less drag... Mercedes clearly got rid of some drag in the sidepod area... and they have even more space and huge downwashing element that suggests they get even more air over the top of the diffusor. We do not know the drag of this element. And we do not know the drag compared to the old sidepods. But it seems possible to me that today modifications give them less drag, without sacrificing downforce. Probably even more downforce. No F1 team makes such a change if there is no gain in downforce or less drag.
But anyway- its just some thoughts. Maybe i am totally wrong.
What problem with the beam wing and rear wing? They have the most clean flow on the floor which goes to the the diffuser roof and the beam wing, which then supports the diffuser and rear wing. Their issues aren't downforce, it's balance and getting the suspension and tires working in conjunction.
Floor over the Top of the floor does not really suppoer the beamwing or rear-wing. And its a huge difference in these concepts.
I quote Vanja, our aerodynamicist here, who explained this in another thread
"In my view, it makes a lot of sense to hear Ferrari tried developing this nano-pod design, they were minimizing sidepods consistently from 2017-2021. It also makes a lot of sense they opted for something different if it showed greater potential - something completely different in this case.
To improve the aerodynamic floor performance with any given floor design you have to get more air to the rear wing and then to the beam wing, in that order. Getting more air on top of the diffuser is tertiary. Rear wing creates more suction and will help beam wing as a secondary effect as well. To that end, I'd never go Mercedes direction and start putting stuff higher, clogging up the flow ahead of rear wing...."
So getting air over the top over the diffusor is always beneficial, but it does neither support the rear-or beanwing a lot nor does it get close to the amount of suction you get from getting more air to the rearwing. Also their problems have nothing to do with balance, suspension or tyres working in conjunction...not at all. Porpoising has nothing to do with balance or the suspension or tyres working in conjunction. You can use the one or the other as part of the solution, but its not part of the problem itself. So sorry if i have to say you are totally wrong in that regard.