- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Oops. Saw the image on my phone and reacted.dans79 wrote: ↑11 Mar 2022, 23:21Palmer? this is a Scott Mansell video, and he's not actually calling them illegal.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑11 Mar 2022, 23:10As a driver, Palmer couldn't drive a well greased stick up a dog's doo-dah. I wouldn't pay much attention to him with regard to technical issues.
His Dad's a nice bloke but Jolyon? M'eh.
How about Barcelona spec for Baku, Monaco etc and Bahrain spec for Monza, Spa etc or is it only one chassis they need to stick with?
Good point. Dumb question.
I was also thinking it could be weather related. One for hot races, the other for cooler. Or, totally different, the basic sidepods in the first test were just to baseline the effects of the new aero regs, the floor, etc. Baseline with a neutral, predictable sidepod shape. Then compare against the new concept in this test.
Asa long as you don't violate the budget cap, CFD limits, or windtunnel limits, you can have as many specs as you want. However as soon as the car roles out of the garage for Q1, you aren't changing it till after post race scrutineering.
Yes, that was not really said properly. What i wanted to say was certainly not said in the right way. I know how multi-element wings work, so i also know that the rearwing creates the biggest pressure difference on top and below and creates the strongest upwash when compared to the beamwing and air over the top of the diffuser. An aggressive beamwing also creates a stronger upwash than floor over the top of the diffuser than diffuser/floor. I another comment i said that more flow over the top of the diffuser is always beneficial and supports the wings. What i wanted to say with this commentary was what i said again here - that more air over the top of the diffuser is not as beneficial as letting the rear-wing and beamwing drive the floor.NoDivergence wrote: ↑12 Mar 2022, 00:23This is so wrong, I don't even know where to start. You've heard of circulation before, right? Do you understand how a multi element wing even works?Andi76 wrote: ↑11 Mar 2022, 21:23Floor over the Top of the floor does not really suppoer the beamwing or rear-wing. And its a huge difference in these concepts.NoDivergence wrote: ↑11 Mar 2022, 21:03
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.
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.
Just FYI, but the past 8+ WCC's have been won with cars with centerline concentrated cooling.
As far as porpoising goes. It's a phenomena that is due to ride height. Aero balance (center of pressure stability and also variation in ride height front to rear of the floor), suspension (maintains or controls ride height), and tires (damping, natural frequency) most certainly are all part of the system that results in this phenomena and certainly the magnitude of it.
Yes, that was not really said properly. What i wanted to say was certainly not said in the right way. I know how multi-element wings work, so i also know that the rearwing creates the biggest pressure difference on top and below and creates the strongest upwash when compared to the beamwing and air over the top of the diffuser. An aggressive beamwing also creates a stronger upwash than floor over the top of the diffuser than diffuser/floor. I another comment i said that more flow over the top of the diffuser is always beneficial and supports the wings. What i wanted to say with this commentary you are refering to, is- that more air over the top of the diffuser is not as beneficial as letting the rear-wing and beamwing drive the floor.NoDivergence wrote: ↑12 Mar 2022, 00:23This is so wrong, I don't even know where to start. You've heard of circulation before, right? Do you understand how a multi element wing even works?Andi76 wrote: ↑11 Mar 2022, 21:23Floor over the Top of the floor does not really suppoer the beamwing or rear-wing. And its a huge difference in these concepts.NoDivergence wrote: ↑11 Mar 2022, 21:03
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.
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.
Just FYI, but the past 8+ WCC's have been won with cars with centerline concentrated cooling.
As far as porpoising goes. It's a phenomena that is due to ride height. Aero balance (center of pressure stability and also variation in ride height front to rear of the floor), suspension (maintains or controls ride height), and tires (damping, natural frequency) most certainly are all part of the system that results in this phenomena and certainly the magnitude of it.
