Ferrari F1-75

[saviour stivala]

FERRARI used more downforce (rear wing) because power wise they can afford too and still match RB/fight for race win with RB.

[vorticism]

....

[ringo]

Of course i do not know the numbers regarding aero-efficiency, and i can be wrong here, but i do not believe that the F1-75 really is less efficient aerodynamically. I think its more about different approaches in that regard and in the course of the season both teams will optimise their losses and come closer together. While Red Bull, because of their problems with Mercedes in 2021, put a lot of effort on Top-Speed, Ferrari had the problem of loosing time in low speed corners. So they put a lot of effort on improving in this area. Both were sucessfull obviously. But i think its more about different approaches and ironing-out your weakness than about aero-efficiency. I also think its a little bit strange to say one car is aerodynamically more efficient than another car. Without a car that efficient aerodynamically you cannot win in F1. At least in my book and experience. And there can be some other reasons than aero-efficiency.

Yes you can. Horsepower

[Andi76]

Of course i do not know the numbers regarding aero-efficiency, and i can be wrong here, but i do not believe that the F1-75 really is less efficient aerodynamically. I think its more about different approaches in that regard and in the course of the season both teams will optimise their losses and come closer together. While Red Bull, because of their problems with Mercedes in 2021, put a lot of effort on Top-Speed, Ferrari had the problem of loosing time in low speed corners. So they put a lot of effort on improving in this area. Both were sucessfull obviously. But i think its more about different approaches and ironing-out your weakness than about aero-efficiency. I also think its a little bit strange to say one car is aerodynamically more efficient than another car. Without a car that efficient aerodynamically you cannot win in F1. At least in my book and experience. And there can be some other reasons than aero-efficiency.

Yes you can. Horsepower

So you are one of the guys who think aerodynamics is something for people who can't build engines ?

You still need a lot more horsepower to win in a car that isn't aerodynamically efficient.

[jumpingfish]

I still can't figure out why the F1-75 has such a long wastegate if the car is overweight? Is there an advantage if the engineers didn't cut this tube?

[Stu]

https://cdn-6.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... tail-1.jpg

I still can't figure out why the F1-75 has such a long wastegate if the car is overweight? Is there an advantage if the engineers didn't cut this tube?

Not saying that it is, but it could be for aerodynamic reasons, if the air over the engine cover is downwashing over the exhaust, putting the (smaller) wastegate above the (larger) exhaust could be reducing drag by pre-turbulating the flow. If done right the exhaust will effectively be invisible to the airflow - the wastegate pipe will act as a fairing (in an are where bodywork is not permitted).

[vorticism]

They might be trying to minimize interaction between the two pipes, so placing the junction as far back as they can per the rulebook.

They say this car is running more downforce w a big rear wing, yet the front wing seems slight and their bargeboards are the smallest. Some say their sidepods allow the floor to be optimized. Maybe all that combined purchases a larger rear wing. That said, what appears to be a tall rear wing is relative to local flow, could their sidepods be altering the airflow vector significantly to the rear wing, I wonder.

[ringo]

Of course i do not know the numbers regarding aero-efficiency, and i can be wrong here, but i do not believe that the F1-75 really is less efficient aerodynamically. I think its more about different approaches in that regard and in the course of the season both teams will optimise their losses and come closer together. While Red Bull, because of their problems with Mercedes in 2021, put a lot of effort on Top-Speed, Ferrari had the problem of loosing time in low speed corners. So they put a lot of effort on improving in this area. Both were sucessfull obviously. But i think its more about different approaches and ironing-out your weakness than about aero-efficiency. I also think its a little bit strange to say one car is aerodynamically more efficient than another car. Without a car that efficient aerodynamically you cannot win in F1. At least in my book and experience. And there can be some other reasons than aero-efficiency.

Yes you can. Horsepower

So you are one of the guys who think aerodynamics is something for people who can't build engines ?

You still need a lot more horsepower to win in a car that isn't aerodynamically efficient.

Well if you have cars with similar earo efficiency, the one with more horsepower can add more wing and still have the same top speed. That's how i am looking on what Ferrari's approach was here.

What this car and the redbull do is create downforce with the sidepods.
when the floor stalls the downforce is still there from the body.
Mercedes doesnt have this luxury so will have more pronounced bouncing.
But i do beleive if Mercedes eliminate bouncing all together they will not need that sidepod dependency and should have much less drag with their current sidepods.
This ferrari could possibly adopt their sidepods to resemble redbull's to reduce drag.

[matteosc]

They might be trying to minimize interaction between the two pipes, so placing the junction as far back as they can per the rulebook.

They say this car is running more downforce w a big rear wing, yet the front wing seems slight and their bargeboards are the smallest. Some say their sidepods allow the floor to be optimized. Maybe all that combined purchases a larger rear wing. That said, what appears to be a tall rear wing is relative to local flow, could their sidepods be altering the airflow vector significantly to the rear wing, I wonder.

It is interesting that they are using a relatively thin front wing with a comparatively large rear wing. It could be a good sign for front-limiting tracks, since they should be able to add downforce at the front with relative ease.

I wonder if this is the result of how they shaped the Venturi channels: each time has different points in which they expand the flow, so the point in which the downforce is "applied" can vary. This may also be one of the secret for porpoising control, since the phenomenon is also related to how the floor-downforce application point moves when the speed increases.

[sosic2121]

https://cdn-6.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... tail-1.jpg

I still can't figure out why the F1-75 has such a long wastegate if the car is overweight? Is there an advantage if the engineers didn't cut this tube?

Not saying that it is, but it could be for aerodynamic reasons, if the air over the engine cover is downwashing over the exhaust, putting the (smaller) wastegate above the (larger) exhaust could be reducing drag by pre-turbulating the flow. If done right the exhaust will effectively be invisible to the airflow - the wastegate pipe will act as a fairing (in an are where bodywork is not permitted).

And since wastegate is not open all the time, maybe they could have some "active aero" effect.

[AriaanGert]

I still can't figure out why the F1-75 has such a long wastegate if the car is overweight? Is there an advantage if the engineers didn't cut this tube?

Not saying that it is, but it could be for aerodynamic reasons, if the air over the engine cover is downwashing over the exhaust, putting the (smaller) wastegate above the (larger) exhaust could be reducing drag by pre-turbulating the flow. If done right the exhaust will effectively be invisible to the airflow - the wastegate pipe will act as a fairing (in an are where bodywork is not permitted).

And since wastegate is not open all the time, maybe they could have some "active aero" effect.

That sounds interesting? In what sense active? Like when the wastegate is working (while breaking?) it automatically creates more downforce. Or an active valve that creates extra wastegate flow officially 'to protect the engine' but really programmed to change the aero. Sounds legal.

[PlatinumZealot]

https://cdn-6.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... tail-1.jpg

I still can't figure out why the F1-75 has such a long wastegate if the car is overweight? Is there an advantage if the engineers didn't cut this tube?

Reliability reasons probably. The waste exhaust is very hot. Hotter than the turbine exhaust. That heat swing might just increase thermal cycling.

The other thing could be flow disturbance to the wastegate.

A wild reason could be that it's acts as a shark fin.

[sosic2121]

Not saying that it is, but it could be for aerodynamic reasons, if the air over the engine cover is downwashing over the exhaust, putting the (smaller) wastegate above the (larger) exhaust could be reducing drag by pre-turbulating the flow. If done right the exhaust will effectively be invisible to the airflow - the wastegate pipe will act as a fairing (in an are where bodywork is not permitted).

And since wastegate is not open all the time, maybe they could have some "active aero" effect.

That sounds interesting? In what sense active? Like when the wastegate is working (while breaking?) it automatically creates more downforce. Or an active valve that creates extra wastegate flow officially 'to protect the engine' but really programmed to change the aero. Sounds legal.

Maybe on the straight they are trying to stall the beam wing, or something like that.
Hass does have the same setup, but Alfa doesn't.

[Vanja #66]

What this car and the redbull do is create downforce with the sidepods.
when the floor stalls the downforce is still there from the body.
Mercedes doesnt have this luxury so will have more pronounced bouncing.

I've mentioned this already in a few places, top of the floor and sidepod lift/downforce have nothing to do with substitution of downforce lost due to tunnel stall. If anything, Merc has the most downforce on top, even with launch-spec sidepods.



and RB18:



Where Mercedes might be lacking is conditioning the flow to strengthen the floor-sealing vortex with wide sidepods and floor front-end design, requiring them to run the car lower and leaving them more susceptible to aero bounce. But that's not a discussion for this topic.

[Henri]

What this car and the redbull do is create downforce with the sidepods.
when the floor stalls the downforce is still there from the body.
Mercedes doesnt have this luxury so will have more pronounced bouncing.

I've mentioned this already in a few places, top of the floor and sidepod lift/downforce have nothing to do with substitution of downforce lost due to tunnel stall. If anything, Merc has the most downforce on top, even with launch-spec sidepods.

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

and RB18:

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

Where Mercedes might be lacking is conditioning the flow to strengthen the floor-sealing vortex with wide sidepods and floor front-end design, requiring them to run the car lower and leaving them more susceptible to aero bounce. But that's not a discussion for this topic.

Ferraris concept is better on the rear tyres.. Mercedes is a bad concept on the rear tyres it has more drag