Ferrari SF23

[Vanja #66]

If someone stumbles onto a photo of rear wing with clear view of swan neck connection to the main plane, please share here. Something like this, but viewed from the side:

[ringo]

Shared best I would say. They had the most floor downforce until TD39 last year, they clearly have the most downforce of any car other than RB and RB had more rear wing. At worst, I wouldn't give RB's floor downforce advantage of more than 0.1s a lap over Ferrari, but I think there are many other things for Ferrari to sort before they can use the car to the fullest - which is masking all of their potential for everyone. After Australia it will be clearer and Baku will show us for good.

Oh ok so you are basing this on other observations. I was thinking for a second you observed something about the floor itself that is much different than Redbull.
Why I doubt the indirect method you are using is the tyre wear issues. I don't think if SF23 and F1-75 had good floor downforce the drivers would have to push so hard and damage the tyres just to keep on the pace of the redbull.

I am of the opinion the redbull is superior everywhere apart from maybe ERS and engine driveability.

But ignoring which is better, I am hoping to have a look underneath the car; if one gets towed off the track.

[organic]

If someone stumbles onto a photo of rear wing with clear view of swan neck connection to the main plane, please share here. Something like this, but viewed from the side:

https://cdn-8.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... ail-1.webp

Best I can find

[Vanja #66]

Best I can find

Awesome! So, compared to double pylon version



- slightly bigger scoop in the middle: + downforce, + drag
- single pylon thickness about the same as combined double pylon: potentially equal drag (form drag alone)
- single pylon combined with DRS housing: -drag (both form and interference drag)
- single pylon not attached to bottom wing side:
--- a) no losses on suction side: +downforce (especially in yaw)
--- b) less rigid connection means possibility to flex more: -drag at speed, -wing rigidity overall (as was demonstrated...)

It's a rudimentary "analysis" and points for downforce and drag are not equal among each other of course, but it's clear why Ferrari want to make this their new baseline. True mid-downforce wing with low drag penalties. It would be something if Ferrari (and other teams) found a way to allow flexing while keeping the FIA-mandated measuring points within mandated limits and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them managed to do it.

[falonso81]

Looks crude compared to the RB one, but it's a starting point. Still, they should have had this ironed out before the start of the championship.

[Andi76]

https://twitter.com/NicolasF1i/status/1 ... 14336?s=20

The guy who first "noticed" the sidepod change is now saying "my bad", there's nothing here fellas.

Piola says that this change actually exists.




Who is right now??? Unfortunately, I did not have the time for accurate comparisons.... Since he also talks about a narrower bodywork and considering the short time (unless this was an update that would have been planned before the Bahrain GP) he could well have succumbed to the same deception.

[Sevach]

Who is right now??? Unfortunately, I did not have the time for accurate comparisons....

I think Piola is wrong, and the image he choose doesn't even have the shadow... weird.
I did look a lot, both on pits or the car going around and for me it's the same.

For those of us that think it's the same we have the fact that Ferrari would be in blatant disrespect of the "disclosure rules" if it's modified.

Anyhow...

Old


New


There are small, barely perceptible, differences in the flaps in how they are more in line with the footplate area, where previously they were taller.
The more central portion(where the gurney sits) of the last flap might have a more "winged" design cranking upwards, where previously it was more of flat element.
Not fully convinced on this one, could be lightning giving this impression.

Also carbon fiber orientation.

If correct it means Ferrari made the wing even more cranked in the middle and even more outwashing(the endplate is already aimed at this).

[AR3-GP]

Who is right now??? Unfortunately, I did not have the time for accurate comparisons....

I think Piola is wrong, and the image he choose doesn't even have the shadow... weird.
I did look a lot, both on pits or the car going around and for me it's the same.

For those of us that think it's the same we have the fact that Ferrari would be in blatant disrespect of the "disclosure rules" if it's modified.

Anyhow...

Old
https://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/pho ... ar/058.jpg

New
https://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/pho ... ar/004.jpg

There are small, barely perceptible, differences in the flaps in how they are more in line with the footplate area, where previously they were taller.
The more central portion(where the gurney sits) of the last flap might have a more "winged" design cranking upwards, where previously it was more of flat element.
Not fully convinced on this one, could be lightning giving this impression.

Also carbon fiber orientation.

If correct it means Ferrari made the wing even more cranked in the middle and even more outwashing(the endplate is already aimed at this).

I might not be correct, but I think what you see near the footplate is just the flap angle is "lower" in your "new" picture. You can see the flap adjuster stud standing up. That's the outboard pivot point.

[dialtone]

I might not be correct, but I think what you see near the footplate is just the flap angle is "lower" in your "new" picture. You can see the flap adjuster stud standing up. That's the outboard pivot point.

The angle of the flap is different but the endplate is different too, look at how the last flap attaches and in the new one there's still a couple of inches of carbon. It's not a big difference though, they may be benefitting from the vortex created by that edge.

[Sevach]

I believe you are right, now that i see it both 3rd and 4th elements move when adjusted, which is why in the old wing(adjusted rather high) the 3rd element finishes almost in line with the final element of the footplate, making the 4th one sit higher.

Obvious mistake on my part.

[Andi76]

Who is right now??? Unfortunately, I did not have the time for accurate comparisons....

I think Piola is wrong, and the image he choose doesn't even have the shadow... weird.
I did look a lot, both on pits or the car going around and for me it's the same.

For those of us that think it's the same we have the fact that Ferrari would be in blatant disrespect of the "disclosure rules" if it's modified.

Anyhow...

Old
https://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/pho ... ar/058.jpg

New
https://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/pho ... ar/004.jpg

There are small, barely perceptible, differences in the flaps in how they are more in line with the footplate area, where previously they were taller.
The more central portion(where the gurney sits) of the last flap might have a more "winged" design cranking upwards, where previously it was more of flat element.
Not fully convinced on this one, could be lightning giving this impression.

Also carbon fiber orientation.

If correct it means Ferrari made the wing even more cranked in the middle and even more outwashing(the endplate is already aimed at this).

I meant the change to the sidepod undercut/the SIS... he starts to talk about that at 1.42. But anyway - I just looked at several pictures and I think Piola is wrong and it fooled him too. The SIS is exactly as it was before. Even more, it would be unusual to design such a change in such a short time, test it in CFD, wind tunnel and simulator, build it and bring it already to Saudi Arabia. This change would have had to have been planned before the Bahrain GP to pull this off and I don't think Ferrari had any plans beforehand.

[Andi76]

[Pany]

Good and interesting considerations.
I believe the use of single configuration is not related to drag and lift balance. The main difference is single configuration is stiffer longitudinally and softer laterally, hence aero behaviour is modified significantly, expecially in fast curves.

https://i.imgur.com/rs6ob1g.jpeg

Best I can find

Awesome! So, compared to double pylon version

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FqNGV-uXoAA4joW?format=jpg

- slightly bigger scoop in the middle: + downforce, + drag
- single pylon thickness about the same as combined double pylon: potentially equal drag (form drag alone)
- single pylon combined with DRS housing: -drag (both form and interference drag)
- single pylon not attached to bottom wing side:
--- a) no losses on suction side: +downforce (especially in yaw)
--- b) less rigid connection means possibility to flex more: -drag at speed, -wing rigidity overall (as was demonstrated...)

It's a rudimentary "analysis" and points for downforce and drag are not equal among each other of course, but it's clear why Ferrari want to make this their new baseline. True mid-downforce wing with low drag penalties. It would be something if Ferrari (and other teams) found a way to allow flexing while keeping the FIA-mandated measuring points within mandated limits and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them managed to do it.

[gordonthegun]

[AR3-GP]

I might not be correct, but I think what you see near the footplate is just the flap angle is "lower" in your "new" picture. You can see the flap adjuster stud standing up. That's the outboard pivot point.

The angle of the flap is different but the endplate is different too, look at how the last flap attaches and in the new one there's still a couple of inches of carbon. It's not a big difference though, they may be benefitting from the vortex created by that edge.

Yes I see your point and agree.