What exactly is going on in the rear/lower "tunnel" isn't exactly clear from that photo. To me it kind of looks like there is a hole at the bottom of the rear/lower "tunnel" that kicks the air from the S-duct out. I have no clue why they would ever do that, but if it does indeed flow upwards, I'd assume it helps to control the halo losses on top of the cannons.michl420 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2024, 13:50Based on this picture?!F1NAC wrote: ↑21 Feb 2024, 13:33it is there
CaribouBread wrote: ↑21 Feb 2024, 09:35Ferrari raking behind the halo outlet / s duct outlet area
(sorry for the poor image)
https://i.imgur.com/IiV7rhk.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GG2JIi8WYAA ... ame=medium
Ferrari and Aston Martin have hinted as much for their '24 cars, but there's something else with the floors. It's not about looking for the peak. Many have found there is a peak where porpoising occurs. What the best teams care about is "peak broadening". You need an aero map that generates large downforce numbers across a large range of vehicle attitudes (ride height, yaw). This is precisely the issue that Ferrari have addressed with the SF24 and they and the other teams will keep going in this direction. Rather than chasing peaks, they seek to fill in the lows in the aero map.SoulPancake13 wrote: ↑22 Feb 2024, 02:37Something that today's AMUS article referenced is that RB have likely found the "maximum" downforce they can generate before they think porpoising will set in, so to find downforce they have to go in other ways like with their current "evolution" - hence the slimmer sidepods to reduce drag and the profiling of the sidepod like another wing to generate more downforce in the region between the sidepod and floor. Would Ferrari be likely to adopt a similar mentality? Where do people see the room for improvement(bar floor related upgrades)?
The only thing generated there is lift, don't let them fool you All sidepods used today generate lift and drag, teams are now playing around different designs to optimise outwash for minimal drag and lift penalty. Ferrari specifically has more room to play around and optimise this area since their starting position is basically the least advanced right now.SoulPancake13 wrote: ↑22 Feb 2024, 02:37profiling of the sidepod like another wing to generate more downforce in the region between the sidepod and floor.
I completely agree with that. It's a kind of sidepod wing concept. Newey has remembered Nicolo's concept from 2011SoulPancake13 wrote: ↑22 Feb 2024, 02:37Something that today's AMUS article referenced is that RB have likely found the "maximum" downforce they can generate before they think porpoising will set in, so to find downforce they have to go in other ways like with their current "evolution" - hence the slimmer sidepods to reduce drag and the profiling of the sidepod like another wing to generate more downforce in the region between the sidepod and floor. Would Ferrari be likely to adopt a similar mentality? Where do people see the room for improvement(bar floor related upgrades)?
Sorry i have to disagree. There was indeed the Sidepod Wing Concept from Nicolo Petrucci, which many people confused with the "double-floor" concept at the time. Here the sidepod functioned like a wing. Even though I don't know it personally and don't value it, I know from a reliable source (from the inventor - Nicolo Petrucci) that these sidepods generated downforce. Even if it wasn't much.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑22 Feb 2024, 08:30The only thing generated there is lift, don't let them fool you All sidepods generate lift and drag, teams are now playing around different designs to optimise outwash for minimal drag and lift penalty. Ferrari specifically has more room to play around and optimise this area since their starting position is basically the least advanced right now.SoulPancake13 wrote: ↑22 Feb 2024, 02:37profiling of the sidepod like another wing to generate more downforce in the region between the sidepod and floor.
My bad there, should have been clear that I refer to all sidepods in use todayAndi76 wrote: ↑22 Feb 2024, 08:35Sorry that I have to disagree. There was indeed the side-pod wing concept, which many people confused with the "double-floor" concept at the time. Here the sidepod functioned like a wing. Even though I don't know it personally and don't value it, I know from a reliable source (from the inventor - Nicolo Petrucci) that these sidepods generated downforce. Even if it wasn't much.
Or my fault for not realizing it - but don't you think Red Bull's Sidepods are going in that direction? The shape and everything else reminds me a lot of it when you compare it to the STR06.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑22 Feb 2024, 08:44My bad there, should have been clear that I refer to all sidepods in use todayAndi76 wrote: ↑22 Feb 2024, 08:35Sorry that I have to disagree. There was indeed the side-pod wing concept, which many people confused with the "double-floor" concept at the time. Here the sidepod functioned like a wing. Even though I don't know it personally and don't value it, I know from a reliable source (from the inventor - Nicolo Petrucci) that these sidepods generated downforce. Even if it wasn't much.
Interesting that the lower SIPS has its own modular carbon panel, will look forward to potential changes to that area
Its four mounting purposes no? To be able to fit the floor to the monocoque.CaribouBread wrote: ↑22 Feb 2024, 11:21Interesting that the lower SIPS has its own modular carbon panel, will look forward to potential changes to that area
Looks like they have plenty of room to reshape the sidepods.