Ferrari SF-24

[bananapeel23]

What is this line?
https://i.postimg.cc/bJFdnQCY/image.png

That’s a cooling cover.

Why it is not smooth (at the same level of the surrounding surfaces) and creates (even if closed) a small step (I would say some millimetres)?
I suppose it is to have similar boundary layer behaviour both with open and closed cooling. Do you agree?

It could simply be a small manufacturing or mounting error. I know F1 tolerances are tight, but maybe they let it fly because they had no spares and it was just a short test run at Fiorano. Either that or it's the smallest cooling gill I've ever seen. The latter option almost looks possible if you zoom in really far, it does kind of look sculpted, but that could also be shadows messing with me.

But realistically I think it's just a case of a blanking panel that has been poorly manufactured or mounted. Either way it's tiny and will 100% be rectified before Imola if it was unintentional. Remember that Ferrari has historically had some QC issues with new spec parts, like the front wing panel on the SF23 that caved and created a dip in the nose during testing.

[Xwang]

That’s a cooling cover.

Why it is not smooth (at the same level of the surrounding surfaces) and creates (even if closed) a small step (I would say some millimetres)?
I suppose it is to have similar boundary layer behaviour both with open and closed cooling. Do you agree?

It could simply be a small manufacturing or mounting error. I know F1 tolerances are tight, but maybe they let it fly because they had no spares and it was just a short test run at Fiorano. Either that or it's the smallest cooling gill I've ever seen. The latter option almost looks possible if you zoom in really far, it does kind of look sculpted, but that could also be shadows messing with me.

But realistically I think it's just a case of a blanking panel that has been poorly manufactured or mounted. Either way it's tiny and will 100% be rectified before Imola if it was unintentional. Remember that Ferrari has historically had some QC issues with new spec parts, like the front wing panel on the SF23 that caved and created a dip in the nose during testing.

Maybe, but I'm quite sure that in some races (cold ones) SF-75 had some of the openings closed in a similar way ...so it would be strange that a manufacturing error like that repeats.

[scuderiabrandon]

What is this line?
https://i.postimg.cc/bJFdnQCY/image.png

It's a split line for the louvre panel. The alignment is not perfect but its not in a hyper sensitive area so it shouldn't be a big deal.

A sensitive area for example would be in the undercut or the top of the sidepod. I recall Aston having to move the inlet split line (where the inlet and the side pod body merge) because it was likely tripping up the air and causing a bit of seperation.

[ing.]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNNFa-3WEAA ... =4096x4096

https://i.imgur.com/99dblw0.png

Man, Ferrari really loves spending time on weird halo decorations.

First the halo mirrors in 2018 with a winglet hanging off. Then the SF23 with the weird little wings sticking out on top of the halo. Then the first iteration of the SF24 winglets that created a tunnel between the sidepods and the halo. Now these weird S-shaped "cobra" winglets on the SF24 v2. Nto to mention all the small halo covers and the tiny winglets that barely stick out that were used on the SF21 and F1-75.

Why does Ferrari spend so much time and money on halo ornamentation while no one else does? Are the performance benefits thought to be significant at all or are we talking thousandths of a second per lap?

What purpose do they even serve? Is it akin to something like winglets on aircraft that aim to break up vortex formation and reduce drag downstram? Is it more of a flow conditioning thing meant to keep the airflow flowing off the halo nice and predictable when it hits the rear wing?

The ‘cobra’ looks do be doing the exact opposite of aircraft winglets—it looks designed to be a VG, shedding a vortex off the outboard tip of the top horizontal plane, which also looks to be cambered and generating some small amount of DF.
The vortex is likely used to strengthen and direct flow over the engine cover.

The twisted support below is either aligned with the flow or is being used to clean up or condition the air coming off the cockpit opening/halo anchoring area.

[f1316]

It seems logical that they are using today’s filming to run the bodywork and ensure correlation, before running the new floor. If they did both at once, in theory there could be some “noise” in the data (eg downforce loads generated) whereas this way you can isolate the two.

It doesn’t look like anything they’ve done is necessarily impacting the airflow to the underfloor (eg no front wing or front suspension or T-tray changes) so it seems like they can work in isolation. I suspect they’ll take away the data from the bodywork changes and ensure everything’s doing what it’s supposed to and then run the new floor in FP1 at Imola.

[AR3-GP]

It seems logical that they are using today’s filming to run the bodywork and ensure correlation, before running the new floor. If they did both at once, in theory there could be some “noise” in the data (eg downforce loads generated) whereas this way you can isolate the two.

It doesn’t look like anything they’ve done is necessarily impacting the airflow to the underfloor (eg no front wing or front suspension or T-tray changes) so it seems like they can work in isolation. I suspect they’ll take away the data from the bodywork changes and ensure everything’s doing what it’s supposed to and then run the new floor in FP1 at Imola.

Running the floor during the filming day would be very valuable because the floor is filled with pressure sensors which can be used for correlation with CFD and WindTunnel numbers. This would be of high interest to the engineering group. If there was a chance to take correlation data for the floor a week early, they would have used it.

Leclerc could have run in the morning with only the bodywork, and Sainz could have run in the afternoon with only the floor.

[scuderiabrandon]

It seems logical that they are using today’s filming to run the bodywork and ensure correlation, before running the new floor. If they did both at once, in theory there could be some “noise” in the data (eg downforce loads generated) whereas this way you can isolate the two.

It doesn’t look like anything they’ve done is necessarily impacting the airflow to the underfloor (eg no front wing or front suspension or T-tray changes) so it seems like they can work in isolation. I suspect they’ll take away the data from the bodywork changes and ensure everything’s doing what it’s supposed to and then run the new floor in FP1 at Imola.

Running the floor during the filming day would be very valuable because the floor is filled with pressure sensors which can be used for correlation with CFD and WindTunnel numbers. This would be of high interest to the engineering group. If there was a chance to take correlation data for the floor a week early, they would have used it.

Leclerc could have run in the morning with only the bodywork, and Sainz could have run in the afternoon with only the floor.

Both drivers ran the new floor.

But I'm seeing a trend here. There is correlation between the amount of visual change and someone expectations in terms of performance. Basically, whenever something doesn't undergo massive visual change, the expectations are low, and vice versa. The glaring problem here is that most of the changes to the floor will not be seen, nor do we have anything to compare to. So that leaves us with the floor edges, which have not undergone massive change, hence the confusion of whether it was a new floor or not, but I can assure you it was. The problem with this thought process is that it assumes the base or previous version of said part needed to undergo massive change, and wasn't already doing its job well enough.

[AR3-GP]

It seems logical that they are using today’s filming to run the bodywork and ensure correlation, before running the new floor. If they did both at once, in theory there could be some “noise” in the data (eg downforce loads generated) whereas this way you can isolate the two.

It doesn’t look like anything they’ve done is necessarily impacting the airflow to the underfloor (eg no front wing or front suspension or T-tray changes) so it seems like they can work in isolation. I suspect they’ll take away the data from the bodywork changes and ensure everything’s doing what it’s supposed to and then run the new floor in FP1 at Imola.

Running the floor during the filming day would be very valuable because the floor is filled with pressure sensors which can be used for correlation with CFD and WindTunnel numbers. This would be of high interest to the engineering group. If there was a chance to take correlation data for the floor a week early, they would have used it.

Leclerc could have run in the morning with only the bodywork, and Sainz could have run in the afternoon with only the floor.

Both drivers ran the new floor.

Ok. I was running with the assumption based on other comments that they did not run the new floor. (I would find it very strange if they didn't, for the reasons that I gave).

[scuderiabrandon]

Running the floor during the filming day would be very valuable because the floor is filled with pressure sensors which can be used for correlation with CFD and WindTunnel numbers. This would be of high interest to the engineering group. If there was a chance to take correlation data for the floor a week early, they would have used it.

Leclerc could have run in the morning with only the bodywork, and Sainz could have run in the afternoon with only the floor.

Both drivers ran the new floor.

Ok. I was running with the assumption based on other comments that they did not run the new floor. (I would find it very strange if they didn't, for the reasons that I gave).

Ye it would've been 10 types of silly not to, but everything needs to be a conspiracy these days

[dia6olo]

It seems logical that they are using today’s filming to run the bodywork and ensure correlation, before running the new floor. If they did both at once, in theory there could be some “noise” in the data (eg downforce loads generated) whereas this way you can isolate the two.

It doesn’t look like anything they’ve done is necessarily impacting the airflow to the underfloor (eg no front wing or front suspension or T-tray changes) so it seems like they can work in isolation. I suspect they’ll take away the data from the bodywork changes and ensure everything’s doing what it’s supposed to and then run the new floor in FP1 at Imola.

Running the floor during the filming day would be very valuable because the floor is filled with pressure sensors which can be used for correlation with CFD and WindTunnel numbers. This would be of high interest to the engineering group. If there was a chance to take correlation data for the floor a week early, they would have used it.

Leclerc could have run in the morning with only the bodywork, and Sainz could have run in the afternoon with only the floor.

Both drivers ran the new floor.

But I'm seeing a trend here. There is correlation between the amount of visual change and someone expectations in terms of performance. Basically, whenever something doesn't undergo massive visual change, the expectations are low, and vice versa. The glaring problem here is that most of the changes to the floor will not be seen, nor do we have anything to compare to. So that leaves us with the floor edges, which have not undergone massive change, hence the confusion of whether it was a new floor or not, but I can assure you it was. The problem with this thought process is that it assumes the base or previous version of said part needed to undergo massive change, and wasn't already doing its job well enough.

Pretty much this, there is definitely a tendency to judge the cars by how they look, how intricate/detailed and so forth, surprisingly even by so called "experts".
The silly thing is that we all know, the "experts" included, that for the most part, what really makes a car tick are the parts/areas we can't really see/measure.

[miguelalvesreis]

Isn't the front suspension geometry also different??


Enviado do meu RMX3572 através do Tapatalk

[miguelalvesreis]

Isn't the front suspension geometry also different??


Enviado do meu RMX3572 através do Tapatalk

Check location of the rear lower arm
Seems to be on a different position (lower) compared with the old version
And the push rod also seems higher on the chassis

Enviado do meu RMX3572 através do Tapatalk

[murphy]

At first it looked like only the sidepod inlet was changed, but then it became clear sidepod bodywork is new as well. We also have new rear wing flap tip (as suggested by Formu1a Uno team), engine cover and cooling outlet redesign.

As far as I can tell, the floor is old/launch spec, absolutely no surface looks different. Most likely will be fitted later today, like they did with pre-Austria comparative tests during Filming Day 2 last year.

Novelties:
- fairly conventional and extended inlet, slightly elongated top lip, seemingly of the same size as before
- new mirror vane design
- new Halo winglet design, no more S duct outlet in the rear
- bigger and more squared sidepod shape (possibly now chasing some actual local suction load, ie downforce)
- engine cover and cooling outlet look like a fairly big change, will be interesting to see how this area will be adapted from track to track
- rear wing flap tip redesign, in line with sharp flat edge that RB introduced

Not bad, but definitely not an EVO/B car, just a natural update evolution

https://i.ibb.co/44ygTg4/comp-1.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/r0ZmGy5/comp-2.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/g6CJWL8/1-D617301-scaled.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/nPSLpV4/1-D617326-scaled.jpg

Reports say It does have a completely new floor.

[S D]

At first it looked like only the sidepod inlet was changed, but then it became clear sidepod bodywork is new as well. We also have new rear wing flap tip (as suggested by Formu1a Uno team), engine cover and cooling outlet redesign.

As far as I can tell, the floor is old/launch spec, absolutely no surface looks different. Most likely will be fitted later today, like they did with pre-Austria comparative tests during Filming Day 2 last year.

Novelties:
- fairly conventional and extended inlet, slightly elongated top lip, seemingly of the same size as before
- new mirror vane design
- new Halo winglet design, no more S duct outlet in the rear
- bigger and more squared sidepod shape (possibly now chasing some actual local suction load, ie downforce)
- engine cover and cooling outlet look like a fairly big change, will be interesting to see how this area will be adapted from track to track
- rear wing flap tip redesign, in line with sharp flat edge that RB introduced

Not bad, but definitely not an EVO/B car, just a natural update evolution

https://i.ibb.co/44ygTg4/comp-1.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/r0ZmGy5/comp-2.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/g6CJWL8/1-D617301-scaled.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/nPSLpV4/1-D617326-scaled.jpg

Reports say It does have a completely new floor.

Does it make sense to only modified the floor underneath the car (which we can't see), run the tests, then make changes to the edges as needed based on the data? Or simply that the effects that they were looking to improve are derived from under the car and that they were satisfied with the edges.

Not being a designer, it would seem to me that you don't need to make gigantic changes unless you have a terrible design to begin with. The basic design is working and we just need fractions of a second improvement by relatively small reductions in drag plus relatively small improvements in down force. It's not as if anyone can expect doubling down force and halving drag.

[Vanja #66]

The floor used yesterday was, in fact, new floor. You'd only notice it if you look for smallest of details while knowing there is a change somewhere. The rear area near the edge has a different curvature and was flat before, a very small change but the only one I saw. Once you finally spot it, you can see it really is a bit different from every angle

From the rear side angle it looks like the undercut might be a bit deeper on the inside, but it's impossible to judge for sure. The top front part of the floor looks virtually the same, not even a slight change. This does not mean it's a bad thing, it simply means Ferrari are making targeted, cost-efficient changes and clearly the underside has changed and this is the part that matters.