Ferrari SF-26

[johnnycesup]

The whole simulation is obviously not accurate:

* The main profile in the real wing has a larger chord proportionally and looks to be a lot more cambered
* There are 2 flaps, and their initial angle of attack is a lot larger
* The entire wing is deeper in the center, so the SL opening is on average larger than the simulation

Regardless, I believe that the simulation giving a lower drag result for the macarena wing over standard DRS is noteworthy, since many people were speculating that the straight line speed increase was mostly about the reduction of rolling resistance and whatever.

IMO the actual drag is the only thing that really matters, whether it is reduced and how much. Even the whole point of dr obbs analysis is not that significant IMO. The time lost in disabling straight line mode before the braking zone is not really significant, and they'll probably be superclipping anyway.

[vorticism]

You mean when the wing exceeds its stall angle it stalls and when it's being dragged around like a fly swatter it produces more drag? Bwoah. Thank god for CFD.

"just got off the phone with my source in the team, bros, and he waffled about hysteresis like I just did" lol

I think its more likely we'll see the blown tail than the rotisserie wing used for races. The rotisserie wing mechanism would be heavier (2x actuators plus some gearing may be in use per side) and stresses the flaps more (greater range of motion within same maximal span of time, plus shock loading of the transient parachute moment--heavier flaps needed). There are many other forms the blown tail could take, and it's relatively easy to implement, so it will be interesting to see what Ferrari do with it, and what other teams bring.

[algebraist]

I just checked for detail about that example, this as my recollection was to drop the rear in "stalling" the diffuser and so drag on the straight .... which seems to be true.

With front flap dropped, and more air going under floor, then wouldn't that negate the diffuser accumulation ?

In which case, rotating the rear wing back to DF deployment ahead of the front wing should add to stability as rear load starts to come on stream (always promotes directional stability) followed by front wing flap lifting to then bring the underfloor more into diffuser performance, the phasing of this could fully promote stability under rear regeneration wheel torque to maximise recovery while holding onto stability.

Yeah looks like I got that wrong. Told you, i'm not an expert and I don't play an aerodynamicist on TV either That's what happens when you go entirely off memory from a Williams video from a couple years ago.

It's certainly dropping it's nose a second or two after it fully rotates it's wing, so they've found something as that is deliberate to my eyes.

[venkyhere]

can we please converge on one name for the 'fancy wing' that Ferrari have ?

so many names floating around
- macarena wing
- kebab wing
- rotisserie wing
- dancing wing
- somersault wing

[bluechris]

can we please converge on one name for the 'fancy wing' that Ferrari have ?

so many names floating around
- macarena wing
- kebab wing
- rotisserie wing
- dancing wing
- somersault wing

I vote the "Fancy Wing" that you just said or 270 wing

[S D]

It's been said that the new wing can save the plank from wear at high speeds because it provides a lift. This tells me two things.
1. The height can remain more consistently near or at the desired ride height.
2. The lift can create a rake. Which means that the vortices have to seal the edges of the floor very well.

Does this make sense?

[matteosc]

It's been said that the new wing can save the plank from wear at high speeds because it provides a lift. This tells me two things.
1. The height can remain more consistently near or at the desired ride height.
2. The lift can create a rake. Which means that the vortices have to seal the edges of the floor very well.

Does this make sense?

Not sure about point 2. In the "rake era" cars used rake to generate more downforce (more vertical expansion) and lowered the rear on straight to reduce it. I now hear a lot of talking of lifting the rear or lowering the nose to "stall the diffuser". Not sure why that should be the case.

[PlatinumZealot]

It's not a blown diffuser where the exhaust is directly influencing the throat veleocity and thus peak pressure of the diffuser. In this case the exahaust is just adding some energy to the diffuser wake and helping the extraction a little bit more, and also helping the rear wing. Remember this is a opportunitistic solution that's making do with "scraps available." it's not a big gun solution like the double diffuser or F-duct.

I'm seeing suggestions of 0.5s a lap. I have no idea if that's true but I think this is much more than 'opportunistic'. It's a very clever piece of engineering to spot the sliver of grey area in the rules in order to gain back the functionality of the monkey seat.

Ferrari will be able to run a wing with greater angle of attack for cornering and lose the drag penalty on the straight with the Kebab wing. The blown diffuser extension should not be viewed in isolation but in tandem with the rotating rear wing element. Other teams will be able to copy the rotating wing but they can't so easily copy the blown diffuser extension and gain the advantage Ferrari has baked in.

I take my hat off to Ferrari, this is thinking out of the box. Along with the choice of turbo they could've made some inspired design choices. Only time will tell.

Opportunistic means it has very limited boundaries that it is capitalizing on, a small window or slit, a loophole.

[vorticism]

I think its more likely we'll see the blown tail than the rotisserie wing used for races. ... There are many other forms the blown tail could take, and it's relatively easy to implement, so it will be interesting to see what Ferrari do with it, and what other teams bring.

Something seemed off. The regs state that the maximum vertical overlap between the tailpipe and the tail (FIA’s terms) is only 30mm. The minimum internal diameter of the tailpipe exit is 90mm. So, an overlap of only 1/3 of the tailpipe. Yet the test piece Ferrari used was half of it’s height, or ~45mm. This wouldn’t be legal to use in a race, so why did they test such an oversized piece? Maybe the real item will be sized accordingly. There’s room for creativity with the mounting bracket and that may be what we see ultimately. If only 1/3 of the tailpipe can be interacted with it makes doubt its potential for development. Half-covered looked more significant.

[LM10]

There are many other forms the blown tail could take, and it's relatively easy to implement, so it will be interesting to see what Ferrari do with it, and what other teams bring.

I thought that bringing such a tail this season would be really hard if not impossible for other teams considering they’d need to change their whole rear end.

[DRSMerchant]

I think its more likely we'll see the blown tail than the rotisserie wing used for races. ... There are many other forms the blown tail could take, and it's relatively easy to implement, so it will be interesting to see what Ferrari do with it, and what other teams bring.

Something seemed off. The regs state that the maximum vertical overlap between the tailpipe and the tail (FIA’s terms) is only 30mm. The minimum internal diameter of the tailpipe exit is 90mm. So, an overlap of only 1/3 of the tailpipe. Yet the test piece Ferrari used was half of it’s height, or ~45mm. This wouldn’t be legal to use in a race, so why did they test such an oversized piece? Maybe the real item will be sized accordingly. There’s room for creativity with the mounting bracket and that may be what we see ultimately. If only 1/3 of the tailpipe can be interacted with it makes doubt its potential for development. Half-covered looked more significant.

By Moving diff 60mm back the RV-Tail volume also moved rearward which allowed to cover more part of the exhaust, KYLE.ENGINEERS explained that how they were able to cover more part of the exhaust.

[johnnycesup]

Something seemed off. The regs state that the maximum vertical overlap between the tailpipe and the tail (FIA’s terms) is only 30mm.

I couldn't find this in the regulation, could you point to me where is that requirement?

[brakeboosted]

I think its more likely we'll see the blown tail than the rotisserie wing used for races. ... There are many other forms the blown tail could take, and it's relatively easy to implement, so it will be interesting to see what Ferrari do with it, and what other teams bring.

Something seemed off. The regs state that the maximum vertical overlap between the tailpipe and the tail (FIA’s terms) is only 30mm. The minimum internal diameter of the tailpipe exit is 90mm. So, an overlap of only 1/3 of the tailpipe. Yet the test piece Ferrari used was half of it’s height, or ~45mm. This wouldn’t be legal to use in a race, so why did they test such an oversized piece? Maybe the real item will be sized accordingly. There’s room for creativity with the mounting bracket and that may be what we see ultimately. If only 1/3 of the tailpipe can be interacted with it makes doubt its potential for development. Half-covered looked more significant.

Apparently the differential was moved further rearward to allow for a bigger flap. One of those axle-aligned reg boxes that change size depending on the positioning of the rear axle.

[AR3-GP]

This is the box that allows them to put aero devices behind the exhaust. The X coordinate is referenced with respect to the position of the differential. When the differential final drive moves backwards, the box moves backwards. There is no restriction on what can be done inside the box so the attachments to the exhaust most likely belong to the tail bodywork volume, not the exhaust volume.

[vorticism]

I see. I read through that section too quickly. The volume does rise at a 32* angle just aft of the tailpipe allowance. At the standard position (diff and wheel axles inline) this already allows the 30mm of coverage I mentioned plus 32mm, which is about what was seen on the Ferrari. So it’s not necessarily about diff placement per se, in order to get at least half the exhaust covered.

Ferrari may simply have the diff inline with the wheels. The further back the diff is placed the more coverage will be allowed at a run:rise ratio of .63 i.e. for every mm further back from standard alignment you get .63mm more vertical coverage on top of 62mm base max. If the diff is 50mm behind the wheel axles f.e. then you’d have 93.5mm of coverage, or greater than 100% of the min exhaust outlet diameter. Which seems crazy. Huge. Elephant in the room. Why isn't anyone discussing this? Someone could conceivable arrive with a ramp so large that the exhaust outlet cant be seen. Might be time to do some more sketches... Or alert Qvist Designs. How far back can the diff be legally placed?

The same applies in reverse although the minimum amount of coverage even for a diff placed very far forward (50mm or more) would still be 30mm. So this trick is potentially available to everyone, by varying degrees. Will anyone turn out to have a very far rearward diff and thus a totally covered exhaust?

AMR brought a rearward oriented rear suspension setup with arms mounted on the RW pylons. Coincidence?

Someone will have to do a study of half shaft angles to determine roughly how for forward or rearward the teams have placed their diffs.