Ferrari SF-26

[AR3-GP]

Yes i noticed during the race that in the heavy braking zone at the end of the back straight, the merc front wing does not snap back into place but gradually goes back to its position.m

Meanwhile into turn 1, the front wing jumps back into place straight away.

Maybe its linked to the fact that heavy braking occurs in one instance, and just a lift or or tap of the brake is occurs in the other.

Either way, I dont knownhow theyll sort aero transition imbalance out without a similar thing, if they don't have it already.

The Merc wing closes slower at higher speeds simply because of increased air resistance. Whether that's intentional or not is unknowable, but if it's taking longer than 400ms the FIA would be well within their rights to make them fix it.

I didn't see Mercedes have this issue in the Bahrain pre-season or in Australia. Odd.

[PlatinumZealot]

https://youtube.com/shorts/5mKYK8riqI4? ... V1S55kDVI6

At around the seven second.mark in this video, the front of the car appears to hit a pretty hard "stop" point as it nose dives under braking, immediately followed by the rear breaking loose.

Could it be hitting the ground too hard since the front wing and rear wing are engaging at very different times and messing with floor aero/chassis balance?

Front wing closes earlier than rear wing then clear oversteer (rear not loaded and unstable under braking), then when the rear wing closes it is too late to stop the rear from coming around.

[S D]

Then wouldn't the solution be to flip the wings fractionally earlier and braking under stable conditions?

[AR3-GP]

Then wouldn't the solution be to flip the wings fractionally earlier and braking under stable conditions?

Yes the driver would have to adapt his driving style or close the wing manually before braking.

[nico5]

Then wouldn't the solution be to flip the wings fractionally earlier and braking under stable conditions?

Yes the driver would have to adapt his driving style or close the wing manually before braking.

Not a huge adaptation since they are well used to doing lico during races and change multiple setups on the steering wheel during a single quali lap.
I remember Merc were manually closing DRS for a long time.
For example:
Spain 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e1krmYs_HM
USA 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLXdxyJJrhY

Another solution would be to offset closure of the rear and front flaps by a few tenths so that the flip wing closes earlier and the rear instability takes place when the front wing is still unloaded. Idk if that's allowed though.

[LeQuick]

Then wouldn't the solution be to flip the wings fractionally earlier and braking under stable conditions?

Yes the driver would have to adapt his driving style or close the wing manually before braking.

Is that what Lewis forgot to do in practice last race?

[AR3-GP]

Is that what Lewis forgot to do in practice last race?

I would consider it learning where the limit of overlap is. Ideally they can drive it like it has a normal DRS system, so the engineers want to understand if that's possible. It isn't so they may fine tune the aerodynamic properties of the wing.

[Farnborough]

Then wouldn't the solution be to flip the wings fractionally earlier and braking under stable conditions?

Yes the driver would have to adapt his driving style or close the wing manually before braking.

Not a huge adaptation since they are well used to doing lico during races and change multiple setups on the steering wheel during a single quali lap.
I remember Merc were manually closing DRS for a long time.
For example:
Spain 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e1krmYs_HM
USA 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLXdxyJJrhY

Another solution would be to offset closure of the rear and front flaps by a few tenths so that the flip wing closes earlier and the rear instability takes place when the front wing is still unloaded. Idk if that's allowed though.

Thats looking at it the wrong way around.

Closing the wing won't give rear instability (like we saw in LH spin) but rear wheel traction, applied either through regeneration OR disc brake will cause the spin WHILE rear load from wing is not sufficient to support this action.

That example was "brake" bias to far rear without the aero load to support that level of retardation.

[nico5]

Yes the driver would have to adapt his driving style or close the wing manually before braking.

Not a huge adaptation since they are well used to doing lico during races and change multiple setups on the steering wheel during a single quali lap.
I remember Merc were manually closing DRS for a long time.
For example:
Spain 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e1krmYs_HM
USA 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLXdxyJJrhY

Another solution would be to offset closure of the rear and front flaps by a few tenths so that the flip wing closes earlier and the rear instability takes place when the front wing is still unloaded. Idk if that's allowed though.

Thats looking at it the wrong way around.

Closing the wing won't give rear instability (like we saw in LH spin) but rear wheel traction, applied either through regeneration OR disc brake will cause the spin WHILE rear load from wing is not sufficient to support this action.

That example was "brake" bias to far rear without the aero load to support that level of retardation.

But it goes back to that. If you artificially lower your front DF you are effectively evening out braking capability across the axles, right? Electronic brake maps will then have to be tuned for that lower braking capacity at bitepoint, which is true regardless and is obviously not something you want to test out in a sprint weekend with one FP session.

[Gabriox]

Why doesn't ferrari have the upper end plate on the front wing? Red bull doesn't have it as well. Is there any benefits to having it at all? Won't it help with helping the tires last longer or something? Lol

[Brahmal]

Why doesn't ferrari have the upper end plate on the front wing? Red bull doesn't have it as well. Is there any benefits to having it at all? Won't it help with helping the tires last longer or something? Lol

They and Red Bull might be trying to keep the front wing relatively simple until they are confident that everything downstream is performing as expected, bargeboards in particular. This will probably be part of their first big updates.

[hollus]

Can anyone think of a reason why it might be beneficial to shed counter-rotating vortices onto a driver’s face?

Crazy theory with nothing but gut feeling to back it up:
Those two winglets do nothing useful. They don't do anything harmful, maybe the car can use the downforce, but "crucially" they look like they do something useful. FIA cannot argue that they don't do anything useful in any case.
They also look like they would block driver's visibility, but they just don't. I imagine that they placed them carefully enough not to compromise that. But "crucially" they look like they would block visibility.

My theory is that the real purpose of those winglets is to tell the FIA to crank down on the "free box placement loophole", or it will escalate into sillyness, madness, and "crucually" safety risks.
So that Mercedes will not get to use those rear wing extensions.

And in the mean time, the Ferrari's COG is 0.01 mm higher, downforce 150 g higher and drag 10 N or so lower.

As said, crazy theory, not really backed up by anything. Maybe that is the best quick use they could find of the free volumes and it is an awesome way to reduce drag from the helmet.

[sucof]

Can anyone think of a reason why it might be beneficial to shed counter-rotating vortices onto a driver’s face?

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

Crazy theory with nothing but gut feeling to back it up:
Those two winglets do nothing useful. They don't do anything harmful, maybe the car can use the downforce, but "crucially" they look like they do something useful. FIA cannot argue that they don't do anything useful in any case.
They also look like they would block driver's visibility, but they just don't. I imagine that they placed them carefully enough not to compromise that. But "crucially" they look like they would block visibility.

My theory is that the real purpose of those winglets is to tell the FIA to crank down on the "free box placement loophole", or it will escalate into sillyness, madness, and "crucually" safety risks.
So that Mercedes will not get to use those rear wing extensions.

And in the mean time, the Ferrari's COG is 0.01 mm higher, downforce 150 g higher and drag 10 N or so lower.

As said, crazy theory, not really backed up by anything. Maybe that is the best quick use they could find of the free volumes and it is an awesome way to reduce drag from the helmet.

I like crazy ideas
Your theory would be a nice thing.
Though I think those vortices could strongly affect driver helmet suction. Especially on new cars, I noticed this is sometimes a hit or miss. Perhaps Ferrari's is too high, so they tried this instead of a transparent plastic piece on top of the cockpit as others. Maybe this has less drag for the same end effect.

[Brahmal]

It's clear plastic and held on by tape. I bet the engineer who came up with this was smirking and chuckling to himself as he did so.

[PlatinumZealot]

Can anyone think of a reason why it might be beneficial to shed counter-rotating vortices onto a driver’s face?

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

That big bulbous jiggling thing called the driver's helmet does cause flow disturbances and this is a way to help reduce those bad effects. In F1 you rather not add more draggy fins and winglets unless you are using them to influence other areas downstream to get an overall beneficial effect.