Ferrari SF-26

[johnnycesup]

Interesting article about f126's qualifying

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/char ... -confused/

Interestingly, Ferrari is the only team where i've heard the drivers openly talk about problems with "the algorithm". The other driver mentioned is Ocon, who also runs a Ferrari PU.

I wonder if that's something that can be completely fixed with the current ICE or if Ferrari is fundamentally screwed until they can get ADUO

[matteosc]

Interesting article about f126's qualifying

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/char ... -confused/

Interestingly, Ferrari is the only team where i've heard the drivers openly talk about problems with "the algorithm". The other driver mentioned is Ocon, who also runs a Ferrari PU.

I wonder if that's something that can be completely fixed with the current ICE or if Ferrari is fundamentally screwed until they can get ADUO

It sounds like it is all about software and algorithms, so something that can be fixed with the current hardware.
Unless the smaller turbo is more critical in these conditions (e.g. not allowing to recover as much energy as a larger turbo).

[atanatizante]

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 wonder whether they are still allowed to use a serrated screen or deflector in front of the driver. Before the current ground-effect era, many cars featured something similar, primarily to generate controlled vortical structures that would eventually merge into a stronger single vortex, energetic enough to re-energize the airflow passing over the sidepods.

Besides the obvious benefit of reducing the drag induced by the driver’s helmet and the halo, there are at least two additional aerodynamic advantages. First, it can help energize and better condition the flow heading downstream toward the coke-bottle region and diffuser inlet. Second, it may help mitigate boundary-layer separation and keep the airflow attached to the bodywork for longer, which is particularly valuable when trying to preserve flow quality around such a sensitive aerodynamic platform.

As for that small fin on the halo, has anyone considered that another (albeit minor) benefit could be a slight local acceleration of the airflow entering the engine air intake? I suspect the gain would be more relevant from a cooling-flow management perspective than from any meaningful increase in plenum pressure, but it could still offer a small packaging or thermal-efficiency advantage.

[atanatizante]

This would be another advantage of the macarena wing. It doesn't take up the rotation bracket allocation because it doesn't require rotation brackets. Frees them up to use more of those boxes for other things like the halo winglets.

Seeing the CoP migration issues induced by the “Macarena wing” under braking, I wonder whether a “short-Macarena” concept might actually be the more elegant solution. In other words, a design with reduced angular travel — perhaps ~135° — moving front-to-rear when switching into low-drag / low-downforce mode, and reversing that motion when returning to the cornering configuration.

That would offer at least two clear advantages: firstly, a faster deployment/recovery event due to the shorter angular path, and secondly, a much shorter residence time in the intermediate high-drag “airbrake” condition. To me, that transitional state is likely one of the key contributors to braking instability, because it induces a very rapid rearward shift of the aerodynamic center of pressure.

[AR3-GP]

@n_mode_log

[matteosc]

This would be another advantage of the macarena wing. It doesn't take up the rotation bracket allocation because it doesn't require rotation brackets. Frees them up to use more of those boxes for other things like the halo winglets.

Seeing the CoP migration issues induced by the “Macarena wing” under braking, I wonder whether a “short-Macarena” concept might actually be the more elegant solution. In other words, a design with reduced angular travel — perhaps ~135° — moving front-to-rear when switching into low-drag / low-downforce mode, and reversing that motion when returning to the cornering configuration.

That would offer at least two clear advantages: firstly, a faster deployment/recovery event due to the shorter angular path, and secondly, a much shorter residence time in the intermediate high-drag “airbrake” condition. To me, that transitional state is likely one of the key contributors to braking instability, because it induces a very rapid rearward shift of the aerodynamic center of pressure.

If I understand correctly, that would imply that the axis of rotation has to move during the rotation. Which is definitely more complex to achieve than a fix rotation axis.

[matteosc]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HEVGFlabYAE ... =4096x4096
@n_mode_log

So normal rear wing for now?

[AR3-GP]

This would be another advantage of the macarena wing. It doesn't take up the rotation bracket allocation because it doesn't require rotation brackets. Frees them up to use more of those boxes for other things like the halo winglets.

Seeing the CoP migration issues induced by the “Macarena wing” under braking, I wonder whether a “short-Macarena” concept might actually be the more elegant solution. In other words, a design with reduced angular travel — perhaps ~135° — moving front-to-rear when switching into low-drag / low-downforce mode, and reversing that motion when returning to the cornering configuration.

That would offer at least two clear advantages: firstly, a faster deployment/recovery event due to the shorter angular path, and secondly, a much shorter residence time in the intermediate high-drag “airbrake” condition. To me, that transitional state is likely one of the key contributors to braking instability, because it induces a very rapid rearward shift of the aerodynamic center of pressure.

If I understand correctly, that would imply that the axis of rotation has to move during the rotation. Which is definitely more complex to achieve than a fix rotation axis.

Your idea is interesting, but I don't think that's what was being said. The wing rotates 180 degrees. Atanatizante proposes to stop the wing at 135 degrees. Without knowing the aero characteristics at 135 degrees, it's hard to say that this is sufficient or better than the standard DRS design.



There is still drag reduction effect at smaller angles which allows the wing to close faster when it returns. You don't have to go for the entire 180 flip.

Clips from the simulation that was posted here earlier:
0 deg:


135:


180:

[matteosc]

Seeing the CoP migration issues induced by the “Macarena wing” under braking, I wonder whether a “short-Macarena” concept might actually be the more elegant solution. In other words, a design with reduced angular travel — perhaps ~135° — moving front-to-rear when switching into low-drag / low-downforce mode, and reversing that motion when returning to the cornering configuration.

That would offer at least two clear advantages: firstly, a faster deployment/recovery event due to the shorter angular path, and secondly, a much shorter residence time in the intermediate high-drag “airbrake” condition. To me, that transitional state is likely one of the key contributors to braking instability, because it induces a very rapid rearward shift of the aerodynamic center of pressure.

If I understand correctly, that would imply that the axis of rotation has to move during the rotation. Which is definitely more complex to achieve than a fix rotation axis.

Your idea is interesting, but I don't think that's what was being said. The wing rotates 180 degrees. Atanatizante proposes to stop the wing at 135 degrees. Without knowing the aero characteristics at 135 degrees, it's hard to say that this is sufficient or better than the standard DRS design.



There is still drag reduction effect at smaller angles which allows the wing to close faster when it returns. You don't have to go for the entire 180 flip.

Clips from the simulation that was posted here earlier:
0 deg:
https://i.postimg.cc/NFWLQwg6/image.png

135:
https://i.postimg.cc/JhPnGX1q/image.png

180:
https://i.postimg.cc/G2tpYptn/image.png

Oh, I see. I think in the end once you reached 135 degrees, going all the way to 180 degrees is not all that complicated and seems to create only benefits. It looks like the most critical phase is the initial one, with the wing going through a "vertical" position. I do not think that can be avoided, you probably just want to get past that point as fast as possible.


Unrealated topic: would it not be beneficial for this generation of cars to recover energy during the turns, by (e.g.) running the engine at 260kW, recovering 250kW with the electric motor and provide 10kW to the wheels?
This would be in place of running full throttle on the straights and reducing the speed.
Am I missing something here? Is it because of some limitations on how much you can recover on partial gas? Or is it something else?

[AR3-GP]

Unrealated topic: would it not be beneficial for this generation of cars to recover energy during the turns, by (e.g.) running the engine at 260kW, recovering 250kW with the electric motor and provide 10kW to the wheels?
This would be in place of running full throttle on the straights and reducing the speed.
Am I missing something here? Is it because of some limitations on how much you can recover on partial gas? Or is it something else?

They do harvest in the corners. There are partial throttle fuel flow limits that control it.

[matteosc]

Unrealated topic: would it not be beneficial for this generation of cars to recover energy during the turns, by (e.g.) running the engine at 260kW, recovering 250kW with the electric motor and provide 10kW to the wheels?
This would be in place of running full throttle on the straights and reducing the speed.
Am I missing something here? Is it because of some limitations on how much you can recover on partial gas? Or is it something else?

They do harvest in the corners. There are partial throttle fuel flow limits that control it.

https://i.postimg.cc/2STCCBFt/image.png

Thank you! Then why not to change this limit to fix the slowing down on the straight issue? It looks to me that the only downside would be higher fuel consumption, which is not a big deal.

[atanatizante]

Seeing the CoP migration issues induced by the “Macarena wing” under braking, I wonder whether a “short-Macarena” concept might actually be the more elegant solution. In other words, a design with reduced angular travel — perhaps ~135° — moving front-to-rear when switching into low-drag / low-downforce mode, and reversing that motion when returning to the cornering configuration.

That would offer at least two clear advantages: firstly, a faster deployment/recovery event due to the shorter angular path, and secondly, a much shorter residence time in the intermediate high-drag “airbrake” condition. To me, that transitional state is likely one of the key contributors to braking instability, because it induces a very rapid rearward shift of the aerodynamic center of pressure.

If I understand correctly, that would imply that the axis of rotation has to move during the rotation. Which is definitely more complex to achieve than a fix rotation axis.

Your idea is interesting, but I don't think that's what was being said. The wing rotates 180 degrees. Atanatizante proposes to stop the wing at 135 degrees. Without knowing the aero characteristics at 135 degrees, it's hard to say that this is sufficient or better than the standard DRS design.



There is still drag reduction effect at smaller angles which allows the wing to close faster when it returns. You don't have to go for the entire 180 flip.

Clips from the simulation that was posted here earlier:
0 deg:
https://i.postimg.cc/NFWLQwg6/image.png

135:
https://i.postimg.cc/JhPnGX1q/image.png

180:
https://i.postimg.cc/G2tpYptn/image.png

I made a mistake in my initial wording, because what I actually meant is that the movable wing (the former DRS flap) performs a rotational motion not forward, but backward and upward, undergoing a rotation of approximately 135 degrees, so that this movable wing reaches the same position as in the case of the “Macarena wing.”

In addition, if for this movement the movable wing must rotate around axes located in the endplates, an alternative solution would be for the wing to be lifted from the rear (not from the front using a central actuator as in the DRS era), by means of two actuators embedded in the endplates, using metal rods that follow a 135-degree travel/trajectory between the closed and open positions.

Thus, at the lateral ends of the movable wing there is a small pin/bolt on each side, which connects to the actuator rod in each endplate. The connection is not made on the surface of the endplate, but instead follows a curvilinear groove machined/embedded into the endplate.

[AR3-GP]

I made a mistake in my initial wording, because what I actually meant is that the movable wing (the former DRS flap) performs a rotational motion not forward, but backward and upward, undergoing a rotation of approximately 135 degrees, so that this movable wing reaches the same position as in the case of the “Macarena wing.”

In addition, if for this movement the movable wing must rotate around axes located in the endplates, an alternative solution would be for the wing to be lifted from the rear (not from the front using a central actuator as in the DRS era), by means of two actuators embedded in the endplates, using metal rods that follow a 135-degree travel/trajectory between the closed and open positions.

Thus, at the lateral ends of the movable wing there is a small pin/bolt on each side, which connects to the actuator rod in each endplate. The connection is not made on the surface of the endplate, but instead follows a curvilinear groove machined/embedded into the endplate.

It must have a fixed rotation axis

b. Adjustment of RW Flap is about a fixed axis of rotation, which must be aligned with the Y-Axis.
Furthermore, in Corner Mode, the axis of rotation must:

the alternative would be to commit to a shorter mainplane so that the flap can just continue rotating in the same direction to get back to the closed position. Moving it that way would generate more coherent aerodynamics while the wing closes. The flow would attach sooner, and the load would increase gradually.

[Luscion]

[matteosc]

I made a mistake in my initial wording, because what I actually meant is that the movable wing (the former DRS flap) performs a rotational motion not forward, but backward and upward, undergoing a rotation of approximately 135 degrees, so that this movable wing reaches the same position as in the case of the “Macarena wing.”

In addition, if for this movement the movable wing must rotate around axes located in the endplates, an alternative solution would be for the wing to be lifted from the rear (not from the front using a central actuator as in the DRS era), by means of two actuators embedded in the endplates, using metal rods that follow a 135-degree travel/trajectory between the closed and open positions.

Thus, at the lateral ends of the movable wing there is a small pin/bolt on each side, which connects to the actuator rod in each endplate. The connection is not made on the surface of the endplate, but instead follows a curvilinear groove machined/embedded into the endplate.

It must have a fixed rotation axis

b. Adjustment of RW Flap is about a fixed axis of rotation, which must be aligned with the Y-Axis.
Furthermore, in Corner Mode, the axis of rotation must:

the alternative would be to commit to a shorter mainplane so that the flap can just continue rotating in the same direction to get back to the closed position. Moving it that way would generate more coherent aerodynamics while the wing closes. The flow would attach sooner, and the load would increase gradually.

You mean a shorter mainplane leaving a gap with the second element? I doubt that would be optimal from an aerodynamic point of view, with the wing close (which is the majority of the time).