Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

[MtthsMlw]

Also note the mirror mountings are not symmetrical if you see what I mean

[George-Jung]

A bit offtopic; but these kind of discussions are exactly what makes F1 in general so interesting to me.

These cars look like alien space ships and we are all trying to figure out what ‘things’ are doing..


No other sport so sophisticated as F1- imho.

Please continue the discussion, I like it!

[Xwang]

Also note the mirror mountings are not symmetrical if you see what I mean

https://www2.pic-upload.de/img/34940293 ... AA4byJ.jpg

I'm not sure they are not symmetrical.
Maybe they have tried two different positions in two different runs.
To be sure that they are not symmetrical, we should have a photo with both mirrors in sight.

[Vanja #66]

Yeah, two different solution seem more plausible to me. Launch spec mirrors were the ones more rearward.

[MtthsMlw]

Also note the mirror mountings are not symmetrical if you see what I mean

https://www2.pic-upload.de/img/34940293 ... AA4byJ.jpg

I'm not sure they are not symmetrical.
Maybe they have tried two different positions in two different runs.
To be sure that they are not symmetrical, we should have a photo with both mirrors in sight.

I've looked at other pictures and they are indeed symmetrical but they tried 2 different mounting positions
Here the mirrors are positioned further forward and bent further to the back and in the other variant they are mounted further back and they are not so strongly bent back.
Did not notice this before, nice

[Vanja #66]

Exactly. This can tell us 100% that mirror stalks are the one more interesting to the team, not the mirrors themselves. Great find, everyone!

[manchild]

Another possibility:

If the mirrors are opened on both ends, than the inner fairing would actually increase the air speed and thus lower the pressure (Venturi tube).

In that case, and if the mirrors are ducted to the monocoque, they would actually extract the warmer air from the sidepods and mix it with picked cooler air before they exit together.

Metaphorically speaking, it would function similar to pulse jet engine (V1) but without a pulse (no sequences), with warmer air being passively nozzled in due to difference in pressure between the monocoque and the inside of the mirror.



Speaking of purpose, it would condition some of the hot air in desired direction, unlike letting it passively go wherever it wants around steering wheel and the driver, with inconstant and unpredictable influence of position of steering wheel and driver's hands and helmet.
Being choked on high speeds would be identical, with same intention to lower the drag of rear wing by obstructing it from generating DF at top speeds, and to condition the air into top sidepod inlets.

However, we still don't know where the top inlets actualy guide the air.
As I mentioned before, there is a possibility that top inlets pick up the air and let it exit on the rear smoothly, without of hitting the radiators, for the sake of partially stalling the rear wing thus reducing the drag.

I still stick to my initial suggestion since this one seams to have less significance, although whatever the case might be I'm convinced that mirrors are ducted to monocoque.

[Speed_03]

A post on reddit titled Could this be the secret behind Ferrari's mirrors? links to the interesting thesis Low Drag Automotive Mirror Using Passive Flow Jet Control, Greg Woyczynski, University of Miami

From the thesis on page 6:

1.2 Concept of the Jet Mirror
The new concept mirror using jet flow control [4,5,6] is aimed at reducing the drag of
conventional mirrors by using a passive flow jet control technique similar to those used
for high lift slotted airfoils of aircraft [13].

Page 7 and 8 of the thesis include images of a mirror similar to the Ferrari mirror (page 19/89 of the PDF document).

Edit: This has been mentioned earlier here this thread by @graham.reeds .

Great find, IMO this is the most logical use for those mirrors. The author of the paper ran the comparison in CFD and found 40% decrease in drag, while the real world wind tunnel testing found "only" 27% drag reduction. Even if it is only 27%, that number is still huge for F1 where they would sell their soul for a couple of percent of any kind of drag reduction technology.
The paper itself is dating back to 2014 which makes me wonder how come no one else discovered it sooner.
I wouldn't find it surprising if we find these mirrors on all cars in a couple of weeks/months time, since the drag reduction shape itself clearly isn't hard to model since it was originaly done by a student writing his master's thesis.

[Mr.G]

Also note the mirror mountings are not symmetrical if you see what I mean

https://www2.pic-upload.de/img/34940293 ... AA4byJ.jpg

I'm not sure they are not symmetrical.
Maybe they have tried two different positions in two different runs.
To be sure that they are not symmetrical, we should have a photo with both mirrors in sight.

I've looked at other pictures and they are indeed symmetrical but they tried 2 different mounting positions
Here the mirrors are positioned further forward and bent further to the back and in the other variant they are mounted further back and they are not so strongly bent back.
Did not notice this before, nice

https://www2.pic-upload.de/img/34940406 ... 149751.jpg

https://www2.pic-upload.de/img/34940293 ... AA4byJ.jpg

Nice find, this is exactly what I ment that they have 6 bolts for this...

[manchild]

Position of the mirrors is identical in both variations.
It is only the shape of the branches that is different.
Take a closer look at the both pics and you'll see it.

Besides the influence of shape of the branches on overall aero, the variation also considers that shorter has the ability of greater flow, so they'd choke at higher speed than with the longer ones.

I reckon that they are testing both extremes, one for highest speed circuits, and another for lowest speed circuits. It would be no surprise if they fine tune it and make different ones for each circuit.

[f1316]

I’m suddenly reminded that Gary Anderson keeps mentioning how the Ferrari retains rake on the straight - unlike the other cars...

Let’s say for a second there is ducting in the mirrors, and this is in order to blow the rear wing, this could explain the Ferrari’s attitude in a straight line - no need to vary the rake angle if the drag from the wing is being dropped on the straight anyway.

This leads me to wonder if the shape of the faring within the mirror is shaped in such a way as to ‘open’ the duct only when going straight, and close it when the car is angled towards the corner. Rather than this being an effect of the steering column (which is one possibility but I imagine could be quickly outlawed) i’m suggesting this is entirely passive - a kind of DRD but without even the need for a fluidic switch - as the shape of the faring alone could potentially fulfill this function.

Perhaps far fetched but I’d be surprised if Ferrari were simply ‘unable’ to get the car’s tail down on the straights.

[turbof1]

So guys, I'm going to step in here for a moment.

First of all, discussion is what we want. We want you people to post your opinion given you build on strong arguments. Some people are doing that more than others, but that's also ok. As long as everybody tries their best to their knowledge.

Second, also understand that some of the members here clearly have more knowledge than others, and that they try to portrait facts and try to remove unfounded speculation. Understand these members have academic/professional backgrounds and try to tutor. It's not my place to say who is an engineer and who isn't, but you can notice yourself that, either through the information they leave in their signature or by the cheer info they give.

Again discussion and bringing forward opinions is fine, but please do give weight to people who actually have understandings. Give weight to their word and appreciate that they try to teach you something.

[turbof1]

Here are two videos showing the flow for the regular and the "Jet Boat Tail Flow Control Mirror":


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2IJ2ewvOLg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz6rZ7ig2IA

I think this ultimately shows what's going on with at the very least flow direction. Consider that if the flow was being redirected towards the sidepod area, the profile of the mirror has to be downwards. I have not seen any pictures depicting it downwards. That's how flow works: going from high to low pressure. There's no reason to believe there's a pressure differential between bottom and top mirror.
It's an expensive way of removing a tiny bit of drag. Performance optimisation. It's not some sort of trick.

[PhillipM]

I’m suddenly reminded that Gary Anderson keeps mentioning how the Ferrari retains rake on the straight - unlike the other cars...

Let’s say for a second there is ducting in the mirrors, and this is in order to blow the rear wing....

I really can't see that, it would leave the rear wing blown under braking at the end of the straight, you'd lose far more time with lack of grip and instability there than you'd ever get close to gaining from the straightline speed. I also doubt you'd have the pressure/flow available to blow the rear wing after all the turns through the mirror mounts, etc.

[manchild]

@turbof1

I'm not an aerodynamicist, athough I have formal automotive education.

One of the things life teached me is that you can sometimes learn things even from the illiterate people, while sometimes you can't learn a thing from those with university degree.

Analytical thinking is something one is born with as a natural gift, but there is no such thing as educational method that makes thinkers out of ungifted.

I'm not denying knowledge of the professionals, but some of them are extremely narrow-minded, and strictly limited to what they've been thought, without the ability to analyze new things and think out of the box. Not to mention lack of creativity.

So, I like to learn new stuff from whomever, but I also have no respect to authority if they can't backup their claims.

Some things are so obvuious, but vanity and the ego prevent them to at least publically admit that they were wrong or that someone without a degree has come up with something they weren't able.

An example of what I'm talking about - Absolute majority of electro engineers wouldn't be able to make same gadgets Tesla has made 120 years ago if they would be given only tools and materials he had at disposal. On the other hand, there are self-thought people with just elementary or secondary education who are simply able to do those things.

As long there is logic instread of authoritative or biased imposition, I'm ready to listen and accept.