Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

[Danlizzyman]

https://imgr3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/S ... 150800.jpg
Via AMuS

the photo is not of the 2017 car?

That's the Sauber C37

[marvin78]

https://imgr3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/S ... 150800.jpg
Via AMuS

the photo is not of the 2017 car?

That's the Sauber C37

No.

Edit: yes it is

[Morteza]

Actually it is the Sauber. My bad, guys. So sorry

[JPBD1990]

Anyone spotted any new parts on the Ferrari? They’ve taken delivery of an awful lot of parts, none of which I’ve been able to identify on track...

[Morteza]

Via @F1debrief

[paddyf1]

"As you can see in the drawing above, Sauber’s solution follows Ferrari’s principle of having two inlets, the second of which is located beside the cockpit (obscured by a winglet in the picture on the left, but indicated by the red arrow on the right).

However, Ferrari themselves have taken the design to another level in 2018, introducing a completely new inlet which works in harmony with a new wing mirror design (see drawing below). The idea is that a slot in the wing mirror allows air to flow through, thereby improving cooling into the inlet". Giorgio Piola.

[CBeck113]

"As you can see in the drawing above, Sauber’s solution follows Ferrari’s principle of having two inlets, the second of which is located beside the cockpit (obscured by a winglet in the picture on the left, but indicated by the red arrow on the right).

However, Ferrari themselves have taken the design to another level in 2018, introducing a completely new inlet which works in harmony with a new wing mirror design (see drawing below). The idea is that a slot in the wing mirror allows air to flow through, thereby improving cooling into the inlet". Giorgio Piola.

But not directly - it is physically impossible for the air to turn downward to enter the inlet at normal racing speeds, so take that statement with a big grain of salt. Conditioning? Yes, I believe all are in agreement about that, although I still maintain my doubts for low speeds, and will do so until I see data that contradicts them .

[Big Mangalhit]

"As you can see in the drawing above, Sauber’s solution follows Ferrari’s principle of having two inlets, the second of which is located beside the cockpit (obscured by a winglet in the picture on the left, but indicated by the red arrow on the right).

However, Ferrari themselves have taken the design to another level in 2018, introducing a completely new inlet which works in harmony with a new wing mirror design (see drawing below). The idea is that a slot in the wing mirror allows air to flow through, thereby improving cooling into the inlet". Giorgio Piola.

But not directly - it is physically impossible for the air to turn downward to enter the inlet at normal racing speeds, so take that statement with a big grain of salt. Conditioning? Yes, I believe all are in agreement about that, although I still maintain my doubts for low speeds, and will do so until I see data that contradicts them .

Maybe with that AoA and configuration it is, but I think it is possible to turn the air in very steep angles.

Just look at this image, the butterfly goes from an inner part of the wing to the outer part of the tyre in a very short distance. That is a much steeper angle of deflection.

[Mr.G]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXnQqYAWkAI-EZk.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXnQpTKXkAQX_Ws.jpg

Via @F1debrief

Testing cooling gills on the sidepods...

[Vanja #66]

Maybe with that AoA and configuration it is, but I think it is possible to turn the air in very steep angles.

Just look at this image, the butterfly goes from an inner part of the wing to the outer part of the tyre in a very short distance. That is a much steeper angle of deflection.

http://i.imgur.com/Dazqvmu.gif

You also have a big fat tyre deflecting air. Do not think that this would be possible without it. All those elements on the front wing are just there to guide the airflow where designers want it by making small corrections in flow path, the tyre is the main reason there is such a deflection in the first place.

[Morteza]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXnQqYAWkAI-EZk.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXnQpTKXkAQX_Ws.jpg

Via @F1debrief

Testing cooling gills on the sidepods...

Yes, they didn't have them in the morning if I'm not mistaken.

[CBeck113]

"As you can see in the drawing above, Sauber’s solution follows Ferrari’s principle of having two inlets, the second of which is located beside the cockpit (obscured by a winglet in the picture on the left, but indicated by the red arrow on the right).

However, Ferrari themselves have taken the design to another level in 2018, introducing a completely new inlet which works in harmony with a new wing mirror design (see drawing below). The idea is that a slot in the wing mirror allows air to flow through, thereby improving cooling into the inlet". Giorgio Piola.

But not directly - it is physically impossible for the air to turn downward to enter the inlet at normal racing speeds, so take that statement with a big grain of salt. Conditioning? Yes, I believe all are in agreement about that, although I still maintain my doubts for low speeds, and will do so until I see data that contradicts them .

Maybe with that AoA and configuration it is, but I think it is possible to turn the air in very steep angles.

Just look at this image, the butterfly goes from an inner part of the wing to the outer part of the tyre in a very short distance. That is a much steeper angle of deflection.

http://i.imgur.com/Dazqvmu.gif

True, but at that point the car is driving into free air, and begins to displace the air...and the butterfly happened to go exactly through the elements on the wing where that deflection takes place.

The air passing through the mirror will most likely (we'll see what comes out of Vanja#66's simulations) reach a maximum volume flow and not allow a further energy increase beyond that point (aka speed of car). But the car's speed , especially the air flowing below the mirror, does not suffer from this restriction, and therefore would be sent down the side pods, deflecting the mirror air over them.
Below, most likely much below, that critical stall speed it may happen...

[Big Mangalhit]

Maybe with that AoA and configuration it is, but I think it is possible to turn the air in very steep angles.

Just look at this image, the butterfly goes from an inner part of the wing to the outer part of the tyre in a very short distance. That is a much steeper angle of deflection.

http://i.imgur.com/Dazqvmu.gif

You also have a big fat tyre deflecting air. Do not think that this would be possible without it. All those elements on the front wing are just there to guide the airflow where designers want it by making small corrections in flow path, the tyre is the main reason there is such a deflection in the first place.

First of all it is not a big fat tyre, it a very elegant and beautiful tyre (#alltyresarebeautiful).

Perhaps more importantly, I think that even with the without the tyre possibly hitting the butterfly and deflecting it more pronouncedly it should still deflect at least until the most outer part of the rubber.



In this image we can see that the flow paint coming from the wing only hits the tyre in its most outward part as well, quite the big deflection.

Now I don't want to stay too attached to my idea of sending air to the top opening at low speed and reducing radiator drag at high speed. But on the other hand it sounds like such a sweet solution. Imagine being able to design smaller radiators because you are sending them plenty of air at low speeds. Then at high speeds the top inlet almost like closes because the angle of the deflection air is now less steep plus the increase speed makes the high pressure zone if front of the opening more pronounced, thus making the car sleek AF.

Ofc it can be wrong (probably is i suppose). Although I get the feeling that if this is all for drag reduction it will be adopted by at least one team.

[Just_a_fan]

To call someone else`s idea nonsense is the right way to go, you were doing so well up until your last paragraph.

The idea makes no sense and therefore is nonsense. It's not an insult, it's an observation that the idea doesn't appear to hold water because it makes no sense. If the mirror was differently shaped and positioned then it might make sense but it isn't so it doesn't.

[Vanja #66]

On that picture we can see how camber affects tyre contact surface on Sauber.