Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

[MtthsMlw]

Has this little curvature on the inside always been there? Or is this just a kind of reflection?

[Mr.G]

Small inlet below the Halo is still there. Maybe not only for high temp races?

It looks like it's complete setup from Bahrain (with high temp setup), probably due to short time between races they just packed it as it was and will change the setup during night...

[MtthsMlw]

[media]https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/984 ... 15424?s=19[/media]

[Vanja #66]

[Morteza]

Via AMuS

[MtthsMlw]

Good perspective to see how tight the rear is.

[Morteza]

[ScrewCaptain27]

Via AMuS

[Vanja #66]

The fact that there is an option for this car to have completely different side pod inlet and outboard wing(s) design makes me wonder - will SF71-H have different intake in Monaco, Hungary and Singapore? With something closer to last year's mid-wing... The car is fast, obviously, but you can only put so much more downforce with max AoA for front and rear wing. But you can, obviously, add the mid wing there as well and sacrifice drag for downforce where it suits you.

[aleks_ader]

@Vanja that was also my thinking also. At launch of car it seems so.

1. But i think in this PU formula they hit the upper limit of surface area already. I doubt will it happen. Power and efficiency is too detrimental even on those tracks where you are thermal limited because lower average speed hence lower cooling capacity. This year by only 3 PU elements heat management even more detrimental. Its the total compromise to improve L/D to power ratio.

2. Also midwing is already pretty big. And also to make big changes in that area should drastically effect of rear coke bottle of the car. And especially diffuser and its floor. So i think NO.

3. I would say they will intruduce maybe some revision around mirror stalks area to induce potentially more downwash at lower speeds. And also madatory bigger hot air exits. Overall to make high rake work is 100% right way to spend all those CFD HOURS. Then you could just bold wing vertical and dont be bothered at all with potential huge "changes". Stable underfloor should benefit more on long term. It is right way to go.
Bargeboards for the win. Bring back the aero skirts boys.

[paddyf1]

https://ibb.co/gz50wn

The fact that there is an option for this car to have completely different side pod inlet and outboard wing(s) design makes me wonder - will SF71-H have different intake in Monaco, Hungary and Singapore? With something closer to last year's mid-wing... The car is fast, obviously, but you can only put so much more downforce with max AoA for front and rear wing. But you can, obviously, add the mid wing there as well and sacrifice drag for downforce where it suits you.

What makes you say that "an option for this car to have completely different side pod inlet and outboard wing(s"?

[Vanja #66]

@Vanja that was also my thinking also. At launch of car it seems so.

1. But i think in this PU formula they hit the upper limit of surface area already. I doubt will it happen. Power and efficiency is too detrimental even on those tracks where you are thermal limited because lower average speed hence lower cooling capacity. This year by only 3 PU elements heat management even more detrimental. Its the total compromise to improve L/D to power ratio.

Good points, however - 2017 Ferrari was a lot wider and had larger frontal area (excluding wheels and tyres), 2018 Mercedes is almost as wide as 2017 car. So I don't think frontal area is detrimental.

2. Also midwing is already pretty big. And also to make big changes in that area should drastically effect of rear coke bottle of the car. And especially diffuser and its floor. So i think NO.

This is the only real concern, if they could manage to keep the same flow structures and not to loose too much energy with more aggressive mid wing - I don't see a reason not to introduce it where high downforce trumps efficiency.

3. I would say they will intruduce maybe some revision around mirror stalks area to induce potentially more downwash at lower speeds. And also madatory bigger hot air exits. Overall to make high rake work is 100% right way to spend all those CFD HOURS. Then you could just bold wing vertical and dont be bothered at all with potential huge "changes". Stable underfloor should benefit more on long term. It is right way to go.
Bargeboards for the win. Bring back the aero skirts boys.

Floor and diffuser contribute to more than 50% of overall downforce, that's true. However, next in line is rear wing with something around 30-35% overall downforce. Now, when you look at plan view, you see how big the floor is compared to rear wing. Floor and diffuser make efficient downforce, but they are not very effective in terms of surface required to do it. Wings always trump floor for high downforce.

To be honest, I just like the idea that it's possible to do it. Not often do teams choose to change side pod inlets, and it's always for good, it's not changeable. I really like idea of different aero kits in Indy car and would like to see something like it in F1, but more dramatic than "simple" wing changes.

What makes you say that "an option for this car to have completely different side pod inlet and outboard wing(s"?

You saw the photo I posted, right? The whole bodywork is removable, unlike last year.

[aleks_ader]

To be honest, I just like the idea that it's possible to do it. Not often do teams choose to change side pod inlets, and it's always for good, it's not changeable. I really like idea of different aero kits in Indy car and would like to see something like it in F1, but more dramatic than "simple" wing changes.

I would even say that. I somewhat start liking the Bimottos pragmatic approach. Actually we must be pragmatic. How much we really need "dirty brute down-force"? Maybe 3-4 races max? So from engineering perspective simply don't bother. Just add some AOA and maybe even compensate with fuel consumption. And just rearrange setup around other things. In reality it isnt so simple as i sad but the my approach to that wouldn't change.

You saw the photo I posted, right? The whole bodywork is removable, unlike last year.

i see this could be just another way to ease the manufacturing and at same time in case of aero problem leaves somesort workable area to do some changes if concept couldn't work from get go.

[Vanja #66]

I would even say that. I somewhat start liking the Bimottos pragmatic approach. Actually we must be pragmatic. How much we really need "dirty brute down-force"? Maybe 3-4 races max? So from engineering perspective simply don't bother. Just add some AOA and maybe even compensate with fuel consumption. And just rearrange setup around other things. In reality it isnt so simple as i sad but the my approach to that wouldn't change.

i see this could be just another way to ease the manufacturing and at same time in case of aero problem leaves somesort workable area to do some changes if concept couldn't work from get go.

Agree with everything you wrote down. And precisely because there are good, strong reasons not to use your resources doing it I would like to see them do it. Hell, I'd love to see any team do it, just for the sake of doing it.

Might as well scribble down some of ideas I got on how to do it.

Firstly, where the wing is now, with its high winglet merging with upper flow conditioner, is looking like an important area, since they are isolating it from the rest of the flow down and outward. If they'd keep that, they could change the airfoil of this wing section for something more cambered and maybe place it flatter to increase relative AoA.

Secondly, keep things as they are but extend the mid wing all the way to side pod deflectors and keep that middle vertical flow conditioner (feels like it's important in yaw).

Third way - combination of the two.

Fourth way - add another mid wing between current one and floor with any combination of airfoils previously mentioned.

[aleks_ader]

Good points, however - 2017 Ferrari was a lot wider and had larger frontal area (excluding wheels and tyres), 2018 Mercedes is almost as wide as 2017 car. So I don't think frontal area is detrimental.

Yes as aero guxs said "imaginary frontal area", because nobody knows that. i Agree 2018 it seems a bit lower. At least cd could be lower. Presumably of-course if i crudely "foolishly" judge Ferraris straight line perfomances (very big pitfall in that statement i agree).
But i was thinking more in line about sidepod opening and its low frontal area (it is not really frontal is much more 3D-ish). Clever from Ferrari. It isnt magic bullet. They even revert to more conventional rad layout comparing to last years split V rads.



I suspect that (ps. as maybe somebody mentioned already, sorry dont remember who) because longer wheelbase they could find more space to stretch the sidepod volume. So there was no need to make packaging hell in that department cuz more space available.

All in all we will see what they decide to do. It is obvious that the development race will win this year championships.