Scuderia Ferrari SF90

[jeffersoooooon]

I see a lot of confiusion on the smaller air inbox and the more air that goes to the RW. If i'm correct, all that sounds very logic, as the RW (certainly with the bigger RW this season) will be one off the draggiest parts of the car. So the more air that flows to the RW, the more available RW surface, the less level of RW you need to set to create the amouth of downforce you want of the RW. Also, that works in both directions, as a RW with less level will catch less air in front/above of the RW, and will drag less air behind/underneath the RW. So having the slimmest possible back, with the stacked wastegates, will also improve more airflow under the RW (space between underside of RW and top off the cover on the back), so again, the RW will catch more drag, therefore you can reduce the level of RW.

[Sevach]

I see a lot of confiusion on the smaller air inbox and the more air that goes to the RW. If i'm correct, all that sounds very logic, as the RW (certainly with the bigger RW this season) will be one off the draggiest parts of the car. So the more air that flows to the RW, the more available RW surface, the less level of RW you need to set to create the amouth of downforce you want of the RW. Also, that works in both directions, as a RW with less level will catch less air in front/above of the RW, and will drag less air behind/underneath the RW. So having the slimmest possible back, with the stacked wastegates, will also improve more airflow under the RW (space between underside of RW and top off the cover on the back), so again, the RW will catch more drag, therefore you can reduce the level of RW.

Air that goes through the airbox also creates drag.

[Kalsi]

I see a lot of confiusion on the smaller air inbox and the more air that goes to the RW. If i'm correct, all that sounds very logic, as the RW (certainly with the bigger RW this season) will be one off the draggiest parts of the car. So the more air that flows to the RW, the more available RW surface, the less level of RW you need to set to create the amouth of downforce you want of the RW. Also, that works in both directions, as a RW with less level will catch less air in front/above of the RW, and will drag less air behind/underneath the RW. So having the slimmest possible back, with the stacked wastegates, will also improve more airflow under the RW (space between underside of RW and top off the cover on the back), so again, the RW will catch more drag, therefore you can reduce the level of RW.

Air that goes through the airbox also creates drag.

So does the one that goes trough the bigger sidepods...
I really believe this is just a compromise to solve a COG problem the SF71-H probably suffered much more than expected

[Sevach]

So does the one that goes trough the bigger sidepods...
I really believe this is just a compromise to solve a COG problem the SF71-H probably suffered much more than expected

Correct.

Could be a variety of things, the outlets seem a lot smaller in the current configuration (we still have to wait and see what they actually take to the races), so maybe they made progress in a unconventional fashion with those bigger inlets, including maybe killing the need for an extra cooler in the airbox.

[Manfer]

I see a lot of confiusion on the smaller air inbox and the more air that goes to the RW. If i'm correct, all that sounds very logic, as the RW (certainly with the bigger RW this season) will be one off the draggiest parts of the car. So the more air that flows to the RW, the more available RW surface, the less level of RW you need to set to create the amouth of downforce you want of the RW. Also, that works in both directions, as a RW with less level will catch less air in front/above of the RW, and will drag less air behind/underneath the RW. So having the slimmest possible back, with the stacked wastegates, will also improve more airflow under the RW (space between underside of RW and top off the cover on the back), so again, the RW will catch more drag, therefore you can reduce the level of RW.

It gives you the opportunity to play around with the AOA of the wing in the mid section. Along with the stacked wastegate pipes Ferrari had trialled a different kind of rear wing with bulged midsection. A wing of that sort with the slimmed engine cover would make sense. Maybe Ferrari will install it during the tests.

[Sevach]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzcOa54XcAAFKpY.jpg

Crazy amount of gurney's and Red Bull curve in that diffuser.

Much smaller and more sculpted outlets.

[jeffersoooooon]

I see a lot of confiusion on the smaller air inbox and the more air that goes to the RW. If i'm correct, all that sounds very logic, as the RW (certainly with the bigger RW this season) will be one off the draggiest parts of the car. So the more air that flows to the RW, the more available RW surface, the less level of RW you need to set to create the amouth of downforce you want of the RW. Also, that works in both directions, as a RW with less level will catch less air in front/above of the RW, and will drag less air behind/underneath the RW. So having the slimmest possible back, with the stacked wastegates, will also improve more airflow under the RW (space between underside of RW and top off the cover on the back), so again, the RW will catch more drag, therefore you can reduce the level of RW.

Air that goes through the airbox also creates drag.

So does the one that goes trough the bigger sidepods...
I really believe this is just a compromise to solve a COG problem the SF71-H probably suffered much more than expected

That's not correct. I'm not talking about the cooling drag, that's always the same. Take a certain total amouth of surface you need for cooling (inbox + sidebox). It doesn't matter where you put those in general (more cooling to the inbox or more to the sidepods), as they will always have the same amouth of drag (in clean air, after the front tires there is dirty air anyway, so maybe there is less drag of a sidepod than on the top inbox, i refer also to the mirror solution of the SF71H where the air gets defected at lower speeds in the top openings of the sidepods, so there you can play more with which air goes in at certain speeds). So they moved more cooling to the sidepods (so cooling drag stays equal), to get as much clean air to RW as possible, so they can set a less steep RW angle for a certain amouth of downforce.

[JPBD1990]

People are really reeeeaaaaaching with these theories that they can’t seal the floor.

Reducing obstructions to the rear wing only increases the efficiency of the wing, not decreases it. People are assuming that Ferrari has a more ineffective floor/diffuser than others so have focused on the wing instead.

The wing is there regardless. Reducing the impact the airbox has on it does not increase drag, it only increases efficiency.

Imagine the possibility that the Ferrari floor/diffuser is roughly as effective as merc/redbull - now introduce a more effective, less obstructed rear wing.

But of course it’s not that. It’s that Ferrari has incompetently and haphazardly focused on the wing because the floor doesn’t work anymore.

Let’s wait and see, eh? Love armchair critics though.

[JPBD1990]

People are really reeeeaaaaaching with these theories that they can’t seal the floor.

Reducing obstructions to the rear wing only increases the efficiency of the wing, not decreases it. People are assuming that Ferrari has a more ineffective floor/diffuser than others so have focused on the wing instead.

The wing is there regardless. Reducing the impact the airbox has on it does not increase drag, it only increases efficiency.

Imagine the possibility that the Ferrari floor/diffuser is roughly as effective as merc/redbull - now introduce a more effective, less obstructed rear wing.

But of course it’s not that. It’s that Ferrari has incompetently and haphazardly focused on the wing because the floor doesn’t work anymore.

Let’s wait and see, eh? Love armchair critics though.

Additionally to this, the size of the sidepod INLET is ever so slightly larger, but the volume of the engine cover is significantly less - so net, the sidepods/engine cover/floor are again less obstructed. Now add an efficient rear wing? Seems like a good strategy to me.

[ringo]

Frontal area of the sidepods seems to be bigger than last year?

Interesting to see if these front wings are the way to go.

They shifted the cooling are from the roll hoop to the sidepods. Note that the new car has less cooling area at the top and placed this area in the sidepods.

[jumpingfish]

I'm not sure I did it correctly, photos were taken at different angles a bit. It seems wheelbase shorter than SF70h Can anyone make a comparison too? https://pp.userapi.com/c849024/v8490241 ... kMXSlk.jpg

AMuS tells that the SF90 has a 7 cm longer wheelbase than last year's car. And less rake.

Well it means that talking about wheelbase is speculation at this moment because Giorgio Piola said about increasing for 2.5 cm. Only Ferrari knows better

[Zynerji]

It seems to be a strange philosophy moving stuff down from the engine cover to the sidepods - and I know a lot of you are saying to clean up the airflow to the new rear wing - but the taller, wider rear wings this year should be *less* affected by airflow from the engine cover area, not more.
That's why everyone else has moved more cooling up there out of the sidepods.

Based on what I have seen so far, my assumption is that they aren't able to seal the floor as well as last year, and have lost some floor/diffuser generated down force. Thus to make up from this they are trying to work the new rear wing harder.

I believe more rake means better floor sealing.

[wuzak]

So we have the car being slightly longer, or more significantly longer, with more rake or less rake?

Meanwhile, to me, at least, it looks to be slightly shorter, or the same, length at worst.

[MtthsMlw]

From the launch video

[E8404424]

People are really reeeeaaaaaching with these theories that they can’t seal the floor.

Reducing obstructions to the rear wing only increases the efficiency of the wing, not decreases it. People are assuming that Ferrari has a more ineffective floor/diffuser than others so have focused on the wing instead.

The wing is there regardless. Reducing the impact the airbox has on it does not increase drag, it only increases efficiency.

Imagine the possibility that the Ferrari floor/diffuser is roughly as effective as merc/redbull - now introduce a more effective, less obstructed rear wing.

But of course it’s not that. It’s that Ferrari has incompetently and haphazardly focused on the wing because the floor doesn’t work anymore.

Let’s wait and see, eh? Love armchair critics though.

I was just thinking that reading through this and other threads.

I'm no car designer and the Ferrari to me looks like an evolution of last years model, certainly looks a lot like a Red Bull to my inexperienced eyes which is no bad thing given how effective that chassis was last year. I am still learning how the aero works on these cars and don't really feel qualified to comment on the work of the Ferrari aero guys. I am pretty sure they know what they are doing. Agree with that last bit though, some of the posts here remind me of the aircraft spotters we would get at the airshows I attended while in the RAF, they would stand and tell people like me with 1000 plus hours on the jet that we were wrong because the internet said so.

Wait until testing starts. The minute Team X doesn't get into the top three within the first hour their season will be written off.