Alfa Romeo C41

[the EDGE]

Thinner nose this year- indicative of something we may expect to see from the Ferrari works team?

I got blugeoned over the head for exploring that in the speculation thread, so I'm curious as well.

Ah yes... the infamous ‘could they have a secret new nose’ stashed up their sleeve somewhere debate

I remember it well

[pierrre]

those notches definitely looks to strengthen the y-250 vortex as early as possible



just finished a video on it

[Morteza]

Via @NicolasF1i

[ryaan2904]

There's a great little thing from reddit i highly recommend you read, i think it shed's more light in my line of thinking:

https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/co ... ame=iossmf

But basically it explains that a car's aero development can be limited by the engine to a certain degree. especially when the aero is made for ever increasing horsepower. And notably the larger nose is said to help cars in higher speed, however it is also more prone to stalling at lower speeds than the narrower nose. What I'm trying to say is that i think the reason they went down the narrow nose path was because they do not have anymore the Ferrari horsepower advantage which greatly helped their nose concept in accelerating the air to the bargeboard. So in order to better suit the car to the engine, they decided to focus on something which the slightly underpowered engine could better help with, which is with the narrower nose, and thus helping their car work better at slightly slower speeds, and reducing the proneness of the nose to stalling.

Except you've provided absolutely no evidence to say that the narrow nose works better at low speeds and the wide nose works better at high speeds, or even that the wide nose has some issue with stalling (where on the nose are you proposing that the stall would happen? this would be a very design specific trait varying from team to team)

Sorry, i've seemed to forgotten the second part:
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... gbeZt.html

the specific sentence in that that i would like to point out is this one:

"When the airflow falls below a critical speed [on the wide nose], it can leave parts of the under-nose area unenergised in a dead zone – leading to loss of control of the flow. The wide nose tends to work better at higher speeds."

My thought is simply, what if when you combine those 2 pieces of information (that is that off the aero possibly not working on the ferrari because of an under performing engine, and this second quote), what if the nose they had planned actually fell below the "critical speed" more often than anticipated in the simulations and resulted in said aero stalling? And this wide nose concept was to a lesser degree pursued by alfa romeo.

It would thereby make the narrowing of the nose a logical step, because it is simply adaptating itself to cancel this deadzone beneath the nose and control better the airflow. Another hint that i thought also might prove the point im trying to make, is that they have made their nose clearly quite a lot more concave than last year, and have changed the whole undernose aerodynamics, introducing notably a cape. Perhaps this is all in a bid to control better the airflow under the nose and to the bargeboards?

I apologise if i did not make it clear, and for forgetting the second half of my research! Will be more precise next time! )

I think any change made to the nose is for purely aerodynamics purposes. The nose has nothing to do with your engine. And if stalling were such a concern, Ferrari would have changed it much before this disastrous season. Even RB used the wide nose till 2019.
Imo, its not stalling which is the concern, its rather a small trade-off between df at slow-speed vs df at high speed corners. And thats a relatively small part of its application still. 2 points, which I feel are at the core of slim nose usage are
1. Compatibility with a full sized cape and
2. Increased volume/energy of air hitting the bargeboards and subsequent aero bits further back.
I think thats the main reason why alfa went with a slimmer nose. Their higher suspension mountings only facilitates it.

[ryaan2904]

Yes ofcourse it is likely the other way around. that is why we use words as indicative. Alfa is just quicker to show the car. I think Ferrari will have the smaller nosecone and cape as well for this year.

I dont think they have the tokens for that..

Maybe a stupid question but do you need tokens for a different nosecone? It is part of the FW.

I think you can experiment a little with the fw pylons and their attachment or the tip of the nose for aero reasons, but thats it. Rest all requires tokens

[Sieper]

Thanks both. So as long as the crash structure itself is not altered, and the nose still passes inspection, you can do it token free. Alfa made the cape nose now, and thinner nose somtheybspent their tokens there. Ferrari let’s see. Likely then maybe not. Did not expect that.

[cramr]

Except you've provided absolutely no evidence to say that the narrow nose works better at low speeds and the wide nose works better at high speeds, or even that the wide nose has some issue with stalling (where on the nose are you proposing that the stall would happen? this would be a very design specific trait varying from team to team)

Sorry, i've seemed to forgotten the second part:
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... gbeZt.html

the specific sentence in that that i would like to point out is this one:

"When the airflow falls below a critical speed [on the wide nose], it can leave parts of the under-nose area unenergised in a dead zone – leading to loss of control of the flow. The wide nose tends to work better at higher speeds."

My thought is simply, what if when you combine those 2 pieces of information (that is that off the aero possibly not working on the ferrari because of an under performing engine, and this second quote), what if the nose they had planned actually fell below the "critical speed" more often than anticipated in the simulations and resulted in said aero stalling? And this wide nose concept was to a lesser degree pursued by alfa romeo.

It would thereby make the narrowing of the nose a logical step, because it is simply adaptating itself to cancel this deadzone beneath the nose and control better the airflow. Another hint that i thought also might prove the point im trying to make, is that they have made their nose clearly quite a lot more concave than last year, and have changed the whole undernose aerodynamics, introducing notably a cape. Perhaps this is all in a bid to control better the airflow under the nose and to the bargeboards?

I apologise if i did not make it clear, and for forgetting the second half of my research! Will be more precise next time! )

I think any change made to the nose is for purely aerodynamics purposes. The nose has nothing to do with your engine. And if stalling were such a concern, Ferrari would have changed it much before this disastrous season. Even RB used the wide nose till 2019.
Imo, its not stalling which is the concern, its rather a small trade-off between df at slow-speed vs df at high speed corners. And thats a relatively small part of its application still. 2 points, which I feel are at the core of slim nose usage are
1. Compatibility with a full sized cape and
2. Increased volume/energy of air hitting the bargeboards and subsequent aero bits further back.
I think thats the main reason why alfa went with a slimmer nose. Their higher suspension mountings only facilitates it.

I don't think teams spend hundreds of hours of wind tunnel and thousand of man hours and CFD simulations to have stalling aerodynamics components in the car.

Having stall in some "controlled" conditions can be a good thing to reduce drag (see Rear Wing deformations and rear of the cars dropping at the straights) but that's a very controlled and controlable conditions (high speed / straight line, etc). Playing with stalling devices in cornering conditions would be playing with fire, specially considering any small misscorrelation between tracks and simulation conditions.

[PlatinumZealot]

I think tokens were spent because the tip of the crash structure looks different on closer inspection. The rest of the car looks the same too.

Ferrari speculation removed

[BassVirolla]

I don't think teams spend hundreds of hours of wind tunnel and thousand of man hours and CFD simulations to have stalling aerodynamics components in the car.

Having stall in some "controlled" conditions can be a good thing to reduce drag (see Rear Wing deformations and rear of the cars dropping at the straights) but that's a very controlled and controlable conditions (high speed / straight line, etc). Playing with stalling devices in cornering conditions would be playing with fire, specially considering any small misscorrelation between tracks and simulation conditions.

Excuse if I'm wrong, but in case of rake reducing at high speeds, the rear wing will not be stalling, because of a reduced angle of attack.

In the other hand, possibly, the floor and / or difusser could stall, because of a reduced air feed.

[ryaan2904]

Sorry, i've seemed to forgotten the second part:
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... gbeZt.html

the specific sentence in that that i would like to point out is this one:

"When the airflow falls below a critical speed [on the wide nose], it can leave parts of the under-nose area unenergised in a dead zone – leading to loss of control of the flow. The wide nose tends to work better at higher speeds."

My thought is simply, what if when you combine those 2 pieces of information (that is that off the aero possibly not working on the ferrari because of an under performing engine, and this second quote), what if the nose they had planned actually fell below the "critical speed" more often than anticipated in the simulations and resulted in said aero stalling? And this wide nose concept was to a lesser degree pursued by alfa romeo.

It would thereby make the narrowing of the nose a logical step, because it is simply adaptating itself to cancel this deadzone beneath the nose and control better the airflow. Another hint that i thought also might prove the point im trying to make, is that they have made their nose clearly quite a lot more concave than last year, and have changed the whole undernose aerodynamics, introducing notably a cape. Perhaps this is all in a bid to control better the airflow under the nose and to the bargeboards?

I apologise if i did not make it clear, and for forgetting the second half of my research! Will be more precise next time! )

I think any change made to the nose is for purely aerodynamics purposes. The nose has nothing to do with your engine. And if stalling were such a concern, Ferrari would have changed it much before this disastrous season. Even RB used the wide nose till 2019.
Imo, its not stalling which is the concern, its rather a small trade-off between df at slow-speed vs df at high speed corners. And thats a relatively small part of its application still. 2 points, which I feel are at the core of slim nose usage are
1. Compatibility with a full sized cape and
2. Increased volume/energy of air hitting the bargeboards and subsequent aero bits further back.
I think thats the main reason why alfa went with a slimmer nose. Their higher suspension mountings only facilitates it.

I don't think teams spend hundreds of hours of wind tunnel and thousand of man hours and CFD simulations to have stalling aerodynamics components in the car.

Having stall in some "controlled" conditions can be a good thing to reduce drag (see Rear Wing deformations and rear of the cars dropping at the straights) but that's a very controlled and controlable conditions (high speed / straight line, etc). Playing with stalling devices in cornering conditions would be playing with fire, specially considering any small misscorrelation between tracks and simulation conditions.

Yeah exactly. About stalling on purpose I think RBR did it in 2012/3 with the fw to reduce drag on straights. Crazy stuff

[LM10]

That’s a really interesting front wing there.

[cramr]

I don't think teams spend hundreds of hours of wind tunnel and thousand of man hours and CFD simulations to have stalling aerodynamics components in the car.

Having stall in some "controlled" conditions can be a good thing to reduce drag (see Rear Wing deformations and rear of the cars dropping at the straights) but that's a very controlled and controlable conditions (high speed / straight line, etc). Playing with stalling devices in cornering conditions would be playing with fire, specially considering any small misscorrelation between tracks and simulation conditions.

Excuse if I'm wrong, but in case of rake reducing at high speeds, the rear wing will not be stalling, because of a reduced angle of attack.

In the other hand, possibly, the floor and / or difusser could stall, because of a reduced air feed.

Yes, Correct. Maybe I was not clear on my wording, I was talking about a "deflecting" RW that I think Ferrari or RedBull had at one point. Floor stalling at very low rear ride heights I think it's not uncommon. Stalling RW is a bit more risky than stalling floor. Also, for RW you usually have DRS that is a good enough drag reduction system.

[cramr]

I think any change made to the nose is for purely aerodynamics purposes. The nose has nothing to do with your engine. And if stalling were such a concern, Ferrari would have changed it much before this disastrous season. Even RB used the wide nose till 2019.
Imo, its not stalling which is the concern, its rather a small trade-off between df at slow-speed vs df at high speed corners. And thats a relatively small part of its application still. 2 points, which I feel are at the core of slim nose usage are
1. Compatibility with a full sized cape and
2. Increased volume/energy of air hitting the bargeboards and subsequent aero bits further back.
I think thats the main reason why alfa went with a slimmer nose. Their higher suspension mountings only facilitates it.

I don't think teams spend hundreds of hours of wind tunnel and thousand of man hours and CFD simulations to have stalling aerodynamics components in the car.

Having stall in some "controlled" conditions can be a good thing to reduce drag (see Rear Wing deformations and rear of the cars dropping at the straights) but that's a very controlled and controlable conditions (high speed / straight line, etc). Playing with stalling devices in cornering conditions would be playing with fire, specially considering any small misscorrelation between tracks and simulation conditions.

Yeah exactly. About stalling on purpose I think RBR did it in 2012/3 with the fw to reduce drag on straights. Crazy stuff

Were they stalling the front wing? that seems pretty dangerous since you will have less front downforce and you brake power will be reduced and corner entry stability compromised a bit. All teams play with flap deflection at high speed to reduce the load / drag of the front wing, but not stalling it.

[Morteza]

[wogx]

OT - Does anyone know why Alfa is using kevlar (?) on the front edge of FW endplate? They did so on C37, C39 and now.
I haven't noticed that in other teams.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eu1NiaDXYAY ... name=large