Andi76 wrote: ↑26 Feb 2023, 09:22
ringo wrote: ↑26 Feb 2023, 08:21
Andi76 wrote: ↑26 Feb 2023, 07:31
Now if you had bothered to compare the time, you would have noticed that I wrote all this 4 hours before the judges' article even appeared.
But it doesn't matter anyway, because I'm off the topic again, because as far as that goes, it's more like kindergarten here - as soon as the topic comes up that zerpods are the reason for certain disadvantages, personal attacks and other things follow.
And I don't remember anyone at Mercedes saying that they are gradually turning away from the Zeropods...why would they do that when it has no impact on performance and is a concept that promises superior downforce (which in itself is a contradiction in terms)?
I concur that here must be an impact on performance, or else teams wont spend so much time shaping them. I think that in itself is undeniable.
I think the issue is if the sidepods are the source of aerodynamic problems. This is the contention most have especially with the lack of real evidence.
It seems that, based on Elliot's words, the zeropods will evolve over the season.
If they are changed I will hazard a guess of a blend of MP4-26, Ferrari 641. Just a wild guess based on their philosophy. I am thinking low slung side pods with vertical openings near the body, but bluff body lumps outboard to sheild from the wake while providing a low gully towards the diffuser.
That sounds like a possible solution. Of course, you'll never know for sure if the side boxes are to blame. Even the teams, despite their resources and expertise, have a hard time determining the exact trigger. But I think that if the very team that is the only one to have such sidepods obviously has aerodynamic problems on both models, then that at least strongly suggests it. Add to that what other teams have said about the complexity and control of the vortex and the indicators of more difficult management of both the top and lower front wheel wake and its detrimental effect on underbody performance, and I think it's fair to say that there is some evidence to suggest that.
But strong indicators or not - it is a topic on which some people here react sensitively and do not want to hear. And for this reason and also because it remains of course finally a theory, which can be just as well wrong, as so much other also what we do here and about what we talk, I withdraw from this topic again. The final proof will come. If Mercedes actually deviates from the concept, it should be proven.
ringo wrote: ↑26 Feb 2023, 08:27
Vanja #66 wrote: ↑26 Feb 2023, 07:49
Why the constant need to twist our words? Haven't you guys had enough of that? No one was saying W13 zeropods were the predominant cause of bouncing, it was clear as day W13 initial floor was way too aggressive compared to RB and Ferrari and they had to dial it down with Barcelona upgrade. It was an improvement, but when they tried to lower the car back to intended ride height problems started re-occurring, coupled with flapping floor in the rear. Don't tell me the diffuser throat section movement doesn't affect floor performance
Simulations are better than ever today, users are also better than ever with input and proper settings. It's only going to get better still. I did a race car CFD with two software and correlation in WT, 1% error on downforce and 2% error on drag. And that was 7 years ago. On the other hand, the geometry of these cars is simpler than any since 2009 and even then the Y250 vortex and double diffusers were a headache for any meaningful prediction that very same year. Aerodynamics are not sorcery and witchcraft, they can be understood to great extent even when you are not in an F1 team. That's what we are trying to do here.
By the way your CFD lacks enough detail to draw any conclusions.
We should be seeing a storm of vortices in those areas that you focus on to draw your conclusions. Instead you show a few strands of stream lines.
It's a welcome effort to visualize. But I can bet if you change the boundaries, change the wind speed, or even increase the mesh and ran over the simulation, the results will not be the same.
You can easily paint any picture you wish with your simulation, once you are not sharing the preparation and the numbers.
So your opinion and your results are as good any one elses opinions on the forum once they have enough experience.
Henk_v wrote: ↑26 Feb 2023, 08:32
Any engineer knows what CFD stands for ;colors for directors
Unless you get a lot of time and resources, CFD will say not much.
.
I don't think that Vanja claims that his simulations are completely accurate and fully meaningful. On the contrary, he always emphasizes that they are not. They are there to provide general insight into the goals and effectiveness of the changes. And in this regard here they are quite meaningful and well suited for this and say quite something .That he takes the trouble to do this is immensely enriching. His CFD simulations are even used by former F1 aerodynamicists. Instead of criticizing his simulations, we should accept and honor them, and not say that they are no better than a mere opinion of anyone halfway experienced in this forum. Otherwise we will soon have to do without it, because I don't think anyone will continue to invest so much effort if there are people who don't appreciate it. So I ask you - if you don't appreciate it and think you are so good that you can see with the naked eye what is visible on these CFD simulations - I am not and many others are not. So don't destroy it for us who don't have this gift and appreciate these CFD simulations very much and that makes this forum stand out even more from all the others.
CFD is the same as any analysis tool. Garbage in, garbage out. Wrong boundary conditions give wrong answers.
In this circumstance, Vanja is trying to isolate sidepod concepts as performance differentiators, even to the point of calling out drag percent deltas in the past.
Essentially, he is trying to utilize this model like a submodel. Only problem is, the flow is jacked up because A, the front wing (airfoil geometry, planform and twist geometry, endplate, etc)/nose/suspension geometry does not match the real car whatsoever, it's based on the default base model from two years ago. B, detail optimization can easily be more than 5% drag anyways.
As far as Vanja's reply to this
In any case, it's clear their sidepod concept is in fact the problem, not only for floor structural instability (that seems to have been solved with wider sides) but also for actual aerodynamic instability and unpredictable interaction with other elements. I was convinced they were very thorough about it last season...
Being that his response is
Why the constant need to twist our words? Haven't you guys had enough of that? No one was saying W13 zeropods were the predominant cause of bouncing, it was clear as day W13 initial floor was way too aggressive compared to RB and Ferrari and they had to dial it down with Barcelona upgrade. It was an improvement, but when they tried to lower the car back to intended ride height problems started re-occurring, coupled with flapping floor in the rear. Don't tell me the diffuser throat section movement doesn't affect floor performance
It's like having whiplash because contradictions are everywhere. The narrow SIDEPOD CONCEPT does not have anything to do with the flapping floor.
Also, very impressive that Vanja's CFD correlated well to windtunnel. That's what every team in the paddock is saying about their components. There's not going to be a single team that will put parts out of the autoclave without good correlation between CFD and tunnel. The problem is when you put it on a car and it doesn't behave like you expect. This happens all the time. Just look at WTAC unlimited class and there's always things that don't work like expected.
Structural is even easier to get correlations than aero. And even then teams are breaking parts on cars.