Ferrari SF-26

[Gabriox]

What is this ferrari front wing doing here? I have Never noticed it before. The bottom of the wing is tilting downward https://imgur.com/a/82tlMCq

[Unzinn]

What is this ferrari front wing doing here? I have Never noticed it before. The bottom of the wing is tilting downward https://imgur.com/a/82tlMCq

Looks like this is just due to the sudden increased load when the front wing goes back up at the end of the straight. If the center of pressure is behind the mounting point, it would rotate like that. No idea if it is intentional or desirable.

[Waz]

What is this ferrari front wing doing here? I have Never noticed it before. The bottom of the wing is tilting downward https://imgur.com/a/82tlMCq

I saw this on Reddit and came here for answers. I think we need a different angle to see how much of the wing is flexing.

Interesting ideas from Ferrari this year.

[SiLo]

https://d3cm515ijfiu6w.cloudfront.net/w ... inglet.jpg

It's clear plastic and held on by tape. I bet the engineer who came up with this was smirking and chuckling to himself as he did so.

I think they tape the edges to smooth the transition as it's desirable, rather than actually being held on by tape.

[bhall II]

Can anyone think of a reason why it might be beneficial to shed counter-rotating vortices onto a driver’s face?

https://i.imgur.com/oIEszOB.jpeg

Crazy theory with nothing but gut feeling to back it up:
Those two winglets do nothing useful. They don't do anything harmful, maybe the car can use the downforce, but "crucially" they look like they do something useful. FIA cannot argue that they don't do anything useful in any case.
They also look like they would block driver's visibility, but they just don't. I imagine that they placed them carefully enough not to compromise that. But "crucially" they look like they would block visibility.

My theory is that the real purpose of those winglets is to tell the FIA to crank down on the "free box placement loophole", or it will escalate into sillyness, madness, and "crucually" safety risks.
So that Mercedes will not get to use those rear wing extensions.

And in the mean time, the Ferrari's COG is 0.01 mm higher, downforce 150 g higher and drag 10 N or so lower.

As said, crazy theory, not really backed up by anything. Maybe that is the best quick use they could find of the free volumes and it is an awesome way to reduce drag from the helmet.

I like it. It’s actually plausible.

If those winglets are really about reducing helmet drag, that’s a strangely marginal target to spend finite development resource on, especially when the driver’s head position is constantly moving and the gain would be difficult to isolate cleanly.

My first thought was that they’re organizing any messy, unsteady wake off the halo pillar into something more stable, reducing helmet buffeting. That’s something a driver would notice immediately, even if the aero gain is negligible, and it may matter more now that the front wing can flatten and change the flow arriving at that central pillar.

But I never considered tactical possibilities.

[Brahmal]

I think they tape the edges to smooth the transition as it's desirable, rather than actually being held on by tape.

There is no other obvious attachment method, unless the plastic part has some sort of clear adhesive on the inside. That tape is quite strong and should be sufficient to hold it on pretty well.

Crazy theory with nothing but gut feeling to back it up:

My theory is that the real purpose of those winglets is to tell the FIA to crank down on the "free box placement loophole", or it will escalate into sillyness, madness, and "crucually" safety risks.
So that Mercedes will not get to use those rear wing extensions.

I like your theory. This part is clearly designed to be easily removable and cheap to produce, which would support your argument that this is a statement rather than a legitimate aero development It would also be a great way to test something that doesn't require a great deal of structural strength. I suppose we'll have to see if Ferrari actually race with it to get our answer.

[matteosc]

I think they tape the edges to smooth the transition as it's desirable, rather than actually being held on by tape.

There is no other obvious attachment method, unless the plastic part has some sort of clear adhesive on the inside. That tape is quite strong and should be sufficient to hold it on pretty well.

Crazy theory with nothing but gut feeling to back it up:

My theory is that the real purpose of those winglets is to tell the FIA to crank down on the "free box placement loophole", or it will escalate into sillyness, madness, and "crucually" safety risks.
So that Mercedes will not get to use those rear wing extensions.

I like your theory. This part is clearly designed to be easily removable and cheap to produce, which would support your argument that this is a statement rather than a legitimate aero development It would also be a great way to test something that doesn't require a great deal of structural strength. I suppose we'll have to see if Ferrari actually race with it to get our answer.

I somehow doubt that any team would waste any resource in producing something that has no techincal value. I think there are better way to protest the regulations and that this could be a small but legitimate development. May be wrong, we'll know based on what happens in the next few races (and how the rules are adjusted).

[bananapeel23]

Can anyone think of a reason why it might be beneficial to shed counter-rotating vortices onto a driver’s face?

https://i.imgur.com/oIEszOB.jpeg

My theory is that the real purpose of those winglets is to tell the FIA to crank down on the "free box placement loophole", or it will escalate into sillyness, madness, and "crucually" safety risks.
So that Mercedes will not get to use those rear wing extensions.

And in the mean time, the Ferrari's COG is 0.01 mm higher, downforce 150 g higher and drag 10 N or so lower.

As said, crazy theory, not really backed up by anything. Maybe that is the best quick use they could find of the free volumes and it is an awesome way to reduce drag from the helmet.

Where can I find this "free box placement loophole" in the regulations. I can't find what allows for it.

[hollus]

The “free box placement” loophole in explained here:

[SiLo]

The “free box placement” loophole in explained here:

I'm wondering when more teams turn up with this, seems like free performance no?

[bananapeel23]

I'm wondering when more teams turn up with this, seems like free performance no?

I’m sure that they will all do it soon, but I highly doubt they will all use them for the rear wing. Even if they are used for the rear wing, you could perhaps place them elsewhere.

Realistically there are other places you could also have it. It has to be within 20mm of the Y axis if not placed on the rear wing, as well as occluded from below. Still, there are several possible locations close to the centerline where it could be beneficial.

They could be used for strakes under the nose, assuming they are fully occluded from below by the front wing elements.

Elements on the T-tray might also be a good use for them, since they will automatically be occluded from below. It’s also a place where they could be used for floor interactions.

Ferrari and Haas should also be able to use it for their exhaust wing/blown diffuser thingy. I suspect that they will eventually end up there.

I don’t even know if the Macarena wing uses any rotation brackets. If not, Ferrari would have three of them available for each side, which could result in some fairly complex geometry and somewhat large elements if combined on the centerline, given how the boxes can be placed and rotated almost entirely freely within the Y axis limitations. Assuming the macarena wing lacks them, Ferrari should also have the freedom to add rear wing elements AND have 1-2 sets to use elsewhere.

I wonder if you could even bend the fillet rules by placing several boxes inside each other and rotating one of them along the X axis.

[AR3-GP]

This would be another advantage of the macarena wing. It doesn't take up the rotation bracket allocation because it doesn't require rotation brackets. Frees them up to use more of those boxes for other things like the halo winglets.

[bananapeel23]

This would be another advantage of the macarena wing. It doesn't take up the rotation bracket allocation because it doesn't require rotation brackets. Frees them up to use more of those boxes for other things like the halo winglets.

After looking at the regs I’m also surprised that teams aren’t also intentionally abusing the ”flexible seals” rule in C3.11.7 h, which is not subject to any limitations in shape.

If I interpreted the rule right, you might well be able to argue that you have total regulatory freedom to do whatever you want between rotational brackets and the movable part of rear wing assembly. With no limitation on how the ”flexible seals” are constructed, shaped or placed, assuming they are within Y=20.

So if you place the brackets elsewhere on the car, you should be able to place ”flexible seals” literally wherever you want between that ”rotational bracket” and rear wing assembly, even if they are meters apart, since they technically satisfy the requirement of being ”between” rear wing assembly and a rotational bracket and technically seal gaps.

[AR3-GP]

@carpentiers_f1

It is showing the rearward displacement of the drive axles.

[deadhead]

https://x.com/carpentiers_f1/status/203 ... 38364?s=46