A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
It’s probably the image angle but the diffuser throat on the RB20 is so much lower…
Which in turn means huge downforce at stable heights! It’s basically what Mercedes tried to do with the W13 but ended up porpoising! Also Ferrari’s floor doesn’t look to be lets say “3D” like Red Bull's…
According to some, it no longer needs to be "3D" because they've gotten the bouncing under control. The F1-75 had a relatively "flat" floor but it produced very good downforce.
We have seen enough photos in various threads, of the rear-to-front bottom view of the floor from the diffuser end : both McLaren and Ferrari are significantly laterally expanding at diffuser exit, compared to Redbull and Mercedes (however simpleton the mercedes looks)
- What does this mean in terms of how much "in tandem" to the floor, is the working of beam wing + main wing, one style v/s the other ?
- Under yaw, how hard does it make the job of the floor edge vortices on the corner inner half of the floor, one style v/s the other ?
We have seen enough photos in various threads, of the rear-to-front bottom view of the floor from the diffuser end : both McLaren and Ferrari are significantly laterally expanding at diffuser exit, compared to Redbull and Mercedes (however simpleton the mercedes looks)
- What does this mean in terms of how much "in tandem" to the floor, is the working of beam wing + main wing, one style v/s the other ?
- Under yaw, how hard does it make the job of the floor edge vortices on the corner inner half of the floor, one style v/s the other ?
Just for reference, this would be a significant lateral expansion
While this would be more like a minor local lateral expansion, achieved through clever diffuser corner radius rule interpretation and following up on it with diffuser roof outwash curvature to complement it
Whatever the semantics are, Ferrari's been doing it since launch 2022 while RB started implementing it last summer. I wouldn't say it's a massive performance driver, but an overall good effort to add more floor downforce without relying on low local ride height (because you can't have it there obviously )
I think Ferrari focused their double-deck beam wing on driving only the central part of diffuser (which expands almost only vertically), while intentionally dropping the chord going outboard to cut down on drag because they don't need so much vertical expansion there
While this would be more like a minor local lateral expansion, achieved through clever diffuser corner radius rule interpretation and following up on it with diffuser roof outwash curvature to complement it
Yes, yes, I used "significant" only in comparison to RB20 (and the 'plain' W15) which is almost 'only vertical' with a little bit of local load scooping towards the fag end. Yes, wrong semantics, my bad.
Whatever the semantics are, Ferrari's been doing it since launch 2022 while RB started implementing it last summer. I wouldn't say it's a massive performance driver, but an overall good effort to add more floor downforce without relying on low local ride height (because you can't have it there obviously )
I think Ferrari focused their double-deck beam wing on driving only the central part of diffuser (which expands almost only vertically), while intentionally dropping the chord going outboard to cut down on drag because they don't need so much vertical expansion there
Everyone has a tapering chord size on the beam wing from middle to the outer sides ; yes, now I'm noticing that the Ferrari ones are much more aggressive with their chord size change from inner to outer end, across the span.
Also, two more Q in this regard (one of them posted earlier as well) :
1. What about the floor edge vortices (esp the inner half of the floor facing the apex of corner) protecting the diffuser flow under yaw - in which case is their job harder, with or without lateral expansion in the diffuser ?
2. Will the extraction effect by the main wing (assume the optimal U/flat-U shaped high DF one) supplementing the beam wing, on the diffuser, be more effective in case there isn't much lateral expansion shaping on the diffuser itself ? (since more of the floor air volume remains in the middle)
Also, two more Q in this regard (one of them posted earlier as well) :
1. What about the floor edge vortices (esp the inner half of the floor facing the apex of corner) protecting the diffuser flow under yaw - in which case is their job harder, with or without lateral expansion in the diffuser ?
2. Will the extraction effect by the main wing (assume the optimal U/flat-U shaped high DF one) supplementing the beam wing, on the diffuser, be more effective in case there isn't much lateral expansion shaping on the diffuser itself ? (since more of the floor air volume remains in the middle)
Floor edge vortex and the interaction with diffuser is something we don't really know anything of for sure. I think the rear wheel corner is possibly the most complex area for teams to understand and optimise with these cars. I have absolutely no idea if lateral expansion has any influence there or not.
The second question, it really depends on the overall philosophy and aero concept. Like I said, the lateral expansion effect is not really big and the vertical expansion is driven by the rear wing, beam wing, diffuser geometry (the way the rules dictate its nature) - and also by the 2 massive rear wing vortices (like any induced down/upwash on any finite-span wing). So if I had to make a guess, I'd say introducing this minor lateral expansion is beneficial and probably does not have a negative effect on vertical expansion as such.
Excerpts from an article from Arcari translated to English
The main aspects on which Ferrari focused on developing the SF-24 are the increase in top speeds, obviously trying to maintain the level of grip necessary, added to a further improvement of the type management. To unlock further performance, the team he must be good at finding a more favorable suspension compromise in the transition between slow and fast. The track of F1 in Québec presents various chicane that are traveled at dissimilar speeds. Last year on gap it accumulated in the entry phases, where Red Bull he made a lot.
Also the two RB19 they managed to maintain the output advantage by adjusting the traction. This year the redhead tends to “ build ” on laptime focusing precisely on the insertion phases. Which is why, as happened recently, the “ two Carlo ” will have to work hard to try to maximize the exit from the curves, with the clear objective of keeping the delta earned in the first half of the folds. To do this they will also take advantage of the electrical input, a practice that they are using a lot. A percentage of energy is used to “ heal ” the output phases and improve traction.
We refer to a strategy that consequently limits the top speeds which, of course, right in the track of F1 Canadian is very important on the large straight line of the third sector, before the last one quinane. Relevance that makes so much difference even under the mere aspect of overtaking, as this high-speed section of the T3, is the portion of the track most suitable for attacking an opponent. The working group managed by Enrico Gualtieri, therefore, he must be able to make the most of the contribution energy recovery.
The Canadian track is also made up of several medium-speed curves, where it is essential to have a good global balance, of which, moreover, the SF-24 enjoys. Ferrari it has a good load that is enhanced especially in wide-ranging and resting folds, but here absent. On a mechanical level, the Prancing Horse worked to improve the suspension compromise. In fast sections, the suspension elements tend to stiffen to reduce the movements of the vehicle body, while in the more guided areas the suspensions should be softened to facilitate the maximum grip mechanical.
Since there are no curves at high travel speed, the compromise will be more easily accessible. Also for this reason we will have to wait for the Spain to have a concrete response, as between Imola is You love this distinctive trait was seen more. For Ferrari, work on front-end. A front end that will be set to have maximum reactivity, in order to better face the multiple line changes present at Montreal. Ultimately the tire theme, a question that cannot be underestimated at all.
Ferrari is convinced that it is comfortable in this type of condition. The front of the F1 it may be difficult to activate, but the SF-24 for now it has not denoted particular problems in this fundamental. In the rear, on the other hand, it will be important to limit micro skating on the asphalt which contribute to the rapid rise in temperatures by enhancing degradation. With a fairly drained rear axle, oversteer is quite widespread and it is necessary to know how to manage it perfectly in order not to give life to the aforementioned temperature imbalances.
I think Ferrari focused their double-deck beam wing on driving only the central part of diffuser (which expands almost only vertically), while intentionally dropping the chord going outboard to cut down on drag because they don't need so much vertical expansion there
Dont forget the tapering introduces spanwise flow driving/complementing the (minor) lateral expansion at the diffuser corner.
Dont forget the tapering introduces spanwise flow driving/complementing the (minor) lateral expansion at the diffuser corner.
Indeed, outboard flow on the pressure side and inboard flow on suction side, as demonstrated with flow vis on FW45. The "problem" here is that this is the opposite of what would complement lateral expansion and I believe this is why tapering is used nontheless - at least reduce the vertical suction "drive" (generated between diffuser roof and beam wing) towards diffuser corner
Dont forget the tapering introduces spanwise flow driving/complementing the (minor) lateral expansion at the diffuser corner.
Indeed, outboard flow on the pressure side and inboard flow on suction side, as demonstrated with flow vis on FW45. The "problem" here is that this is the opposite of what would complement lateral expansion and I believe this is why tapering is used nontheless - at least reduce the vertical suction "drive" (generated between diffuser roof and beam wing) towards diffuser corner
Thr advantage of pull rod in the rear.
The ability to fully exploit having a whole wing and more uninterupted from wheel hub to gear box.
The pushrod would have stood up somewhere on the lower control arm and limit the clean and expansive wing feature against the wheels.
)
