Ferrari SF-26

[mzso]

I don’t think Ferrari’s is more conservative at all - if anything it’s the more complex engineering solution.

Now, it’s quite possible it’s *over* engineered - and Red Bull have thought of a way to get the same or better effect in a simpler form (making me think of their DRS blown beam wing in 2012 that simplified but improved on the Mercedes solution) - but that remains to be seen. If anything, the Ferrari version is more ambitious though imho.

It looks like Red Bull's is stronger with the three point attachment and less draggy. Ferrari's sidewalls seemed really thick.

[Just_a_fan]

Reading everything that has been written on the subject, it's frustrating to see once again how easily the work of the British teams is considered to be naturally superior to that of Maranello.

Zoiture's profile says they're a Ferrari fan and in Italy, so not sure the accusation of national bias is warranted.

[Just_a_fan]

I don’t think Ferrari’s is more conservative at all - if anything it’s the more complex engineering solution.

Now, it’s quite possible it’s *over* engineered - and Red Bull have thought of a way to get the same or better effect in a simpler form (making me think of their DRS blown beam wing in 2012 that simplified but improved on the Mercedes solution) - but that remains to be seen. If anything, the Ferrari version is more ambitious though imho.

It looks like Red Bull's is stronger with the three point attachment and less draggy. Ferrari's sidewalls seemed really thick.

The wing endplates already create drag. It might be that the thicker endplates create less overall drag than standard endplates and a big lump of a central actuator. Also, removing the central actuator ought to make the rear wing more efficient anyway as it's removes a source of turbulence at midspan.

[Brahmal]

The wing endplates already create drag. It might be that the thicker endplates create less overall drag than standard endplates and a big lump of a central actuator. Also, removing the central actuator ought to make the rear wing more efficient anyway as it's removes a source of turbulence at midspan.

Another nice detail is the actuators are mounted at an upward angle, so the shroud may even create a tiny bit of extra downforce to help offset the added weight.

[sucof]

The wing endplates already create drag. It might be that the thicker endplates create less overall drag than standard endplates and a big lump of a central actuator. Also, removing the central actuator ought to make the rear wing more efficient anyway as it's removes a source of turbulence at midspan.

Another nice detail is the actuators are mounted at an upward angle, so the shroud may even create a tiny bit of extra downforce to help offset the added weight.

That must be suuuper tiny I think
Its angle is more out of necessity and simply following general air direction than because of downforce.

[Farnborough]

The wing endplates already create drag. It might be that the thicker endplates create less overall drag than standard endplates and a big lump of a central actuator. Also, removing the central actuator ought to make the rear wing more efficient anyway as it's removes a source of turbulence at midspan.

Another nice detail is the actuators are mounted at an upward angle, so the shroud may even create a tiny bit of extra downforce to help offset the added weight.

That must be suuuper tiny I think
Its angle is more out of necessity and simply following general air direction than because of downforce.

My understanding is that the central actuator traditionally used is in a downstream "shadow" area for airflow, that from the engine airbox, the T mount for camera and roll hoop disturbance that effectively can't be removed.

The rear wings commonly designed around this anyway, and not solely in mitigation of the conventional DRS mechanism as its been used over many years.

The outer rear wing support conventionally considered to be running in comparatively "clean" air from that perspective.

I don't see why this is being considered in regard to RB anyway, Ferrari have committed to this, it seems, with ongoing evaluation as we've seen so far in testing.
It'll bring whatever it can, and so far that's been a question mark over air reattaching when deployment is reversed, and quite a big one it appears from the public view we've got to go on in FP sessions.

[amr]

I wonder if the Redbull solution can function in both way, letterbox and macarana and the way in which the wing is opened is selected based on different factors like the speed at which is actuated, how long is the straight, etc

[LM10]

Completely contrary to what some say it’s RedBull’s rear wing which is conservative and easier to get to work as the actuator is in it’s usual place and the wing requires less rotation due to it rotating to the other direction. That’s why there needs to be that gap between flap and endplate - at least to my understanding. As has been pointed out, the downside of that gap must be some tip vortices.

Ferrari pretty obviously didn’t want the actuator to be in the streamline. Considering they have the most clean air going towards the rear wing because of the triangular and slim airbox outlet, it makes even more sense. Not to mention possible synergical effect with the blown diffuser/wing.

They refined the Macarena wing and made it work properly - it must have not been so easy finding the sweet spot, but they did it.

[Badger]

I don’t think Ferrari’s is more conservative at all - if anything it’s the more complex engineering solution.

Now, it’s quite possible it’s *over* engineered - and Red Bull have thought of a way to get the same or better effect in a simpler form (making me think of their DRS blown beam wing in 2012 that simplified but improved on the Mercedes solution) - but that remains to be seen. If anything, the Ferrari version is more ambitious though imho.

It looks like Red Bull's is stronger with the three point attachment and less draggy. Ferrari's sidewalls seemed really thick.

The wing endplates already create drag. It might be that the thicker endplates create less overall drag than standard endplates and a big lump of a central actuator. Also, removing the central actuator ought to make the rear wing more efficient anyway as it's removes a source of turbulence at midspan.

The central actuator only looks bulky and bulbous because that is (counter-intuitively) the lowest drag shape you can create in free air. Putting that volume in the endplate makes it harder to create a drag efficient shape, but you also already had some drag there as you point out. In the end I doubt this was the differentiator between the two concepts. Far more relevant I think is how fast the mechanism operates and what aerodynamic instability it creates during closure. Only time will tell which works better.

[PlatinumZealot]

I'm not convinced by all these claims that Red Bull's "Macarena" wing is an evolution of Ferrari's and therefore better.
First, by retaining the central actuator, it's simpler, and it's hard to believe Diego Tondi didn't consider this.
Second, if the render video below is accurate, its kinematics could lead to greater load variation during the rotation, although it remains to be seen whether a faster rotation mitigates this issue (shorter angular travel).


Finally, once deployed (and the real image confirms this), the wing's tips are no longer framed by the endplates. This could generate vortices at each profile end and thus create drag, the opposite of the intended goal.
https://postimages.org/ https://postimages.org/
In short, it's possible that Ferrari's solution is no less effective than Red Bull's, which would make sense given the likely longer development time it required.

If the redbull one generates extra wing tip vorticity as the image shows, it could be an advantage.

I actually don't think the vorticity will be great though, considering the wing is esentially horizontal. Yes there will be vortices but will it be greater than the Endplate interaction on the Ferrari one? i doubt it.

[f1316]

Completely contrary to what some say it’s RedBull’s rear wing which is conservative and easier to get to work as the actuator is in it’s usual place and the wing requires less rotation due to it rotating to the other direction. That’s why there needs to be that gap between flap and endplate - at least to my understanding. As has been pointed out, the downside of that gap must be some tip vortices.

Ferrari pretty obviously didn’t want the actuator to be in the streamline. Considering they have the most clean air going towards the rear wing because of the triangular and slim airbox outlet, it makes even more sense. Not to mention possible synergical effect with the blown diffuser/wing.

They refined the Macarena wing and made it work properly - it must have not been so easy finding the sweet, but they did it.

Yes, this is what I was saying too. It’s possible RB did some good lateral thinking in their design - identifying that there’s a larger potential slot gap for fewer degrees of travel by reversing the direction - but that by definition means a simpler, less sophisticated solution.

I suspect the RB version is at the same stage of development as the Ferrari version we saw in Bahrain testing - ie a proof of concept that they’re gathering real world numbers on and would need further development to be robust enough for a race. We’ll see this weekend.

[Farnborough]

Completely contrary to what some say it’s RedBull’s rear wing which is conservative and easier to get to work as the actuator is in it’s usual place and the wing requires less rotation due to it rotating to the other direction. That’s why there needs to be that gap between flap and endplate - at least to my understanding. As has been pointed out, the downside of that gap must be some tip vortices.

Ferrari pretty obviously didn’t want the actuator to be in the streamline. Considering they have the most clean air going towards the rear wing because of the triangular and slim airbox outlet, it makes even more sense. Not to mention possible synergical effect with the blown diffuser/wing.

They refined the Macarena wing and made it work properly - it must have not been so easy finding the sweet, but they did it.

Yes, this is what I was saying too. It’s possible RB did some good lateral thinking in their design - identifying that there’s a larger potential slot gap for fewer degrees of travel by reversing the direction - but that by definition means a simpler, less sophisticated solution.

I suspect the RB version is at the same stage of development as the Ferrari version we saw in Bahrain testing - ie a proof of concept that they’re gathering real world numbers on and would need further development to be robust enough for a race. We’ll see this weekend.

This I don't understand, there's nothing, so far, that proves anything. As yet they haven't "done it" it's neither been raced to any successful outcome OR given tangible advantage in comparison to nearest competitor, Mercedes, that we can use as confirmation.

I want them to succeed in being competitive right at front running pace, this is not a success, yet. Its simply interesting at this stage, but likely to be neutralised by other's research of same area if there's real benefit to it.

The early reveal and no big results to show is wasting potential while other teams also evaluate concept, that's whether they've followed Ferrari or originated their own ideas.

[Nja]

I'm not convinced by all these claims that Red Bull's "Macarena" wing is an evolution of Ferrari's and therefore better.
First, by retaining the central actuator, it's simpler, and it's hard to believe Diego Tondi didn't consider this.
Second, if the render video below is accurate, its kinematics could lead to greater load variation during the rotation, although it remains to be seen whether a faster rotation mitigates this issue (shorter angular travel).


Finally, once deployed (and the real image confirms this), the wing's tips are no longer framed by the endplates. This could generate vortices at each profile end and thus create drag, the opposite of the intended goal.
https://postimages.org/ https://postimages.org/
In short, it's possible that Ferrari's solution is no less effective than Red Bull's, which would make sense given the likely longer development time it required.

If the redbull one generates extra wing tip vorticity as the image shows, it could be an advantage.

I actually don't think the vorticity will be great though, considering the wing is esentially horizontal. Yes there will be vortices but will it be greater than the Endplate interaction on the Ferrari one? i doubt it.

With a bit of luck, both teams will run their wing in Miami and then the speed delta between closed and open systems will give us a part of the answer (it remains that we will not be able to compare the impact of the actuation mechanisms in terms of drag and disruption of the wing's operation).

[sucof]

I think we are lost in details.
It is possible the RB macarena is less effective... but the difference will be max 10%... meaning, the overall advantage of this rotating wing will be very similar.
I can even imagine RB will race it for real this weekend. I think their solution is a lot easier to implement, and uses a lot more familiar and existing solutions than the Ferrari does.
So RB was clever with their copy.
For Ferrari, it is lot more important to use it while Mercedes does not.
And that the exhaust flap (monkey grill) will be important for its benefits, so they can get closer to Mercedes for longer.

[PlatinumZealot]

The pivot being in a different location doesn't mean it is easier to implement! how do you know? strange thing to say.. Hehe