Ferrari SF-26

[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.

To whomever has down voted me for "spreading misinformation again", perhaps you could man-up and explain why my post is misinformation and why it's "again" when I've barely posted on here in over a year.

Put up or shut up.

[Luscion]

https://x.com/RosarioGiuliana/status/20 ... 95/photo/1
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HHK278eXAAA ... name=large

Is this actually different? Hard to tell when it's colored over like that. Looks like it could be the same, just one with more of the bodywork visible without the wheel on.

only real changes to it according to motorsport italy is the side endplate and the footplane outside it.

[Luscion]

https://x.com/RosarioGiuliana/status/20 ... 25/photo/2

[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, 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.

Might well be that the RB version is at an early stage of development like Ferrari’s was in Bahrain. Though, if they have balance issues like Ferrari did, it most probably will require less refining due to it’s simpler and somewhat familiar nature.

[LM10]

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.

How do you know? It was never used in a race, or even qualifying.

200 km of filming day with positive feedback from drivers.

[amr]

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

Does anyone know if they are still using external mechanical cranking devices these days or are the engines started exclusively with the mgu-k?

I wonder what is the hole in the oval plate within the FIA lights ring used for? It seems to have move in the lower part.
Same for the rectangular opening that use to be at the very top of the cash structure and now is on top of the lights cluster?
It look like attempts of lowering the center of gravity. Lots of work in the background.

[Just_a_fan]

https://x.com/RosarioGiuliana/status/20 ... 25/photo/2

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

Amazing to see a row of little VGs on the side of the crash structure just behind the exhaust dam. Presumably they're getting enough vertical flow in this region to make those VGs meaningfully work.

[sucof]

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

Does anyone know if they are still using external mechanical cranking devices these days or are the engines started exclusively with the mgu-k?

I wonder what is the hole in the oval plate within the FIA lights ring used for? It seems to have move in the lower part.
Same for the rectangular opening that use to be at the very top of the cash structure and now is on top of the lights cluster?
It look like attempts of lowering the center of gravity. Lots of work in the background.

I highly doubt they will let that possibility go. You have to make sure you can crank the engine from outside as well.

[amr]

I highly doubt they will let that possibility go. You have to make sure you can crank the engine from outside as well.

That would normally make sense, to keep your options, however, with how much of the power comes from mgu-k these days, is pointless to start and run if you have a issues and can't generate torque from the mgu-k in the first place.

[sucof]

I highly doubt they will let that possibility go. You have to make sure you can crank the engine from outside as well.

That would normally make sense, to keep your options, however, with how much of the power comes from mgu-k these days, is pointless to start and run if you have a issues and can't generate torque from the mgu-k in the first place.

That is not how an engineer will think... that mgu-k might not work suddenly, then you loose the race, the weekend, all because you did not make a hole and a piece of little metal to connect....
That mgu-k has waay too many parts to make it work, battery, electronics, software, motor, cables, connections, etc... you can not trust it with such an important job. Also, it might be too much stress to use it to crank the engine so many times.

[Farnborough]

I highly doubt they will let that possibility go. You have to make sure you can crank the engine from outside as well.

That would normally make sense, to keep your options, however, with how much of the power comes from mgu-k these days, is pointless to start and run if you have a issues and can't generate torque from the mgu-k in the first place.

That is not how an engineer will think... that mgu-k might not work suddenly, then you loose the race, the weekend, all because you did not make a hole and a piece of little metal to connect....
That mgu-k has waay too many parts to make it work, battery, electronics, software, motor, cables, connections, etc... you can not trust it with such an important job. Also, it might be too much stress to use it to crank the engine so many times.

Its a near-on 500bhp starter motor Geared to the crankshaft at something like 5:1 ratio advantage. Doubt it would even flinch at spinning the ICE.

Conventional "air" starter interacts with gearbox first motion shaft, that right down and level with crankshaft centre, with fairly tortuous route from the light/site being discussed here.
There may be emergency access by removal of a small taped cover, but you'd be looking right down on the floor "keel" about 17cms above track level to be straight in direct line.

Maybe there's better image or footage of startup routine to see more.

[prox]

It appears to be asymmetrical. The right and left endplates look different.

Yep 100%

[matteosc]

I highly doubt they will let that possibility go. You have to make sure you can crank the engine from outside as well.

That would normally make sense, to keep your options, however, with how much of the power comes from mgu-k these days, is pointless to start and run if you have a issues and can't generate torque from the mgu-k in the first place.

That is not how an engineer will think... that mgu-k might not work suddenly, then you loose the race, the weekend, all because you did not make a hole and a piece of little metal to connect....
That mgu-k has waay too many parts to make it work, battery, electronics, software, motor, cables, connections, etc... you can not trust it with such an important job. Also, it might be too much stress to use it to crank the engine so many times.

If the mgu-k doesn't work your race is over anyways, no way to run on ICE only.
Also it is not just a hole, it is a whole system that you can get rid of and make the car lighter. Unless it is mandatory for FIA regulation, as an engineer I would get rid of it.

[sucof]

That would normally make sense, to keep your options, however, with how much of the power comes from mgu-k these days, is pointless to start and run if you have a issues and can't generate torque from the mgu-k in the first place.

That is not how an engineer will think... that mgu-k might not work suddenly, then you loose the race, the weekend, all because you did not make a hole and a piece of little metal to connect....
That mgu-k has waay too many parts to make it work, battery, electronics, software, motor, cables, connections, etc... you can not trust it with such an important job. Also, it might be too much stress to use it to crank the engine so many times.

Its a near-on 500bhp starter motor Geared to the crankshaft at something like 5:1 ratio advantage. Doubt it would even flinch at spinning the ICE.

Conventional "air" starter interacts with gearbox first motion shaft, that right down and level with crankshaft centre, with fairly tortuous route from the light/site being discussed here.
There may be emergency access by removal of a small taped cover, but you'd be looking right down on the floor "keel" about 17cms above track level to be straight in direct line.

Maybe there's better image or footage of startup routine to see more.

Horsepower is not what you need to start an engine, more like high torque. And slow high torque rotation has different requirements, so something that was engineered and optimised for high rpm high horse power, might not be optimal to repeatedly start an engine from stop.

[Farnborough]

That is not how an engineer will think... that mgu-k might not work suddenly, then you loose the race, the weekend, all because you did not make a hole and a piece of little metal to connect....
That mgu-k has waay too many parts to make it work, battery, electronics, software, motor, cables, connections, etc... you can not trust it with such an important job. Also, it might be too much stress to use it to crank the engine so many times.

Its a near-on 500bhp starter motor Geared to the crankshaft at something like 5:1 ratio advantage. Doubt it would even flinch at spinning the ICE.

Conventional "air" starter interacts with gearbox first motion shaft, that right down and level with crankshaft centre, with fairly tortuous route from the light/site being discussed here.
There may be emergency access by removal of a small taped cover, but you'd be looking right down on the floor "keel" about 17cms above track level to be straight in direct line.

Maybe there's better image or footage of startup routine to see more.

Horsepower is not what you need to start an engine, more like high torque. And slow high torque rotation has different requirements, so something that was engineered and optimised for high rpm high horse power, might not be optimal to repeatedly start an engine from stop.

Note I wrote BHP which is simply torque output exoressed over time to give convenient comparison. Its also geared down against crankshaft rotation at something like 5:1 and wouldn't have any problems starting ICE.

I can't see anything that would support the observation that its not in any way capable or unreliable for the task.