Ferrari Rear Wheel Lip

[ginsu]

Thanks for the pics and confirmation Reca...it does look like Ferrari have a good reason to be running the shields...although, i'm still pretty certain that it helps the aero. Ferrari have certainly found one of the most exploitable areas on the car...I just wish other teams would follow suit. Their front 'brake duct wings' are just killer and I'm sure they produce alot of downforce...I don't know why other teams aren't running them.

[manchild]

...I just wish other teams would follow suit...I don't know why other teams aren't running them.

Because as soon as other teams would adopt that FIA would declare it illegal since it wouldn't give any advantage to Ferrari over other teams. Remember what happened to mass damper - as soon as Ferrari didn't need to use it anymore FIA banned it.

[FLC]

Maybe you wish to enlighten us, manchild, as for how you know that "Ferrari didnt need the mass damper"? Wasnt it McLaren that was behind the official protest?

[manchild]

Maybe you wish to enlighten us, manchild, as for how you know that "Ferrari didnt need the mass damper"? Wasnt it McLaren that was behind the official protest?

Ferrari was using it too and stoppped using it before FIA made any move. So they've stopped using it because they've built better replacement or mass damper simply didn't give them that much laptime as it gave to Renault. Check the news and you'll see that Ferrari didn't even bring their mass damper to German GP although FIA made first anti-mass damper reaction after Thursday scrutineering. So, they knew it would be proclaimed illegal before general public and rezst of the F1 teams which tell us that they've asked for ban but not publically but as they usually do.

[Reca]

Although I am guilty of hanging Ferrari myself........Reca's posts are very illuminating.

Thanks . Anyway it isn’t difficult to see the difference between attacking Ferrari by principle simply ignoring any fact not suiting that agenda and to just express doubts about some things in order to understand each case more comprehensively, it’s the former that is quite irritating and I don’t remember you being guilty of that.

I suppose when you look at the wheel construction argument, perhaps you take the view that these things are not part of the wheel, but merely attached to it (like a tyre ) Do the regs state that you cannot attach components to the wheel?

No. In fact it’s the same case as for the crankshaft, it has to be made from an iron alloy still teams can attach to it high density counterweights because they aren’t crankshaft, just parts attached to it. If that wasn’t the meaning of the rule even the little ballast elements you can see attached to the wheels and often covered with tape would be illegal, actually even the brand stickers would be illegal.

Doesn't change the fact that these covers must reduce drag (or why else would cars that run at high speed fit covers at every opportunity - Le Mans, Indy etc.)

It’s a few years since I read the paper I referred to in the previous post but I recall that the advantage (hence the difference between rear wheel and cylinder of same dimension) was rapidly getting smaller way more than linearly with the increment of the aspect ratio (big difference with thin bike tyres, almost nothing with F1 tyres). That doesn’t mean that there’s no advantage, just that it’s so small to be negligible because the drag generation mechanism with big aspect ratio tyres is dominated by the counter-rotating vortices generated in the wake, way more than by the vortices generated inside the rim, so the drag changes very little with face open or closed.
In oval racing to close the rim is probably still worth a measurable gain given speed is all the time at 380-390 km/h if not more and longitudinal acceleration is very small, in F1 where speed is often under 300 km/h and for most of straight lines the car is accelerating at conspicuous rate, the advantage is vastly reduced.
The case of the Le Mans car is different because we are talking about closed wheel car so vortices inside the rim are more relevant on the wheel drag generation mechanism.

Thanks for the pics and confirmation Reca...it does look like Ferrari have a good reason to be running the shields...although, i'm still pretty certain that it helps the aero. Ferrari have certainly found one of the most exploitable areas on the car...I just wish other teams would follow suit. Their front 'brake duct wings' are just killer and I'm sure they produce alot of downforce...I don't know why other teams aren't running them.

You’re welcome, although I wouldn’t take that as an absolute confirmation, I’ve still a margin of doubt, I would like to see a good pic of the rear end without wheels, particularly to understand if the total cooling flow exhausts back on the inside of the wheel or just a part.
Anyway I checked pics of other cars and as far as I can tell (not all the pics are very clear) only Ferrari and McLaren have outlets on the inside of the wheel, Ferrari above the wheel axle and McLaren, small, under it, so I would exclude the possibility other teams use the concept.

As for the winglets on brake ducts, not few teams use them, although the Ferrari ones are definitively the most visible and developed. I wouldn’t even guess how much effect they really have, that area is a too big mess to conclude anything without a good experience working on them and it’s very likely that an effective development isn’t really possible in scaled down model but needs to work with 100% scale. Not all teams have that possibility.
What I find puzzling is that many people scream “murder” seeing the fairings on the rear wheels but you hear very few complains about these winglets, I guess it must be because they aren’t as visible. Personally I find them way more questionable, although obviously they are absolutely legal for the very same reason the fairings are.

Check the news and you'll see that Ferrari didn't even bring their mass damper to German GP although FIA made first anti-mass damper reaction after Thursday scrutineering.

Charlie Whiting sent a fax with the decision to ban the mass damper to all the teams technical director (and to Jo Bauer) the day after the French Gp (17 July if I’m not mistaken). No team amongst the ones using it had the mass damper to German Gp, only Renault on the third car. All the teams knew it was banned, Renault apparently decided to ignore Charlie Whiting decision.

[RH1300S]

Thanks Reca - just the sort of post that attracted me here in the first place - very helpful.

As I was reading your description of wheel drag, I realised that LeMans cars were (of course) benefitting from a closed body, so a different situation - but thanks for pointing it out.

[manchild]

Charlie Whiting sent a fax with the decision to ban the mass damper to all the teams technical director (and to Jo Bauer) the day after the French Gp (17 July if I’m not mistaken). No team amongst the ones using it had the mass damper to German Gp, only Renault on the third car. All the teams knew it was banned, Renault apparently decided to ignore Charlie Whiting decision.

So Charlie Whiting sent fax to all teams but forgot to send fax to FIA stewards or to tell them face to face on Wednesday or Thursday? That is really funny, FIA bosses make a decision, inform teams but they don't inform their own stewards. If they FIA stewards were informed that mass damper is illegal than they certianly wouldn't perform scrutineering on Thursday and say that mass damper is legal.

[flynfrog]

Charlie Whiting sent a fax with the decision to ban the mass damper to all the teams technical director (and to Jo Bauer) the day after the French Gp (17 July if I’m not mistaken). No team amongst the ones using it had the mass damper to German Gp, only Renault on the third car. All the teams knew it was banned, Renault apparently decided to ignore Charlie Whiting decision.

So Charlie Whiting sent fax to all teams but forgot to send fax to FIA stewards or to tell them face to face on Wednesday or Thursday? That is really funny, FIA bosses new about it they inform teams but they don't inform their own stewards. If they FIA stewards were informed that mass damper is illegal than they certianly wouldn't perform scrutineering on Thursday and say that mass damper is legal.

Dont you ever get tired of posting crap like this?

[manchild]

Dont you ever get tired of posting crap like this?

Instead of writing crap please explain me why FIA stewards weren't informed that mass damper is illegal.

How is it possible that FIA officialy informs teams on 17th July and doesn't tell a word to its own stewards for two weeks? Scrutineering or Renault cars happened on 28th and from 17th to 28th FIA stewards havent been oficialy informed that mass damper is illegal.

That's what stinks and that's what people see.

[flynfrog]

Dont you ever get tired of posting crap like this?

Instead of writing crap please explain me why FIA stewards weren't informed that mass damper is illegal.

my guess is that they were informed but i really dont know and im sure reca dosent either we all know the situation and there is realy no need to rehash it the teams were informed no body raced with a mass damper and its now illegal end of story.

[Reca]

So Charlie Whiting sent fax to all teams but forgot to send fax to FIA stewards or to tell them face to face on Wednesday or Thursday? That is really funny, FIA bosses make a decision, inform teams but they don't inform their own stewards. If they FIA stewards were informed that mass damper is illegal than they certianly wouldn't perform scrutineering on Thursday and say that mass damper is legal

Charlie Whiting informed the teams technical directors and Jo Bauer, technical delegate at the events, meaning the one scrutineering the cars and deciding if they are in compliance with technical rules or not.

The stewards of the meeting (one the same for all the events and two locals) are there just to receive from Jo Bauer the details of the scrutineering and apply the penalties in case of technical irregularities. In the same way they receive from Charlie Whiting (race director) notice of sporting irregularities and decide if it’s necessary to apply a penalty and the entity.

Since I don’t know if you can find the Whiting fax on the web I copied the text, it was published the following week by both Italian magazines about motorsport (Autosprint and Sportautomoto) :

To : Technical Director
All Formula One Teams

cc : Jo Bauer; Alan Fuller

From : Charlie Whiting Ref : TD/020-06

Date : 17th July 2006 Pages : 1

Subject : Mass Dampers

2006 FIA Formula One World Championship

The use of mass dampers, normally fitted in the nosecone of a car, is now widespread. Even though we have never been asked specifically whether or not their use may contravene any part of the Technical Regulations our view, until now, has been they do not.

However, recent evidence and an escalation in development by some teams, has made it clear that the principle purpose of these devices is to improve the aerodynamic performance of the car. As the mass suspended inside the dampers is designed to move freely it is therefore not secured to the entirely sprung part of the car nor does it remain immobile in relation to it. Therefore, as this movement influences the aerodynamic performance of the car we feel that mass dampers of this sort contravene Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations and we no longer consider their use permissible.

I trust this is clear and remain at your disposal should you have any further questions.

Kind regards

Charlie Whiting
FIA Formula One Technical Department

Here
http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_In ... rmany.html
you can download the scrutineering report of the German gp where you can read the communication from Jo Bauer to the stewards of the meetings :

Today during initial scrutineering the T car of the Mild Seven Renault F1 Team was found to be equipped with a mass damper inside the front impact structure. The principle purpose of this device is to improve the aerodynamic performance of the car. Therefore the Technical Directive TD/020-06 was circulated to the Technical Directors of all teams on 17 July 2006 stating that the use of a mass damper contravenes Article 3.15 of the F1Technical Regulations and that their use no longer will be considered permissible.

Then why the stewards of the meeting preferred to ignore all the above and accept anyway a car having an irregular part isn’t up to me to tell because I really don’t know, ask them. What I know is that FIA appealed the decision and won the case.

[Tp]

So then, what's the advantages of having the outlet on the inside of the wheel as opposed to exiting through the wheel spokes and outwards?

[manchild]

So then, what's the advantages of having the outlet on the inside of the wheel as opposed to exiting through the wheel spokes and outwards?

Than you can put carbon fiber fairing on rim and improve aerodynamic efficiency of the car



-----------------------------------
Thanks for the info Reca. I might seam biased but illogical things make me suspect that there's something fishy espeically when such things harm one party and bring advantage to another.

I'm also keen to find out how did FIA vs. stewards case was ended? Anyone with info?

[FLC]

Sorry. manchild fixed his before I posted mine .

[manchild]

A fairing is a fairing. Call it aerodynamic cover if you want , aerodynamic hub cap... it improoves aerodymanic efficiency.

Fairing is term for element that improoves aerodynamic efficiency, its shape or type of vehicle are not what defines it but the prinicple of functioning and effects it causes.

Speaking of wheel fairings... invetend and patented by Renault in 1934

Sorry. manchild fixed his before I posted mine .

Yeah, sorry from me too, I've seen your reply after I've already changed my post