Ferrari side pod aero

[hardingfv32]

While is 'looks' wrong based on all that has come before, but what do you think they are/were trying to accomplish using such a buffed surface under the cooling intake? Why route flow farther out? I am going to assume it was not for internal packaging reasons.

Brian

[wesley123]

you assumed wrong it is because of internal packaging.

[hardingfv32]

And what internal packaging issue or benefit would trump the aero design? They have not required this space in the past.

Brian

[wesley123]

Eelectronics etc. are located in that area. And yes they have required this space in the past. Actually I do not know of a ferrari that doesnt have that area like this

[Nando]

We have seen Mclaren as well buff out the area just under the intake.
RBR has done it for a while now as well.

I thought it was because it made no difference to have a strongly sculpted underside of the intake.
Packaging seems like a (way) more logical explanation though.

[shelly]

Making the area under the sidepod different and more squared is a classical tombazis move.
If Crucial or another skilled photo finder can make it, we would see tha same move applied on the 2006 ferrari between winter testing and start of the season iirc, and on the 2007 ferrari (barcelona spec iirc). A bit more diffciult to see because a the time bargeboards covered most of the zone in almost every picture.

My opinion is that they are looking for more downforce from the underbody at the expense of some efficiency (that would be coherent with all the small vorticators they have added near the barge board)

[bhallg2k]

Then there's the fact the radiators are vertical.

[wesley123]

I believe that this shape isnt more aerodynamicly efficient in any way, it is just driven by packaging. Where else would you put the electronic systems etc. that would otherwise be located there? The keel cant house everything so you have to either built higher up or put it further back. Looking at what is seen in that area it isnt that light that that wouldnt be a problem.

The shape isnt aerodynamicly better, it is just the best solution out of a crapload of things you'd have to consider. They could also put the electronics further back for example but then reduce the coke bottle, which would be worse.

On the other hand, I believe Ferrari is the only team to mount the radiators this way. I can imagine it is to improve the coke bottle but what are the downsides of this solution? I can imagine it would screw with internal aerodynamics but what are really the up and downsides of such a system?

[stez90]

I think that directing the air around the lower end of sidepots accelerates the flow in that area, creating a low pressure zone at the side of the car that prevent air splilling from the side to under the car, "sealing" the underbody for better diffuser performance.
Could this work?

[flynfrog]

I think that directing the air around the lower end of sidepots accelerates the flow in that area, creating a low pressure zone at the side of the car that prevent air splilling from the side to under the car, "sealing" the underbody for better diffuser performance.
Could this work?

please explain how a low pressure prevents air spilling to seal the diffuser?

[flyboy2160]

... Where else would you put the electronic systems etc. that would otherwise be located there? ....

-you could rotate the larger of the boxes with the three large connectors so that it 'aligned' with the duct sidewall
-you could mount some of the thinner boxes above the duct in between the side impact tubes. you need height for the diameter of those tubes, so i'd try filling the space between the tubes with electronics.
-i also suspect that if that bluff area were streamlined, the barge boards would look different. i'm starting to suspect that one of the functions of the barge boards is to contain the air backing up on the bluff from going too far outboard.
-looking at that flow vis, i'd also guess that the bluff area flow is detracting from the inlet pressure recovery, i.e., slowing down the intake air.
-yes, i know these things are a total mass of contradictory requirements, but that bluff area still looks like an area for airflow improvement.

are any of you guys running a cfd model of this area?

[bhallg2k]

How do any of those things make sense given the mass and cooling requirements of the electronic components in question, not to mention the fact that you don't even know what they are? And how does anyone know if their placement is a problem, even given the shape of the bodywork that covers them?

Keep in mind that the FloVis seen around the side pod inlet is being used to investigate correlation problems related to the front wing.

Not everything is as it seems.

[stez90]

@flynfrog: if you have low pressure under the car and atmosferic pressurre around the sides, air from the sides will flow under the car because of the pressure gradient, incresing the pressure undertray. If you have low pressure at either sides and undertray, there will be less flow from the sides to under the car. Make sense?

[shelly]

I disagree about packaging being the cause for that shape. See the example I have cited: aero is the driving factor especilly for changes like this or those I cited, which happened mid season with no systems repackaging.
Putting boxes in that zone is standard - I think the boxes have not changed, just their fairing has, of course going wider instead than tighter. But going wider you build an igher pressure in that zone a force a bit more air under the floor.

[gixxer_drew]

I disagree about packaging being the cause for that shape. See the example I have cited: aero is the driving factor especilly for changes like this or those I cited, which happened mid season with no systems repackaging.
Putting boxes in that zone is standard - I think the boxes have not changed, just their fairing has, of course going wider instead than tighter. But going wider you build an igher pressure in that zone a force a bit more air under the floor.

I 100% agree with this.