Ferrari F138

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.
Post Reply
radosav
23
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 20:46

Re: Ferrari F138

Post

turbof1 wrote:
Spankyham wrote:Was thinking about the slot, and remembered that our DRS is foot activated. Its pretty narrow down there and moving your foot (as in activating the DRS) could have a significant effect on that flow.
That would be against the regulations. After 2010 the fia outlawed driver's influence on the airflow.
There is loophole ,because pressing DRS pedal with your foot is primary action , changing airflow is secondary action !
Drivers constantly change airflow around car with their movements, you can't forbid that. Clever from Ferrari if this is the case!

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Ferrari F138

Post

radosav wrote:
turbof1 wrote:
Spankyham wrote:Was thinking about the slot, and remembered that our DRS is foot activated. Its pretty narrow down there and moving your foot (as in activating the DRS) could have a significant effect on that flow.
That would be against the regulations. After 2010 the fia outlawed driver's influence on the airflow.
There is loophole ,because pressing DRS pedal with your foot is primary action , changing airflow is secondary action !
Drivers constantly change airflow around car with their movements, you can't forbid that. Clever from Ferrari if this is the case!
Depending on how you interpret the 2013 regulations, that would be banned too due DRS not allowed to have a secondary function this year. Anyway, Charley Whiting has the final word over this. He has been quick to send out technical directives last year when it came down to loopholes.
#AeroFrodo

radosav
23
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 20:46

Re: Ferrari F138

Post

What i wanted to say is that FIA maybe won't be able to prove that moving foot to press DRS pedal has influence on airflow that may activate other activities in car . Openings made for driver cooling are normal thing and drivers move their feet all the time, so ...

User avatar
Forghieri
4
Joined: 15 Dec 2012, 18:08

Re: Ferrari F138

Post

@Turbo,
Quick as in " the engine mapping issue (Germany) and holes in the floor (Monaco) were where the FIA chose to issue a clarification and told RB to change the offending parts before the next race ?"
I hope he's a bit quicker this year :wink:
Do you feel you can beat the Red Bulls, either to pole position or the race itself?
Fernando Alonso: "I prefer to beat them on Sunday."

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Ferrari F138

Post

@radosav: well, ferrari would need one hell of an explanation to be allowed to keep it, but it could be possible. We will see; if it is allowed it'll probably been asked already at charlie whiting. We will have to wait if other teams complain.

@Forghieri: it was better then previous years, and imo the best way to settle things. The FIA could have taken a much harder stand and just scrapped Red Bull from the table at those races, but they luckily didn't go for off-track influence.
#AeroFrodo

f1316
78
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 18:36

Re: Ferrari F138

Post

I think there's been a conscious effort by Ferrari to look for these "loopholes" - i.e. using a "primary" purpose for a much larger, "secondary" effect. They perceive - and they've said it publicly - that all the changes Red Bull were forced to make - having already raced in a certain configuration - provided an advantage, and have stated they are going to pursure these kinds of avenues.

Even if this hole is simply a matter of managing the airflow, it's a sign of their intent in this area. Even more so if it will eventually have some DRS boosting effect.

User avatar
Forghieri
4
Joined: 15 Dec 2012, 18:08

Re: Ferrari F138

Post

turbof1 wrote:@radosav: well, ferrari would need one hell of an explanation to be allowed to keep it, but it could be possible. We will see; if it is allowed it'll probably been asked already at charlie whiting. We will have to wait if other teams complain.

@Forghieri: it was better then previous years, and imo the best way to settle things. The FIA could have taken a much harder stand and just scrapped Red Bull from the table at those races, but they luckily didn't go for off-track influence.
Agree, although i believe Todt said that this year, that would be the consequence, if they catch you before the race, you're out.
Do you feel you can beat the Red Bulls, either to pole position or the race itself?
Fernando Alonso: "I prefer to beat them on Sunday."

aral
26
Joined: 03 Apr 2010, 22:49

Re: Ferrari F138

Post

Isn't it amazing the amount of speculation that arises from a hole in the bodywork? Whatever the reason, Ferrari have done this before. Remember the ducting through the nose a couple of years ago? And then Red Bull have also used a vent/duct in the nose too. Last year remember the discussion/dispute about the letterbox, and then they too had an intake below the nose as well.

There certainly could be a benefit in blowing air through the cockpit, to exit in a low pressure area around the drivers head. Not sure if such a gale would be comfortable for the driver though.

User avatar
Forghieri
4
Joined: 15 Dec 2012, 18:08

Re: Ferrari F138

Post

gilgen wrote:Isn't it amazing the amount of speculation that arises from a hole in the bodywork? Whatever the reason, Ferrari have done this before. Remember the ducting through the nose a couple of years ago? And then Red Bull have also used a vent/duct in the nose too. Last year remember the discussion/dispute about the letterbox, and then they too had an intake below the nose as well.

There certainly could be a benefit in blowing air through the cockpit, to exit in a low pressure area around the drivers head. Not sure if such a gale would be comfortable for the driver though.
No Gilgen, you don't understand :wink: the flag goes out in Maranello, Newey's cars have been the centre of controversies for years and now finally, everybody is talking about Ferrari's legal/illegal part(s).
It’s a badge of honour for the engineers. :mrgreen:
Do you feel you can beat the Red Bulls, either to pole position or the race itself?
Fernando Alonso: "I prefer to beat them on Sunday."

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Ferrari F138

Post

I think it is infact more of a cooperation between engineers and lawyers. Sometimes I am really appaled by how they got around some of the regs.
But yeah, you could infact see it as a badge of honour; it means you outsmarted the rulemaker.

I believe Ferrari claimed to have just done that this year with its suspension, no?
#AeroFrodo

aral
26
Joined: 03 Apr 2010, 22:49

Re: Ferrari F138

Post

Forghieri wrote:
gilgen wrote:Isn't it amazing the amount of speculation that arises from a hole in the bodywork? Whatever the reason, Ferrari have done this before. Remember the ducting through the nose a couple of years ago? And then Red Bull have also used a vent/duct in the nose too. Last year remember the discussion/dispute about the letterbox, and then they too had an intake below the nose as well.

There certainly could be a benefit in blowing air through the cockpit, to exit in a low pressure area around the drivers head. Not sure if such a gale would be comfortable for the driver though.
No Gilgen, you don't understand :wink: the flag goes out in Maranello, Newey's cars have been the centre of controversies for years and now finally, everybody is talking about Ferrari's legal/illegal part(s).
It’s a badge of honour for the engineers. :mrgreen:
Sorry, nobody knows what the hole is for, therefore nobody is in a position to say if it is illegal or not. Further, in testing, anything goes, so it is fully possible that Ferrari could test an idea, without displaying the eventual iteration. And, as pointed out before, both Ferrari and Red Bull have run such openings before, without legality problems

Who are we to say if it is illegal or not, that is the job of the FIA. And by the way, at no time has any car of Neweys been found to be illegal, unlike some other cars.

User avatar
Spankyham
1
Joined: 17 Dec 2011, 19:14

Re: Ferrari F138

Post

turbof1 wrote:
Spankyham wrote:Was thinking about the slot, and remembered that our DRS is foot activated. Its pretty narrow down there and moving your foot (as in activating the DRS) could have a significant effect on that flow.
That would be against the regulations. After 2010 the fia outlawed driver's influence on the airflow.
True, and I did think of that. However, lets consider the "pushing the limits" statements from Ferrari along with some interesting precedents. Specific devices for driver influence are indeed banned. But using the DRS activator isn't a driver influencing airflow any more than a driver moving their hands while steering (which influences airflow). These are consequential results rather than direct actions. Now consider precedents. Extreme overrun, clearly using moving parts for aero benefit, but it was allowed because it was a consequential result - teams argued that they needed overrun for other reasons. Last year the DDRS could be an even closer example, clearly the driver was activating the rear wing DRS but a consequential result of that activation was created and it was allowed.

In the same way, if the airflow from the opening we can see just happened to be channeled where the drivers foot moves to and fro on and off the DRS activator then, Ferrari "could" argue that the driver isn't influencing airflow, he is simply activating the DRS - same as he did last year. It would also be hard for other teams to copy fast as they use hand activated DRS :)

Just a bit of rambling mulling to help pass the time until testing resumes :)
"He was the fastest driver I ever saw - faster even than Fangio"
_______________________________- Mike Hawthorn on Alberto Ascari

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Ferrari F138

Post

Spankyham wrote:
turbof1 wrote:
Spankyham wrote:Was thinking about the slot, and remembered that our DRS is foot activated. Its pretty narrow down there and moving your foot (as in activating the DRS) could have a significant effect on that flow.
That would be against the regulations. After 2010 the fia outlawed driver's influence on the airflow.
True, and I did think of that. However, lets consider the "pushing the limits" statements from Ferrari along with some interesting precedents. Specific devices for driver influence are indeed banned. But using the DRS activator isn't a driver influencing airflow any more than a driver moving their hands while steering (which influences airflow). These are consequential results rather than direct actions. Now consider precedents. Extreme overrun, clearly using moving parts for aero benefit, but it was allowed because it was a consequential result - teams argued that they needed overrun for other reasons. Last year the DDRS could be an even closer example, clearly the driver was activating the rear wing DRS but a consequential result of that activation was created and it was allowed.

In the same way, if the airflow from the opening we can see just happened to be channeled where the drivers foot moves to and fro on and off the DRS activator then, Ferrari "could" argue that the driver isn't influencing airflow, he is simply activating the DRS - same as he did last year. It would also be hard for other teams to copy fast as they use hand activated DRS :)

Just a bit of rambling mulling to help pass the time until testing resumes :)
I do like the idea; and if they didn't ban secondary uses for DRS this would certainly be allowed. However, they can't use a secondary function for it anymore:
3.18.1 DRS cannot be used to change the geometry of any duct, either directly or indirectly, other than the change to the distance between adjacent sections permitted by Article 3.10.2.
There might be still some room for interpretation. If ferrari succeeds into argumentating that "the pedal is not drs, but just a tool to activate it", as opposed to "the pedal being part of the overal system", then yes it would be allowed. I cannot predict which one it will be, but I think Charley Whiting will just say "nice try, better luck next time".

If it would be allowed though, it would have interesting results, but I do not know if it would have any real benefits. The flow would be blocked, disrupting the airflow underneath the nose. Just speaking out of intuition, it would create lift and drag there. The diffuser would create less downforce, while the reduction in drag is negligible.
I think you can get benefits out of it by extending a pipe complete from that duct all the way to the back, perhaps to the rear wing, and make a hole in it at the DRS pedal. That way when closed the airflow does not stop, and you can stall something very draggy.
#AeroFrodo

radosav
23
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 20:46

Re: Ferrari F138

Post

Pedal doesn't have to be tool , but foot can be, i mean moving foot slightly to one side to push DRS pedal !

bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Re: Ferrari F138

Post

turbof1 wrote:So yes, a small correction on my part: it is a duct that leads into the cockpit (and perhaps further down to the kers), but the duct's main function is to improve flow under the nose, as I explained.
You described a sort of eddy generator, and I don't think that's how this works.

The angled wing pylons create a Venturi effect, which decreases static pressure under the nose.

Image
Image

This negates the slight lift created by the mandatory neutral center section of the wing.

The problem is that the boundary layer is susceptible to the effects of the adverse pressure gradient at the end of the Venturi (the area between Pos 2 and Pos 3 in the above diagram and denoted in the image below).

Image

If the boundary layer separates as a result of that adverse pressure gradient, it increases parasitic drag and chokes flow, which I think was a serious issue with the F2012.

Not only did the team test different pylons last year...

Image
(These were tested in-season, too.)

...the team also investigated and tested a myriad components to improve flow around the sidepods.

Image
Image
Image

Because the effective height of the nose on the F138 is actually higher than that of the F2012, there's more air flow underneath it. I believe the slot "peels away" the boundary layer at the point of the adverse pressure gradient in order to prevent it from separating. In this way, the team gets the benefit of the Venturi effect (effective downforce) without any of the drawbacks experienced on the F2012 (chocked flow at the nose, sidepods, Coke bottle, etc), because it's damn difficult for air pressure to increase when its volume is simultaneously decreased.
Last edited by bhall on 14 Feb 2013, 15:36, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply