Ferrari F14T

[Owen.C93]

Ferrari digging through the bin for last years parts heh. I'm quite surprised at the lack of cooling changes for this test.

[turbof1]

Still not as advanced as the mercedes wing (which was right there from the beginning). Mercedes did more with the cascades and the turning vane/flap/wing angle adjuster on top of the wing.

That being said, it is a good upgrade.

What do you mean "not as advanced". Have you actually done CFD/wind tunnel testing on these and discovered which sends air to the necessary places better?

What you really mean is "visually, this has fewer twiddly bits", which is far from "advanced".

I've analysed the mercedes wing a lot, I know what I'm talking about . It's certainly not about more or fewer bits (ferrari uses more elements, infact). It's about the detailing. Several similar ideas are on both cars. For instance both run an inverted gurney tab on the wing right in front of wheel, and both try to box in airflow on the wing in front of the tyre and divert it with an agressive angle. Both actually use the wing flap adjuster as some sort of sidewall, but mercedes uses a far more elaborate design in that aspect. Endplate/footplate wise there is much more detailing too.

Of course it's not as simple as copying the mercedes wing, but it IS a step further up then what ferrari has now. No fanboyism, just a throughout analysis (and I do hope Steven hurries up with getting my development blog up about the mercedes wing, really excited about that).

Ferrari digging through the bin for last years parts heh. I'm quite surprised at the lack of cooling changes for this test.

Not really digging through the bin; those parts were introduced last year in preparation for this year.

[Thunder]

[bhall]

Finally! I've been waiting on this development for years.



This helps the front wing create more downforce while the car is turning than it does when the car is going straight, which is ideal, because that's when you need downforce the most. Other teams have used this feature for quite some time now. But, for whatever reason - probably due to the team's infamous "correlation issues" over the past few years - Ferrari has not.

[beelsebob]

I've analysed the mercedes wing a lot, I know what I'm talking about .

If you've analysed it and you know what you're talking about, you'll be able to share the results (not the conclusions) of your analysis, rather than making arguments to authority.

It's certainly not about more or fewer bits (ferrari uses more elements, infact). It's about the detailing. Several similar ideas are on both cars. For instance both run an inverted gurney tab on the wing right in front of wheel, and both try to box in airflow on the wing in front of the tyre and divert it with an agressive angle. Both actually use the wing flap adjuster as some sort of sidewall, but mercedes uses a far more elaborate design in that aspect.

And what makes you think that elaborate = more advanced?

Of course it's not as simple as copying the mercedes wing, but it IS a step further up then what ferrari has now. No fanboyism, just a throughout analysis

Then again – I'm sure you won't mind showing us the results of the CFD and wind tunnel testing you did of accurate models of both.

[f1316]

Ferrari digging through the bin for last years parts heh. I'm quite surprised at the lack of cooling changes for this test.

I was just thinking about this; seems quite encouraging to me that Ferrari are no having to make additional holes or try large cooling vents at the back etc. Their cooling is almost exactly the same as it was when they started in Jerez, which indicates they've got a good level of tolerance there.

[JimClarkFan]

Wasn't Ferrari supposed to unveil lots of new body parts at this test?

I realize this is only the first day, but disappoint so far.

[turbof1]

...

No CFD, no access to that. Neither will you have that, so it is pointless to even ask about it.

You don't always need CFD. In ths case observing can get you far enough for conclusions IMO. You take it or you leave it, that's up to you and not my problem. I only gave my opinion (and yes in this instance I'm fairly sure about my opinion) .

[Postmoe]

Still not as advanced as the mercedes wing (which was right there from the beginning). Mercedes did more with the cascades and the turning vane/flap/wing angle adjuster on top of the wing.

That being said, it is a good upgrade.

What do you mean "not as advanced". Have you actually done CFD/wind tunnel testing on these and discovered which sends air to the necessary places better?

What you really mean is "visually, this has fewer twiddly bits", which is far from "advanced".

I've analysed the mercedes wing a lot, I know what I'm talking about . It's certainly not about more or fewer bits (ferrari uses more elements, infact). It's about the detailing. Several similar ideas are on both cars. For instance both run an inverted gurney tab on the wing right in front of wheel, and both try to box in airflow on the wing in front of the tyre and divert it with an agressive angle. Both actually use the wing flap adjuster as some sort of sidewall, but mercedes uses a far more elaborate design in that aspect. Endplate/footplate wise there is much more detailing too.

Of course it's not as simple as copying the mercedes wing, but it IS a step further up then what ferrari has now. No fanboyism, just a throughout analysis (and I do hope Steven hurries up with getting my development blog up about the mercedes wing, really excited about that).

Ferrari digging through the bin for last years parts heh. I'm quite surprised at the lack of cooling changes for this test.

Not really digging through the bin; those parts were introduced last year in preparation for this year.

There is no possible thorough analysis in those terms, we see it year after year. A big chunk of the most elaborate and sofisticated solutions end up being irrelevant, and a chopped piece of fairing stuck in the middle of the car ends up being the new trend.

There is no way for us to avoid our amateurism, so I wouldn't stop ending my sentences with a prudent "this solution seems visually les developed" or similar. I think for the other amateurs it is less problematic and causes less confusion. We have already the media to state dramatic things about every car every day.

[aleks_ader]

Ferrari digging through the bin for last years parts heh. I'm quite surprised at the lack of cooling changes for this test.

I was just thinking about this; seems quite encouraging to me that Ferrari are no having to make additional holes or try large cooling vents at the back etc. Their cooling is almost exactly the same as it was when they started in Jerez, which indicates they've got a good level of tolerance there.

I dont think that is the case last set of pictures from user @Thunder shows some anomaly on the F14T back. There are clearly a lot temp sensor stickers which i could safely conclude that is new refined cooling solution. BUT for final judgment we need more pictures to be 100% sure, but all point toward that conclusion.

http://img2.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Kim ... 758181.jpg

EDIT 1if compare with that picture. Its strange...Almost the same, but surfaces finishing are unrefined...
http://i.imgur.com/JIIVsfV.jpg

[beelsebob]

There is no possible thorough analysis in those terms, we see it year after year. A big chunk of the most elaborate and sofisticated solutions end up being irrelevant, and a chopped piece of fairing stuck in the middle of the car ends up being the new trend.

There is no way for us to avoid our amateurism, so I wouldn't stop ending my sentences with a prudent "this solution seems visually les developed" or similar. I think for the other amateurs it is less problematic and causes less confusion. We have already the media to state dramatic things about every car every day.

Right, +1, to be clear, I am not saying that we as amateurs should stop trying to figure out what's going on, or should not make assertions about which is more visually complex. That's obviously the point of this forum. The problem comes when someone makes an assertion that they know exactly what is happening, without proof of what is happening.

If you think ferrari's wing is doing specific tasks less well, provide evidence for why that might be the case, don't simply say "it's less advanced."

[turbof1]

There is no possible thorough analysis in those terms, we see it year after year. A big chunk of the most elaborate and sofisticated solutions end up being irrelevant, and a chopped piece of fairing stuck in the middle of the car ends up being the new trend.

There is no way for us to avoid our amateurism, so I wouldn't stop ending my sentences with a prudent "this solution seems visually les developed" or similar. I think for the other amateurs it is less problematic and causes less confusion. We have already the media to state dramatic things about every car every day.

No I can agree with that, and what works for mercedes most likely will not work for ferrari.

But you can notice the paths mercedes and ferrari took are very similar. It doesn't take CFD to notice that, it also doesn't that to notice mercedes got it further developed, not just adapted to their car. Whether or not Ferrari choose conciously not to, I don't know.

It's of course still an opinion, and maybe I should have emphasised that more, but I do feel that -forgive my words- bitching about CFD is a huge bummer. Starting to ask about CFD effectively kills off every technical conversation. Nobody here has access to that.

Again my apologies if I made my opinion look as fact, certainly not the intent. Where I got down to the analysis of the mercedes wing: I putted several hours in disecting and checking every detail of the mercedes wing. I had to to get representative drawing of the wing. I do feel I have a pretty good idea about how it works.

If you think ferrari's wing is doing specific tasks less well, provide evidence for why that might be the case, don't simply say "it's less advanced."

Which I did.

It's about the detailing. Several similar ideas are on both cars. For instance both run an inverted gurney tab on the wing right in front of wheel, and both try to box in airflow on the wing in front of the tyre and divert it with an agressive angle. Both actually use the wing flap adjuster as some sort of sidewall, but mercedes uses a far more elaborate design in that aspect. Endplate/footplate wise there is much more detailing too.

You know what, I'll draw up the ferrari wing and made side by side comparisons with the mercedes ones.

[Postmoe]

Right, +1, to be clear, I am not saying that we as amateurs should stop trying to figure out what's going on, or should not make assertions about which is more visually complex. That's obviously the point of this forum. The problem comes when someone makes an assertion that they know exactly what is happening, without proof of what is happening.

If you think ferrari's wing is doing specific tasks less well, provide evidence for why that might be the case, don't simply say "it's less advanced."

Exactly. I appreciate the efforts of turbof1, this is not an attack. As you perfectly explained, it's about proof. For me it is very important to build the senteces differently when you are developing a theory (as turbof1) or when you asserting a fact which is backed by relevant proof.

The theory process can be of more value than the proof assertion phase, but the way you express it must be absolutelly different, to avoid innecessary discussions, irritation from other amateurs or from fanboys that will feel attacked. We need to stay always prudent, that's what makes us technical amateurs and not only F1fans.

[el-Magico]

@TurboF1, at the end of 2012 the Red Bull still looked as the most advanced car, yet the less advanced looking McLaren car was faster..

[beelsebob]

But you can notice the paths mercedes and ferrari took are very similar. It doesn't take CFD to notice that, it also doesn't that to notice mercedes got it further developed

It doesn't? What convincing evidence do you have that they do?

It's of course still an opinion, and maybe I should have emphasised that more, but I do feel that -forgive my words- bitching about CFD is a huge bummer. Starting to ask about CFD effectively kills off every technical conversation. Nobody here has access to that.

The request for CFD was because you were making a very bold assertion about a very large aerodynamic part that could only be backed up by convincing evidence that there was better downforce, or better air sent to better places.

I'd love to hear your reasoning for why individual parts of the wing are better on the Merc wing than the Ferrari one though.