Scuderia Ferrari SF70H

[Thunder]

No it's no about the Lineage of the SF70H. That Picture is a drawing of Piola about how he imagined the (2012?) Car would turn out. It didn't. So there is really nothing to Discuss.

[TEHNOS]

[TEHNOS]

Surely it's about the design lineage of the SF70H - and a specific design feature that's *on the car*?

At this rate, we will eventually get to the point that anything we want to discuss about the car at any length is moved to its own discussion and the car thread itself is completely barren...

To summarize

With this concept Ferrari could have provided quite a larger amount of air to the back of the car coming from under the sidepod opening. Also, top sidepod opening is in a position where the flow starts bending downwards on the sidepod top surface so the lower pressure that is created there has a smaller effect (in contact with a smaller surface). So Ferrari could have made two big steps in this area - maximizing the amount of air going to the top of the diffuser and minimizing the lift created on top of the sidepods.

That more or less mirrors my ideas--and I love it when that happens. =D>

What else might that suggest?

Its obvious a lot of man hours went into this car...more than they normally do. The team just seems more efficient and smart.
The sidepod solution is really out of the box, someone was smoking some really strong weed working on this "cut and flip" philosophy. The philosophy behind it was to have the same sidepod inlet area, but flip half of it into another plane; copy and paste a body width rear wing in the middle of the car. Cheap drag reduction from flipping the inlet area out of the front plane, and cheap downforce for putting a goddamn rear wing in the middle of the car.
When i say cheap, i mean the solution avoids refining existing parts for small gains, since it is additional bodywork that generates its own downforce. Similar to a monkey seat. Less time and money to have more surface area than refining an existing area such as a floor or side pod for a smaller gain.

The mid body wing is ferrari's advantage, and also the sidepod inlet and radiator treatment.

Tons of ellipses =D>

Shots I took today... Ferrari was for some reason the most camera friendly today...

Not to mention easily shorter WB

[f1316]

Bit of analysis by motorsport on Ferrari's S-Duct:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/how- ... gn-887681/

The article seeks to make a connection between the 2017 version:



And its genesis in the F2008:



(All images belong to Motorsport/Piola)

I'm not sure I see the direct correlation to the 2008 (other than that it was the first such duct) - since it bears a closer similarity to the Mercedes/Toro Rosso solutions that were the most recent of many evolutions by many teams since then - and particularly since the 'crossing of the streams' is something brand new (to my knowledge) and not present on any car, including the F2008.

I would however suggest that we drop the term 'S-Duct' in reference to the Ferrari solution - 'X-Duct' seems far more apt

[timbo]

The crossed ducts should have a nice effect in yaw, transferring pressure from the side "facing" the flow to the shaded side.

[bhall II]

Just some food for thought...

Amateurs think they can explain technical things like diffusers and front wings, but clearly have no idea what is behind the engineering side. Their well-meaning and often seemingly plausible offerings proliferate and become folklore. Professional journalists are not often engineers, are not told the truth by the teams. Race engineers rarely know about aerodynamics in detail anyway and they’d rather invent a plausible story than convey the truth because the teams don’t want the truth to be told in case it gives away an advantage. Eventually, long-standing journalists may have earned enough respect to be told the truth, but then they are told that they cannot publish that juicy fact.... I’ve read every piece I can find on double diffusers and haven’t yet found one that I think covers the technical side of the subject really well. In part that’s because most articles are short but in part because that combination of willingness to expose and availability of technical facts is missing. The fault really lies with the teams who are so obsessed with secrecy they don’t allow information to flow into the public domain.

Now ask yourself: does air flow really need to be attached to the top of the monocoque? And, if so, since when does air flow need help staying attached to a surface that presents a relatively favorable pressure gradient like the one below?



Incidentally, it's generally accepted that F2008's duct was about limiting the downstream obstruction to the front wing's spoon section caused by the nose...

[Cuky]

Now ask yourself: does air flow really need to be attached to the top of the monocoque? And, if so, since when does air flow need help staying attached to a surface that presents a relatively favorable pressure gradient like the one below?

It does not, but when it stays attached it helps with managing said air flow to the rest of the car because it's flow is more predictable

[trinidefender]

Just some food for thought...

Amateurs think they can explain technical things like diffusers and front wings, but clearly have no idea what is behind the engineering side. Their well-meaning and often seemingly plausible offerings proliferate and become folklore. Professional journalists are not often engineers, are not told the truth by the teams. Race engineers rarely know about aerodynamics in detail anyway and they’d rather invent a plausible story than convey the truth because the teams don’t want the truth to be told in case it gives away an advantage. Eventually, long-standing journalists may have earned enough respect to be told the truth, but then they are told that they cannot publish that juicy fact.... I’ve read every piece I can find on double diffusers and haven’t yet found one that I think covers the technical side of the subject really well. In part that’s because most articles are short but in part because that combination of willingness to expose and availability of technical facts is missing. The fault really lies with the teams who are so obsessed with secrecy they don’t allow information to flow into the public domain.

Now ask yourself: does air flow really need to be attached to the top of the monocoque? And, if so, since when does air flow need help staying attached to a surface that presents a relatively favorable pressure gradient like the one below?

http://i.imgur.com/ImWclHz.jpg

Incidentally, it's generally accepted that F2008's duct was about limiting the downstream obstruction to the front wing's spoon section caused by the nose...

http://i.imgur.com/qbvleSf.jpg

To further your thoughts, if the airflow does stay attached as it goes over the angle change to the flat top of the monocoque then it will accelerate, the pressure will drop and lift will be created.

Food for thought, what if the exhaust vents for the S ducts (or X ducts in the case of the Ferrari) create enough of high speed flow over the angle change to purposefully stall the flow going over the angle change. This will stop the production of most of the lift.

Second option is that the flow coming out of the duct exhausts increase pressure over the angle change reducing lift.

Bhall makes a good point, does the flow really need to stay attached over that point? In my opinion no it does not. The flow will reattach itself fairly quickly to the flat surface behind.

[roon]

I don't think upwash is occuring around that area of the nose, so I don't think the s-duct's role is for flow attachment or detachment. Rather it is to connect the higher speed, more energetic flow over the top of the nose & safety cell to the lower speed, less energetic flow behind & around the sides of the prescriptive low-nose. The s-ducts started cropping up when regulations begin to decree ever-lower noses. It's a compromised way of keeping up air speed & mass flow under the nose, among myriad other solutions we saw over the years—thumb & probiscus noses, Lotus' twin tusk, Caterham's monopost, Ferrari's vacuum cleaner shaped nose, and, this year, RB's hollow-tip nose.

Actually, I thought this was the generally accepted explanation. I don't think I'm the first one to describe it as such.

[henra]

It's a compromised way of keeping up air speed & mass flow under the nose, among myriad other solutions we saw over the years—thumb & probiscus noses, Lotus' twin tusk, Caterham's monopost, Ferrari's vacuum cleaner shaped nose, and, this year, RB's hollow-tip nose.

That was my understanding as well. I never thought it was meant to anything special to the airflow above the nose. Downstream around the cockpit area that will be totally messed up anyway. Also I would assume that adding the medium/lowish energy air flow over the nose will rather increase/thicken the boundary layer over the nose while reducing it underneath the nose. Looking at the aerodramatic mess that is the open cockpit a thicker boundary layer in that area might not even be such a bad thing.

[gavingav1]

Are we all reading too much into the x-duct, maybe there is no fancy trickery going on and the only reason they cross like that is because if you kept the ducts on their own side then you would have to introduce a 90 degree bend in the pipe to turn it around but by crossing them you can use a lazier angle with no direction change and air likes the path of least resistance .

[RicME85]

surely that is all it is, lets the air move easier without a drastic change of direction so that it keeps as much energy as possible

[ScrewCaptain27]

[seezung]

[ScrewCaptain27]