Sauber C32 Ferrari

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter does not belong here.
Nando
Nando
12
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:30 am

Re: Sauber C32 Ferrari

Post

stefan_ wrote:Image
Sick.
"Il Phenomeno" - The one they fear the most!

"2% of the world's population own 50% of the world's wealth."

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Sauber C32 Ferrari

Post

That's a development you take with you for next year. They effectively stole a march on that front.
#AeroFrodo

lillschumi
lillschumi
1
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:46 pm

Re: Sauber C32 Ferrari

Post

It´s going to be interesting to see what will happen with the sidepod design. I think they will redesign them.

I personally think it´s better to have more undercut and a short sidepod to give as much clean floor as possible (alá Ferrari, Lotus, RedBull). Obviously Sauber thinks different and prioritize less overall wide sidepod to give less obrustructon of the airflow for the top side of the pod, still not sure why though.

Nando
Nando
12
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:30 am

Re: Sauber C32 Ferrari

Post

Red Bull definitely has more "crap" in that area then Sauber though.

Exhaust tips are largely at the same place so you can imagine just how much more bodywork Red Bull has on their cars.

Image

It´s no Ferrari coke bottle but on the other hand they don´t have a massive blob hanging mid-air.
"Il Phenomeno" - The one they fear the most!

"2% of the world's population own 50% of the world's wealth."

lillschumi
lillschumi
1
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:46 pm

Re: Sauber C32 Ferrari

Post

I think it´s quite obvious where they have stuffed the things, longer and fater and a lot less floor if you ask me. I think it could be a miss even though i like that someone does something different to try to find a advantage. But as some others have pointed out it´s not magic they have just choosed another layout.

Image
Image

GrizzleBoy
GrizzleBoy
23
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:06 am

Re: Sauber C32 Ferrari

Post

I don't know.

I have a feeling it can be one of the slipperiest cars on the track, especially if they are able to refine the idea.

Remember how far the McLaren sidepods came last year in terms of concept to fully optimised setup?

Internal aero aside, it just seems to lack a lot of drag inducing bodywork that I see on the other cars.

No "wing" like sidepods like the MP4-28/F138/majority of cars, which should mean less lift in that area of the car.

No "bridge" like the RB9/E21.

No huge massive bulge of whatever like the W04.

henra
henra
64
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:34 pm

Re: Sauber C32 Ferrari

Post

GrizzleBoy wrote:I don't know.

I have a feeling it can be one of the slipperiest cars on the track, especially if they are able to refine the idea.
That could very well be the case. The big question is: Will low drag trump high Downforce ?
Personally I find the approach interesting but I share the concerns regarding free real estate at the back in front of the diffuser.
Honestly I still have some difficulties understanding the exact concept behind these sidepods. I see a massive airflow around the pods inwards exactly on the level of the exhausts. Something that I would consider counter productive and it was a problem where RB had a huge battle at the beginnning of last season preventing the flow around the sidepods blowing the exhaust gases inwards. They surely have an idea what they want to achieve, my eyes just don't get it.

User avatar
Artur Craft
79
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Sauber C32 Ferrari

Post

turbof1 wrote:We of course don't exactly know how teams redistribute weight, but it is limited; you need to have this very strict rear to front ratio calculated in, combined with the minimum weight. Possibly, and this might a wild guess, this is the reason why they lowered the nose. They might have increased the mass of it and lowered it to correct the CoG.
They might also use heavier materials for the floor.
I doubt the reason for the lower nose being CoG. I think they would only do so for aerodynamic's reasons.

The CoG issue is often brought up but, in reality, teams are all overlooking it(to some extent). They will try to lower their CoG only if it doesn't compromise downforce in anyway.

In this interview to Peter Windsor and Scarbs, Force India's Technical Director, Andrew Green, at some point, says about the better aerodynamics of the vanity pannel: "The numbers from the tunnel are very small, but it doesn't take a very big aerodynamic gain to offset a mass, center of gravity disadvantadge. The aero number wins by quite a margin...."
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SioY0N69zk[/youtube]

This interview make a very positive effect on any further related discussion that we might have in the forum, regardless of the car in question!

Aerodynamic gains easily offset higher CoG

Huntresa
Huntresa
54
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:33 am

Re: Sauber C32 Ferrari

Post

I assumed the low nose or lower nose is there cause they alrdy have enough air going to the diffuser and dont wanna over feed it.

User avatar
Artur Craft
79
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Sauber C32 Ferrari

Post

lillschumi wrote:I think it´s quite obvious where they have stuffed the things, longer and fater and a lot less floor if you ask me. I think it could be a miss even though i like that someone does something different to try to find a advantage. But as some others have pointed out it´s not magic they have just choosed another layout.

Image
The picture of the Sauber there is terrible. You can't see how much floor it have on the sides of it.

Their undercut is even bigger than most teams, you're not looking correctly to it. Use the floor edges as reference. :wink:

See it here:
Image

Not only the upper part is tighter than the on C31's sidepod, but the bottom have much more clearance in the floor

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Sauber C32 Ferrari

Post

Artur Craft wrote:
turbof1 wrote:We of course don't exactly know how teams redistribute weight, but it is limited; you need to have this very strict rear to front ratio calculated in, combined with the minimum weight. Possibly, and this might a wild guess, this is the reason why they lowered the nose. They might have increased the mass of it and lowered it to correct the CoG.
They might also use heavier materials for the floor.
I doubt the reason for the lower nose being CoG. I think they would only do so for aerodynamic's reasons.

The CoG issue is often brought up but, in reality, teams are all overlooking it(to some extent). They will try to lower their CoG only if it doesn't compromise downforce in anyway.

In this interview to Peter Windsor and Scarbs, Force India's Technical Director, Andrew Green, at some point, says about the better aerodynamics of the vanity pannel: "The numbers from the tunnel are very small, but it doesn't take a very big aerodynamic gain to offset a mass, center of gravity disadvantadge. The aero number wins by quite a margin...."

This interview make a very positive effect on any further related discussion that we might have in the forum, regardless of the car in question!

Aerodynamic gains easily offset higher CoG
Like I said, a wild guess. You do agree though that it's rather strange that they have lowered the nose right? Like Huntresa said, possibly the diffuser has reached the maximum possible air volume, and so you apply the pre-2009 nose solution. In that case the competition has a big problem, but only if that is the case.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
Artur Craft
79
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Sauber C32 Ferrari

Post

Ferraripilot wrote:
Rikhart wrote:I maintain that the sidepods total size/area isn´t that much less than the others, just they have gone for a sort of overcut, instead of most other´s undercut. You can see the sidepods are very fat towards the bottom. It´s just a different way of packaging imo.


+1 Precisely. There is in essence no undercut at the floor as most of the mass seems to be positioned in that area. Sauber are relying on the possibly lower CoG to outweight the aero benefit of the undercut in that area is my guess.
The CoG thing I already pointed out in previous post. I doubt any team would exchange better aerodynamics for lower CoG as aero gains easily offset a higher CoG

But the thing is that you 2 are not getting it. There is overcut AND undercut!

Sauber have more parts of the floor exposed at the sides than practically any other car, untill the white stripe in the car, where Ferrari and Mercedes have a empty space there, which is bad, because it is horrible to have empty spaces like that having airflow to it blocked by bulky bodywork ahead. It will create a low pressure aera in the up part of the car.

Red Bull and Sauber leave no empty space with airflow blocked, which is the right way, imo.

Image
Image

Another angle showing what I think is bad in Ferrari's solution:
Image

Red Bull's(which is more like Sauber's) solution at the transition from sidepod to coke bottle:
Image

Same on Mclaren:
Image

And finally a look from behind on how there is massive airflow to the rear of C32:
Image
lillschumi wrote:It´s going to be interesting to see what will happen with the sidepod design. I think they will redesign them.

I personally think it´s better to have more undercut and a short sidepod to give as much clean floor as possible (alá Ferrari, Lotus, RedBull). Obviously Sauber thinks different and prioritize less overall wide sidepod to give less obrustructon of the airflow for the top side of the pod, still not sure why though.
What Ferrari(Lotus and Red Bull are roughly like Sauber, in the way they bring their coke bottle into play, but not even close to being as tight in the upper part of sidepod or even undercut in Red Bull's case.) is doing there is very bad imo. Having a big coke bottle area, as Ferrari and Mercedes have, is terrible if you got it blocked by bodywork ahead of it. Sauber, Red Bull, Mclaren and Lotus coke bottles are better than Ferrari's imo.


Huntresa wrote:I assumed the low nose or lower nose is there cause they alrdy have enough air going to the diffuser and dont wanna over feed it.
This is exactly my view too. Pure aerodynamic reasons for it.

Huntresa
Huntresa
54
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:33 am

Re: Sauber C32 Ferrari

Post

Upvote from me and i have to say +1 just to add another :D


You rly summed it up and showed what we all needed to see, especially those doubting this gr8 sidepod design.

Would be another +1 if you had made all the pics into 1 pic so you could open it and scroll down without having to open them all.

beelsebob
beelsebob
179
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:49 pm
Location: Cupertino, California

Re: Sauber C32 Ferrari

Post

Huntresa wrote:Upvote from me and i have to say +1 just to add another :D


You rly summed it up and showed what we all needed to see, especially those doubting this gr8 sidepod design.

Would be another +1 if you had made all the pics into 1 pic so you could open it and scroll down without having to open them all.
To be honest, I actually think the post demonstrates a remarkable lack of interesting content. Mostly, it's just a very long version of "things with big surface areas facing the wind have lots of drag", which is rather obvious. What would be much more interesting to see is some actual models of where the air goes around the sauber's side pods. My personal bet is that it is not just the traditional "it flows round the bottom, we use it at the rear".

User avatar
Artur Craft
79
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Sauber C32 Ferrari

Post

Huntresa wrote:Upvote from me and i have to say +1 just to add another :D


You rly summed it up and showed what we all needed to see, especially those doubting this gr8 sidepod design.

Would be another +1 if you had made all the pics into 1 pic so you could open it and scroll down without having to open them all.
Thanks very much for it ! :wink:

It's just my 2 cents on it. I studied fluid dynamics in college and have some quite generic theoretical knowledge on somethings. But, as I never worked with it in anyway, I'm not an expert on it. For instance, I have never used CFD.

I'm mostly an enthusiast about cars, aerodynamics or in general: vehicle dynamics, as it's the case of most members here, I guess.

Those are honest views, please, any eventual Ferrari fan, don't get angry with me. It was not a bash at Ferrari. It's just some non expert who thinks a team got a worse solution than others.

In the following days we'll get more angles and it will only get better to look into all these things. :D
Last edited by Artur Craft on Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.