Sauber C32 Ferrari

[ForMuLaOne]

The rearwing is related to the DDRD. The create higher suction in the area the nozzle has its holes. Thats another reason for a curved wing.

[turbof1]

Yes, the spoon creates a lower pressure zone in it. However, the lower pressure on top of the main plane robs quite alot of downforce, whether DRD is activated or not. If Sauber believes they can life with that loss and have overal gains, then I am impressed.
I can follow the DRD argument though. The spoon makes stalling the rear wing easier and more responsive.

[CornHloiO]

Matt Somerfield ‏@SomersF1

Sauber C32 Internal ducting that makes the path to DRD periscope. (via Sutton Images)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BDnjeDQCMAARdfM.jpg:large

The "Venturi principle" is using here?

[turbof1]

Matt Somerfield ‏@SomersF1

Sauber C32 Internal ducting that makes the path to DRD periscope. (via Sutton Images)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BDnjeDQCMAARdfM.jpg:large

The "Venturi principle" is using here?

Nice spot. Looks like it yes.

[wunderkind]

Question; how big are 2013 fuel tanks; how many liters they carry ?

http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.ph ... u=14795526

2009 sidepods

http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.ph ... u=14795526

Love the packaging solution. But a couple of problems spring to mind.

1) higher center of gravity
2) cooling and heat soak
3) underbody aerodynamics
4) as others have noted, size of their fuel tank
5) Negative impact on the performance of the KERS

[PhantomPoster]

Love the packaging solution. But a couple of problems spring to mind.

1) higher center of gravity
2) cooling and heat soak
3) underbody aerodynamics
4) as others have noted, size of their fuel tank
5) Negative impact on the performance of the KERS[/quote]


1. Their CoG is Infact a lot lower. The undercut on other cars means the radiators have to be higher

2. They completed the most testing laps out of everyone with no cooling issues.

3. ?

4. I can't believe they'd fail to design a big enough fuel tank. Also, see point 2.

5. Again, ?

[turbof1]

Cooling might give a problem. Remember, the cars are driving in very cold conditions. No doubt sauber took that into account, but still the image is quite distorted by it. I really much would like to see the car run at malaysia behind several cars at low speed during a safety car period.

[wunderkind]

Love the packaging solution. But a couple of problems spring to mind.

1) higher center of gravity
2) cooling and heat soak
3) underbody aerodynamics
4) as others have noted, size of their fuel tank
5) Negative impact on the performance of the KERS

1. Their CoG is Infact a lot lower. The undercut on other cars means the radiators have to be higher

Radiators aside, all the electronic control and ancillary units are stack high around the radiators. These items are usually placed low beneath the radiators around the leading edges of the side pods.

2. They completed the most testing laps out of everyone with no cooling issues.

Average ambient temperature at the Barcelona test was around 5-7 degrees.

3. ?

This is an area pioneered by RedBull as a way to enhance the rear beam wing/monkey seat.

4. I can't believe they'd fail to design a big enough fuel tank. Also, see point 2.

Not sure, but the size of the fuel might be compromised for the packaging.

5. Again, ?

RedBull's KERS was made smaller to optimize the packaging and its system suffered a power deficit to Lotus'. maybe Sauber had to reengineer Ferrari's KERS to make it smaller. They might have to give up some cooling or power output as a result.

[wesley123]

1. Their CoG is Infact a lot lower. The undercut on other cars means the radiators have to be higher

Radiators aside, all the electronic control and ancillary units are stack high around the radiators. These items are usually placed low beneath the radiators around the leading edges of the side pods.

Nope, it is more packaged over the length of the sidepod, there is no advantage or deficit here

2. They completed the most testing laps out of everyone with no cooling issues.

Average ambient temperature at the Barcelona test was around 5-7 degrees.

Why would there be cooling issues to begin with?

3. ?

This is an area pioneered by RedBull as a way to enhance the rear beam wing/monkey seat.

Not really pioneered by Red Bull, just maximised by them.

4. I can't believe they'd fail to design a big enough fuel tank. Also, see point 2.

Not sure, but the size of the fuel might be compromised for the packaging.

Why should that be the case? The fuel cell isnt affected by sidepod packaging, at least not more or less in this case.

5. Again, ?

RedBull's KERS was made smaller to optimize the packaging and its system suffered a power deficit to Lotus'. maybe Sauber had to reengineer Ferrari's KERS to make it smaller. They might have to give up some cooling or power output as a result.

They did not have to make it smaller.

There are only 2 deficits of this solution, and they arent even confirmed.

1. Less floor area
2. Less downwash for the coanda exhaust

And advantages are

1. Smoother airflow around the sidepod
2. less drag because of the tighter sidepod

[henra]

In the CFD test it showed more drag because the modeled wings had same area, effective chord, on flanks as on the "spoon" wing, which would result in more drag as I would expect, and it did. What surprised me was that it doesn't generate much downforce with such shape.

But, obviously, if another test was done with a model "cutted at the sides", rather than enlongated at the center, we would definitely see less absolute drag, albeit the L/D of the "normal" wing would likely remain higher.

A question that came to my mind is whether this CFD simulation considers induced drag effects sufficiently.
As per my understanding this was one of the main benefits of the wings with lees deflection/depth at the tips.

Taking this into account I'm not sure whether L/D isn't in reality rather better, especially that due to blocking by airbox the pressure distribution would be even shift more to the sides, further increasing induced drag.
The real downside I see is that this new Sauber wing should have less overall downforce. The regulations being what they are this might easily trump better L/D for most circuits.

[Artur Craft]

I wanted to mention or ask something. To me it is impossible that air gets "pushed" into any area. In fact, you do not have any "flow" itself. The car is moving through unmoving airmass ( if you do not care about any wind, which is really the case when you think of a model) but teams simulate an unmoving car which is effected by moving airmass. This is why they also need to corellate their data. So to me it is more like high pressure zones depressurize behind the wing and low pressure zones repressure behind the wing. By creating pressure deltas, any wing or body moving through airmass first creates the delta in pressure, just to take the forces which occure in order to bring the overall pressure to zero again. This is the drag-downforce coefficient. So either we hav a low drag wing which means low pressure deltas between bottom and top of the profile, or a high drag wing, creating higher pressure deltas, thus mediating between those zones by taking the forces and producing downforce. This all works because of inertia of air molecules. But that does not mean, as mentioned above, that moving airparts try to maintain their direction and speed, they just want to maintain in an unmoved state, the "flow" is only the will of a molecule to go back to where it came from. The Sauber wing helps to catch air on it`s way back to the postion it had before the car moved trough it. So they can of course create the same amount of downforce, but the pressure points are further back on the wing profile as it is really curved. They want to move the point of lowest pressure as far to back of the profile as possible, in order to help the diffusor. If this low pressure area helps sucking out the diffusors air, the effect becomes stronger as we all know. Can someone please reply to that thought? Thanks in advance.

I agree with the part in italic. However, I'm not so sure about the bold part.

I don't think the curved part generates same amount of downforce. Plus, the wing is just curved, I don't see why the center of low pressure would move backwards in order to help suck air from diffuser.

I find it interesting that they use a part of off-season testing to try out the lower downforce/lower drag rear wing. Normally these wings are preserved for just a very few races on the calendar; only Canada and Italy come to mind. Furthermore, they also could test that out at a seperate straightline aero test.

I find it very strange to be honest. It almost looks like they are trying it out to see if it brings advantages to higher downforce tracks too. Infact the whole car seems out of order, having a lower then average nose. It surely can't be that they found so much extra rear downforce; can it?

That's partially why I'm very enthusiastic with C32(In reality, I'm always with Sauber as a fan), they left us with head-scratching

A question that came to my mind is whether this CFD simulation considers induced drag effects sufficiently.
As per my understanding this was one of the main benefits of the wings with lees deflection/depth at the tips.

Taking this into account I'm not sure whether L/D isn't in reality rather better, especially that due to blocking by airbox the pressure distribution would be even shift more to the sides, further increasing induced drag.
The real downside I see is that this new Sauber wing should have less overall downforce. The regulations being what they are this might easily trump better L/D for most circuits.

Well, I don't have a clue if the CFD used considered induced drag sufficiently. If it did not, I guess you can be right and results might shift, in reality.

As with you and turbof1, I'm also wondering why is Sauber testing a less downforce wing in a regulation era where rear downforce was significantly restricted(less span in RW, no more winglets on rear bodywork,slightly reduced diffuser).

My guess is that the tiny sidepods provide lot's of air getting in contact with top of diffuser, RW and beam wing, thus, generating already enough downforce, albeit I don't know if front wing would restrict the downforce levels you would want at the rear as you can easily add df, with such big front wing, at the front of the car

To me, this car is by far the most intriguing

[stefan_]

Barcelona (Session 2) - Day 1 (28.02.2013)

[turbof1]

They kept the spooned RW. Interesting.

[Artur Craft]

They kept the spooned RW. Interesting.

Makes you guess they concluded it worked as they wanted it too. Either that or they still didn't gather enough data with it as needed or they still can't understand something about it....

[turbof1]

I am making a wild guess, but I am starting to believe it is the former. If it would not work properly or they would still not fully understand it, then they would probably go back to the conventional wing due these being the last few days of testing. This also makes me believe that the wing will not be used solely for lower df tracks.