Personally I think it's more likely that their under car aero just isn't quite as good. The run visibly less rake than the Mercedes and Red Bull, and whilst their nose design is no worse than most of the grid I believe the Mercedes and Red Bull solutions are getting more air under the car. They may be compensating but then chasing top speed over downforce, not realising how much additional downforce the fastest cars would have.max_speed wrote:i think that is where role of aero will come in , if updates help them in increasing the value L(downforce)/D(Drag) value then ,it will benefit them in corners as well as on straights.i think that may be the reason why the aero mapped full car in past three tests , they have faith in this less drag design and with correlation data matching with wind tunnel data , we have finally something to cheer about. their development pace has been good fr years , only issue was updates they brought did not work , lets hope aero updates remain reliable and effective and we will have some serious things to discuss across full year.poz wrote:I don't think it's always a good strategy: higher down force means higher speed in turn so less energy to (re)accelerate the car.eslam1986 wrote: i think FERRARI tend this year for less drag set up(more max speed) to save fuel .
I recently made this mistake, too..poz wrote:I don't think it's always a good strategy: higher down force means higher speed in turn so less energy to (re)accelerate the car.eslam1986 wrote: i think FERRARI tend this year for less drag set up(more max speed) to save fuel .
But isn't it true that more downforce also always equals more drag? Or is this what you meant? That it might be better to sacrifice high speed cornering in favor of drag reduction and therefore speed? Otherwise I'm confused...bhallg2k wrote:I recently made this mistake, too..poz wrote:I don't think it's always a good strategy: higher down force means higher speed in turn so less energy to (re)accelerate the car.eslam1986 wrote: i think FERRARI tend this year for less drag set up(more max speed) to save fuel .
Because drag squares with speed, and the power required to overcome that drag cubes at the same time, drag is far more detrimental to fuel efficiency. For instance, a car using 10 bhp to travel at 50 MPH will encounter 4x more drag at 100 MPH, and it will require 8x more power to get there. Scale the figures up to F1 levels, where drag coefficients can be as much as 4-5x higher than road cars and speeds can reach 200+ MPH, then it becomes easy to see how even a small drag reduction can have a significant impact on performance. The limitations on fuel this year mean such aerodynamic gains have never been more critical.
but more downforce mean high drag and high fuel use in straight + may be they use ERS for re-accelerate car ..poz wrote:I don't think it's always a good strategy: higher down force means higher speed in turn so less energy to (re)accelerate the car.eslam1986 wrote: i think FERRARI tend this year for less drag set up(more max speed) to save fuel .
I think the challenge is to make downforce efficiently. In and of itself, creating downforce is actually quite simple if that's all you want to do: bolt on big-ass wings wherever they'll fit, using angles of attack as high as they'll withstand, and presto, you've got downforce. Reducing drag is similarly just as easy. The trick is to somehow combine the two, and that's a far more daunting proposition.Snelle Eddy wrote:But isn't it true that more downforce also always equals more drag? Or is this what you meant? That it might be better to sacrifice high speed cornering in favor of drag reduction and therefore speed? Otherwise I'm confused...
Alonso also talked about having to do various things (he didn't say what) during his race run in order to get to the end. In a way, it's encouraging that they have good workarounds to do that without blowing up, but also that there should be plenty of potential left in the car..poz wrote:I think Ferrari problems are in the Hybrid part of the engine.
Things we knows for sure:
overheating of cables in Jerez
overheating of MGU-H electric motor; they switched to a bigger one in Bahrain
we also know that in test #2 Raikonen was able to complete his planned program only by tuning down something
Let's hope that a bigger cooling and a better software can solve it
noway gear setting.Kansas wrote:top speed could be rear wing and gear setting..........
To be honest, I haven't had the time to decode what they were thinking, but as a general forensics method you can draw (by hand, pencil or whatever) the freestream air, along with the interaction air flows - different colors. Then spot the usual low and high pressure zones given the widespread properties of air and solid bodies, called Aerodynamics. Then, look at the shapes, consider the Kutta condition, the vortex fomations, where the air is supposed to go. Then, use your own nomenclature of predicted downforce points to spot the obvious places. Finally, do the math, look at the car as a whole and I'm sure you'll be able to come up with pretty decent answer. That's not a nuclear physics.turbof1 wrote: Anybody having a clue about the reasoning behind this concept? Another solution against wing stalling? Or something else?