Ferrari F2008 aero-mech development in 2008

[dnomdec]

Pretty good pic of the nose, Moanlower.

From that pic (the one from the bottom), it is not clear whether the air goes into the nose from the top of the front wing or the bottom of the front wing...

any thoughts / other pictures?

[mx_tifoso]

'dnomdec', it may very well be from the bottom of the front wing, but it may also be from the top of it, depending on the gap between the actual nosecone and the wing itself. The bottom view of the new F2008 nosecone/wing reminds me of a hammer-head shark .

'coreybaxter', I would assume it is for varying downforce (and drag) levels. As to why Ferrari would provide their drivers with different spec wings, I don't know. But a good outcome was provided with both spec of the rear wing, so it seems that both specs are usable and dependable for at least a Barcelona type circuit. I'm sure more aero-knowledgeable members are able to give you a more in depth explanation of the actual differences between the two designs.

[Bob Brown]

Here is an animated graphic between both wings:

[allan]

hey guys, i dont know if u already know about this site:
http://www.ferrari-f12008.com/fwe/event ... /index.jsp
there are some pretty good drawings produced by ferrari i suppose...
its a flash site, so this isnt a direct link... just go to extra> Le Immagini Di Piola.
from what one of the drawings suggests, the air actually passes from underneeth the fron wing to the nosecone hole
anyway, give it a look

[FLC]

I hope this isn't violating any rights... If it is I'll remove it.

[Bob Brown]

Interesting, so it doesnt exactly adds more downforce......quite interesting indeed though.

[checkered]

Interesting, so it doesnt exactly adds more downforce......quite interesting indeed though.

Well, a number of designers

have said that the issue of a high pressure area forming under the nose needs to be addressed somehow. What they didn't specify (in so many words) was whether that interfered more with the functioning of the top- or the bottom surfaces of the front wing, i.e. what the problem was exactly. I think what we have here is a clarification of a principle, just how the efficiency of the front wing can be improved and local flows managed while improving the whole. Some projections in publications have put the advantage of this design at ~0.15 s/lap or 30kg more downforce with drag comparable to the previous design. As far as I'm concerned Ferrari's solution is vaguely reminiscent of the "front diffusers" integrated into the bodywork that LMP cars use.

[bar555]

F2008 also rejected the nose cone end hole during Barcelona April test and spanish GP .

[Bob Brown]

F2008 also rejected the nose cone end hole during Barcelona April test and spanish GP .

It wasn't so much rejection of the hole as the inability to accomodate a hole there anymore with the new holes on the top of the front wing. It is because they have to build a tunnel inside for the new holes and airflow with the intake on the bottom as well as complying with the crash structure tests that there can no longer be a hole in the front for the driver's feet.

[Conceptual]

F2008 also rejected the nose cone end hole during Barcelona April test and spanish GP .

It wasn't so much rejection of the hole as the inability to accomodate a hole there anymore with the new holes on the top of the front wing. It is because they have to build a tunnel inside for the new holes and airflow with the intake on the bottom as well as complying with the crash structure tests that there can no longer be a hole in the front for the driver's feet.

One is surprised however that the nose hole wasnt incorporated to blow horizontalally across gills that open to the bottom, thus using it more as a home "chimney" than allowing the changing air speed to be directly vented.

If the vent hole intake was faced BACKWARDS (no ram air effect), and the nose hole were made a bit larger, and blew across rear-facing gills inside the nose, you wouldnt suffer the drag penalty of incidence angle, and it would still create a low pressure area under the nose.

But I'm not an aerodynamicist, so I cannot be sure. My brain can do quasi-cfd, but unfortunately, it has no printable output!

I have made a cutaway sketch in google Sketch Up, and would post it, but I would rather ask SlimJim to do a solidworks model and do some CFD on it.

Ogami, do you think that what I stated will work? Or are my parameters wrong?

Chris

[Bob Brown]

F2008 also rejected the nose cone end hole during Barcelona April test and spanish GP .

It wasn't so much rejection of the hole as the inability to accomodate a hole there anymore with the new holes on the top of the front wing. It is because they have to build a tunnel inside for the new holes and airflow with the intake on the bottom as well as complying with the crash structure tests that there can no longer be a hole in the front for the driver's feet.

One is surprised however that the nose hole wasnt incorporated to blow horizontalally across gills that open to the bottom, thus using it more as a home "chimney" than allowing the changing air speed to be directly vented.

If the vent hole intake was faced BACKWARDS (no ram air effect), and the nose hole were made a bit larger, and blew across rear-facing gills inside the nose, you wouldnt suffer the drag penalty of incidence angle, and it would still create a low pressure area under the nose.

But I'm not an aerodynamicist, so I cannot be sure. My brain can do quasi-cfd, but unfortunately, it has no printable output!

I have made a cutaway sketch in google Sketch Up, and would post it, but I would rather ask SlimJim to do a solidworks model and do some CFD on it.

Ogami, do you think that what I stated will work? Or are my parameters wrong?

Chris

wow, just about 90% of that just went over my head

[alex1015]

I hope this isn't violating any rights... If it is I'll remove it.

Great sketch do you mind telling me the source of this?

I'll have a pile of free time this summer and am happy to work on this thread as well. I can model some things and run some CFD (on my 2 gHz noteboook )

With such a pressure buildup under the front wing it is less efficient so when it is released via this hole it allows air to flow more efficiently. Additionally, this pressure buildup under the car probably create some amount of lift (I'm just guessing here). So while the new design may not directly increase the down force, indirectly I believe it does, significantly.

[Ogami musashi]

F2008 also rejected the nose cone end hole during Barcelona April test and spanish GP .

It wasn't so much rejection of the hole as the inability to accomodate a hole there anymore with the new holes on the top of the front wing. It is because they have to build a tunnel inside for the new holes and airflow with the intake on the bottom as well as complying with the crash structure tests that there can no longer be a hole in the front for the driver's feet.

One is surprised however that the nose hole wasnt incorporated to blow horizontalally across gills that open to the bottom, thus using it more as a home "chimney" than allowing the changing air speed to be directly vented.

If the vent hole intake was faced BACKWARDS (no ram air effect), and the nose hole were made a bit larger, and blew across rear-facing gills inside the nose, you wouldnt suffer the drag penalty of incidence angle, and it would still create a low pressure area under the nose.

But I'm not an aerodynamicist, so I cannot be sure. My brain can do quasi-cfd, but unfortunately, it has no printable output!

I have made a cutaway sketch in google Sketch Up, and would post it, but I would rather ask SlimJim to do a solidworks model and do some CFD on it.

Ogami, do you think that what I stated will work? Or are my parameters wrong?

Chris

You need to drive the air into the channel, the air doesn't enter the channel alone, the velocity vector in the forward direction is too low, so you need pressure differences to drive it.

The pressure build up (due to adverse pressure gradient on the last part of the underside of front wing) is driven to the upper part of the nose were pressure decreases, it then mixes slowing it down (so pressure raises again, negating lift).


Part of the illustration of that is that imho ferrari talked about the possibility the channel doesn't work well at high speeds because of compressions inside the channel but that's pure speculation.


That's nice try, too bad it will be banned next year.

[Conceptual]

Pics of my idea. Obviously not exact measurements, just conceptual.


The Fluted nosecone!

http://picasaweb.google.com/CKnopp/Conc ... 4TNfWzBQKA

Chris

[Zack]

Hi Conceptual
I don't think that nose cone concept will able pass crash test