Re: CFD - 2022 Ferrari F1-75 (sidepod analysis)
Posted: 31 Aug 2022, 16:37
Any opinion that F1-75 is struggling from the new TD?
I do not think so. Spa is a special track that requires a special set-up. Also teams run their cars as high as possible anyway, because of the compression at Eau Rouge, the bumps at 15 and the kerbs at 14. Because of that there was no real impact of this TD. One could now think that the RB probably is the only car that works at high ride heights, but Ferrari has already proven that their car also works well at high ride height, too. But it was visible that Red Bull was able to run their cars lower than the competition. They also still use some rake and their aero is based around that, what probably has resulted in aerodynamics that in general work better at higher ride heights(compared to the competition). That probably has given them an advantage in downforce and tyre degradation.





The way W14 was designed, both are an advantage. Downwash from mid wing and low drag of slim sidepods. Disadvantage is bigger engine cover, but it looks like Merc did a good job with integration.typhson_lee wrote: ↑24 Feb 2023, 00:58Question: What do you guys think was the main aim of the mercedes sidepod concept?
Having the "zeropods" or having the midwings.
Not reading the disclaimers again I see...ringo wrote: ↑26 Feb 2023, 08:27By the way your CFD lacks enough detail to draw any conclusions.
We should be seeing a storm of vortices in those areas that you focus on to draw your conclusions. Instead you show a few strands of stream lines.
It's a welcome effort to visualize. But I can bet if you change the boundaries, change the wind speed, or even increase the mesh and ran over the simulation, the results will not be the same.
You can easily paint any picture you wish with your simulation, once you are not sharing the preparation and the numbers.
So your opinion and your results are as good any one elses opinions on the forum once they have enough experience.
Maybe in the 90s. For the last 10+ years even decent laptops have enough computing power to finish a well-set CFD in 2-3 hours. It all depends on the size of the model and how high fidelity you aim for. If you pursue 95% accuracy it's completely different than going for 99.9%.
I think you can put such discussions on file now that Mercedes has declared the concept a failure. Your simulations and analyses already suggested early on that this is a possibility, which actually says everything about the great value of your work and who was right and who was wrong.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑26 Feb 2023, 09:22Not reading the disclaimers again I see...ringo wrote: ↑26 Feb 2023, 08:27By the way your CFD lacks enough detail to draw any conclusions.
We should be seeing a storm of vortices in those areas that you focus on to draw your conclusions. Instead you show a few strands of stream lines.
It's a welcome effort to visualize. But I can bet if you change the boundaries, change the wind speed, or even increase the mesh and ran over the simulation, the results will not be the same.
You can easily paint any picture you wish with your simulation, once you are not sharing the preparation and the numbers.
So your opinion and your results are as good any one elses opinions on the forum once they have enough experience.
Maybe in the 90s. For the last 10+ years even decent laptops have enough computing power to finish a well-set CFD in 2-3 hours. It all depends on the size of the model and how high fidelity you aim for. If you pursue 95% accuracy it's completely different than going for 99.9%.
This, in fact, is the CFD work of Vanja. This Youtuber collaborated with him.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑26 Mar 2023, 13:32One more video on side pod differences. You can jump to where he starts the CFD.
I realy thought this Youtuber was Vanja but apprently not. His CFD results look different!
https://youtu.be/-YzvnYS_WkA
I don't believe there's a mysteryPlatinumZealot wrote: ↑26 Mar 2023, 15:02Hmm. He could be Vanja then! The mystery will unwind soon enough.