Ferrari SF-26

[mzso]

The Ferrari wing is purposely operated to generate aero braking when closing. World-class aerodynamicists of this forum need to buy a memory expansion to their low-end smartphones (or a bigger crayon box, with more colors available) to have this effect included in their simulations.

So does the Red Bull, but does it better, with downforce coming back earlier, so better rear wheel braking, and flipping faster to begin with.
What we can't know is the difference in drag and useful aero effects..

[AR3-GP]

But it makes all your consideration on induced lift irrelevant. You are missing the point.

I give up.

[AmateurDriver]

But it makes all your consideration on induced lift irrelevant. You are missing the point.

I give up.

Misleading: downforce come back when aero braking stops in both cases. So influence on braking is not as simple stated as you mean. Ferrari spent months working on effects on braking when restoring normal position, with on-track testing that red bull did not perform (two more). Surely they got the best it can be found. They could easily have the wing moving back and forth as REd Bull if they wanted. It would be just a matter a switching differently the solid-state driver of the actuator.

[Just_a_fan]

But unfortunately you don't know a thing about Ferrari wing and its downforce restoring speed. Stop saying bullshit you dont have a clue about.

We do. Qualitatively it's simple. The Ferrari wing spends more time in an aerodynamically incoherent position when it's closing.

There have also been CFD studies that show the faster pressure recovery of Red Bull's design. We don't need to know the absolute numbers, the CFD is enough to show the effect. It's intuitive. Red Bull's wing should recover downforce faster because after about half of the back rotation, it just looks like a monaco rear wing. That's what the CFD model shows:





RB:
https://i.postimg.cc/cHLzBf0K/image.png

The flow isn't fully attached, but you can see a suction peak forming at the leading edge of the 2nd element quite early on in the back rotation, much earlier than Ferrari's version. It makes sense. Due to the rotation direction, the wing passes through a high angle before it reduces to the closed position.

Ferrari:
https://i.postimg.cc/bwzNfFTX/image.png


In Ferrari's case the wing passes through Mclaren and Alpine's DRS position before it closes. One wing is passing through a high downforce position near the end (Red Bull), and the other (Ferrari) is passing through a 2nd DRS position near the end. So RB recovers the downforce faster.

But we're only talking about one aspect of the wing. There are others. Everything has its purpose. I'm sure that both RB and Ferrari considered both versions and chose the one that is best for them.

All very interesting but the "Ferrari simulation" has a single element flap whereas the real car has a two element flap. Just that alone makes the simulation comparison sketchy at best.

[venkyhere]

The Ferrari wing is purposely operated to generate aero braking when closing. World-class aerodynamicists of this forum need to buy a memory expansion to their low-end smartphones (or a bigger crayon box, with more colors available) to have this effect included in their simulations.

Really ? you think designing the SLM motion to make the convex side of the flap face the front is better than making the concave side of the flap face the front, when it comes to aero braking ?

Ferrari might have chosen the actuators in the endplate, the position of the hinges, the concave-side-facing-front motion etc for many different reasons, but it definitely isn't to optimize/maximize the aero braking.

They have sacrificed a bit of aero brake, knowingly chosen a longer transition time than Redbull's 'simpler' execution (for reasons difficult to decipher by armchair aerodynamicists who don't have access to actual CAD models/wind-tunnel) , perhaps to optimize drag, perhaps to optimize the diffuser stalling in straightline, perhaps to induce a bit of lift in the rear that could possibly help the initial bite from front tyres in the initial phase of the mega braking at end of straight, perhaps for some other reason we have no idea about.

For your knowledgeable self to post things to the effect of belittling fellow forum members, while making an outlandish claim, is perhaps best avoided.

[mzso]

Really ? you think designing the SLM motion to make the convex side of the flap face the front is better than making the concave side of the flap face the front, when it comes to aero braking ?

Of course he does. Because it's Ferrari who's doing it that way.

[AmateurDriver]

So does the Red Bull, but does it better, with downforce coming back earlier, so better rear wheel braking, and flipping faster to begin with.
What we can't know is the difference in drag and useful aero effects..

Misleading: downforce come back when aero braking stops in both cases. So influence on braking is not as simple stated as you mean. Ferrari spent months working on effects on braking when restoring normal position, with on-track testing that red bull did not perform (two more). Surely they got the best it can be found. They could easily have the wing moving back and forth as REd Bull if they wanted. It would be just a matter a switching differently the solid-state driver of the actuator.

You're just regurgitating meaningless biased narrative. And ignore all the actual facts others supplied.

The "facts" other supplied? which facts? Did they provide numbers of speed gains of the two solutions that I overlooked? I saw only oversimplified plots that for sure do not even come close to capturing the actual facts.

[AR3-GP]

All very interesting but the "Ferrari simulation" has a single element flap whereas the real car has a two element flap. Just that alone makes the simulation comparison sketchy at best.

The purpose of the graphic is not to say they are accurate CFD models. They are not 1:1 so they can't be. It's just that they are consistent with the physics. The direction of back rotation causes lift (Ferrari) or early downforce (RB). This doesn't require any numerical simulation to understand this. It's just Newton's 3rd law applied to the pictures below. If the Red Bull wing diverts flow upwards from the pressure side (top), then there is a "downforce". If the Ferrari wing diverts flow down from the high pressure side (bottom), then there is lift. Airflow cannot turn up or down without a reaction force the opposite way. That's why Red Bull's wing starts to produce some downforce even though it may be still separated and the Ferrari wing generates lift instead.

In this phase, both wings are acting like a speed brake, but the direction of the vertical components of the force are opposing. One generate some downforce and the other generates some lift.

[LM10]

Just for the record, the discussion is not about Ferrari not thinking of the comparably simplistic RedBull solution, but rather seeing benefits in their own wing concept, right? At least I genuinely hope that some people here don’t actually believe that Ferrari missed the sophisticated and evolutionary RedBull concept which is advantageous in all possible points?
I mean, it’s not hard to miss it… only two directions in which the wing can rotate.

[AR3-GP]

Just for the record, the discussion is not about Ferrari not thinking of the comparably simplistic RedBull solution, but rather seeing benefits in their own wing concept, right? At least I genuinely hope that some people here don’t actually believe that Ferrari missed the sophisticated and evolutionary RedBull concept which is advantageous in all possible points?
I mean, it’s not hard to miss it… only two directions in which the wing can rotate.

As I said before, there are benefits in different areas. The Ferrari wing drops load faster. This is not a tit-for-tat. Both wings have merits.

Also, neither wing is "more complicated" than the other. Ferrari's solution is elegant. There's no DRS pod. The actuator is worked into the endplate. Red Bull's solution is less elegant in the mechanism (requires floating pivots which creates a stiffness and axis alignment challenge), but they seemed to prioritize the load recovery and this is the only way to do it.

[LM10]

Yup, sounds about right. Ferrari is Ferrari-ing.

Or the FIA FIA-Ing.

[Stu]

I think that we are missing some nuance to the rear wing SLM thing; what we have seen is Ferrari arrive in testing with an early version designed operate at driver command at any point of the circuit. The earliest version that we saw looked to have an extreme rearward pivot and activated at corner apex would trade-off ‘pure’ downforce for drag downforce during corner exit into pure drag reduction by the time the car hits the straight. I believe we have seen them return with a modified pivot location off the back of the FIA mandating the zones where the SLM may be activated.
In other words Ferrari have been forced to review a genuinely performance differentiating device and modify to suit the rewording around SLM, the pivot change reduces the time in the ‘drag downforce’ zone of operation.

[karana]

I think that we are missing some nuance to the rear wing SLM thing; what we have seen is Ferrari arrive in testing with an early version designed operate at driver command at any point of the circuit. The earliest version that we saw looked to have an extreme rearward pivot and activated at corner apex would trade-off ‘pure’ downforce for drag downforce during corner exit into pure drag reduction by the time the car hits the straight. I believe we have seen them return with a modified pivot location off the back of the FIA mandating the zones where the SLM may be activated.
In other words Ferrari have been forced to review a genuinely performance differentiating device and modify to suit the rewording around SLM, the pivot change reduces the time in the ‘drag downforce’ zone of operation.

I'm not sure what you mean, SLM was always only going to be allowed in specified activation zones. From the first version of the sporting regulations from October 2024:

B7.1.3 a) In accordance with Article C3.10.10 g) and Article C3.11.6 f), activation of the Driver Adjustable
Bodywork by the driver is only permitted when the Car is stationary or in any of the Activation
Zones.

[AR3-GP]

It is no coincidence that Ferrari drivers are among those who in Miami tended to manually anticipate the closing of the wing a few moments before braking, precisely to have more support.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-al ... /10820435/

[catent]

The rear-wing SLM closing-phase - as it relates to stability and confidence during braking/corner entry - are definitely important considerations.

I'm sure the team is gathering driver feedback and weighing the various elements at play.

If the drivers aren't 100% confident under braking, and/or the laptime found via drag reduction is marginal, I'd expect the team to modify the rear-wing SLM in order to have it close faster.