Sauber C33 Ferrari

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter does not belong here.
zioture
zioture
445
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:46 am
Location: Italy

Re: Sauber C33 Ferrari

Post

Right lol

Image

User avatar
jagunx51
173
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:06 am

Re: Sauber C33 Ferrari

Post

what is the 'black thing" ? ... a VG ?
Image
............!!!!

McMrocks
McMrocks
32
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 4:58 pm

Re: Sauber C33 Ferrari

Post

The black thing underneath the airbox? I guess this is just a second air-inlet underneath the air box.

If you reffer to the black thing on top. It is the light that shows if the battery is charged

User avatar
jagunx51
173
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:06 am

Re: Sauber C33 Ferrari

Post

McMrocks wrote:The black thing underneath the airbox? I guess this is just a second air-inlet underneath the air box.

If you reffer to the black thing on top. It is the light that shows if the battery is charged
The black thing underneath the airbox ..... it doesnt look like a hole
............!!!!

User avatar
Godius
184
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:49 am
Location: NL

Re: Sauber C33 Ferrari

Post


trinidefender
trinidefender
311
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:37 pm

Re: Sauber C33 Ferrari

Post

Want to do some research on wings like this. Conventional thinking would say that you out the greater camber of wing section toward the middle of the wing therefore creating more downforce toward the centre of the wing and having the outer portions of the wing run less camber, creating less downforce but crucially a lot less drag by the lower pressure differential between the outer portion of the wings and the other side of the rear wing end plates. This will reduce the size of the end plate vortices and reduce induced drag.

The only thing that makes sense to me about this solution is that doing this creates a situation where, on the underside of the wing, the pressure is greater in the middle than the outer portions of the wing so therefore I should induce flow upwards and outwards from the wing. Low down I can see why they want to do this to fill the space behind the rear tyres with air reducing drag but why up high?

timbo
timbo
108
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:14 am

Re: Sauber C33 Ferrari

Post

trinidefender wrote:
Want to do some research on wings like this. Conventional thinking would say that you out the greater camber of wing section toward the middle of the wing therefore creating more downforce toward the centre of the wing and having the outer portions of the wing run less camber, creating less downforce but crucially a lot less drag by the lower pressure differential between the outer portion of the wings and the other side of the rear wing end plates. This will reduce the size of the end plate vortices and reduce induced drag.

The only thing that makes sense to me about this solution is that doing this creates a situation where, on the underside of the wing, the pressure is greater in the middle than the outer portions of the wing so therefore I should induce flow upwards and outwards from the wing. Low down I can see why they want to do this to fill the space behind the rear tyres with air reducing drag but why up high?
Such considerations work well in a free flow, but F1 car is anything but free flow. To get why they do it one needs to put two types of wings side by side in a car exactly like this.

krisfx
krisfx
14
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: Sauber C33 Ferrari

Post

McMrocks wrote:The black thing underneath the airbox? I guess this is just a second air-inlet underneath the air box.

If you reffer to the black thing on top. It is the light that shows if the battery is charged

The light shows that the car is safe, due to the electrical systems onboard.

trinidefender
trinidefender
311
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:37 pm

Re: Sauber C33 Ferrari

Post

timbo wrote:
trinidefender wrote:
Want to do some research on wings like this. Conventional thinking would say that you out the greater camber of wing section toward the middle of the wing therefore creating more downforce toward the centre of the wing and having the outer portions of the wing run less camber, creating less downforce but crucially a lot less drag by the lower pressure differential between the outer portion of the wings and the other side of the rear wing end plates. This will reduce the size of the end plate vortices and reduce induced drag.

The only thing that makes sense to me about this solution is that doing this creates a situation where, on the underside of the wing, the pressure is greater in the middle than the outer portions of the wing so therefore I should induce flow upwards and outwards from the wing. Low down I can see why they want to do this to fill the space behind the rear tyres with air reducing drag but why up high?
Such considerations work well in a free flow, but F1 car is anything but free flow. To get why they do it one needs to put two types of wings side by side in a car exactly like this.
Such considerations? Physics don't change because you are dealing with f1. After the front wing, the rear wing is the next item seeing the most free flow on the car. The air box above he drivers head will add a bit of turbulence to the flow but shouldn't be to bad. Before you want to shoot down my idea about you need to compare wings side by side why don't you actually try to add in something useful instead.

My other idea is because of the airbox, sauber decided to try to work the outside of the wings harder and make the centre of the wing less sensitive to airflow disruptions by the airbox by reducing the angle of attack on the wing like they did here.

timbo
timbo
108
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:14 am

Re: Sauber C33 Ferrari

Post

trinidefender wrote:Such considerations? Physics don't change because you are dealing with f1. After the front wing, the rear wing is the next item seeing the most free flow on the car. The air box above he drivers head will add a bit of turbulence to the flow but shouldn't be to bad. Before you want to shoot down my idea about you need to compare wings side by side why don't you actually try to add in something useful instead.
Where did I say that the physics works differently? Different flow conditions require different solutions that's all.
And without actual data it's impossible to gauge how much effect airbox has.
Sauber is not the first F1 car to run rear wing like that:
Image
trinidefender wrote:My other idea is because of the airbox, sauber decided to try to work the outside of the wings harder and make the centre of the wing less sensitive to airflow disruptions by the airbox by reducing the angle of attack on the wing like they did here.
I like this idea much better.
Last edited by timbo on Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

wesley123
wesley123
194
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:55 pm

Re: Sauber C33 Ferrari

Post

Indeed, different flow fields are happening in that area. The width of that raised section seems to match the width of the head crash protection, which by it's shape seems to be very disruptive for airflow.

Thus, imo, it would be better to reduce the wingbox in this area, as downforce here would be less efficient than at the outer extremies, it makes sense to reduce area here to reduce drag.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

bhall II
bhall II
473
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: Sauber C33 Ferrari

Post

I think it's sorta like a forward-swept wing.

Image

Spanwise flow on a "conventional" wing tends to move outward, toward the endplates, which increases the drag penalty incurred by tip vortices, because it makes them stronger.

I think the shape of the Sauber wing reduces the strength of tip vortices, because it encourages a more inward movement of spanwise flow in those areas. It could also give the team more control over the "staling" characteristics of the wing when DRS is used.

Image

In any case, Williams ran the same concept in 2012 for the Canadian Grand Prix.

Image

mantikos
mantikos
33
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:35 pm

Re: Sauber C33 Ferrari

Post

bhall II wrote:I think it's sorta like a forward-swept wing.

http://i.imgur.com/YLUelsR.jpg

Spanwise flow on a "conventional" wing tends to move outward, toward the endplates, which increases the drag penalty incurred by tip vortices, because it makes them stronger.

I think the shape of the Sauber wing reduces the strength of tip vortices, because it encourages a more inward movement of spanwise flow in those areas. It could also give the team more control over the "staling" characteristics of the wing when DRS is used.

http://i.imgur.com/ei6rGLL.jpg

In any case, Williams ran the same concept in 2012 for the Canadian Grand Prix.

http://i.imgur.com/aYXBdMi.jpg

If that was the case and they were trying to create span wise flow - why would they use wing fences to prevent such a flow exactly at the point your arrow is pointing the flow to be redirected at?

bhall II
bhall II
473
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: Sauber C33 Ferrari

Post

I guess a better way of putting it would have been to say I think the outer wing profile seeks to straighten (or reduce, depending on how you want to look at it) spanwise flow in order to weaken the strength of tip vorticies.

The fences you pointed out are required by the regulations as slot-gap separators to prevent teams from employing bendy rear wings.

Code: Select all

3.10.2 In order to ensure that the individual profiles and the relationship between these two sections can only change whilst the car is in motion in accordance with Article 3.18, they must be bridged by means of pairs of rigid impervious supports arranged such that no part of the trailing edge of the forward section may be more than 200mm laterally from a pair of supports. These pairs of supports must :
a) Be located no more than 355mm from the car centre line.
b) Fully enclose each complete section such that their inner profiles match that of each section. With the exception of minimal local changes where the two sections are adjacent to each other, their outer profiles must be offset from the inner profiles by between 8mm and 30mm and may not incorporate any radius smaller than 10mm ('gurney' type trim tabs may however be fitted between the supports).
c) Be aligned as a pair so as to provide a bearing across their full thickness and along a profile length of at least 10mm when the distance between the two sections is at its closest position.
d) Not be recessed into the wing profiles (where a recess is defined as a reduction in section at a rate greater than 45° with respect to a lateral axis).
e) Be arranged so that any curvature occurs only in a horizontal plane (other than when this bodywork is adjusted in accordance with Article 3.18).
f) Be between 2mm and 5mm thick.
g) Be rigidly fixed to their respective sections.
h) Be constructed from a material with modulus greater than 50GPa.
These supports will be ignored when assessing whether the car is in compliance with Articles 3.6, 3.9.2, 3.10.1, 3.10.3 and 3.10.5.

stefan_
stefan_
696
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:43 am
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Sauber C33 Ferrari

Post

Great Britain 2014 - Thursday (03.07.2014)

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
"...and there, very much in flames, is Jacques Laffite's Ligier. That's obviously a turbo blaze, and of course, Laffite will be able to see that conflagration in his mirrors... he is coolly parking the car somewhere safe." Murray Walker, San Marino 1985