Ferrari: Enginegate
Discussion
Doink said:
Well let me put this out there, if as you say it's all aero then how come in Q3 they can pull out another half second from somewhere, I wasn't aware they had aero modes too, they must somehow be able to turn off their downforce on the straights!
If it's all aero as you say then why aren't they as quick in the race, OK they're heavy with fuel but so is everybody else, if it's just aero why doesn't it work in the race as it does in Q3.
I'm not fooled, yes they might have less downforce but in my eyes they're getting more from the PU than the aero
Because they can fully exploit their speed advantage in quali without worrying about tyre deg or heat.If it's all aero as you say then why aren't they as quick in the race, OK they're heavy with fuel but so is everybody else, if it's just aero why doesn't it work in the race as it does in Q3.
I'm not fooled, yes they might have less downforce but in my eyes they're getting more from the PU than the aero
The amount of power needed to equal a reduction in down-force is entirely disproportionate. A Veyron needs 200bhp to hit 150mph, to hit 250mph it needs an additional 800bhp. That is the degree to which drag at speed effects performance.
Two options to build a very fast straight line F1 car then: 1)Add significantly more power than your competitors, which is totally impossible the way the regs are. An extra 50bhp won't cut it... 2) Reduce drag, sacrifice aero.
Consider the in your face evidence. Is the Ferrari faster top end? Yes. Is it a bit of twitch liability in the corners? Yes. Conclusion: Aero reduced for higher top end. Frankly the question of who has the highest power output PU is irrelevant, the slim difference in power between the top teams is going to be slim indeed - a drop in the ocean compared to the very significant effects of different aero philosophies.
rdjohn said:
All teams have aero modes - it’s called DRS.
If you start with low downforce, then DRS gives you even less and less drag on the straights.
Personally, I think the difference is in the first 10-50m, before DRS is deployed. The big difference is in electrical deployment - a loot of oomph out of a corner combined with a superb MGUH and low drag to maintain that advantage down a straight.
There is something they're doing to fire out of the corners as they do - maybe they have just done a particularly good job of their energy mapping. It could be that in an effort to counter their top end speed, their immediate competitors are forced to deploy the energy at different times? Who knows..If you start with low downforce, then DRS gives you even less and less drag on the straights.
Personally, I think the difference is in the first 10-50m, before DRS is deployed. The big difference is in electrical deployment - a loot of oomph out of a corner combined with a superb MGUH and low drag to maintain that advantage down a straight.
I do think that their corner exit speed has fuelled rumours of them having a massive power advantage and somewhat clouded the fairly straightforward aero advantage they enjoy on the straights.
Doink said:
Well let me put this out there, if as you say it's all aero then how come in Q3 they can pull out another half second from somewhere, I wasn't aware they had aero modes too, they must somehow be able to turn off their downforce on the straights!
If it's all aero as you say then why aren't they as quick in the race, OK they're heavy with fuel but so is everybody else, if it's just aero why doesn't it work in the race as it does in Q3.
I'm not fooled, yes they might have less downforce but in my eyes they're getting more from the PU than the aero
Was "aero modes" not the entire concept of the F-duct? Now, the f-duct is banned but perhaps Ferrari have worked out some other clever way to manipulate the downforce and stall the wing. They switched to matt paint at the same time they started making "power" gains for example, does that assist or detract from laminar flow?If it's all aero as you say then why aren't they as quick in the race, OK they're heavy with fuel but so is everybody else, if it's just aero why doesn't it work in the race as it does in Q3.
I'm not fooled, yes they might have less downforce but in my eyes they're getting more from the PU than the aero
TheDeuce said:
Because they can fully exploit their speed advantage in quali without worrying about tyre deg or heat.
The amount of power needed to equal a reduction in down-force is entirely disproportionate. A Veyron needs 200bhp to hit 150mph, to hit 250mph it needs an additional 800bhp. That is the degree to which drag at speed effects performance.
Two options to build a very fast straight line F1 car then: 1)Add significantly more power than your competitors, which is totally impossible the way the regs are. An extra 50bhp won't cut it... 2) Reduce drag, sacrifice aero.
Consider the in your face evidence. Is the Ferrari faster top end? Yes. Is it a bit of twitch liability in the corners? Yes. Conclusion: Aero reduced for higher top end. Frankly the question of who has the highest power output PU is irrelevant, the slim difference in power between the top teams is going to be slim indeed - a drop in the ocean compared to the very significant effects of different aero philosophies.
Drag goes up at the square of speed, which is why you need a large power gain for a small increase in speed.The amount of power needed to equal a reduction in down-force is entirely disproportionate. A Veyron needs 200bhp to hit 150mph, to hit 250mph it needs an additional 800bhp. That is the degree to which drag at speed effects performance.
Two options to build a very fast straight line F1 car then: 1)Add significantly more power than your competitors, which is totally impossible the way the regs are. An extra 50bhp won't cut it... 2) Reduce drag, sacrifice aero.
Consider the in your face evidence. Is the Ferrari faster top end? Yes. Is it a bit of twitch liability in the corners? Yes. Conclusion: Aero reduced for higher top end. Frankly the question of who has the highest power output PU is irrelevant, the slim difference in power between the top teams is going to be slim indeed - a drop in the ocean compared to the very significant effects of different aero philosophies.
You dont have to sacrifice aero to reduce drag, you can reduce drag whilst retaining the same downforce if you improve the overall efficiency. That is what the teams are doing throughout the year as they optimise the car.
Ferrari may well have found a big step forward in efficiency, so have the same downforce but with less drag, which will show up in an improvement in top speed with no low speed loss in performance.
jsf said:
TheDeuce said:
Because they can fully exploit their speed advantage in quali without worrying about tyre deg or heat.
The amount of power needed to equal a reduction in down-force is entirely disproportionate. A Veyron needs 200bhp to hit 150mph, to hit 250mph it needs an additional 800bhp. That is the degree to which drag at speed effects performance.
Two options to build a very fast straight line F1 car then: 1)Add significantly more power than your competitors, which is totally impossible the way the regs are. An extra 50bhp won't cut it... 2) Reduce drag, sacrifice aero.
Consider the in your face evidence. Is the Ferrari faster top end? Yes. Is it a bit of twitch liability in the corners? Yes. Conclusion: Aero reduced for higher top end. Frankly the question of who has the highest power output PU is irrelevant, the slim difference in power between the top teams is going to be slim indeed - a drop in the ocean compared to the very significant effects of different aero philosophies.
Drag goes up at the square of speed, which is why you need a large power gain for a small increase in speed.The amount of power needed to equal a reduction in down-force is entirely disproportionate. A Veyron needs 200bhp to hit 150mph, to hit 250mph it needs an additional 800bhp. That is the degree to which drag at speed effects performance.
Two options to build a very fast straight line F1 car then: 1)Add significantly more power than your competitors, which is totally impossible the way the regs are. An extra 50bhp won't cut it... 2) Reduce drag, sacrifice aero.
Consider the in your face evidence. Is the Ferrari faster top end? Yes. Is it a bit of twitch liability in the corners? Yes. Conclusion: Aero reduced for higher top end. Frankly the question of who has the highest power output PU is irrelevant, the slim difference in power between the top teams is going to be slim indeed - a drop in the ocean compared to the very significant effects of different aero philosophies.
You dont have to sacrifice aero to reduce drag, you can reduce drag whilst retaining the same downforce if you improve the overall efficiency. That is what the teams are doing throughout the year as they optimise the car.
Ferrari may well have found a big step forward in efficiency, so have the same downforce but with less drag, which will show up in an improvement in top speed with no low speed loss in performance.
Flooble said:
Was "aero modes" not the entire concept of the F-duct? Now, the f-duct is banned but perhaps Ferrari have worked out some other clever way to manipulate the downforce and stall the wing. They switched to matt paint at the same time they started making "power" gains for example, does that assist or detract from laminar flow?
The switch to matt paint is telling of just how keen they were to focus on low drag as a means to speed this year. The most iconic part of their brand is 'red' and the fact is that the matt bodywork has left their iconic red looking decidedly orange in certain light, I'm sure that wasn't an easy decision and could only have been reached if they were hell bent on making the most slippery car possible.As for laminar effect, I doubt the outer bodywork can help. For laminar you have to control all sides of the airflow in order to condition it and manage turbulence (good for ducted or underfloor flow). I think the matt is just to reduce drag. Also, it's lighter apparently - I recall the weight saving was mentioned in pre-season testing quite a bit.
It could come down to something as simple as a step change in heat exchanger core material efficiency.
If that occured you can reduce the airflow required through the core for the same cooling effect, which means smaller openings in the bodywork.
For example, on my own competition car i run a very expensive hand made core material for my intercooler, which allows me to run over 500BHP in a core size and location the OEM core can only manage 300BHP.
If that occured you can reduce the airflow required through the core for the same cooling effect, which means smaller openings in the bodywork.
For example, on my own competition car i run a very expensive hand made core material for my intercooler, which allows me to run over 500BHP in a core size and location the OEM core can only manage 300BHP.
jsf said:
It could come down to something as simple as a step change in heat exchanger core material efficiency.
If that occured you can reduce the airflow required through the core for the same cooling effect, which means smaller openings in the bodywork.
For example, on my own competition car i run a very expensive hand made core material for my intercooler, which allows me to run over 500BHP in a core size and location the OEM core can only manage 300BHP.
It could be one of a hundred things.If that occured you can reduce the airflow required through the core for the same cooling effect, which means smaller openings in the bodywork.
For example, on my own competition car i run a very expensive hand made core material for my intercooler, which allows me to run over 500BHP in a core size and location the OEM core can only manage 300BHP.
I personally still think the most likely explanation is that they sorted their aero balance to hit the sweet spot between low drag and at least workable and reliable downforce. It really could be just about anything though
Impressive that you managed to house 500 horses in a stable designed for just 300 though!
TheDeuce said:
It could be one of a hundred things.
I personally still think the most likely explanation is that they sorted their aero balance to hit the sweet spot between low drag and at least workable and reliable downforce. It really could be just about anything though
Impressive that you managed to house 500 horses in a stable designed for just 300 though!
Indeed, the core material was only found on F1 cars until recently and is currently not available comercially as its so expensive to make.I personally still think the most likely explanation is that they sorted their aero balance to hit the sweet spot between low drag and at least workable and reliable downforce. It really could be just about anything though
Impressive that you managed to house 500 horses in a stable designed for just 300 though!
jsf said:
Indeed, the core material was only found on F1 cars until recently and is currently not available comercially as its so expensive to make.
If there is a better way of doing anything in motor sport it's a safe bet F1 will R&D and prove it.This is why I assume for Ferrari it's more of a case of a corrected mistake than a giant leap forwards in innovation, they already have the best solutions for all things mechanical and material. I don't think they found anything 'new' so much as they just identified something not quite right and sorted it. Evolution tends to be gradual - if there is a big leap in performance as there has been for Ferrari, it could be innovation, but it's far more likely to be them finding a weak link in their design and addressing it.
I doubt very much it's a conveniently leaky intercooler, magic concerning two batteries, or some other form of witchcraft. I think they got the aero slightly wrong, and have now sorted it and are simply back on track with their chosen philosophy. I accept that's not very exciting from a media point of view but oddly enough the boring explanation is more often than not correct.
C2Red said:
I’m interested in those who think it’s an aero solution, as my albeit imperfect memory seems to be informing me that at least one publication; namely Autosport suggested the Ferrari aero was a kind of deadend development wise at the season beginning.....
Whatever autosport might have said it's clearly not the case. They have released several aero updates and recently made some significant progress as a result. That's not something I 'think', the cars aero package has been visibly altered more than once and the changes have been discussed at length each time.Autosport themselves have an article on the most recent revision here: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/146270/no-more-f...
Which does also say they have now ended their development of this year's car, which isn't that surprising so late on in the season.
A couple of confirmed upgrades, and my 100% speculation.
Floor and diffuser (from Spa), have they found a way to stall the diffuser under acceleration?
3D printing on the engine, could this provide light weight and symmetrically perfect parts, better at heat transfer and able to provide more power? Perhaps even using less fluids to carry around, that could be ahem combustible?
Sole turbo use rather than Mercs twin turbo approach, could a larger sole turbo utilise more efficiency into the electrical system via energy recovery/deployment?
Anyway, Merc and Honda both think they have the answer/s, although they would seem to be different.
In FP3 Ted mentioned Merc are fully aware, and will be testing the gains within next yrs prototype.
Floor and diffuser (from Spa), have they found a way to stall the diffuser under acceleration?
3D printing on the engine, could this provide light weight and symmetrically perfect parts, better at heat transfer and able to provide more power? Perhaps even using less fluids to carry around, that could be ahem combustible?
Sole turbo use rather than Mercs twin turbo approach, could a larger sole turbo utilise more efficiency into the electrical system via energy recovery/deployment?
Anyway, Merc and Honda both think they have the answer/s, although they would seem to be different.
In FP3 Ted mentioned Merc are fully aware, and will be testing the gains within next yrs prototype.
TheDeuce said:
I doubt very much it's a conveniently leaky intercooler, magic concerning two batteries, or some other form of witchcraft. I think they got the aero slightly wrong, and have now sorted it and are simply back on track with their chosen philosophy. I accept that's not very exciting from a media point of view but oddly enough the boring explanation is more often than not correct.
Whether it's just through repetition but I am coming around to your point of view with regards to the fact that to be so much quicker on the straights would require an unreasonably large power advantage which does seem very unlikely given my limited perception of the rules, whereas obviously there are significant speed gains to be made with aerodynamic 'trickery'.Certainly Binotto's insistance that everyone is free to check out their engine seems more likely to be an effective misdirection than a ballsy bluff
Can we start the wild aero spectulation now please?
A reduction in cooling requirements thus leading to less drag is an interesting point
If it's efficient aero, clever stalling of wings or just plain lack of downforce is it enough to make it pull away from a merc with it's wing wide open and within it's tow I'm not sure, I'll concede it might be an efficient car but you'd expect that to come into play further along the straight, not to catapult it out of corners, when engine gains are now measured in hundredths of a second they must have found a totally new concept in the PU, to have found nearly a full second just on the straights isn't found with 5 or 10hp gains
Doink said:
If it's efficient aero, clever stalling of wings or just plain lack of downforce is it enough to make it pull away from a merc with it's wing wide open and within it's tow I'm not sure, I'll concede it might be an efficient car but you'd expect that to come into play further along the straight, not to catapult it out of corners, when engine gains are now measured in hundredths of a second they must have found a totally new concept in the PU, to have found nearly a full second just on the straights isn't found with 5 or 10hp gains
These are definitely two separate things. The top end speed is 100% slippery aero, if it wasn't they wouldn't have sacrificed downforce compared to their competitors.The launch out of the corners is not due to aero, it can't be - the aero is barely a factor at such speeds. It has to be about energy deployment... But beyond that I think we're all stabbing in the dark as to how they found that advantage. As I a suggested earlier, it might be that Ferrari deploy more earlier than the rest, who are forced to deploy later to keep up with the low downforce Ferrari's? That's complete guesswork though.
I suggest waiting a decade for someone to retire, write a book and explain what they were doing back in 2019
Just been reading the Autosport article this moring, which would confirm my thoughts on Aero not being the solution, to add, my own thoughts are that Ferrari are syphoning excess fuel ( when not required, i.e. braking but still able to draw the maximum amount permited by the FIA fuel flow limiter) and then storing in an accumulator or similar, to be delivered to the injectors/fuel rail at a time when more power is required, but the fuel flow limiter in the fuel tank wont allow this to occur, thus more power and greater acceleration occurs. Genius solution if thats what they've done.
K
K
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff