"Ferrari Wind Tunnel Reopened"

What a terrible article!

Was it written by someone with no interest in Ferrari or F1 who were on their first ever article and was told to write it for 5 years to understand?

Let's look at some of the details:

"The data that's collected is used by the technicians to reduce drag and increase top speed on the F1 racecars."

Err... that's a bit of an over-simplification! The wind tunnel is used for much more than that!

"According to BBC News, it's been a major concern for Ferrari to not have their wind tunnel fully operational. Most people would assume Toyota's wind tunnel is inferior. On the other hand, there is no data to support that speculation. "

Err..... Okay, I suspect the general public with absolutely no interest in F1 or Ferrari might possibly think that Ferrari's wind tunnel would be superior to Toyota's, but people in then know are aware that Toyota's wind tunnel is one of the best there is, hence Ferrari and McLaren both being happy to use it.

"....Nevertheless, the reopened wind tunnel can only test scaled down versions of the cars.

These are typically 65% of the actual size. The standard Formula One racecar is 5.9 feet wide and 15.19 feet long. Most people would think that the newly remodeled wind tunnel would be able to fit a full sized car, but it can't. "

Most people obviously don't know the amount of additional energy required to test a full size car in a wind tunnel, or that for F1, the FIA limits the scale of the car that can be tested!

Also, I was under the impression that Ferrari's wind tunnel was due to be re-opened and operational at the end of October?

 

You can have the best tunnel in the world and the most expensive money can buy, but if feed in &*&^ you get BS out.

Ferrari has been running this nonsense for too long in a vain attempt to shield it shortcomings.

 

It must be catching then! (From: Button: McLaren?s current form is ?embarrassing?James Allen on F1 ? The official James Allen website on F1 ) :

McLaren’s sporting director Sam Michael says the team’s problems are partly down to data from the windtunnel not correlating with data from the car on track. It is a problem similar to that which affected Ferrari last year and contributed to their disappointing start to the season.




It's seems strange that these teams pay a lot of money to highly qualified engineers and don't simply employ the fans to do all the work! - They always seem to know better than the teams do and always seem to have all of the easy fixes to all of the problems!

 

There seems to be a severe lack of common sense in all this and its down to inexperience. buying in top engineers isn't going to solve the problem as one persons philosophy is very different to another.

The latest is that the "tyre marbles" blocked the airflow through the high downforce wing and stopped it working.

Jeez are these guys for real!

The problem is most just sit behind a computer and believe everything that comes out of it.

 

Sorry but I can't agree with this!

For a start, today's cars are unbelievably aero-sensitive and the front wing arrangements are incredibly complex with multiple elements and slot gaps.

Each element and slot gap is carefully designed, not only to push the air over and around the car, but to actually manipulate it, by curving it, twisting it, to guide it onto surfaces where it gets dragged into area's where it wouldn't normally go.

The aero engineers are dealing with low, medium and high speed air. They have to consider air temps, high pressure areas, low pressure areas, vortex's, vacuums and air turbulence.

The affect of accumulated tyre marbles trapped in the slot gaps is not a thing of fantasy or an easy excuse! - It's a genuine issue that can prevent the car from working correctly because the cars really are that sensitive!

Would you dismiss the work of aeronautical designers and engineers with the same level of disdain when it comes to how they design their aircraft? F1 aero engineers are working with the exact same parameters as aeronautical engineers, plus they have the added parameter of the proximity of the ground and its added affect on the aerodynamics of the vehicle.

Frankly, by dismissing the affects of tyre marbles on the front wing and ridiculing the engineers who design these parts you have shown a mesmerising ignorance of modern F1 and highlighted the exact point that I previously posted: Fans sit back at home on their sofas, watching from a distance declaring that all the problems in F1 are easy to solve! - Jeez! - Are these "fans" for real? Do they even understand modern F1? Based on the evidence available I'd have to say: "No they don't!"

 

wow

 

I think the major problem for both teams were and are the front pull rod suspensions influencing the flow of the air. They are supposed to give an aero benefit but must be understood and takes time

 

Totally agree! (I've posted the exact same thing in many a thread on here Myself).

However, in Ferrari's case, I honestly believe that they have mastered the pull-rod suspension and how to package it.

It could be the case though that, although the pull-rod suspension has the advantage of lowering the front axles centre of gravity due to placing the weight lower than a push-rod system, the interference it causes to the lower air flow is far more detrimental than the affects of the push-rod system and it's higher centre of gravity.

 

IIRC the air is supposed to flow better but after years of experience with the push rod I guess it's not easy to adapt the rest of the car. The other problem is that the angles at which it is supposed to work are so tight that it comports great stess on the tub and requires very fine levels of adjustment. Not to talk of the fact that this solution might be detrimental on the already brittle tyres. Both Mclaren and Ferrari (especially last year's) are very stiff at the front.

 

I believe the problem is that the pull-rod suspension places more suspension members down into the lower air flow than a push-rod suspension does and so it distorts and breaks up the air flow more, making it harder to direct the air to the most desired areas.

With the aero sensitivity of the modern cars, this causes even more problems than it used to when pull-rod suspensions were first tried.

Packaging for servicing and adjustment is also a lot tighter than a push-rod suspension which makes fast suspension changes a lot harder. However, Ferrari have worked hard to greatly improve the packaging and on their car at least, and so it's not so much of an issue any more for them.

 

Anybody that designs any component for any race car and does not make it work in REAL conditions is an idiot.

Tyre marbles are a real world issue and thus need to be accounted for. These theoretical engineers need to turn off their computers and go out to the race tracks, maybe do some racing in lower levels themselves to get their heads out of theoretical BS.

RB's don't have this problem ... Newey races and has a brain!
Pete

 

Yet again the pull rod suspension (front) is part of the problem ... for **** sake Ferrari dump it!
Pete

 

When I read the post by 4rePhill (below) I immediately thought exactly the same as PSk, Why Newey is so successful is that he doesn't believe everything the screen throws at him, in fact as I understand it, he doesn't use it. That task is left to his undoubted talent of engineers in the office under his guidance. Part of what he does is use his considerable experience to sift through all the crap. Isnt it odd that two of the most successful F1 engineers, aerodynamicists over the last 13 years work in exactly the same way. i.e Newey & Byrne

Firstly let me say that there is no need to be so rude and more to the point ignorant. You do not know me or what interest I have in F1. I am not a "I love Lewis" fan, more of a Chapman, Newey Byrne and Barnard admirer.

The quote I liked the most was Newey when talking about Webers front wing plates smashed of the car a few races back. No it didn't make that much difference and MW certainly proved the point too.

To use aeronautical designers as a analogy is not really a correct one to make either, they are not in competition and moreover always design with caution and safety in mind.

I also fail to understand your logic regarding tyre marbles, isn't it the same for everyone. I never said F1 design was simple to solve, what is simple is to look out of the window some times and see if it is actually raining.

 

Ah, l´ingegnere del lunedi.

How many times have you seen that a tyre marble get´s stuck in a wing? Do you think that the engineers have to design the cars for EVERY possible incidence? They´re not going to reduce the performance of the car just because a marble can get stuck once in 100 races.

In the real world sometimes sh-t just happens.

How are they going to do that if the are NOT ALLOWED TO DO TESTING in a track. Simulations and wind tunnel are the only tools they have now.

Yeah, precisely Newey´s cars often have lots of "real life problems". Red Bull´s biggest weakness all these years has been their lack of reliability. Do you remember when they broke down after safety-car periods because the cooling was inadecuate when running behind the safety car? And let´s not talk about the now infamous McLaren MP4-18, a car "so well" adapted to the real world that even couldn´t be raced.

Newey races just for fun. And fortunately he´s better at designing than at driving.

 

My club race car used to finish ever race with its side pods (for want of a better term ... It was not a single seater) fill of tyre marbles.

It is not a 1 out of 100 occurrence at all.
Pete

 

Are you comparing that to the occurrence of a tyre marble stuck in a wing slot of a few mm. width? F1 cars don´t overheat because of marbles stuck to the radiators, they can prevent that, but we´re talking about a different issue.

And now, the big question: what´s your suggestion to avoid that problem? Are you going to put wipers on the wing or what?

 

My point was quite clearly that tyre marbles are everywhere in a real racing situation and need to be allowed for. You can even see them on TV, they are that obvious.

So you either design your car to work in a wind tunnel OR design your car to work on a race track in a race.

I would hire the engineer that designed the car for the race track.

No, simply ensure the wing slots are big enough to not trap average sized tyre marbles. I also doubt that it makes as big a difference as you (others?) say. Heck wing end plates get knocked off and they still lap well ...
Pete

 

I´m not an expert in aerodynamics but I guess that the width of the slot in the wing is quite relevant and probably widening it just to avoid the (quite unlikely) problem of a stuck marble does not pay the loss of performance that it would cause the rest of the time. I´m basing my guess on the fact that no cars are using extra wide slots in their wings, including Newey´s (The Racer, and apparently the only wise designer in F1).

 

Red Bull have the benefit of being able to tinker with their car to extract just that little bit more out of it, they also have a nicely balanced car too. Ferrari however have to play catch up and then overtake the progress made by RB, a completely different challenge and one they are not up to.

They now blame everything else which is a joke. The fundamental problem is Luca di Montezemolo and his ambition / desire a few years ago to return the team to full Italian control was a huge huge mistake. Had he made Brawn team principal then the championship winning structure would have remained in place. Such a huge self implosion was music to all the other teams ears. You can now hire as many top aero guys as you like but if they all tug in the wrong direction then you are sunk.

They blame wind tunnel calibration and correlation of data, this has been going on for some time, haven't they fixed that yet, free practise can give you all the feed back you need but when you are chasing set up, then development takes a rather back stage as without a good handling car you are basically screwed no matter was fabulous invention you bring along. The pull rod suspension also makes it difficult to change setup easily so they are compromised on that one as well, for the small aero benefits it offers such as lower CoG.

Massa was the donkey and he should have been given the work in development to catch up

 

Remember I was originally responding to 4rePhil's comment that these cars are super sensitive that even a tyre marble in one of these slots can upset the balance.

My point was, that if they are designing cars like this then the designers have missed the point. Things happen in races so the cars need to be able to perform in non ideal conditions.

I remember reading about the Ford Cosworth powered GT40 replacement (P68) and how it turned up at the race team who were going to race it for Ford (I assume). The car had all the bodywork seams taped up and it was sitting so low that it was unraceable. It had just returned from a wind tunnel session ... Ridiculous.

So IMO stop chasing these theoretical minor performance gains and chase ones that will work in the real world and make a car that is not so damn sensitive.
Pete

 

The difference between cars is measured in tenths of a second and the rules are tight. You can bet that when someone has a "big idea" teams are happy to exploit it, but when not they need to optimize what they have.

I suppose that this is what happens when you are at the limit: exponential gains, etc...