Ferrari is trying to catch up in this second part of the 2024 championship. Formula 1 is a serious business, and once again, unfortunately, the Maranello team has demonstrated this with the issue of aerodynamic updates. A topic that remains very difficult for the Prancing Horse, despite the countless negative experiences accumulated over the years. Learning from their mistakes is not easy for Ferrari, evidently. Before providing some information about the near future, let’s talk once more about a key factor, a little-discussed element from which many things can be understood: the inverted sidepods.
We are talking about a solution that didn’t work as well as it should have. This is clear. Ferrari had a clear advantage this winter, knowing in advance about Red Bull’s setup, which was leaked by some new technicians acquired from the Austrian team. The Italian team made a significant effort to bring these inlets for the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix at the Imola circuit. The benefits were supposed to be multiple and tangible, especially regarding potential development for the rest of the season. The main benefit, on paper, concerns the larger area in the undercut.
By flipping the inlet lip, indeed, several cubic millimeters can be recovered in the undercut area. This move is supposed to generate greater static pressure in that part of the car and, as a result, increase outwash, a crucial effect for pushing the turbulences created by the front tire’s rolling outward. Now, the question is: why didn’t this innovation deliver the expected results? Without Computational Fluid Dynamics comparison, it’s hard to say. In simulations, the so-called “shark inlets” showed advantages that didn’t materialize later on. The evidence highlights this factor.
However, according to information gathered on the field by various Italian news media outlets, we know that, from an aerodynamic standpoint, Ferrari encountered a discrepancy between the simulated pressure field and the real one. But how can such a scenario be explained? The question is simple but encompasses several complexities. There are indeed several obstacles. The first concerns the difficulty in reproducing driving conditions in the wind tunnel. The car undergoes various rotations relative to the main axes, such as pitch, yaw, and roll.
Other variables involve the change in ground clearance between the front and rear and the so-called flow curvature. Although these variations are minimal, for Ferrari, they have shown a significant effect on the vehicle’s aerodynamics, as they were not reproduced as faithfully as possible. Wind tunnel hours are regulated by the International Federation. For this reason, they are limited. Testing all the variables concerning the SF-24 car’s setup, therefore, proved to be much more challenging than anticipated.
There are also additional obstacles that increase the discrepancies between simulation environments and real-world conditions. For the wind tunnel, which is used as the final cross-check before hitting the track, the model tested is scaled. We know that there are some discrepancies in the Reynolds number and in the imposed constraints. However, for Ferrari, other aspects have further heightened the aforementioned inconsistency. These are factors related to geometry that cannot be faithfully reproduced: tire deformation, internal fluid blockage in the sidepods, and the deformation of elements themselves under certain loads.
Computational Fluid Dynamics is far more reliable in this regard when it comes to dimensions. On the other hand, in this case, geometric limitations are easily overcome. Nevertheless, there are other types of problems with this kind of software that concern the methods applied to solve the numerical problem. Each system, whether wind tunnel or Computational Fluid Dynamics, possesses a higher level of accuracy in a specific area of the car. Therefore, the technicians must demonstrate a certain skill in combining the use of both tools to achieve a good final result.
We must indeed remember that the functionality of these important resources is jeopardized by this long process full of technical pitfalls. In Ferrari’s case, however, we can say that discrepancies have accumulated in this context. Even though they managed to make the solution work fairly harmoniously with the rest of the car body, the aerodynamic data are not as expected. Neither Red Bull nor the historic Italian team are currently the cars to beat, despite this solution potentially representing a real turning point.
This approach, within the current regulatory framework, was supposed to offer significant advantages that are currently absent. Former Ferrari technical director and Head of Aerodynamics Department Enrico Cardile led the “shark inlet” project but his departure from the Maranello team doesn’t seem to be linked to this aspect, having been contracted by Aston Martin for a very important role.
Regarding Ferrari, the future of the Italian side remains uncertain. We recently discussed the various solutions under consideration to correct the SF-24. The goal is to make sense of the 2024 Formula 1 championship because the season is still long, and laying the right foundations for the next campaign is crucial.
Additionally, one last piece of information related to the present. The Dutch Grand Prix is coming up and the round scheduled to take place at the 4.259-kilometre Circuit Zandvoort is always a very challenging scenario for the Maranello team. Ferrari has studied a lot in recent weeks and is convinced, as team principal Frederic Vasseur has confirmed, that the season can still be somewhat straightened out. The dream of the constructors’ championship is not abandoned. We won’t comment on this point and will wait for events to unfold. We can add that, technically, the Ferrari engineers believe they have understood many things and are confident they can resolve them within two races. It remains to be seen if this will be true.
Leave a Reply