Has the F150 nicked the RB7's front wing?

[andrew]

Well it seems that Alonso isn't too happy about the media being interested in the new front wing.

Alonso annoyed after media’s interest in new wing

[bigpat]

The old, if you can't beat them, join them.......

I think Ferrari would have built and tested it to try and investigate the Red Bull approach. As CFD doesn't simulate turbulent flow very well, track testing it is the best way. Of course the architecture downstream of the wing is different to the RB7, but now they would have a better idea of how the wing works, and what is needed behind it to optimise it. The fact that the Ferrari can't run it wing as low as the RB7 ( as they run much less rake), might work against them, but I suppose you could run nose down in practise for a couple of laps just to see, even though the aero balance would be ugly, I would imagine.......

The wing as shown might not be a boost in speed, but it all will feed into the 2012 program.

Ferrari to go radical in 2012..... Haven't seen a "radical" car win championships for a looong time....

[madbrad]

So instead of being shaped like a tree, fanning out from the base, F1's evolutionary map more resembles a pyramid, broad at the base and tapering at its top to a single point.

Like Bernie's head.

[scotty]

One team can't just copy another's parts directly and expect that they will work to the same level (as all aero parts are intrinsically linked), so there is obviously some other logic going on here. Perhaps Ferrari just made the most efficient front wing they physically could, and it happens that Red Bull already found the most efficient design possible at this time hence why they're similar!

Either way, lots of teams already run a similar configuration. Ferrari's hasn't actually changed that much from Singapore if you go and look at pictures... Williams, Lotus, Mercedes all have a similar setup, and the list goes on. Even HRT use this design feature. It's all been copied and developed from that Brawn front wing that did so much damage in early 2009.

[Denthúl]

One team can't just copy another's parts directly and expect that they will work to the same level (as all aero parts are intrinsically linked), so there is obviously some other logic going on here. Perhaps Ferrari just made the most efficient front wing they physically could, and it happens that Red Bull already found the most efficient design possible at this time hence why they're similar!

According to Adam Cooper (I think it was him, I can't keep track of all the people I follow on Twitter!) it was more about understanding how the Red Bull works, how the airflow travels over the car and how the front wing they use influences this. Of course, they'd be able to do this quicker, for only $100m and a photocopier...

[scotty]

One team can't just copy another's parts directly and expect that they will work to the same level (as all aero parts are intrinsically linked), so there is obviously some other logic going on here. Perhaps Ferrari just made the most efficient front wing they physically could, and it happens that Red Bull already found the most efficient design possible at this time hence why they're similar!

According to Adam Cooper (I think it was him, I can't keep track of all the people I follow on Twitter!) it was more about understanding how the Red Bull works, how the airflow travels over the car and how the front wing they use influences this. Of course, they'd be able to do this quicker, for only $100m and a photocopier...

I would have expected they could have figured that out to a pretty large extent in the windtunnel rather than running a completely experimental part at a race weekend...!

[Denthúl]

One team can't just copy another's parts directly and expect that they will work to the same level (as all aero parts are intrinsically linked), so there is obviously some other logic going on here. Perhaps Ferrari just made the most efficient front wing they physically could, and it happens that Red Bull already found the most efficient design possible at this time hence why they're similar!

According to Adam Cooper (I think it was him, I can't keep track of all the people I follow on Twitter!) it was more about understanding how the Red Bull works, how the airflow travels over the car and how the front wing they use influences this. Of course, they'd be able to do this quicker, for only $100m and a photocopier...

I would have expected they could have figured that out to a pretty large extent in the windtunnel rather than running a completely experimental part at a race weekend...!

A wind tunnel can only do so much, though, right? One of the apparent gains was that rapid changes of direction were much better, although the wing had very little impact in other areas on its own. I'll see if I can find it.

[scotty]

You are correct in saying that about the windtunnel, but with a supposedly highly experimental i don't see what they'd really gain from running it on an 'outdated' chassis, given what i said about connecting airflow etc. They'd surely be better off using a windtunnel/cfd and next year's car in terms of gaining info that will truly be relevant... Still, post that article if you can find it

[bigpat]

I wouldn't say the chassis is "outdated". The Ferrari is still a competitive car, though it has a narrower speed window than the RB7 and lesser extent the McLaren.

Track testing is still the best validator of parts. Windtunnels and particularly CFD only tell you so much, they are only validation tools, they don't design the parts themselves....

Track testing would indicate things like any change in tyre loading, dynamic changes in balance, response on change of direction, sensitivity etc. You can't accurately model these sorts of things. I'm sure they would have applied Flow Vis paint on the car too.

Sometimes the aero guys can lead thing astray.

It would be understandable if they professed X% more downforce and Y% less drag, only for no difference on the clock. In 1999, the Williams had more and more bargeboards solutions on it. These are said to be very critical to handling. At a test, Ralf Schumacher had one come off. When he pitted, he was asked if he felt the difference, he answered no. The data showed no difference in lap time. They removed them altogether, and, again no difference. Apparently Patrick Head wasn't amused. Next race onwards, no bargeboards......

In 93' Johnny Herbert drove for Lotus, who were struggling. At Monza, with low downforce setup, the car was at the front of the midfield. Bouyed by that result, they expected good results at the next race at Estoril, a high downforce track, but they were down the back again. They stayed on for a 2 day test to try and sort the car. Nothing they tried helped much. Then as an "out of left-field" idea, it was suggested to try the Monza wings even though it was miles outside the required downforce range for Estoril. Sure enough, they bolted on the wings, and lapped 2.5 sec a lap quicker.....

Anyway, Ferrari have nothing to lose. If the wing had proven to be better, then it was worth it....

[stonemonkey]

Just watching FP1, seeing Massas wing made me think of Vettels wing in the moments before he hit Button in Spa last year.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

The RB7's missing Monza wing ...missing no more. It seems it was pulled from the car in pieces by overly exuberant fans.

Just watching FP1, seeing Massas wing made me think of Vettels wing in the moments before he hit Button in Spa last year.

That had not occurred to me but you are spot-on. Ferrari only nicked the idea but not the complete details. Now they are working out the kinks in the same way RBR did, through trial and error.

[andrew]

Spanish fan has Webber’s Monza wing.

Must have nicked it with the aim to help Alonso but I'll wager that Alonso will claim to know nothing about it (despite several e-mails in his inbox) until he is granted immunity and will then spill the beans under the guise of "Wittness X". Flappy Front Wing-gate anyone?