Ferrari @ monaco

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Jersey Tom
Jersey Tom
166
Joined: 29 May 2006, 20:49
Location: Huntersville, NC

Post

Some tires.. develop peak force at higher sllip angles under high load. Some are the opposite. This combined with your chassis geometry and course layout determine what kind of Ackermann and static toe you want to run. You can even have crazyness where the car starts pro Ackermann at small steered angle and progresses to reverse at lock.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.

User avatar
pRo
0
Joined: 29 May 2006, 09:08

Post

Jersey Tom wrote:Oh ffs a slightly longer wheelbase isn't an issue.

Suffice to say I'm sure the Scuderia knows what its doing!
If it wasn't an issue at all, how come all the teams don't run it?

It's not like Ferrari has the only guys in the world who could think of a longer wheelbase, while the other teams have never even thought of that.

I'm sure it has pros and cons, just like any other detail in the cars. I'd think the cons come out on twisty circuits, like Monaco. But that's just my guess.

Have to agree with your last sentence though. I'm also sure they now what they are doing. And I'm also sure they know where they get the most out of it and where it slows them down. I'm sure they estimated that this is the best overall setup.
Formula 1, 57, died Thursday, Sept. 13, 2007
Born May 13, 1950, in Silverstone, United Kingdom
Will be held in the hearts of millions forever
Rest In Peace, we will not forget you

modbaraban
modbaraban
0
Joined: 05 Apr 2007, 17:44
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Post

pRo wrote:If it wasn't an issue at all, how come all the teams don't run it?
Atually Renault had rather long wheelbase already in 2005. McLaren extended their wheelbase for 2007 (easy to spot the difference visually) etc.
www.f1technical.net wrote:2006 Honda RA106 - Wheelbase: 3140mm
2007 Ferrari F2007 - Wheelbase: 3135 mm
2007 BMW Sauber F1.07 - Wheelbase: 3110 mm
2006 BMW Sauber F1.06 - Wheelbase: 3110mm
2005 Sauber Petronas C24 - Wheelbase: 3100 mm
2007 Renault R27 - Wheelbase: 3100mm
2006 Renault R26 - Wheelbase: 3100mm
2005 Renault R25 - Wheelbase: 3100mm
2007 Toyota TF107 - Wheelbase: 3090mm
2006 Toyota TF106B - Wheelbase: 3090mm
2006 Ferrari 248 F1 - Wheelbase: 3050mm
no data on McLaren unfortunately.

Image

Seas
Seas
0
Joined: 15 Feb 2007, 03:59
Location: Croatia

Post

Tom wrote:I can't find it on wiki but the basics of convensional ackerman steering is that when you turn the wheels of your road car the wheel on the inside turns more than the wheel on the outside. F1 cars use anti-ackerman which means the outside wheel turns more the inside wheel. Don't ask me why.
That kind of setup allow F1 cars to have faster and better entrance to turn and less slip of the front end of the car, because during entering and trough the turn, lot of weight is transferred on the front outside wheel (centrifugal force and breaking). This setup is different for every circuit.
http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/index.html
Croatia, the small country for big relax

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Post

Before Monaco, there was a consensus of opinion that Ferrari's longer wheelbase car would like Monaco the least. This appears to be true. But the car is designed for the entire season, optimized for faster tracks. Ferrari may have took a hit on this track, but it will pay off in the future, especially at faster tracks.

waynes
waynes
1
Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 23:23
Location: Manchester

Post

when kimi + felipe run away with the north american races, everyone will forget this weekend

User avatar
m3_lover
0
Joined: 26 Jan 2006, 07:29
Location: St.Catharines, Ontario, Canada

Post

waynes wrote:when kimi + felipe run away with the north american races, everyone will forget this weekend
Im afraid you are right on this, Ferrari knew monaco would be there worst circut to drive this year...I expect Ferrari to win both NA races
Simon: Nils? You can close in now. Nils?
John McClane: [on the guard's phone] Attention! Attention! Nils is dead! I repeat, Nils is dead, ----head. So's his pal, and those four guys from the East German All-Stars, your boys at the bank? They're gonna be a little late.
Simon: [on the phone] John... in the back of the truck you're driving, there's $13 billon dollars worth in gold bullion. I wonder would a deal be out of the question?
John McClane: [on the phone] Yeah, I got a deal for you. Come out from that rock you're hiding under, and I'll drive this truck up your ass.

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

ketanpaul wrote:I would really like someone to give a technical perspective on the longer wheelbase issue about monaco. Anyone??? :lol: :lol: :lol:
First, check this two "cars", seen from the top:

Image

The one on the left has all the heavy things (blue) located in the center, while the one on the right has all that stuff on the corners. Both cars (and their heavy things) weight the same and their centers of gravity are at the center of the cars.

Both cars will transfer their weight in the same manner when braking or cornering and their roll angles will be the same.

However, the rotational inertia of the car on the left is smaller: that car can turn or change direction faster than the one on the right. The inertia against rotation (that I'll call "Ir" from now on) is the sum of all the masses that form the car multiplied by the square of their distances to the axis of rotation.

So, rotational inertia doesn't change how much the chassis moves, but it changes how FAST it does. It's proportional to the square of the distances, so a longer car will have an Ir that grows, crudely speaking, to the square of its length. That's no good for Monaco.

Notice that the Ir has can be calculated for the three axes of rotation. The car on the left has lower Ir for the three axes: this means that not only will rotate faster, it also will roll (laterally) and pitch (longitudinally) faster. Clearly, there is a compromise there: you want the car to rotate fast, but you don't want a car that rolls on the curves or pitches on the bumps too fast: it will "ruin" your aerodynamics. Ergo, a longer car will keep it's attitude into the wind better than a shorter one. That's good at Indianapolis (mainly, because of the "sole surviving" high-speed corner in F1 there).
Last edited by Ciro Pabón on 30 May 2007, 11:06, edited 2 times in total.
Ciro

modbaraban
modbaraban
0
Joined: 05 Apr 2007, 17:44
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Post

Ciro Pabón wrote:So, rotational inertia doesn't change how much the chassis moves, but it changes how FAST it does. It's proportional to the square of the distances, so a longer car will have an Ir that grows, crudely speaking, to the square of its length. That's no good for Monaco.
…and trying to lessen that issue Ferrari probably tried to move the ballast closer to the center which caused them to understeer as a result, right?

User avatar
ketanpaul
0
Joined: 08 Mar 2005, 18:50
Location: New Delhi, India

Post

OK, when you turn the front wheels the car rotates around the rear ones, this increases the turning circle and in this case also means the car must turn in later to avoid clipping the inside of the corner with the rear, this is why lorrys and long vehicles swing out at a junction before turning i
Does that also mean that the ferraris had a little different racing line compared to other cars? and also, does it call for a slightly different driving style in a circuit like monaco? :lol: :lol: thx :lol: :lol:

Jersey Tom
Jersey Tom
166
Joined: 29 May 2006, 20:49
Location: Huntersville, NC

Post

Seriously guys.. how can you say "Well Ferrari has a longer wheelbasaes that must be why theyre slower." In an event where you can vary..

-Tire pressures
-Running stickers (dumb IMO) or scrubbed tires
-Static camber
-Static toe
-Static Ackermann
-Dynamic Ackermann (steer-steer)
-Spring rates
-Damper rates
-Rollbar rates
-3rd spring rates
-All sorts of aero download properties
-Fuel load and strategy
-Tire strategy
-Fuel mix
-Ride height
-Brake duct sizing
-Cooling duct sizing
-Final drive ratio
-Internal gearing
-Differential settings
-Etc etc etc with varying track temperature and conditions

How can you just point to wheelbase? For the McLarens to be THAT much faster you can damn well bet that they had a number of things dialed in better than the rest of the field, not just vehicle geometry. At any remotely professional level of racingg its never *one* thing that makes you faster. Its a summation of say 15 things each of which giving you a 0.01% advantage over your competition. Individually they seem almost negligable but summed together they give you that tenth of a second faster lap time that murders everyone else over the course of a race.

If the Ferrari wheelbase is longer than the rest of the field and that was the killer, then why wouldn't the rest of the field blast past Massa and Kimi?

Ciro - while larger polar moments of inertia require more of a yaw moment to 'turn in'.. its entirely possible that the longer chassis gives the front tires more of a moment arm to act on that gives great overall angular acceleration (say 1% higher MOI and 2% higher yaw moment).

We don't know more than 5% of the stuff we'd need to kknow to really draw a conclusion from this stuff and I doubt McLaren is going to let the cat out of the bag on what all they did.

That said its also plausible that the Ferrari engineers knew that they'd have to take a hit at Monaco and will run away with the rest of the races. Who knows.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

modbaraban wrote:…and trying to lessen that issue Ferrari probably tried to move the ballast closer to the center which caused them to understeer as a result, right?
An F1 car has a the engine on the rear, so, if you assume most of the ballast is there to counteract that heavy rear, yes.

Understeering is a little bit more complicated. First, some "Ackerman" explanation, for the sake of it:

Here you have a car in a neutral turning, no oversteer nor understeer. Notice that for the four "axes" (in blue) of the wheels to intersect at one point, the front tyres have to point in slightly different directions (they are not parallel). This divergence is the Ackerman steering. It was invented back when people used carriages.

Image

Now, when a car is understeering, the geometry is different. If you point the wheels in the same direction, the car rotates around a different point (the point marked with an U).

Image

The slip angle of the front wheels is the angle between the blue and green lines. The tyres are not pointing exactly "into" the curve, they have to slip to take the curve. What you feel is that the front of the car "slips away" from the curve. You expected the car to turn around point N, but it's turning around point U.

To take the curve with the same radius of the previous image, you have to turn the steering wheel more.

As Modbaraban points out (sort of), this happens when there is not enough weight on the front tyres. Notice that it depends on the ratio of front to rear weight. If the front tyres are light, they cannot provide you with the same friction force as the rear tyres. Thus, on a front-driven car, with a frontal engine, you wish ballast on the rear; the opposite of a car with a rear engine.

Now, on a car with oversteer, the rear wheels are light and they slide before the frontal ones. Here is the image:

Image

Notice that the car turns aroun the point O. This means that the car rotates faster than it did on the first image: the radius is less. Notice also that the front right tyre has developed slippage: the car cannot turn around two different points, the four "axes" have to coincide at point O.

Finally, on a power slide, here is the image:

Image

The rear wheels have extreme slip angles, the front wheels have slip angles opposite of their real direction (countersteering).

Finally, here is an image of the force vs the slip angle: as you can see, with a little slip angle you develop maximum force (the peak of the curve). If you continue to "slip" the tyres, the force diminishes. As Jersey Tom explains, the shape of this curve depends on the tyre properties.

It's the same when you slip on your shoes: up to some force, you have maximum support for your feet. If you go over that force, well... you slip.

Image
Last edited by Ciro Pabón on 30 May 2007, 11:09, edited 3 times in total.
Ciro

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

Jersey Tom wrote:Ciro - while larger polar moments of inertia require more of a yaw moment to 'turn in'.. its entirely possible that the longer chassis gives the front tires more of a moment arm to act on that gives great overall angular acceleration (say 1% higher MOI and 2% higher yaw moment).
Well, the arm increases, that's right, linearly. The moment of inertia increases by the square of the distance (assuming, and that's a big assumption, that you cannot "concentrate" by other means the weight back "into" the car). For example, if you devise some stronger, new carbon composite that weighs less, then you can have a longer wheel base "for free". The better your "beam" (the chassis) is, the longer wheel base you can use, keeping rotational inertia the same.

The longer wheel base also diminishes the weight transfer, BTW. So, it's entirely possible to find solutions as Ferrari performance this semester (not only at Monaco!) proves.

I totally agree with you, we don't know d*ck. Of course, if you see what I wrote, I never attributed any advantage nor disadvantage to a longer wheel base. I merely explained the (super-basic!) principles.

However, from the beginning, what was strange of longer wheel bases is the fact that physics are the same for everybody: you cannot turn as fast in a Cadillac Eldorado as in a Mini Morris, going to extremes.

What I'm sure is that at Monaco suspension efficiency and tyre use influences a lot more than aerodynamics. That's why you'll find at many forums the same answer: "longer wheel base". This means (probably! this is engineering. :)) we're all wrong.

It could also be, as Jersey Tom points out, besides a lot of things, a genuine advantage for McLaren in the last round of developments.

As a matter of fact, I believe a little luck influenced the result. After all, it's Monaco and there are a lot of casinos there. ;) Kimi has some jinx there, let me tell you. There is another thing: as Alonso's diminishing advantage (from 9 to 3 seconds) proves, any missed overtaking opportunity weights a lot.

I've been wondering if the longer wheel bases are there to give the cars less pitch sensitivity (that's what I said before about the aerodynamic attitude, meaning that wing angles into the wind are less influenced by bumps and lateral rolling): probably this counteracts any detrimental effects of rotational inertia.

After all, you guys know the answer to complicated questions: 42. Or better yet:

"...I am at a rough estimate, thirty billion times more intelligent than you. Let me give you an example. Think of a number, any number." [said Marvin]
"Er, five" said the mattress.
"Wrong," said Marvin. "You see?"


Sorry for the long explanation about under/oversteer: I know most of you are bored by it. It's like explaining to a chef how to fry an egg... :)
Last edited by Ciro Pabón on 30 May 2007, 11:12, edited 1 time in total.
Ciro

mahesh248
mahesh248
0
Joined: 05 Mar 2007, 12:05
Location: India

Post

Great explanation ....thats awesome man ..... but their mite also be other answers and questions to what happen to ferrari in monaco ...wheel base mite have being one of it issue ...

User avatar
mep
29
Joined: 11 Oct 2003, 15:48
Location: Germany

Post

I also made a CAD drawing on the same principal like Ciro
and messured the steering angles for different wheelbases.
I took a guessed corner diameter of 9 Meters.

The Ferrari 248 F1 with a wheelbase of 3050m had
round one degree less stering angle on the inner and outher wheel
than the Ferrari F2007 with a wheelbase of 3135m.

I would say this is a very big difference when they are driving on the
limit of the tyre grip. I would say the F2007 has to take
the corner slower because you have to steer more and get earlier
over max tyre grip.
So multiply this disadvantage by the amount of low speed corners in Monaco.


But we have to see this in the right context.

Whats the usual corner radius at Monaco?
Only corners with small radius count, because the smaller the radius
the bigger the difference between the steering angles.

Do they really drive on the limit of the tyre in those corners?
If not, than is the diverence in steering angle not importand.
And I doupt they are driving on the limit of slip on the front wheels.
I think it's more the rear wheels who are on the limit.