Ferrari 2011 speculation

[Florio]

Hmm... Obviously some of the interview is just pre-season hype, but they have alot going for them in 2011, the F10 had a good base, and was decent in all areas. I wonder what Ferrari is going to do in terms of how aggressive their next car will be. Visually the F10 was a very simplistic car unlike the very intricate looking cars of the RB6 and MP4-25.

[donskar]

Hmm... Obviously some of the interview is just pre-season hype, but they have alot going for them in 2011, the F10 had a good base, and was decent in all areas. I wonder what Ferrari is going to do in terms of how aggressive their next car will be. Visually the F10 was a very simplistic car unlike the very intricate looking cars of the RB6 and MP4-25.

Assuming you are right (bolded portion above), then I would think it is easier to develop from a simple base than a complex one.

All interesting and harmless conjecture at this point, of course. Fry could be a wild card: how much (if any) did he bring with him from McLaren? And how much of that (if any) is applicable to the Ferrari base?

But why assume a development of the current base? IMHO M-B, McL, RBR, and Ferrari all have the resources to start from a clean sheet of paper. I doubt all would do so, but any one could.

[Florio]

Hmm... Obviously some of the interview is just pre-season hype, but they have alot going for them in 2011, the F10 had a good base, and was decent in all areas. I wonder what Ferrari is going to do in terms of how aggressive their next car will be. Visually the F10 was a very simplistic car unlike the very intricate looking cars of the RB6 and MP4-25.

Assuming you are right (bolded portion above), then I would think it is easier to develop from a simple base than a complex one.

All interesting and harmless conjecture at this point, of course. Fry could be a wild card: how much (if any) did he bring with him from McLaren? And how much of that (if any) is applicable to the Ferrari base?

But why assume a development of the current base? IMHO M-B, McL, RBR, and Ferrari all have the resources to start from a clean sheet of paper. I doubt all would do so, but any one could.

I'm not suggesting that building from a simple base would be a disadvantage, or that McLaren and co will have an advantage from an intricate design of this years cars onto next seasons cars. I was just wondering what direction Ferrari will take the F11 in, and a majority of the cars are evolutionary designs from season to season (barring major technical changes). I'm just merely speculating.

[SchumacherM]

Ferrari should stop playing it so conseravatively and go in all guns blazing and give it everything they've got. On the edge of the rules, last legal thing to do. That's the only way to success these days, not simplicity..

[raymondu999]

I think Fry could've been especially a boon for Ferrari next year. As I understand it McLaren have a rotating system where Fry and Lowe (?) rotate every year the design duties of the car. Fry gets the odd numbered years and Lowe, the even numbered years. He was due to design their 2011 contender...

[timbo]

By Ferrari naming convention it seems that the working project number is 662.
Who knows what would be the actual name.

[Raptor22]

try FA-11

[BorisTheBlade]

Scarbs twittered the following link a couple of hours ago. As he stated, we should take it with a grain of salt But interesting nevertheless. Maybe some spaniard could translate that for us?

http://www.marca.com/2010/12/18/motor/f ... 1292717303

[Pit]

Scarbs twittered the following link a couple of hours ago. As he stated, we should take it with a grain of salt But interesting nevertheless. Maybe some spaniard could translate that for us?

http://www.marca.com/2010/12/18/motor/f ... 1292717303

The winglets on the shark fin look.. staggering

[wesley123]

and illegal

[ajdavison2]

Very interesting article, however I think that under the 2011 regs then the shark fin detailed in those pictures would indeed be illegal. however for the 'wings' for want of a better word on the shark fin, I think they could be legal, just within the permitted zones of no bodywork touching the rear wing

[BorisTheBlade]

I know that the shark-fin would be illegal. But I would like to know why the author shaped the sidepods the way he did. Is there some logical reasoning behind or is it just because of the "funky look". That's why I would enjoy a translation.

[timbo]

There's no logical reason for radiator entries to be that big.
They would be no bigger than in 2009.
And as noted shark fin connected to rear wing would be illegal and also would hinder the function of movable flap.

[BorisTheBlade]

There's no logical reason for radiator entries to be that big.
They would be no bigger than in 2009.

The size was one thing I was wondering. Maybe the author had cooling of the KER-system in mind. But 2009 already prove that there shouldn't be a need for that large openings. But my interest was more about the shape. It's the kind of shape I was expecting for years but with the exception of the McLarens everyone else seems to continue with vertically shaped openings. So maybe he described what would be the advantages in the context of the new rules. Maybe increased airflow the diffusor to catch a bit of the DF-loss, blah, blah.

And as noted shark fin connected to rear wing would be illegal and also would hinder the function of movable flap.

No reason the write this for the n-th time in a row here. Nevertheless the (illegal) shark fin doesn't connect to the wing as you stated but is inside the forbidden area.

[marcush.]

the sketches show an inlet duct below the radiator inlet ..maybe for KERS.

the sideview has the two car names wrong as well...

maybe the guy accounts for the ferrari having trouble with engine temps in 2010 and just carried over the Mclaren inlets..