Assuming you are right (bolded portion above), then I would think it is easier to develop from a simple base than a complex one.Florio wrote: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 wrote:Assuming you are right (bolded portion above), then I would think it is easier to develop from a simple base than a complex one.Florio wrote: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.
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.
The winglets on the shark fin look.. staggeringBorisTheBlade wrote: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 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.timbo wrote:There's no logical reason for radiator entries to be that big.
They would be no bigger than in 2009.
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.timbo wrote: And as noted shark fin connected to rear wing would be illegal and also would hinder the function of movable flap.