Ferrari SF15-T Pre-Launch Speculation Thread

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
Locked
Facts Only
188
Joined: 03 Jul 2014, 10:25

Re: Ferrari 666 Pre-Launch Speculation Thread

Post

Alexgtt wrote:
Sevach wrote:Split turbo doesn't mean "just like Mercedes did", if there is separation between the turbine and the compressor it's split.
Absolutely correct. The shaft connecting exhaust turbine from compressor turbine has to be ONE SHAFT according to the rules. There are no couplings/joints. Therefore the definition of split turbo in this case means turbos without compressor and exhaust bodies mounted on a common core.
Nope, you can have as many shaft parts as you like as long as they rotate about the same axis at the same speed.

Don't worry though I've only designed a couple of these turbos now so I'm sure I know hat I'm talking about.
"A pretentious quote taken out of context to make me look deep" - Some old racing driver

User avatar
lio007
312
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 23:03
Location: Austria

Re: Ferrari 666 Pre-Launch Speculation Thread

Post

So,Ferraris split-turbo-layout could look like this:
Image

wuzak
434
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: Ferrari 666 Pre-Launch Speculation Thread

Post

aleks_ader wrote:Also they could move MGU-H inside clutch bell with drop gear assembly... Like they did with ERS-K or MGU-K. Then you move oil tank in common position infront engine and redesign clutc&bell case to accommodate structure to the free space and its relocated "bigger" turbo assembly. Also that you coul literally feed ERS-H direct into ERS-K (+ CE off-course). A lot of IF...
I'm not sure that would be such a good move, because you're adding a side load into the turbo's shaft. The in-line solution would be better, with an epicyclic gearbox for speed reduction.

Alexgtt
8
Joined: 07 Feb 2011, 15:49
Location: UK

Re: Ferrari 666 Pre-Launch Speculation Thread

Post

Facts Only wrote:
Alexgtt wrote:
Sevach wrote:Split turbo doesn't mean "just like Mercedes did", if there is separation between the turbine and the compressor it's split.
Absolutely correct. The shaft connecting exhaust turbine from compressor turbine has to be ONE SHAFT according to the rules. There are no couplings/joints. Therefore the definition of split turbo in this case means turbos without compressor and exhaust bodies mounted on a common core.
Nope, you can have as many shaft parts as you like as long as they rotate about the same axis at the same speed.

Don't worry though I've only designed a couple of these turbos now so I'm sure I know hat I'm talking about.
Very good and noted however my comment wasn't a slight on anyone's reputation so why get so defensive? My main point remains............Ferrari had a split turbo.

User avatar
aleks_ader
90
Joined: 28 Jul 2011, 08:40

Re: Ferrari 666 Pre-Launch Speculation Thread

Post

wuzak wrote:
aleks_ader wrote:Also they could move MGU-H inside clutch bell with drop gear assembly... Like they did with ERS-K or MGU-K. Then you move oil tank in common position infront engine and redesign clutc&bell case to accommodate structure to the free space and its relocated "bigger" turbo assembly. Also that you coul literally feed ERS-H direct into ERS-K (+ CE off-course). A lot of IF...
I'm not sure that would be such a good move, because you're adding a side load into the turbo's shaft. The in-line solution would be better, with an epicyclic gearbox for speed reduction.
Excellent!

Off-course that would be the main problem, but who said it would be easy. :D Between friends we also discussed about ceramics ball bearings of the turbo shaft (they could easily handle 200 kRPM).

So the additional loading could be "redefined" with recalculation of size of bearings, adding clever damping&clutch elements and the redesign shaft diameter (to maintain the "centering" and avoid critical rotational RPM of the shaft).

But at the same time you make pros:
1. coke bottle is much more tighter and narrower (no compromise to make longer wheelbase or smaller turbine dia=30mm room to resize),
2. lowers the CofG, less stress on top of the cover (less weight to support complete exhaust and waste-gate assembly),
3. improve cooling of the ERSA and MGU assembly. Colling became more effective and easier to control (also you could reduce cooling of MGU-H unit or do reverse trade-off and for same car "heat footprint" reduce the weight of MGU)
4. possibility of the direct E-link toward ERS-K
5. Overall packaging of the back of the engine and clutch-bell became much more evenly distributed.
6. Exhaust could became much shorter, hence lees weight (200 mm for sure)


cons:
a. without clutched assembly the TURBO unit response could be seriously compromised due additional rotational inertia, lag could be even worse; adding the clutch make the assembly a heck more difficult + heavier
b. added additional side load due gear meshing =reduced life of the TURBO unit, redesign needed described above
c. additional weight due additional bearings, gearings and housing (but maybe that could even out with point no. 2)
d. add mesh losses, accordingly drop gear meshing max 5%
d. the oil tank need to be relocated, so 1 token for "oil ancillaries" is wasted
"And if you no longer go for a gap that exists, you're no longer a racing driver..." Ayrton Senna

wuzak
434
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: Ferrari 666 Pre-Launch Speculation Thread

Post

The oil tank can be relocated without needing the MGUH geared off the turbo's shaft.

The MGUH -> MGUK cannot be a direct electricallink - it has to go through the controller to match the required frequencies, voltage and current. This also enables the MGUK to be fed from both the MGUH and ES at the same time.

I'd suggest the best option would be to have the turbo and MGUH in the same way as the Renault. I assume that they cannot do the Merc style for some reason.

Xwang
29
Joined: 02 Dec 2012, 11:12

Re: Ferrari 666 Pre-Launch Speculation Thread

Post

The turbo compressor axis should be parallel to engine shaft or can be in any direction?

wuzak
434
Joined: 30 Aug 2011, 03:26

Re: Ferrari 666 Pre-Launch Speculation Thread

Post

Xwang wrote:The turbo compressor axis should be parallel to engine shaft or can be in any direction?
The turbine, compressor and connecting shaft all have to be co-axial and parallel to the crankshaft axis.

User avatar
Bomber_Pilot
20
Joined: 28 Jan 2011, 14:19

Re: Ferrari 666 Pre-Launch Speculation Thread

Post


User avatar
Hail22
144
Joined: 08 Feb 2012, 07:22

Re: Ferrari 666 Pre-Launch Speculation Thread

Post

Don't know if this has already been posted but i found this while trawling the net today:

Image

Interesting suspension geometry...could it be the 2015 Ferrari or just a fan made render?
If someone said to me that you can have three wishes, my first would have been to get into racing, my second to be in Formula 1, my third to drive for Ferrari.

Gilles Villeneuve

User avatar
FW17
165
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: Ferrari 666 Pre-Launch Speculation Thread

Post

Expecting the new Ferrari to be good.

The F14T with a bad engine was almost a match for the Red Bull car and this was with a nose which would be legal in 2015. If the engine is improved dramatically, it would be a good season for Ferrari.

Looking forward to them beating Red Bull for the first time since 2010

Moose
52
Joined: 03 Oct 2014, 19:41

Re: Ferrari 666 Pre-Launch Speculation Thread

Post

Hail22 wrote:Interesting suspension geometry...could it be the 2015 Ferrari or just a fan made render?
Looks very like Merc's 2014 geometry. I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was "both" - that is, that Ferrari have copied Merc's suspension geometry, and a fan has copied Merc's suspension geometry.

User avatar
Thunder
Moderator
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 09:50
Location: Germany

Re: Ferrari 666 Pre-Launch Speculation Thread

Post

That's a W05 painted Red.
Image
Last edited by Thunder on 26 Jan 2015, 10:20, edited 1 time in total.
turbof1 wrote: YOU SHALL NOT......STALLLLL!!!
#aerogollum

User avatar
Pedrolito
18
Joined: 01 Dec 2014, 17:07

Re: Ferrari 666 Pre-Launch Speculation Thread

Post

Thunders wrote:That's a W05 painted Red.
Yes, it's so close...

http://www.omnicorse.it/magazine/43190/ ... a-diapason

bonjon1979
30
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 17:16

Re: Ferrari 666 Pre-Launch Speculation Thread

Post

Pedrolito wrote:
Thunders wrote:That's a W05 painted Red.
Yes, it's so close...

http://www.omnicorse.it/magazine/43190/ ... a-diapason
It's not close. It is that same image of the Merc just painted red.

Locked