Ferrari 667 Speculation Thread

[ringo]

Yes that is combustion pressure which looks about right.

The fuel pressure is where that 500 bar figure comes in. I was just clarifying the difference to prevent confusion to readers.

[bhall II]

Due to some weird regulation loop hole Ferrari managed to find.

RedBull doing that with Tororosso for years and now when Ferrari has the chance its called "weird regulation loop hole"?

It is one thing to find an avenue of testing, but it is another to actually have creative IDEAS, implement them and then test. I doubt if they really have brains on aerodynamics whose ideas they can perfected using this avenue. Red Bull, not sure how much they used the opportunity of Toro Rosso, had enormous strength and depth in aerodynamics. Mercedes, without any such avenues has managed to rival Red Bull (not outsmart). So, it's about ideas, not just about an avenue of testing. I would not be surprised if Ferrari remains a distant second or even third this year. In the past too, we have heard loads of BS in winter. They couldn't show a great progress through in season development last year. I hope this is not another crap like 70% new car of last year.

Death, taxes, GPR-A's enthusiastic disdain for Ferrari.

In context, the Red Bull/Toro Rosso comparison is flawed, because Ferrari's relationship with Haas, and the exploitation thereof, is actually more analogous to the relationship between Red Bull Racing and Red Bull Technology, which is where Adrian Newey really punches a clock.

As an official entrant to the FIA F1 World Championship, Red Bull Racing is bound by the sport's regulations. Bizarrely considered a "supplier" to Red Bull Racing, Red Bull Technology is largely immune - rather like Haas last year - and that relationship has been used extensively to help the team slip though the sport's ever-tightening regulatory noose.

On the old Resource Restriction Agreement...

Well if you look at the way the English accounts are presented, you’re looking at the gross turnover of each entity, whether it be Red Bull Technology or Red Bull Racing. Within the RRA we’ve complied fully with Red Bull Racing, which is the entrant to the Formula 1 World Championship. Red Bull Technology is a supplier to Red Bull Racing…

That's unlimited money (back when it supposedly mattered), unlimited wind tunnel time, and unlimited CFD.

I can say with absolute certainty that Red Bull's success up until 2014 - when the FIA closed the relevant loopholes - was predicated upon the high level of refinement afforded by greater access to design tools, because only a few of the team's designs were truly innovative in the strictest sense of the word. For instance, flexible bodywork and exhaust-blown diffusers were around before Red Bull was even a glint in Didi Mateschitz's eye.

Oh, and...

It was Ferrari who badly wanted the regulations to change as they were suffering with 2009 changes that made F1 aero intensive.

Ferrari opposes 'pathetic' engine changes

[FrukostScones]

....
Oh, and...

It was Ferrari who badly wanted the regulations to change as they were suffering with 2009 changes that made F1 aero intensive.

...

where is that from?

Is that true in your opinion?

[bhall II]

It guess I forgot to attribute that one. Corrected.

And it's my opinion that no team was more bitterly opposed to the current formula than Ferrari.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

....
Oh, and...

It was Ferrari who badly wanted the regulations to change as they were suffering with 2009 changes that made F1 aero intensive.

...

where is that from?

Is that true in your opinion?

Death, taxes, GPR-A's enthusiastic disdain for Ferrari.

How I wish that, the love of Ferrari supporters would have helped Ferrari win titles. Because it is not, let my disdain at least be the reason. [-o<

Ferrari wanted the change, but not V4 is what Luca is saying in the link that Ben has posted.

"Why couldn't we have a V6 turbo? We should not confuse affordable with cheap."
Read more at http://en.espnf1.com/ferrari/motorsport ... Ti5Abmr.99

Switch To V6 Engines Shows Ferrari Commitment But Bernie Still Unhappy

Here is his concern about Aero. They couldn't beat Red Bull who were aero masters, hence the change is needed, but the change is something that Ferrari wanted inline with their strength. Less Aero, more powerful engine. They were against the the idea of V4, they were against any more aero and wanted more powerful engine formula, which they thought they can prepare.
Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo warns Formula 1 over future rules

"What is not so good is that 90 per cent of performance is now based exclusively on aerodynamics and another negative is that ours is the only sport where no testing is allowed," said di Montezemolo.

[tranquility2k4]

What's funny is I'm sure prior to 2014, or during early 2014 (possibly at the car release phase), James Allison said in an interview that he didn't think engines would be a big differentiator and that he expected no more than about 2 tenths between the different power units - oh how wrong he was then. Clearly that's why Ferrari went for a super tight car in 2014 and didn't realise what they'd lose in terms of engine performance.

[ME4ME]

What's funny is I'm sure prior to 2014, or during early 2014 (possibly at the car release phase), James Allison said in an interview that he didn't think engines would be a big differentiator and that he expected no more than about 2 tenths between the different power units - oh how wrong he was then. Clearly that's why Ferrari went for a super tight car in 2014 and didn't realise what they'd lose in terms of engine performance.

I'm skeptical to what you're saying is true, do you have a source for that?
Also the context is lacking, for instance what season was he talking about? If he said "in a couple of years" then his statement can still be very much correct.

[bhall II]

Context is important.

Here is his concern about Aero. They couldn't beat Red Bull who were aero masters, hence the change is needed, but the change is something that Ferrari wanted inline with their strength. Less Aero, more powerful engine. They were against the the idea of V4, they were against any more aero and wanted more powerful engine formula, which they thought they can prepare.
Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo warns Formula 1 over future rules

"We can be very patient but there are precise conditions for us to continue with our work. We race not just for the publicity it brings us but above all to carry out advanced research aimed at all aspects of our road cars: engine, chassis, mechanical components, electronics, materials and aerodynamics, to such an extent that the technology transfer from track to road has grown exponentially over the past twenty years."

He stressed that what he saw as restrictive, overly-aero-dependent, rules, the testing ban and the limit of two cars per team were Ferrari's main concerns.

"What is not so good is that 90 per cent of performance is now based exclusively on aerodynamics and another negative is that ours is the only sport where no testing is allowed," said di Montezemolo.

"We are building cars, not helicopters, rockets or planes. Sure, we must not go back to the excesses of a few years ago, but neither should we be in a position where we can't provide opportunities for the youngsters we are bringing on in the Ferrari Driver Academy.

"Finally, there's the issue of the third car, which mark my words, we support not so much for our own interests but more for those of the sport in general. We believe the interest of the fans, media and sponsors could increase if there is a bigger number of competitive cars on track rather than cars that are two or three seconds off the pace, being lapped after just a few laps.

"As an example, remember in 1961 Giancarlo Baghetti won the French Grand Prix at Reims with a privately entered Ferrari. There you are, it would be nice one day in the future to see one of our cars running in American colours, or Chinese, or maybe those of Abu Dhabi."

[GPR-A duplicate2]

But I guess, that is a problem right? On one hand they kept denouncing aero and kept giving their reason as the relevance to their road car business and on the other, they kept chasing that guy called Newey. They keep going to all the named engineers of Aero, even brought consultants from Avionics, but haven't managed to get a hold of it and lead the field. That is the point, there is something fundamentally wrong. They fired Aldo Costa and he is flourishing in Mercedes (although not an aero expert). A much more understated guy like Geoff Willis is leading Mercedes successfully on their aero philosophies.

[bhall II]

Must be something in the water.

[ecapox]

Must be something in the water.

Flint, Michigan?

[giantfan10]

But I guess, that is a problem right? On one hand they kept denouncing aero and kept giving their reason as the relevance to their road car business and on the other, they kept chasing that guy called Newey. They keep going to all the named engineers of Aero, even brought consultants from Avionics, but haven't managed to get a hold of it and lead the field. That is the point, there is something fundamentally wrong. They fired Aldo Costa and he is flourishing in Mercedes (although not an aero expert). A much more understated guy like Geoff Willis is leading Mercedes successfully on their aero philosophies.

so diagnose the silver arrows problems when they were not winning championships.
The Mercedes aero philosophy is : more powerful engine with a more powerfull quali Mode run more downforce than the average competitor while still being fast enough to compete on the straights... pretty simple actually.
listen to fans of Mercedes and they are all geniuses on that team when the truth is they spent more money and did a better job on their engine and its packaging while the rest of the manufacturers have to play catch up with 400 pound weights around their ankles in a 100 metre sprint
kudus to Mercedes for getting it right they are getting good returns on the money they spent

[bhall II]

Flint, Michigan?

Flint's water just comes with an extra dose of Freedom™ these days.

[f1316]

Can't we all just agree that all the teams will push for regulations that bring about, and exploit loopholes that allow, what they think is the greatest chance of their own success (in one form or another).

This is true of Ferrari, Mercedes, red bull - and frankly every other f1 team as well; some just have a greater ability to achieve it than others.

That's why none of them should have any say in the 'formulation' of the formula. Rather, the fia should simply aware of the importance of keeping them in the sport and that should inform their decisions.

To that end, that's why I believe regulations should be written to achieve what the fia wants but not specify 'how' - e.g. You want engines that can complete a race distance with 100 kg of fuel, figure out a way to do that .

You could argue that the result would have been performance even more spaced out - and/or convergence on the same solution - but I think this still a better philosophy for regulation making which would allow the teams to pursue whatever technologies they feel are the most suitable/relevant (and thereby, I suppose, 'prove' which gives the best performance and hence inform the consumers' road car choices).

[bhall II]

To that end, that's why I believe regulations should be written to achieve what the fia wants but not specify 'how' - e.g. You want engines that can complete a race distance with 100 kg of fuel, figure out a way to do that .

That's more or less how it works now.

The text below is excerpted from the framework for the current formula as published by the FIA in May of 2007 - while Ferrari was en route to winning both Championships, I might add.




The whole thing is very frustrating to read, because it makes clear that nearly every problem the sport faces today was foreseen but ignored.