2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.
Locked
bhall II
473
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 20:15

Re: 2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

Post

...MP4-31 might be a good car but seems like they didn't learn enough since it really doesn't like a pole sitter
And that's where MP4-31 and I disagree: I love pole sitters. (Not quite as often as I'd like, though.)

mika vs michael
-1
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 01:35

Re: 2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

Post

ok...but they were p1 in Practice3...it can't be that bad... or can it be?
"It is necessary to relax your muscles when you can. Relaxing your brain is fatal." Stirling Moss

I tried this and I had understeer, I tried that and I had oversteer, at the end of the corner I just run out of talent

Fer.Fan
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2015, 21:31

Re: 2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

Post

Red Bull almost 1 sec quicker then Ferrari in Monaco qualify...

Problem for Ferrari is that they are just average in all areas. Car in not top class in any area, engine, down force, chassis...
They can forget any victory's or poles this season. They are just not fast or good enough.

nokivasara
2
Joined: 27 Nov 2014, 20:53

Re: 2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

Post

I think Ferrari is as good as they deserve to be, they had a good run in the 00's but other than that we have to go back to the 70's and early 80's to find WCC titles.
Seems like they are always one step away from whoever the #1 team is for the moment.

User avatar
ME4ME
79
Joined: 19 Dec 2014, 16:37

Re: 2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

Post

bhall II wrote:(Transitioned from the car thread)

...with the recent speculation that Ferrari is due to test a hybrid car of sorts for Pirelli in July, I'm hoping it means the team has, or is about to, turn its attention to next year. SF16-H isn't a bad car, but I don't think it can win the Championship, because the chassis isn't quite there.

I keep going back to the team's inability to pass the crash test with the intended nose and wonder how much of the rest of the car is similarly compromised.
I don't share the general view in this thread that there is something wrong with the SF16-H's nose structure, or chassis for that matter. Actually, Ferrari has been surprisingly quick at stages throughout the weekend. The performance potential is there. I think they aren't that far away from Mercedes overall, on any track, this season.

There seems to be two major problems however: consistent failure to extract maximal performance from the tyres, and unreliability.

We all know how a team which is able to manage tyres in an optimal way can gain an advantage. Lotus 2012 being the prime example. The opposite can be true too, which seems to be the case for Ferrari. They just seem totally lost on setup.

f1316
78
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 18:36

Re: 2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

Post

Exactly - what bhall said.

User avatar
Vasconia
6
Joined: 30 Aug 2012, 10:45
Location: Basque Country

Re: 2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

Post

mika vs michael wrote:ok...but they were p1 in Practice3...it can't be that bad... or can it be?
As it has been already mentioned the team is lost with the set up. Moreover the car seems to be extremely sensitive with changes in the track temperatures.

User avatar
proteus
22
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 14:35

Re: 2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

Post

Im somewhat surprised by excuses everyone is searching for their poor performance in previus race and todays qualifying. Even Vettel is becoming a whiny character complaining on the radio...The fact of the matter is that their chasis is aparently somwhere 4th on the grid, behind RedBull, Mercedes and i think that STR too. Not to mention there is atleast 1 of their engines breaking down in their cars or cars of the customers in every weekend. I must say that im really really curious what kind of sorcery is being done in RedBull, that they are faster with so much weaker engine.
If i would get the money to start my own F1 team, i would revive Arrows

mika vs michael
-1
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 01:35

Re: 2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

Post

It was apparent that Ferrari had poor traction in Sector 3 in barcelona. And it seems it suffers the same way in Monaco. Track surface may be different but high temperatures were also present in Monaco as well. The car instead of going forward it goes backwards...
"It is necessary to relax your muscles when you can. Relaxing your brain is fatal." Stirling Moss

I tried this and I had understeer, I tried that and I had oversteer, at the end of the corner I just run out of talent

bhall II
473
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 20:15

Re: 2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

Post

ME4ME wrote:I don't share the general view in this thread that there is something wrong with the SF16-H's nose structure, or chassis...
For me, the issue isn't the nose itself as much as it's what the nose may or may not represent.

Some general background info...
Interview with McLaren's Matt Morris, May 11, 2016 wrote:What does [the nose] do?
Like the front wing, the nosebox plays a key role in dictating airflow over the rest of the car. It’s also a deformable crash structure (progressively deforming in the event of impact), meaning that it must be tested and approved by the FIA before being allowed to race.

“The nosebox is quite difficult to develop – now that every team has gone to these super-short noseboxes, it’s really hard to pass the FIA’s crash test. So you’d only really choose to embark on a new nose concept if you’d found a pretty substantial aero gain.

How long does it take to make?
“Once you’ve made the decision on the nose, you design the rest of the car around it. After that, it’s not really worth changing, and the rules have matured enough for there to be little incremental benefit in making a change.”
It was reported prior to the season that SF16-H's intended nose couldn't pass the required crash test. By default, that means the nose on the car right now is a compromise solution, and it's one that affects everything else on the car to some degree - unless, for some weird reason, the car was actually designed around a compromised nose.

The implication is that the team was unable to come up with a structural design that's light enough to be competitive while also retaining the properties needed to pass the test. By extension, it's very difficult for me to believe that problems like that are isolated; on the contrary, it points to structural design and/or manufacturing woes that have the potential to --- up everything.

Incidentally, one of the hallmarks of poor chassis rigidity is setup difficulty, because undue flexing introduces variables that are difficult, if not impossible, to control.
Last edited by bhall II on 30 May 2016, 16:29, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
GPR-A duplicate2
64
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 09:00

Re: 2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

Post

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 95#p626064 https://twitter.com/spontonc/status/703571836659965953 https://twitter.com/Gianludale27/status ... 7375128576
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 95#p626071
bhall II wrote:"According to Turrini, the current nose of the SF16-H is not the final version, but probably it won't be changed."

That sentence makes my head hurt.

According to Turrini, the current nose of the SF16-H is not the final version, but probably it's the final version.
I would like to assume that, if they made a decision, not to pursue the nose that failed the crash tests and continue with the current one (back then), it was probably because the difference might not have been quite large.
They weren't as much lost as they have been since Spain and had much better car up until Spain. So, it was not that it was a bad car from the start either.
The situation is looking worse than it would have looked, for the fact that Red Bull has jumped leaps ahead.
proteus wrote:Im somewhat surprised by excuses everyone is searching for their poor performance in previus race and todays qualifying. Even Vettel is becoming a whiny character complaining on the radio.
Just in the second year! Isn't he SUPPOSED to be the "Neo" that they badly needed? Someone who MOTIVATES people around and gets the best out of them? That's why they wanted to GET RID OF Alonso.

f1316
78
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 18:36

Re: 2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

Post

I understand the logic above re the nose - and it could well be the root cause - but the dramatic shifts we're seeing in competitiveness seem to be entirely tyre related.

In that regard, Ferrari have not seemed to be particularly adept for a long time. In my opinion this goes all the way back to 2007/2008 when there was a distinct pattern of having 'better race pace' than the McLaren, who were relatively closer in qualifying. It's my conjecture that the 'better race pace' is exactly 'worse quali pace' - I.e. Not able to bring them quickly up to temperature on a single lap.

And we've seen a similar pattern ever since - the Ferrari 'kind' on its tyres during long stints which had certain advantages but was ultimately an inability to work them hard enough to begin with.

I believe Ferrari now find themselves with a car with relatively more downforce than in recent years - and that the car is essentially fast and only a tenth or two from Mercedes if everything working correctly- but they're finding issues with how it (inc new type of suspension) moves in and out of the fine Pirelli operating window. It's a new problem for them and they haven't fully understood the kinematics.

Could be that part of not understanding stems from the compromise made on the nose; then again, I'm reminded of James Allison saying a number of times how he doesn't believes the variance in nose design has a massive influence on car performance. The whole thing reminds me a bit of the red bull last year which was a fundamentally good chassis but it took them half a season to figure out why it wasn't performing as expected.

User avatar
Juzh
161
Joined: 06 Oct 2012, 08:45

Re: 2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

Post

GPR-A wrote:
proteus wrote:Im somewhat surprised by excuses everyone is searching for their poor performance in previus race and todays qualifying. Even Vettel is becoming a whiny character complaining on the radio.
Just in the second year! Isn't he SUPPOSED to be the "Neo" that they badly needed? Someone who MOTIVATES people around and gets the best out of them? That's why they wanted to GET RID OF Alonso.
Why are you taking the bait here?

User avatar
ME4ME
79
Joined: 19 Dec 2014, 16:37

Re: 2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

Post

bhall II wrote:
ME4ME wrote:I don't share the general view in this thread that there is something wrong with the SF16-H's nose structure, or chassis...
For me, the issue isn't the nose itself as much as it's what the nose may or may not represent.

Some general background info...
Interview with McLaren's Matt Morris, May 11, 2016 wrote:What does [the nose] do?
Like the front wing, the nosebox plays a key role in dictating airflow over the rest of the car. It’s also a deformable crash structure (progressively deforming in the event of impact), meaning that it must be tested and approved by the FIA before being allowed to race.

“The nosebox is quite difficult to develop – now that every team has gone to these super-short noseboxes, it’s really hard to pass the FIA’s crash test. So you’d only really choose to embark on a new nose concept if you’d found a pretty substantial aero gain.

How long does it take to make?
“Once you’ve made the decision on the nose, you design the rest of the car around it. After that, it’s not really worth changing, and the rules have matured enough for there to be little incremental benefit in making a change.”
It was reported prior to the season that SF16-H's intended nose couldn't pass the required crash test. By default, that means the nose on the car right now is a compromise solution, and it's one that affects everything else on the car to some degree - unless, for some weird reason, the car was actually designed around a compromised nose.

The implication is that the team was unable to come up with a structural design that's light enough to be competitive while also retaining the properties needed to pass the test. By extension, it's very difficult for me to believe that problems like that are isolated; on the contrary, it points to structural design and/or manufacturing woes that have the potential to --- up everything.

Incidentally, one of the hallmarks of poor chassis rigidity is setup difficulty, because undue flexing introduces variables that are difficult, if not impossible, to control.

Let's see if we can get some input from someone more knowledgeable.
Does anything about what I've said above make sense? If so, do you think it's theoretically possible that a few years of pull rod development can potentially leave a team behind in terms of penning a chassis that strikes the right balance between weight and rigidity, given a different suspension?

I know that a pull rod setup is ostensibly the same as a push rod setup in terms of capability. But, it's my understanding that the many ways in which each layout transfers loads are all sorts of different.
Assuming that they indeed use some kind of B-spec nose, what if the A-spec was fundamentally unrealistic, a step to far in design? Maybe its potential performance gain was only minimal, and the struggle to get it right huge. The conclusion that Ferrari doesn't have the ability to make good rigid composite structures doesn't work for me. It's such a critical ability for any F1 team to have, surly Ferrari has all the needed competence in-house. Worst-case, they'd hire externally, from Dallara or whatever company.

The bending rear wing, if indeed bending by design, indicates there is no such lack of competence at Ferrari. They know what they're doing structurally. There is no way they'd be the 2nd best team in F1 if they didn't understand rigidity, composite structures etc.

I don't think there is anything wrong structurally with the nose itself, or the teams capacity and ability. From an aero point of view, then maybe yes there could be a lack of understanding of the current nose, much like Red Bull experienced at the start of the 2015 season. But the flashes of performance shown by the Scuderia show that, in my opinion, the car is fundamentally good.

To me, other then anything else, the problem seems to be the tyres. Just as Mclaren, and many other teams on the grid, Ferrari simply fails to extract maximum performance from the tyres consistently, as opposed to Red Bull & Mercedes who seem to have everything under control.

bhall II
473
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 20:15

Re: 2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

Post

Again, I'm not saying the nose is the problem; I'm suggesting it's endemic to the problem. In other words, I think it's a symptom, not the disease. The same could also be said about the team's purported tire difficulties. (When Red Bull had tire problems in 2013 with RB9, it was symptomatic of a car with peaky downforce.)

Naturally, this is all hand-wavy speculation that's unlikely to be proven one way or the other. All the same, it wouldn't be the first time Ferrari has had structural problems...

Image
ME4ME wrote:...what if the A-spec [nose] was fundamentally unrealistic, a step to far in design?
That seems likely. But, why should we think it's isolated to just that particular component?
The Guardian, March 16, 2016 wrote:“All our hopes are in this car,” [James Allison] said as he prepared for the opening race here on Sunday. “It’s certainly a very bold car – but it needs to be. If we look at last year’s model we were working to improve a baseline that was really quite poor."
Chronic setup problems don't paint a pretty picture.

I have no doubt in my mind that Ferrari is perfectly capable of producing an excellent car. It just takes time to learn the necessary lessons, especially after years spent in the wilderness, and it would seem they're just not quite there yet.

Locked