Ferrari 2017 Contender 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 does not belong here.
bhall II
bhall II
861
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: Ferrari 2017 Contender Speculation Thread

Post

Big Mangalhit wrote:Matematically the ratio of power/drag decrases with speed. So power has a more pronounced effect of the accelaration at lower speeds. So it is more valuable to sump power at lower speeds
I have no idea how you can read what you've cited and draw that conclusion.

I'll leave it for someone else to explain, because I'm simply not the right guy. But there's no shortage of people around here who are more than capable.

LookBackTime
LookBackTime
622
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:33 pm

Re: Ferrari 2017 Contender Speculation Thread

Post

Ferrari 668 according to "La Gazzetta dello Sport"
credit: Gianlu D'Alessandro

Image

User avatar
Scuderia1967
5
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:43 pm

Re: Ferrari 2017 Contender Speculation Thread

Post

That shark fin looks exactly like the one in the unborn Manor, so the real one (if there's one, that is) will look nothing like it

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Ferrari 2017 Contender Speculation Thread

Post

I am conflicted if there is going to be one. They have not used since 2011. However back in 2008 regulations provided a somewhat similar wing (low and wide), and back then this was a very common sight up and down the field.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
Juzh
479
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:45 am

Re: Ferrari 2017 Contender Speculation Thread

Post

ME4ME wrote:
bhall II wrote:
Blackout wrote:*Which explains the early lack of stiffness?
Picture something kinda sorta like this...

http://i.imgur.com/gm6QDVU.gif

Then imagine what might happen if an insufficiently stiff gearbox case squeezes a turbine housing--containing turbine blades spinning at 50,000rpm--that's not quite strong enough...

http://nextgen-auto.com/IMG/arton101730.jpg
Lets return the favour. Why do you think your idea is more likely than ERS management?
And do you think it is realistic that Ferrari design, test and validate a gearbox that is so floppy that it negetivly affects top speed on the straight? In that case, what about corners? Ferrari weren't that bad in China, and could (should?) have had pole position.
I'm with me4me on this one. ERS management seems much more plausible scenario.

User avatar
Scuderia1967
5
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:43 pm

Re: Ferrari 2017 Contender Speculation Thread

Post

turbof1 wrote:I am conflicted if there is going to be one. They have not used since 2011. However back in 2008 regulations provided a somewhat similar wing (low and wide), and back then this was a very common sight up and down the field.
The general consensus is that most, if not all, of the 2017 cars will have one

User avatar
henry
258
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: Ferrari 2017 Contender Speculation Thread

Post

Juzh wrote:
ME4ME wrote:
bhall II wrote: Picture something kinda sorta like this...

http://i.imgur.com/gm6QDVU.gif

Then imagine what might happen if an insufficiently stiff gearbox case squeezes a turbine housing--containing turbine blades spinning at 50,000rpm--that's not quite strong enough...

http://nextgen-auto.com/IMG/arton101730.jpg
Lets return the favour. Why do you think your idea is more likely than ERS management?
And do you think it is realistic that Ferrari design, test and validate a gearbox that is so floppy that it negetivly affects top speed on the straight? In that case, what about corners? Ferrari weren't that bad in China, and could (should?) have had pole position.
I'm with me4me on this one. ERS management seems much more plausible scenario.
I agree this seems most likely.

If we assume the power unit, ICE + MGU-K, makes 640 kw and the vast majority of that goes in aero drag then at 330 kph ;

turning off the ES to MGU-K feed might drop power to around 580kw and speed to 320 kph

Turning off the MGU-K altogether might drop power to 520 and speed to 310.

No need to flex a gearbox or invoke any other malady. It's just what you do to optimise energy over the lap.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

bhall II
bhall II
861
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: Ferrari 2017 Contender Speculation Thread

Post

Saving something in the neighborhood of 54kW over 200m doesn't sound like a very rewarding strategy.

EDIT: Or maybe it is, since it would only cost a few hundredths. Either way, that is a quality rebuttal. So, good on henry! =D>

Image

Note: The highlighted variables were left at their default values, because I have no idea what they are for a F1 car. The others are reasonable estimates.

User avatar
Scuderia1967
5
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:43 pm

Re: Ferrari 2017 Contender Speculation Thread

Post

Scroll down this link to see the new car's airscoop

http://forums.autosport.com/topic/20511 ... car/page-3

f1316
f1316
128
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:36 pm

Re: Ferrari 2017 Contender Speculation Thread

Post

Of course there was also this:

Image

If the rear of the car was intended to dip under certain forces, and the gearbox was intended to be the element that deformed under said forces, presumably that's something that - until perfectly honed (which perhaps Ferrari never managed) - can also deform at other times and in untended ways (since it's intentionally less than totally 'rigid').

Kalsi
Kalsi
27
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:12 pm

Re: Ferrari 2017 Contender Speculation Thread

Post

Sorry if doublepost, but according to this Italian article, Simone Resta wanted a switch back to pull rod at the front... . Ferrari got both pull and push rod architectures ready for the front suspension... and they finally decided to use the push one. Pull rod on the back of the car got some attachment point modifications. . Confirmed gearbox and PU components redesign

https://www.webmagazine24.it/news/sport ... osse-cosi/

Image
Last edited by turbof1 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Corrected translation error.

User avatar
FrukostScones
192
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: European Union

Re: Ferrari 2017 Contender Speculation Thread

Post

push-rod rear. really?

I read the pull-rod (tirante) will be (more) horizontal....

here from 2015 to 2016 (less horizontal):

Image


intersting vid links here:
https://twitter.com/Gianludale27/

those rears :lol:
Finishing races is important, but racing is more important.

timbo
timbo
118
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:14 am

Re: Ferrari 2017 Contender Speculation Thread

Post

Looking at those pictures it looks indeed like SF-16H rear suspension might have suffer from installation stifness problems. Thing is though, I bet it is quite hard to measure statically, while heat and vibration may affect stiffness of the materials quite a lot, and also, there is always a compromise between stiffness, weight and aero requirements and it is not a trivial task to arrive at the optimum. Which itself might be a moving target.

Kalsi
Kalsi
27
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:12 pm

Re: Ferrari 2017 Contender Speculation Thread

Post

FrukostScones You are right im sorry ... i would edit my old post if you dont mind... it was just a miss-read / type error
What i wanted to say is that ferrari got ready both pull and push rod architectures for the front suspension... and they finally decided to use the push one. Pull rod on the back of the car got some attachment point modifications.

How should i do in this cases... call some mods action?

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Ferrari 2017 Contender Speculation Thread

Post

Kalsi wrote:FrukostScones You are right im sorry ... i would edit my old post if you dont mind... it was just a miss-read / type error
What i wanted to say is that ferrari got ready both pull and push rod architectures for the front suspension... and they finally decided to use the push one. Pull rod on the back of the car got some attachment point modifications.

How should i do in this cases... call some mods action?
I edited your previous post. Let me know if you want to be different or added something.

Incidently, I would not be completely surprised if we were to see rear push rod at some cars. The diffuser got bigger, which might mean some suspension components are going to be in the way. Either this components will keep their pull rod layout and just be moved upwards to create space, or a push rod layout will be used instead.
#AeroFrodo