Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

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.
Post Reply

Monster Hesh
2
Joined: 10 Mar 2018, 16:19

Re: Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

Post

I'm curious, did Ferrari to any trials during free practice without the mirror winglets?

User avatar
MtthsMlw
1033
Joined: 12 Jul 2017, 18:38
Location: Germany

Re: Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

Post

Monster Hesh wrote:
12 May 2018, 22:34
I'm curious, did Ferrari to any trials during free practice without the mirror winglets?
No they have been using them since fp1.

Just_a_fan
591
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

Post

roon wrote:
12 May 2018, 21:54
Just_a_fan wrote:
12 May 2018, 20:53
What's not ok is sticking a big aero winglet on the mounting stalk.
https://cdn-3.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... mirror.jpg

https://cdn-6.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... detail.jpg

Further lessons, this one a bit more confusing:

Sticking a big aero winglet on the mounting stalk: not OK.
Sticking a big aero winglet on the mounting stalk: OK.
Yeah, it's nuts.

I wonder whether the fall out will be the FIA "clarifying" mirror supports in all cases (possibly following a request from Ferrari). Maybe all mirrors will only be allowed one single point of contact with the tub. Although I can see how the teams could easily get around that unless the stalk is defined in the rules precisely.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

bonjon1979
30
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 17:16

Re: Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

Post

roon wrote:
12 May 2018, 20:44
Sevach wrote:
12 May 2018, 17:58
It's really weird where the FIA chooses to draw the line... Red Bull has a car with twin mirror stalks, obviously shaped to turn the air around and not peep has been heard about it.

I guess the halo is sacred...
And let's not forget Force India's solution. Purely structural, no doubt.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LIQafJHkuJg/ ... 9%2Bx2.jpg

The lesson being...

Connecting the mirrors to the sidepod crash stucture cover: OK.
Connecting the mirrors to the halo structure cover: not OK.
Jesus, are you serious?

Just because in a photo if you have one object in front of another in 2 dimensions it looks like they’re attached. It does not actually mean they are attached in 3 dimensions. The force India strakes are on top of the side pod a good half foot ahead of the mirrors. Likewise the Mercedes mirrors on the following page. Get a grips

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
550
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

Post

roon wrote:
12 May 2018, 21:54
Just_a_fan wrote:
12 May 2018, 20:53
What's not ok is sticking a big aero winglet on the mounting stalk.
https://cdn-3.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... mirror.jpg

https://cdn-6.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... detail.jpg

Further lessons, this one a bit more confusing:

Sticking a big aero winglet on the mounting stalk: not OK.
Sticking a big aero winglet on the mounting stalk: OK.
That's not attached to the mounting stalk :wink:
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

Sevach
1043
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 17:00

Re: Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

Post

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

roon
412
Joined: 17 Dec 2016, 19:04

Re: Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

Post

bonjon1979 wrote:
13 May 2018, 01:54
roon wrote:
12 May 2018, 20:44
Sevach wrote:
12 May 2018, 17:58
It's really weird where the FIA chooses to draw the line... Red Bull has a car with twin mirror stalks, obviously shaped to turn the air around and not peep has been heard about it.

I guess the halo is sacred...
And let's not forget Force India's solution. Purely structural, no doubt.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LIQafJHkuJg/ ... 9%2Bx2.jpg

The lesson being...

Connecting the mirrors to the sidepod crash stucture cover: OK.
Connecting the mirrors to the halo structure cover: not OK.
Jesus, are you serious?

Just because in a photo if you have one object in front of another in 2 dimensions it looks like they’re attached. It does not actually mean they are attached in 3 dimensions. The force India strakes are on top of the side pod a good half foot ahead of the mirrors. Likewise the Mercedes mirrors on the following page. Get a grips
Look again. They are very much attached "in 3 dimensions."

ScrewCaptain27 wrote:
10 May 2018, 17:28
Image
Image

User avatar
F1NAC
163
Joined: 31 Mar 2013, 22:35

Re: Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

Post

Wait. why is that legal if seeing from above, you can actually see those attachments to sidepod?

.poz
43
Joined: 08 Mar 2012, 16:44

Re: Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

Post

About the mirror i think they banned it because the "main function" of the upper plate it's not structural but aerodynamic. We can argue about force india solution and if two connection with the side pod are really needed for structural reasons... f1 rules are too open to interpretation

User avatar
Zynerji
111
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 16:14

Re: Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

Post

.poz wrote:
13 May 2018, 13:35
About the mirror i think they banned it because the "main function" of the upper plate it's not structural but aerodynamic. We can argue about force india solution and if two connection with the side pod are really needed for structural reasons... f1 rules are too open to interpretation
Isn't the "main function" determined by the engineer, and not the observer?

These slippery slopes need to be avoided at all times.

djones
20
Joined: 17 Mar 2005, 15:01

Re: Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

Post

Did the Ferrari engine mode thing actually get investigated?

As in... are they now not using it and this is why there are now not as fast?

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
550
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

Post

Oh you bet they are still using it! They had similar top speed gains in Q3 as Mercedes while the Renault car top speeds remained unchanged. I think it was like 6km/hr.
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

wesley123
204
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 17:55

Re: Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

Post

I don't get why people are angry by the fact that Ferrari's winglet isn't allowed? It seems fairly reasonable that a part that plays a significant role in the drivers' safety shouldn't be used to create an aerodynamic gain.

And before people reply with "but fairings!". The fairings are relatively small in area and allowed to mitigate the negative effects of the halo, not as an aerodynamic gain.

Like I said before, they opened a huge can with worms on this one, so they decided to close this can.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

Just_a_fan
591
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

Post

Zynerji wrote:
13 May 2018, 14:16
.poz wrote:
13 May 2018, 13:35
About the mirror i think they banned it because the "main function" of the upper plate it's not structural but aerodynamic. We can argue about force india solution and if two connection with the side pod are really needed for structural reasons... f1 rules are too open to interpretation
Isn't the "main function" determined by the engineer, and not the observer?

These slippery slopes need to be avoided at all times.
If it was mainly structural it wouldn't have been shaped to direct air in a certain way...they could have made a structural, aerodynamically neutral piece but they didn't. They put on a big wing shaped piece that is obviously designed to direct the air flow around it.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

Post Reply