Ferrari F2004

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.
Beostar
Beostar
0
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 6:08 pm
Location: Belgium

Post

sure hope so :)
Cause the rear wing is right behind it :)
"The track is mine you may have it when I'm done"
"First law of computer programming : The user is a complete idiot"
"Don't confuse luck with skill."

Chern
Chern
0

VG..

Post

the abrupt cut of is actually a vortex generator.
air passing through the engine cover will create a swirling turbulence, like a small tornado, which is aimed at the lower side of the top rear wing element. so that more suction is generated (at the expense of a little more drag) for the gain of mor edownforce... correct me if i'm wrong..
it's a similar concept used in Toyota GT-One lemans race car...
damn, i miss that machine.
:D

User avatar
Scuderia_Russ
0
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:24 pm
Location: Motorsport Valley, England.

Post

Alot of people i've spoken to/sites i've looked at have been quick to jump on the F2004 for not being 'radical' enough (obviously in comparison to MP4/19 and FW26) ...when these are the teams effectively playing catch up. If it aint broke don't fix it mr. Brawn...looks like another goodun to me chaps! :)
"Whether you think you can or can't, either way you are right."
-Henry Ford-

Reca
Reca
137
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:22 pm
Location: Monza, Italy

Post

What I don’t understand about the cut on the engine cover is that it’s way before the rear wheel axle (it’s about at real wheel frontal edge if I’m not mistaken) while rules should require the cover to be at least 55 cm higher than reference plane at the rear wheel centreline. At least that’s the new rule as I’ve heard until now (on the Fia website there’s still the ’03 version) and other 2004 cars follows it while, behind the cut the Ferrari engine cover is apparently lower than 55 cm at least, it’s way lower than other cars. So, if the rule I know is the right one there are two possibilities : 1. as many other parts, the engine cover on the launch car is a provisional solution. 2. they have interpreted the rule in a different way, difficult to say until I don’t see the actual wording of the article.

Satchmo
Satchmo
0
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm

Post

Beostar wrote:
West wrote:
Beostar wrote:What the hell is this???
Btw nice car i must admit :)

Image
Well if you look at the car from the sides you won't see that abrupt cut in the engine cowling, w/ the rear swoop or tires blocking it from view. But yeah it looks like a WTF kinda thing.
Won't it cause enormous turbulence?

I believe the abruptness is not to cause a vortex, but to actually allow the air flow from both sides of the car to reattach before it enters the rear wing. The height of the engine cover at its abrupt endpoint is almost at the same level with the lower rear wing element. Allowing the engine cover to continue its shallow descent would prevent that reattachment of airflow til it practically enters the wing area, possibly causing uneven airflow distribution along the length of the rear wing elements themselves.

User avatar
joseff
14
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2002 10:53 am

Post

Concerning the legality of the bodywork, methinks it IS legal. Ferrari use angled driveshafts, and by this they can argue that it's 55cm high at the point where the driveshafts meet the transmission.

Reca
Reca
137
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:22 pm
Location: Monza, Italy

Post

I don’t think your explanation is acceptable Joseff, for two reasons. First, although, I’ve yet to read the ’04 version, FIA rules usually take as reference, for longitudinal dimensions regarding bodywork, the wheel centreline, and that’s clearly the centre of the wheel; the point where driveshaft meets transmission is irrelevant. Second, if I’m not mistaken the cover is about 330 mm (a wheel radius) shorter than required and I doubt that a driveshaft could be angled as much to gain 33 cm in less than 70 cm, that would be an angle of about 25° between driveshaft and the rear wheel axle.
Anyway my main point is that, before to talk about the effect of this design on rear wing, vortex generation etc, it’s better to wait and see the actual car because, accordingly to my current knowledge of the new rules (that is correctly followed in the other 2004 cars), there’s something unclear there.

User avatar
joseff
14
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2002 10:53 am

Post

Well, won't be the first time Ferrari found a "different interpretation" of the rules :)

FWIW, I know testing times are misleading, but I think it's not a good sign when MS could only *just* match the FW26's time with the F2003. I mean, 2003 cars should be faster than the 2004 editions, no?

Beostar
Beostar
0
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 6:08 pm
Location: Belgium

Post

depends what engine specifications are. if he was driving for a fast lap. If the williams were running low fuel and stuff..

Btw don't think 2004 will be much slower than 2003. The FW26 was faster than the FW25 already so don't think the F2003-GA will be faster than the F2004
"The track is mine you may have it when I'm done"
"First law of computer programming : The user is a complete idiot"
"Don't confuse luck with skill."

Reca
Reca
137
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:22 pm
Location: Monza, Italy

Post

joseff wrote:Well, won't be the first time Ferrari found a "different interpretation" of the rules :)
I agree with you Joseff, and, if memory serves, a few examples are : steering brake system, fins to satisfy minimal dimensions, hole in the diffuser, wider tyres, engine parts substitutions in parc fermé... :wink:

BTW, I don’t think 2004 cars will be slower than 2003. In 2001 the aero modifications were lot more radical and even before the start of the season the teams regained the downforce lost because of regulations (at least that was the case for Ferrari, a man from the aero department said so in a meeting at my Uni in late ‘02). IMO the improvement of the new aero packages already overcome the lack of 1 rear wing element. Same for engines already having at least as much power as last year. Weight of cars surely isn’t increased and tyres haven’t worsened... furthermore cars are designed for shorter stints... I tend to think 2004 cars will be quite faster than last year cars. Maybe we will never see the maximum performance possible in qual trim (very low fuel load, new tyres, qual setup etc) but the pace in the race will be quite faster.

rumpelstulskin
rumpelstulskin
0
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 3:56 pm

Post

Imola testing shows ferrari has got problems of reliability. I think their launch was too late to overcome these issues by melbourne. scralet seems to be going done!

akbar21881
akbar21881
0
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 9:49 pm
Location: bristol,uk

Post

rumpelstulskin wrote:Imola testing shows ferrari has got problems of reliability. I think their launch was too late to overcome these issues by melbourne. scralet seems to be going done!
Ferrari was in similar situation in 2001.F2001 barely completed its race simulation and with that suspected reliability problem it went to melbourne to win its first race.

Ah well...stupid new engine regulation :(

FerrariManiac
FerrariManiac
0
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 1:25 pm

Post

So they had a problem and off with 'reliability' problems already?

I also saw sauber, and toyota, and we don't want to go to McLaren,
in this way of thinking, are we going to have a Championship this year,
or all cars will be stalling half way?

:roll:

akbar21881
akbar21881
0
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 9:49 pm
Location: bristol,uk

Post

all cars will be blown up in the middle of the race due to new engine regulation :?

rodlamas
rodlamas
0
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 12:03 pm

Post

This is problem what is gonna happen with BAR.
"I only race to finisht first, because the second is the first looser" Ayrton Senna