Ferrari V10

Sawtooth-spike · Post 20 Feb 2006, 18:26

Right i have to ask

What is the point of running a 2004 car with a down tuned V10 when you are running a V8 in 2006? the 2004 car has a compleatly differant Aero Package to the 2006 car as its was made under differant rules, so it cant be to do with tyres. surely they should be working hard on getting there V8 upto spec?

Maybe i have missed something here, so can somebody please help me out of my confusion?

scarbs · Post 20 Feb 2006, 19:08

Ferrari are running a detuned V10, so the power delivery is the same, the F2004 has a revised aero package with a newer floor and wings. Also the V8 engine needs to be 95 kilos so the weght distribution can be the same. Hence the car is very similar to the new car, certainly good enough to compare for tyre, engine gearbox and electronics testing.

Sawtooth-spike · Post 20 Feb 2006, 19:29

ok, but alot of people have said the detuned V10 is more powerfull than the V8.
So its not really a 2004, more of a hybrid.

DaveKillens · Post 20 Feb 2006, 20:29

The present rules for V-10's is supposed to allow teams that can't get a V-8 this year to run something. It is supposed to have parity with V-8's. But the rule is also not carved in stone, and those involved know a rules change could happen to adjust the parity. Trust me, if the V-10's do show an advantage, they will be adjusted.
Since the big players have all invested and will run V-8's, they will raise a hue and cry that will make Max's ears ring for weeks.

allan · Post 20 Feb 2006, 21:27

i think they are using the same F2004 they used in the 2004
because:
1-the f2004 suspension puts more heat in the tires than the f2005's.
2-they were having some problems with the new v8's vibrations, so they don't wanna lose the testing days in bahrain by bringing two 248s or 2 v8 powered cars, so at least they have one car runnig in case the other stops
3-because they want to compare the pace of the 2 cars, because the other teams catched up with the pace of their 2004 season cars, like renault and mclaren and even honda.
but does anyone have some pics of the new aeropackage???

zac510 · Post 20 Feb 2006, 22:08

scarbs, do you think there was something fundamentally wrong with the 2005 car that prompted Ferrari to test with the 2004 car? Perhaps something unchangeable, like weight balance or chassis stiffness.

manchild · Post 21 Feb 2006, 01:18

I read somewhere that their new flexible aero applied on F248 isn't behaving as planned... something on the bottom I think.

Spencifer_Murphy · Post 21 Feb 2006, 02:22

Flexible Aero? Surely you cant mean flexible aero dynamic parts? They're illegal (Well kind of....the flexing of aero parts is limited by the regs).

So what do you mean Flexible Aero?

West · Post 21 Feb 2006, 03:48

I'm sure there's a regulation saying "for this amount of load, xx newtons, a wing (or whatever) is not allowed to flex more than this many cm."

manchild · Post 21 Feb 2006, 04:02

I know that amount of flexing is limited and yes I was talking about the parts only not the whole aero of the car... as I wrote before something at the bottom of the car but I can't remember what it was or where I read it.

mike · Post 21 Feb 2006, 10:08

i seriously dont understand how can Massa set a faster time then the non-restricted v10? assume that the aerodynamics of 2006 compared to 2004 takes 1 s off each lap than why don't they just run the 2004 restricted with 2006 aero

Massa set a 1.30.029 on a restricted v10 which means that they will lap around 1.31.029??

johny · Post 21 Feb 2006, 14:00

why don't they just test with 248? i think it'll be better with two 248 than a f2004

zac510 · Post 21 Feb 2006, 14:44

johny wrote:why don't they just test with 248? i think it'll be better with two 248 than a f2004

They might be still finalising the design of the 248 and don't want to build another chassis until that is done.

jezzwa · Post 21 Feb 2006, 14:57

they are adding an aero update soon, just like Toyota

DaveKillens · Post 22 Feb 2006, 06:15

Spencifer_Murphy wrote:Flexible Aero? Surely you cant mean flexible aero dynamic parts? They're illegal (Well kind of....the flexing of aero parts is limited by the regs).

So what do you mean Flexible Aero?

I was checking out some pictures of the new Renault, and after observing the winglets/aero devices that reside just behind the chimneys, I said to myself.. "there's no way they can not flex". And after reading the post, realized that there are many parts of the car not required to remain rigid under aero load. Yes, especially the wings are allowed only minisculle amounts of flex, but how about the little flip-ups, sides of the bodywork, even the airbox intake? There's no reason that they cannot be designed to flex in the appropriate manner when subjected to aero loading. For me, this opens up a whole new route of speculation on what parts of the cars flex under aero load, why, and how it is done.