Ferrari SF1000

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.
aral
aral
Moderator
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

henry wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 3:41 pm
aral wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 3:25 pm
If ackerman works automatically, then it is legal. if the change of toe-in requires a physical input from the driver, then it is illegal. but of course it will be up to the stewards and FIA to police the rule AS IT IS WRITTEN. no point in speculating at this moment in time.
You just did.
Sorry, i didnt ! I said that it will be up to the stewards and FIA to decide on illegality or not. That is not speculation !

kimetic
kimetic
4
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:36 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

aral wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 5:50 pm
Sorry, i didnt ! I said that it will be up to the stewards and FIA to decide on illegality or not. That is not speculation !
It's difficult to say much about F1 rules without speculating. As I understand it, the way the most relevant rule is written, the limitation only applies if the steering wheel is fixed, so if it moves axially the clause doesn't apply. But if there's some fine adjustment of steering angle going on in corners with 'a device', then that might be a 'driver aid', or not.

User avatar
SiLo
91
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:09 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

henry wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 3:52 pm
SiLo wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 2:55 pm
How does the Ferrari system differ from the Mercedes system?
I think they might be very similar. As I noted in an earlier post the Ferrari ball joint is mounted eccentrically to what seems to be the rack axis. The Mercedes is similar with a lever running from the axis of the rack forward to the ball joint.

https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mg ... detail.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ES4XV0JUMAI2R1p.jpg:large
The lever is next to the yellow finger on the right.
So they do the same thing? As in, the driver moves the steering wheel forwards or backwards and it changes toe? Or is the Ferrari system doing something different? I apologise for my ignorance.
Felipe Baby!

User avatar
henry
306
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

SiLo wrote:
Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:05 am
henry wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 3:52 pm
SiLo wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 2:55 pm
How does the Ferrari system differ from the Mercedes system?
I think they might be very similar. As I noted in an earlier post the Ferrari ball joint is mounted eccentrically to what seems to be the rack axis. The Mercedes is similar with a lever running from the axis of the rack forward to the ball joint.

https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mg ... detail.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ES4XV0JUMAI2R1p.jpg:large
The lever is next to the yellow finger on the right.
So they do the same thing? As in, the driver moves the steering wheel forwards or backwards and it changes toe? Or is the Ferrari system doing something different? I apologise for my ignorance.
No. They do the same underlying thing. DAS is functionality on top of this underlying functionality.

I think they both do this underlying thing.

As the steering wheel rotates the angle through which each wheel rotates depends on two things.

First, the outboard static steering geometry, so called Ackerman, which is on all the cars. Normally the inboard steering joint on the racks moves equal amounts as the steering wheel turns and so the the turning angles of the inside and outside wheels only vary by the amount caused by the Ackerman geometry.

Second With the fancy rack systems there is a variable amount of road wheel movement that comes from a mechanism in the rack assembly which moves the inboard steering connection a variable amount in addition to the normal movement of the rack. This allows better control over the individual movement of the wheels than Ackerman on its own.

The DAS system provides an additional control over this basic mechanism which can turn the two wheels in opposite directions to adjust toe.

Warning. This is my personal interpretation of what is happening base on what I’ve read from Scarbs, Paola, and others. There may be other explanations.
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

User avatar
SiLo
91
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:09 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

henry wrote:
Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:32 am
SiLo wrote:
Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:05 am
henry wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 3:52 pm


I think they might be very similar. As I noted in an earlier post the Ferrari ball joint is mounted eccentrically to what seems to be the rack axis. The Mercedes is similar with a lever running from the axis of the rack forward to the ball joint.

https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mg ... detail.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ES4XV0JUMAI2R1p.jpg:large
The lever is next to the yellow finger on the right.
So they do the same thing? As in, the driver moves the steering wheel forwards or backwards and it changes toe? Or is the Ferrari system doing something different? I apologise for my ignorance.
No. They do the same underlying thing. DAS is functionality on top of this underlying functionality.

I think they both do this underlying thing.

As the steering wheel rotates the angle through which each wheel rotates depends on two things.

First, the outboard static steering geometry, so called Ackerman, which is on all the cars. Normally the inboard steering joint on the racks moves equal amounts as the steering wheel turns and so the the turning angles of the inside and outside wheels only vary by the amount caused by the Ackerman geometry.

Second With the fancy rack systems there is a variable amount of road wheel movement that comes from a mechanism in the rack assembly which moves the inboard steering connection a variable amount in addition to the normal movement of the rack. This allows better control over the individual movement of the wheels than Ackerman on its own.

The DAS system provides an additional control over this basic mechanism which can turn the two wheels in opposite directions to adjust toe.

Warning. This is my personal interpretation of what is happening base on what I’ve read from Scarbs, Paola, and others. There may be other explanations.
Ok I think I understand now. So the Ferrari system is passive? Like having a non-linear response curve to steering input for each wheel depending on the direction it is being turned in?
Felipe Baby!

User avatar
henry
306
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

I think both Ferrari and Mercedes have similar passive behaviour as you say. But Mercedes has additional Active behaviour.
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

User avatar
SiLo
91
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:09 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

henry wrote:
Fri Apr 03, 2020 9:10 am
I think both Ferrari and Mercedes have similar passive behaviour as you say. But Mercedes has additional Active behaviour.
Ok cool. I guess we need to wait for some more details to be shed on it.
Felipe Baby!

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
474
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

henry wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 3:52 pm
SiLo wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 2:55 pm
How does the Ferrari system differ from the Mercedes system?
I think they might be very similar. As I noted in an earlier post the Ferrari ball joint is mounted eccentrically to what seems to be the rack axis. The Mercedes is similar with a lever running from the axis of the rack forward to the ball joint.

https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mg ... detail.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ES4XV0JUMAI2R1p.jpg:large
The lever is next to the yellow finger on the right.
Best wait until clearer images appear before declaring the lever. I can't make out any lever there.

The Ferrari system is passive it seems. Progessively changes the distance between the rack end depending on steering angle.

The Mercedes system does this too more likely, but has two settings which the driver can select from.

User avatar
henry
306
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

PlatinumZealot wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 2:47 pm

Best wait until clearer images appear before declaring the lever. I can't make out any lever there.

The Ferrari system is passive it seems. Progessively changes the distance between the rack end depending on steering angle.
The toe can be varied by changing the position of the rack ends in two ways, or a combination of them. One, as you say, is to change the distance between the rack ends. The other is to move the location of the track rod end in a plane at right angles to the rack.

The first draft of the regulation that bans this only dealt with option one. The second draft additionally bans option two. That addition in the second draft suggests that one of Ferrari or Mercedes, or both, may have used that technique.

The Ferrari rod end is located eccentrically to, but within, the cylinder housing the rack(s). The Mercedes is wholly outside of that cylinder which is why I referred to the attachment as a lever. It might also be termed a cantilever. See it now?
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

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
474
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

They banned any fore and aft motion of the rack-ends because it is another possible way to adjust the toe. However bodywork openings where the tie rods emerge on Mercdes and Ferrari do not seem to have the clerances for fore and aft motion. The casted end peice on the rack does not seem to support that either. Unless... The tie rod is sheathed inside an outer shell.. But anyway. I think the split rack or hydraulic piston method are more likely used.

Image

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
639
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

PlatinumZealot wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:59 pm
They banned any fore and aft motion of the rack-ends because it is another possible way to adjust the toe. However bodywork openings where the tie rods emerge on Mercdes and Ferrari do not seem to have the clerances for fore and aft motion. The casted end peice on the rack does not seem to support that either. Unless... The tie rod is sheathed inside an outer shell..
The steering rod is inside an aero shell that is coincidental with the upper wishbone front leg. That's why there is no hole where the rod passes through the chassis - it's hidden inside the shell. This is a design used by many teams over the years to reduce the aero impact of the steering rod.
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

User avatar
MtthsMlw
855
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

maxxer wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:46 am
So is this the reason vettel had that special lever on his steering wheel?
I think the handbrake theory is more likely.

User avatar
ScrewCaptain27
559
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:13 am
Location: Udine, Italy

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

According to Motorsport.com there is a design flaw in the gearbox casing, which is too thin and flexible and causes inconsistent behaviour in corners.
https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/formu ... 0/4793926/
"Stupid people do stupid things. Smart people outsmart each other, then themselves."
- Serj Tankian

User avatar
MtthsMlw
855
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

ScrewCaptain27 wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 2:50 pm
According to Motorsport.com there is a design flaw in the gearbox casing, which is too thin and flexible and causes inconsistent behaviour in corners.
https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/formu ... 0/4793926/
At launch they talked about having put much effort in to making the gearbox more compact so there is that.
Could also just be speculation based on them mentioning it officially.

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
-6
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Ferrari SF1000

Post

Franco Nugnes got his nickers in a twist with that totally confusing article as suspension loads are not carried by the gearbox casing.