F1technical.net

Ok thanks.
This kind of short and more direct manifolds would suit it well : P
EDIT

Blackout wrote:An interesting F138+V6 CG image released by Ferrari

Forza wrote:Scheme from Ferrari site following the Marussia power unit deal announcment Motori porpulsori Ferrari per Marussia Team

http://formula1.ferrari.com/wp-content/ ... a-Team.jpg

But is it legal to place the trbo that way in regard of 2014 rules ?

Probably ferrari are not using an intercooler (judging by the size of the sidepod).

Placing the turbo behind the engine would require a sub frame section between the engine and gearbox which is not ideal.

WilliamsF1 wrote:(judging by the size of the sidepod).

It's a marketing slide, not a technical drawing! FFS.
It's just a '13 car with some vague attempt at a turbo bolted on. It's even still got the '13 exhaust openings drawn for heaven's sake.
Are people even -looking- at these pictures?

Saribro wrote:

WilliamsF1 wrote:(judging by the size of the sidepod).

It's a marketing slide, not a technical drawing! FFS.
It's just a '13 car with some vague attempt at a turbo bolted on. It's even still got the '13 exhaust openings drawn for heaven's sake.
Are people even -looking- at these pictures?

Judging by some responses, nope

Saribro wrote:

WilliamsF1 wrote:(judging by the size of the sidepod).

It's a marketing slide, not a technical drawing! FFS.
It's just a '13 car with some vague attempt at a turbo bolted on. It's even still got the '13 exhaust openings drawn for heaven's sake.
Are people even -looking- at these pictures?

Only WilliamsF1 seems to think it's a real future car but We know it's a CGI. And yes, that picture is interesting for two reasons:
-generally speaking, it's a nice and a surprisingly precise CGI of the 2013 car, look at the details
-and the turbo layout they are showing on it is interesting because it's different from what Renault and Merc and Pure showed and because it might be legal and have some benefits.

WilliamsF1 wrote:Probably ferrari are not using an intercooler (judging by the size of the sidepod).

That appears very unlikely. No intercoolers would mean a significant reduction of horse power. We know for more than a year that there will be a big conflict between aero and engine power over the size of the intercoolers. I cannot imagine that Ferrari will select a solution that would involve much lower power than the competition.

bhallg2k wrote:

SectorOne wrote:[...]

I don´t know the width of the Pirelli´s but one rule said it has to be between 305 and 355 so i chose 330 and the graphics show 82.5mm reduction instead of the actual 75mm

[...]

A better way is to scale the wing initially to 1,800px, as they're currently 1,800mm, and then cut 75px from each side. Then you get something that looks like this. By design, the regulations center the endplates directly ahead of the front wheels.

I think teams will go with largely inwash designs, because the rules don't quite allow effective outwash schemes, and, accordingly, there will be no reason to increase the size of the front wing's wake.

[url]http://i.imgur.com/axLB8rA.jpg[/url

that will really be interesting to see, if the teams come with different approaches... like in 2009 Renault started with a inwash but then went to outwash, if I remember correctly...

Here's a whole topic dedicated to 2014 FWEP design: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 424536&f=6

bhallg2k wrote:

SectorOne wrote:[...]

I don´t know the width of the Pirelli´s but one rule said it has to be between 305 and 355 so i chose 330 and the graphics show 82.5mm reduction instead of the actual 75mm

[...]

A better way is to scale the wing initially to 1,800px, as they're currently 1,800mm, and then cut 75px from each side. Then you get something that looks like this. By design, the regulations center the endplates directly ahead of the front wheels.

I think teams will go with largely inwash designs, because the rules don't quite allow effective outwash schemes, and, accordingly, there will be no reason to increase the size of the front wing's wake.

http://i.imgur.com/axLB8rA.jpg

That´s one idea, looks great as well!
I quite like the new width on the front wing, a little bit less of the snow-plough effect.

WilliamsF1 wrote:
Probably ferrari are not using an intercooler (judging by the size of the sidepod).

Placing the turbo behind the engine would require a sub frame section between the engine and gearbox which is not ideal.

http://www.kallal.ca/ccws1/tubtoe.jpg

This layout is not as bad as it seems though. Aerodynamically there is an advantage to having a longer gearbox.

2014 wing. Previous wing went all the way out to the edges of the picture.
Bit of a weird perspective to see the change though,

: )
Here the Merc KERS before and after they merged the battery and the control unit
and its cooling system


I think a lot of space can be created in 2014 behind the driver's head, between the fuel tank, the turbo's airbox, the engine's intake manifold etc. They could put a part of the cooling system there, like Mclaren did here for the Mp4 26

What would you do about the fuel tank ? would you try to keep it as low and narrow as possible in order to free space above it (and make the battery's instalation easyier under it) and for the COG, or would you make it the shortest possible in order to keep the sidepods short and free more space on the floor : P ?

definitely i would pick the first option This year sauber showed that narrow sidepods dont help a lot and its the same for the STR7.

The Sauber design largely failed due it's inability to maximise the aero effect of the exhausts. Next year the Sauber design would prove to be much more valuable.

Aren't rear tyres getting wider, and if so, in which direction? That might mean narrower pods would just expose the tyres more an maybe nullify potential aero gains.