Scuderia Ferrari SF15-T

[AlainProst]

The difference between Ferrari and McLaren is that sidepods hasn't got the same shape. The Ferari sidepods has the same shapes than 2014, 2013, 2012...They have triangulare shapes whereas McLaren (or Red Bull) have "gothic" shapes with a very slim end. The Red Bull and McLaren philosophies are to make space in the width direction by moving cooling system instead shark fin in others teams. Do you understand what I want to say ?

[fawe4]

- Ferrari is still running with the pull road suspension, but they focused on fine tuning and worked on the aerodynamic site

An der Vorderachse hält Ferrari stur an der Pullrod-Technik fest. In diesem Jahr wieder als einziges Team. Das Fahrwerk wurde vorne aber verfeinert und besser auf die Aerodynamik abgestimmt. Erstmals sind die Bremszangen unten angebracht.

Zusammen mit einem unteren Dreieckslenker, der sich nach Mercedes-Vorbild erst kurz vor dem Chassis spreizt, ergibt das einen tiefen Schwerpunkt und eine deutlich bessere Strömung hinter der Vorderachse. Weil sich der Anlenkpunkt der Zugstange jetzt hinter dem unteren Dreieckslenker versteckt.

Translation is fairly liberal. That one sentence came from two full paragraphs. Original text talks about Ferrari as the only one on the field retaining pull-rods, but they optimized and improved the front suspension for better aerodynamics. For the first time they put brake calipers (bremszagen?) lower. That along with lower bottom wishbone, that following Mercedes, springs very low from the chassis, lowers the centerweight, and much improves airstream behind front suspension. While steering arm is now hidden under the front wishbone.


I find the last point interesting. Ferrari packaging steering arm into wishbone was their mainstay up till 2011 and F150 when they went for a separate steering arm that they then retained after going for pull-rods.


http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2011/0/831.html

[stefan_]

[poolboy67]

it's incredible how something as simple as this, can be screwed up by a team like ferrari!

[ME4ME]

Don't be fooled though. Every config has it's advantages as well as disadvantages. It's a very interesting video, but only presents the advantages of the 2015 configuration while not even mentioning the disadvantages. My knowledge on suspension is very limited, but i'd imagine the suspension must be stiffened when ran under a lower angle leading to a heavier configuration. Ferrari has not won in a long time, but they are no fools.

[michaelclarke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ps_VfY7mrE

"We think, just before the garage doors shut on the Sauber Ferrari...we caught a glimpse of a strange looking box at the back of the car above the gearbox...it could be to do with improving the throttle response of the car. We won't say too much more until we know exactly what that is, and we think we know exactly what that is."

Peter says he thinks they saw it on the first day, but they don't know exactly what it is. I remember reading a tweet from Scarbs saying that there was an exciting development on one of the cars. Could this be it?

I also remember that Sauber looked to improve the rear end traction over the winter, maybe this has helped? I would hazard a guess that Ferrari have found a loophole (to do with engine and gearbox) that allows them to run something like traction control - or at least something that improves the traction.

[ringo]

- smallest sidepoids in the field.

I didn't understand this?? SF15-T does not have the smallest sidepod.

Well if you have a look at this picture you can see that Ferrari's sidepods/rear end packaging is at least on par with Mercedes if not even better

http://img3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Fer ... 843458.jpg

We should also take note that the ferrari engine is much smaller than the mercedes.Look on the shoulders behind the intakes..
You can see that mercedes has it's new hump, which may be the variable intake runners. It seems ferarri have decided not to implement those. Or we could possibly see them in this weeks test. maybe they will compare both solutions.
Something tells me that this year mercedes wont have its way.

[fawe4]

Don't be fooled though. Every config has it's advantages as well as disadvantages. It's a very interesting video, but only presents the advantages of the 2015 configuration while not even mentioning the disadvantages. My knowledge on suspension is very limited, but i'd imagine the suspension must be stiffened when ran under a lower angle leading to a heavier configuration. Ferrari has not won in a long time, but they are no fools.

Exactly, benefits of running high suspension were too good for them to abandon it. And frankly they still are, even tho suspension moved down in last years, it's still quite high compared to something in gp2. Still not as high as in F1 2013 season, when everyone still ran high suspension setups. High noses, that allowed funneling masses of air under them, offered too big aero advantage to offset penalty caused by higher center of gravity. But in 2014 merc, rb, mclaren and nearly everyone else, including Catherham with pullrods(!), moved into lower setups. I really found it curious to see Ferrari, that in 2013 had one of the highest noses and suspension setups, stay at the same point in 2014. I assumed that it must be caused by familiarity with pullrods, but it could also come from miscalculation in predicting what new noses will allow, or from a number of other reasons. I really never stumbled on official reason given for retaining same setup, nor of a well written analysis, so I'd be interested if one exists.

[ParkerArt]

But because 100kg/h => higher revs => same fuel => same air => more friction => less power.

Wouldn't torque also fall off as revs rise with this fuel limit? I thought I remember a radio message to Rosberg in one of the earlier races to use lower gears with higher revs to help with tire management and corner exit oversteer.

High revs and less fuel consumption don't mix. I believe he was told the opposite. Higher gears for lower revs.

Fuel use would be the same; 100kg/h. Because of that, power should stay close to constant as revs build and assuming the AFR doesn't richen to help lower exhaust temperatures. However; if power is holding steady across the 10,500 to 15,000 RPM range, torque would be linearly decreasing across the same band.

I do know know whether the lower torque of over-revving a lower gear would offset the addition mechanical torque multiplication of being in a lower gear though.

[PhillipM]

The extra friction and wear reducing power and lifespan would though.

[bill shoe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQzMrbDtndE

So 2015 has lower front roll center than 2014. All else being equal, this leads to less lateral load transfer at front. Therefore more total grip at front. It's roughly analogous to a softer front anti-roll-bar.

The video also discusses the benefits of reduced side-scrub (amount of track change per unit vertical suspension travel), but they only discussed it in terms of tire wear. I think it also gives the front end a more instant response & planted feel instead of forcing the driver to wait an agonizing extra split-second until the whole thing reaches some equilibrium trim. This is another way of saying it should help the front end generate quick and consistent force.

And yes it's all a tradeoff. Ferrari ain't stupid. But until Allison (and Rory Bryne) started influencing things there was perhaps too much emphasis on aero without any regard to mechanical issues and driver feel.

Interesting situation for several reasons:

1. Last year Alonso utterly dominated Raikkonen in term of qualy and race performance. But Raikkonen's stubborn complaints about driver feel and front-end response apparently moved Ferrari to change the car for the better. Driving around a problem is +1. Identifying the problem and leading your team to improve it is +2.

2. Adrian Newey is known as the aero-guru, aero-god, etc., etc. But it seems that a consistent part of the Red Bull success involves keeping some reasonable emphasis on mechanical fundamentals and drivability. Newey rarely gets credit for this (outside of Red Bull). But Newey is a great comprehensive thinker.

3. Notice that McLaren's new aero chief Prodromou (ex Red-Bull aero guy under Newey) is creating a new McLaren culture of "useable aero" rather than "max downforce as seen in the wind tunnel". For the past 5 years or so (and longer?) the McLaren has been the worst car in terms of a really stiff and non-absorbing suspension causing the car to bounce around racetracks. And ironically this ends up also compromising aero.

4. Car drivability can be difficult to describe and very difficult to quantify. In contrast, the aero department is a well-organized operation that specializes in quantifying things (downforce and drag). The well-quantified argument will usually win in any organization. Newey, Prodromou, and Allison are rare individuals that have both the personal insight and the organizational power to keep focus on drivability even though it will always be less well quantified than aero.

[Juzh]

Fuel use would be the same; 100kg/h. Because of that, power should stay close to constant as revs build and assuming the AFR doesn't richen to help lower exhaust temperatures. However; if power is holding steady across the 10,500 to 15,000 RPM range, torque would be linearly decreasing across the same band.

I do know know whether the lower torque of over-revving a lower gear would offset the addition mechanical torque multiplication of being in a lower gear though.

Fuel use would be the same after 10500, yes. That's why he was told to use higher gears, so he's below 10.5k for more of the time.

[OO7]

We should also take note that the ferrari engine is much smaller than the mercedes.Look on the shoulders behind the intakes..
You can see that mercedes has it's new hump, which may be the variable intake runners. It seems ferarri have decided not to implement those. Or we could possibly see them in this weeks test. maybe they will compare both solutions.
Something tells me that this year mercedes wont have its way.

I may be wrong, but judging by the size of the swelling, I'd say they have playing around with the cooling that was formerly related to the now extinct 'ears', but that's for another thread.

[George-Jung]

Fuel use would be the same; 100kg/h. Because of that, power should stay close to constant as revs build and assuming the AFR doesn't richen to help lower exhaust temperatures. However; if power is holding steady across the 10,500 to 15,000 RPM range, torque would be linearly decreasing across the same band.

I do know know whether the lower torque of over-revving a lower gear would offset the addition mechanical torque multiplication of being in a lower gear though.

Fuel use would be the same after 10500, yes. That's why he was told to use higher gears, so he's below 10.5k for more of the time.

Could it also for example be like:

13500 rpm = 100kg/h
12500 rpm = 95kg/h
11500 rpm = 90kg/h
10500 rpm = 85kg/h
etc..

In this situation you still have more power at higher revs right?

[timbo]

Could it also for example be like:

13500 rpm = 100kg/h
12500 rpm = 95kg/h
11500 rpm = 90kg/h
10500 rpm = 85kg/h
etc..

In this situation you still have more power at higher revs right?

Why would you do that? You'd be just leaving things on the table that way.