Scuderia Ferrari F1-75 speculation thread

[f1316]

I’ve been waiting for the speculation threads to open but looks like we have a Mercedes one already so we should have a Ferrari one! Note: 674 is the project name - it’ll end up with a different name in the end.

First off, crash tests passed: https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-fe ... 2/7014439/

One thing I hadn’t realised previously was that Ferrari (and Alpine) had already done a crash test at the end of 2020. According to the article this was to better understand the design restrictions they would have. Presumably this means trying out some more extreme designs (in the nose?) in order to see if it is worth going down those paths?

[f1316]

And to continue with something a bit more speculative, La Gazzetta dello Sport (reported by Paolo Filisetti) collected all the rumours that emerged about next year’s car, sector by sector:

Front end: “It should be characterized by a flat nose that descends towards the front up to the level of the main profile of the wing, effectively dividing it into two sections.”



[note: is it just me or does this show the ‘mid wing Ferrari pioneered in 2017 and which has since made its way onto every car? Pretty sure that won’t be possible in 2022]

Chassis: “It will maintain a deep lower ‘hole’ with the driver’s position similar to the current one, with the central divergent that will direct the lower air flow towards the large lateral Venturi channels.”

Radiators: “Different inclination compared to the current ones, while maintaining the high position of the air intakes of the sides”.

Flanks: “They will shrink a lot, respecting the regulatory limits of Chassis volumes.”

Constant height: “Although simplified by regulation, with only two shock absorbers and torsion bars on each axle, the suspensions must ensure as much as possible a constant ground clearance between the front and rear, in favor of the car’s aerodynamic efficiency.”

Transmission: “It will be totally new with a box that will incorporate the front attachment points of the triangles, while the rear arms should be pivoted on the deformable carbon structure.”

Power unit: “It will consist of an endothermic unit with an innovative combustion chamber design defined on the basis of the new fuel specifications that include 10% ethanol. This would be a reasoned evolution of the ‘super fast’ concept with pre-combustion chamber, to speed up the flame propagation times, optimizing the combustion of the air / fuel mixture.”

Development: “The first aerodynamic evolutions are already being studied to be introduced in the tests in Bahrain (10-12 March).”

[Sevach]

Constant height: “Although simplified by regulation, with only two shock absorbers and torsion bars on each axle, the suspensions must ensure as much as possible a constant ground clearance between the front and rear, in favor of the car’s aerodynamic efficiency.”

Heave springs gone too? I didn't know that... all suspension work of the last decades is reset now.

[Zynerji]

Constant height: “Although simplified by regulation, with only two shock absorbers and torsion bars on each axle, the suspensions must ensure as much as possible a constant ground clearance between the front and rear, in favor of the car’s aerodynamic efficiency.”

Heave springs gone too? I didn't know that... all suspension work of the last decades is reset now.

The blunting of the pinnacle.

FisherPrice 1

[henry]

Constant height: “Although simplified by regulation, with only two shock absorbers and torsion bars on each axle, the suspensions must ensure as much as possible a constant ground clearance between the front and rear, in favor of the car’s aerodynamic efficiency.”

Heave springs gone too? I didn't know that... all suspension work of the last decades is reset now.

This is the second time I’ve seen this claim. I can find nothing in the 2022 regs that require this.

Inerters are definitely banned, along with fancy dampers. Perhaps someone thinks this bans the whole assembly that included the inerter.

[Sevach]

Constant height: “Although simplified by regulation, with only two shock absorbers and torsion bars on each axle, the suspensions must ensure as much as possible a constant ground clearance between the front and rear, in favor of the car’s aerodynamic efficiency.”

Heave springs gone too? I didn't know that... all suspension work of the last decades is reset now.

This is the second time I’ve seen this claim. I can find nothing in the 2022 regs that require this.

Inerters are definitely banned, along with fancy dampers. Perhaps someone thinks this bans the whole assembly that included the inerter.

I knew about inerters and hydraulic semi-active systems, let's wait for further info regarding this.

[henry]

Heave springs gone too? I didn't know that... all suspension work of the last decades is reset now.

This is the second time I’ve seen this claim. I can find nothing in the 2022 regs that require this.

Inerters are definitely banned, along with fancy dampers. Perhaps someone thinks this bans the whole assembly that included the inerter.

I knew about inerters and hydraulic semi-active systems, let's wait for further info regarding this.

Why wait for info when we can read the regs?

Edit. Here’s what I think is the relevant section

10.4 Inboard suspension
10.4.1 The inboard suspensions of the front and rear axles must only be actuated via a single rocker
per wheel, with only a single outboard suspension connection to each rocker.
A rocker is a mechanical device that is rigidly supported on the sprung mass and rotates about a fixed axis on the sprung mass with no other relative degree of freedom.
10.4.2 Suspension elements can only connect to the rockers or sprung mass, where any such connection is classified as a node, subject to the following restrictions :
a. They only permit relative rotation at their nodes.
b. They must be so arranged that any suspension element functions only in parallel to any other, even if multiple elements are physically combined into a single component and/or share physically coincident nodes.
c. There is only one degree of relative freedom between each element’s end nodes. No functional connection may be used to any other part of the element in order to obtain, for example, a feedback signal for other parts of the suspension system.
d. With the exception of sensors whose sole purpose is to provide data,no other device(s) may connect to a node or act on the rocker.

I think this permits elements between the rockers such as third springs and dampers and anti-roll bars.

[Stu]

This is the second time I’ve seen this claim. I can find nothing in the 2022 regs that require this.

Inerters are definitely banned, along with fancy dampers. Perhaps someone thinks this bans the whole assembly that included the inerter.

I knew about inerters and hydraulic semi-active systems, let's wait for further info regarding this.

Why wait for info when we can read the regs?

Edit. Here’s what I think is the relevant section

10.4 Inboard suspension
10.4.1 The inboard suspensions of the front and rear axles must only be actuated via a single rocker
per wheel, with only a single outboard suspension connection to each rocker.
A rocker is a mechanical device that is rigidly supported on the sprung mass and rotates about a fixed axis on the sprung mass with no other relative degree of freedom.
10.4.2 Suspension elements can only connect to the rockers or sprung mass, where any such connection is classified as a node, subject to the following restrictions :
a. They only permit relative rotation at their nodes.
b. They must be so arranged that any suspension element functions only in parallel to any other, even if multiple elements are physically combined into a single component and/or share physically coincident nodes.
c. There is only one degree of relative freedom between each element’s end nodes. No functional connection may be used to any other part of the element in order to obtain, for example, a feedback signal for other parts of the suspension system.
d. With the exception of sensors whose sole purpose is to provide data,no other device(s) may connect to a node or act on the rocker.

I think this permits elements between the rockers such as third springs and dampers and anti-roll bars.

Unless it has been scratched from the rules (Feb 2021 issue)
The next section (10.4.3) forbids fluid actuated mechanisms.

“The only permitted suspension elements are :
Springs - the primary purpose or which is to absorb and release energy in a
monotonically increasing load relationship with relative deflection between its nodes
(or increasing torque with twist). Multiple springs may be combined in series or
parallel to generate a single spring element entity between its nodes providing the
result, as measured at the nodes, conforms to the monotonic requirement above anc
no part of the design has the purpose and/or effect of altering this relationship. Spring
elements using a fluid medium are not permitted,
Dampers - the primary purpose of which is to dissipate energy by generating an
opposing force to the direction of motion as a function of the relative velocit
between its nodes. Utilisation of heavily asymmetric damping forces for the purpose
and/or effect of contravening Article 10.2.6 is not permitted. A gas spring as part of
the tunctionalitv of a damper element. for the purposes of anti-cavitation.
acceptable as long as the spring rate as measured between the nodes does not exceed
10N/mm.
Hysteresis is acceptable in an element providing it is at an incidental level and no attempt is
made to utilise an inherent hysteresis to alter the response of the element relative to
primarv purpose,
Links mav be used to actuate the suspension elements that are mounted remote rom the
rockers but cannot be used to circumvent or subvert the requirement of Artice 10.2.6. Such
links must be rigid and of minimal mass and design so as to achieve the linking mechanism
Links using a fluid medium are not permitted”

Heave springs as they are currently installed/operated become illegal, however, if they go back to the old fashioned way of doing things they may be mechanically linked to the rockers. Packaging becomes a big driver in solutions!!!

[henry]

Heave springs as they are currently installed/operated become illegal, however, if they go back to the old fashioned way of doing things they may be mechanically linked to the rockers. Packaging becomes a big driver in solutions!!!

Clearly the implementation will need to change, after all inerters use space and they are no longer allowed.

However, as you say, the basic implementation of a spring between the rockers will continue.

In this image of the Red Bull, the top implementation, using hydraulics, is banned but the lower is not. Obviously the hydraulic version was better, otherwise why do it, but the functionality, and packaging are not very different.



From
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/how- ... 1/5322311/

[Zynerji]

Do we have a good reason why inerters were banned? I mean, MGUH, sure....

But a round nut that spins on a threaded rod seems reasonable to handle...

[Stu]

Do we have a good reason why inerters were banned? I mean, MGUH, sure....

But a round nut that spins on a threaded rod seems reasonable to handle...

AFAIK… inverters have been limited for years now (in terms of size/weight) and are considered (by the FIA) as a moveable aerodynamic control device. They have taken the opportunity of a new rule set to ban them outright and challenge the engineers to come up with new solutions (the hydraulic linking of suspension devices would be in the same bracket).

[f1316]

Apparently the new fuel from Shell has already recovered what they thought the teams would lose from the 10% ethanol requirement:

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-fe ... i/7031995/

[Zynerji]

Do we have a good reason why inerters were banned? I mean, MGUH, sure....

But a round nut that spins on a threaded rod seems reasonable to handle...

AFAIK… inverters have been limited for years now (in terms of size/weight) and are considered (by the FIA) as a moveable aerodynamic control device. They have taken the opportunity of a new rule set to ban them outright and challenge the engineers to come up with new solutions (the hydraulic linking of suspension devices would be in the same bracket).

Reasoning like this is why American politics is so toxic... Movable aero control device? That can be the entire suspension system if one wants to look at it that way...

F1 feels more like a Blizzard-Activision game every year. Painfully wasted potential.

[Stu]

Do we have a good reason why inerters were banned? I mean, MGUH, sure....

But a round nut that spins on a threaded rod seems reasonable to handle...

AFAIK… inverters have been limited for years now (in terms of size/weight) and are considered (by the FIA) as a moveable aerodynamic control device. They have taken the opportunity of a new rule set to ban them outright and challenge the engineers to come up with new solutions (the hydraulic linking of suspension devices would be in the same bracket).

Reasoning like this is why American politics is so toxic... Movable aero control device? That can be the entire suspension system if one wants to look at it that way...

F1 feels more like a Blizzard-Activision game every year. Painfully wasted potential.

The original ban was due to the 2005/2006 (I think) Renault, where it was classed outright as a moveable aerodynamic device. I think that they were re-introduced in a very limited fashion with either the 2009 or 2014 regulations, they have had further restrictions to mass/size since then.

[henry]

AFAIK… inverters have been limited for years now (in terms of size/weight) and are considered (by the FIA) as a moveable aerodynamic control device. They have taken the opportunity of a new rule set to ban them outright and challenge the engineers to come up with new solutions (the hydraulic linking of suspension devices would be in the same bracket).

Reasoning like this is why American politics is so toxic... Movable aero control device? That can be the entire suspension system if one wants to look at it that way...

F1 feels more like a Blizzard-Activision game every year. Painfully wasted potential.

The original ban was due to the 2005/2006 (I think) Renault, where it was classed outright as a moveable aerodynamic device. I think that they were re-introduced in a very limited fashion with either the 2009 or 2014 regulations, they have had further restrictions to mass/size since then.

An inerter is not the same thing as a Tuned Mass Damper (TMD) which was the technology banned in your reference.

The inerter is a component in the suspension system in the same way as a spring or damper is. Where a damper removes energy from the suspension system the inerter’s purpose is to return energy to the system out of phase with the tyres which are low rate and lightly damped.

I imagine there are 3 possible reasons for banning inerters

To take some cost out of the suspension, the budget cap probably makes this unnecessary

The 18” tyres are stiffer and may need less damping assistance

They want to make it more difficult to control the aero platform to make the cars more difficult to drive