bananapeel23 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2024, 12:28
Farnborough wrote: ↑25 Sep 2024, 10:08
Related to this aspect, pull rod front suspension, AN interview in which he talks specifically about this design.
Equally, the move from pull rear on previous RB to push on this era, was to package the suspension into a now very much reduced gearbox space.
Guessing that Ferrari are now looking and comparing those front end flow structures to give their design comparable scope as these two.
It seems weird to expect Ferrari to emulate the Red Bull/McLaren approach simply because they’re discussing a move from pushrod to pullrod front suspension.
1) There have been no rumours of them switching to a pushrod rear, meaning they probably aren’t focusing on gearbox packaging to the same extent. It would also be very strange for them to completely redesign their gearbox in the last year of a regulation set.
2) Ferrari packaging efforts in this regulation set seem to have mostly been focused on reducing the size of the engine cover and cleaning up the flow over the sidepods and beam wing. I doubt we will see them give up on this philosophy.
3) Ferrari is actually seeing results from their car development at this point. Completely switching the entire packaging concept and starting fresh would be pretty odd and risky. Especially since they seem broadly happy with the SF-24 apart from the tyre warmup issues.
Personally I don’t think the switch to a pullrod front is really a sign of them emulating other teams, but rather a case of them needing to redesign the front suspension to resolve the bouncing issues, with the switch to pull rod simply being something they do while they’re at it, since it has aerodynamic benefits. They seem to be converging on pull rod, but not because Ferrari is converging on overall car concept.
Perhaps my phrase has been misunderstood, I've not suggested that they are following defacto "pull" philosophy just to be the same.
The nuance in that which I'm suggesting is that they are putting that concept through their own evaluation processes, tools, CFD etc, etc to base their decisions on their own in house knowledge base.
That process in itself, on their own terms, will show them if there's say value in this route and focus their own view of the plus and minus aspect.
Working with a push or pull system in its mechanical effect has no real secrets, it's pretty low risk to use one or the other in resolving the mechanical loads imparted by each design.
The gain, if there's any available, appears to be ultimately in flow structures within this aero regulation set.
Again there's no suggestion from me that they are taking just a " if its good enough for newey, then its good enough for us" type position. Just that they are opening a logical evaluation of potential, thats really how anyone may progress their own facility.