allan wrote:
i've just read that ferrari are going to change to V keel front suspension setup((italian magazine))
any information about that?
I buy every week both Sportautomoto and Autosprint, most important magazines of the sector in Italy and the ones international press usually quotes (Autosport often quotes interviews published in Autosprint), and I didn’t find the suggestion that Ferrari is going to switch to V keel, certainly not after the car was tested.
On Autosprint there was, last week (it was published couple of days after the shakedown), a reference, just a row, to already planned changes in suspension geometry in the next few months (+ new front wing etc etc), but to me it looks like they mean slight modifications on position of attachments, usual practice during a season and hardly noticeable from outside, not a radical switch to the V-keel, they would have specified it if that was the case; I wouldn’t exclude that it’s a problem of translation / interpretation that lead to the rumour you heard. Then everything can be obviously, but I would think that, if they wanted to adopt the v-keel, it would be already on the car.
During previous weeks on non specialized newspapers there were indeed rumours about the possibility that the new Ferrari was going to adopt raised wishbones at the front, but that was before the first test and it’s now a pretty usual thing... since 2002 before the debut of the new Ferrari it’s normal to read vague articles saying “we know from anonymous sources at Ferrari/people close to the factory/Santa Claus that the new car will have twin keel/no keel/ v keel/ 245 keels”... then the new car is launched...
In 2002 I trusted the rumour, in 2003 I was very sceptical, since 2004 I simply avoid to read articles with previews about the new Ferrari before the launch. Especially because every year I’m more and more convinced that Ferrari people want the keel to be exactly where it is.
bernard wrote:
I've been thinking about these vertical struts that are now the fashionable way to support the rearwing.
I believe in Ferrari case the two struts are related to the fact that the wing lower element, with very short chord, is attached to the, relatively thin, walls of the additional channel instead of being attached to the central part of the crushable structure as it happens in all the other cars. An additional benefit is that reducing the load on the RWEP you can adopt a more complex shape for the RWEP itself, more difficult if it has a relevant structural function.
At the end, for the discussion about the fins on the brake ducts and the inclination of the suspension arms, maybe a look to F1 technical rules could answer some questions and remove doubts about legality.
In 2006 rules there’s a modification (clarification) on the rule on bodywork movement and brake ducts [in bold the parts added this year] :
3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane) and the ducts
described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
[...]
11.4 Air ducts :
Air ducts around the front and rear brakes will be considered part of the braking system and shall not protrude beyond :
- a plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm above the horizontal centre line of the wheel ;
- a plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm below the horizontal centre line of the wheel ;
- a vertical plane parallel to the inner face of the wheel rim and displaced from it by 120mm toward the centre line of the car.
It’s interesting they introduced the clarification this year because, as Scarbs mentioned, McLaren adopts often the same solution, although on the lower edge of the rim, they use it since 2003 at least and nobody did complain about it for few years; then Ferrari introduces a similar solution in Monaco 2005 and instantly in the paddock and in some internet forums (not here, not until now at least
) a “burn the cheater” fight starts and FIA has to clarify the rule...
As for suspension members, no modifications for 2006.
10.3 Suspension members :
10.3.1 The cross-sections of each member of every suspension component must have an aspect ratio no greater than 3.5:1 and be symmetrical about its major axis. All suspension components may however have sections with an aspect ratio greater than 3.5:1, and be non-symmetrical, provided these are adjacent to their inner and outer attachments and form no more than 25% of the total distance between the attachments of the relevant member.
All measurements will be made perpendicular to a line drawn between the inner and outer attachments of the relevant member.
10.3.2 No major axis of a cross section of a suspension member may subtend an angle greater than 5° to the reference plane when measured parallel to the centre line of the car.
With 25% of the length absolutely free and with 5° for the other part you can do lot of things...
