Ferrari 150° Italia

[raymondu999]

I'm curious. In an interview Domenicali said that in September, they would start shifting totally to 2012; and that they already have upgrades planned until October. What does this tell us about their upgrade cycle lead time? Also, I don't understand. If they have a timeline of a few upgrades; why not just put the October upgrade at the next race?

For example. Say there is 1 upgrade each at Spa, Monza, Singapore, and one in Japan (which I believe is already in October). That's 4 upgrades. Other than the fact that Spa/Monza are specialty low-downforce circuits, why not put the Japan upgrades (the ones that just make the car go faster, rather than change a certain characteristic in terms of drag/downforce) at Spa anyways? Surely those must be faster?

[Hemsy]

I'm curious. In an interview Domenicali said that in September, they would start shifting totally to 2012; and that they already have upgrades planned until October. What does this tell us about their upgrade cycle lead time? Also, I don't understand. If they have a timeline of a few upgrades; why not just put the October upgrade at the next race?

For example. Say there is 1 upgrade each at Spa, Monza, Singapore, and one in Japan (which I believe is already in October). That's 4 upgrades. Other than the fact that Spa/Monza are specialty low-downforce circuits, why not put the Japan upgrades (the ones that just make the car go faster, rather than change a certain characteristic in terms of drag/downforce) at Spa anyways? Surely those must be faster?

There is a difference between simulation and production. Just because they've simulated an update in the windtunnel or using CFD doesn't mean they've manufactured it. They need to manufacture enough for both drivers including spares. Also not to mention if they introduce too many updates at once they won't know which part is having what effect on the car. In such cases it's best to take a methodical approach by testing an update and if it's working then introduce others in addition to it.

[Pierce89]

People forget abou EBD, i think ferrari, from the top3 teams, it's the weakest on that area and Maca is the most dependable on it.

Agreed, I'd like to see Ferrari catch up in this area, but at this time of year most updates are things they're looking at for next year, so I'm afraid EBD improvements would take away resources from updates that could help next year as well.

[Pierce89]

They can if their car is more aerodynamically efficient. There is no hard and fast relationship between downforce and top speed, it is all empirical.

The point being made is that if they were more aero efficient, they would win every race. It's getting to the point now where the McLaren *does* win most of the races, so you may have a point.

thank you. Someone actually understood what I wrote. I think the Mclaren and RB7 are now in the same neighborhood of aero efficiency, but I still belive the RB7 has more DF and the 26 has less drag.

[Javert]

In an interview to Italian newspaper Autosprint, according to Massa, Ferrari simulator "has only 60 mb ram", "can't simulate Pirelli degradation" and "not all races in the WC are inserted in it".

Massa adds "a solution that here has a 7 tenths gain, has a 2 tenths gain on the track" and "we can't fully simulate G-Forces, here there's much less effort".

I thought their simulation package was much better than McL's one, but I must amend me

Ferrari should really improve their simulator

[beelsebob]

In an interview to Italian newspaper Autosprint, according to Massa, Ferrari simulator "has only 60 mb ram", "can't simulate Pirelli degradation" and "not all races in the WC are inserted in it".

Massa adds "a solution that here has a 7 tenths gain, has a 2 tenths gain on the track" and "we can't fully simulate G-Forces, here there's much less effort".

I thought their simulation package was much better than McL's one, but I must amend me

Ferrari should really improve their simulator

The "only 60MB of RAM" comment is easily shrugged off – single purpose machines can often get away with tiny amounts of RAM like this, a PS3 for example has only 256MB of RAM shared between CPU and GPU, and that's much more general purpose than an F1 sim.

The lack of pirelli degradation and all tracks is pretty awful though.

[Italiano]

I'd say we're talking about a bad translation here. No way in hell that Ferrari has such crap equiptment.

[marcush.]

"thank you. Someone actually understood what I wrote. I think the Mclaren and RB7 are now in the same neighborhood of aero efficiency, but I still belive the RB7 has more DF and the 26 has less drag."

but ...topspeed and drag have a relationship or are there cars hitting the limiter in top gear with DRS enabled?

I think RedBulls philosophy is giving them a considerable drag advantage in Qualy as they use the full rear downforce only for short period of time at lower speeds.
the efficiency with /out DRS enabled swings into Ferraris and Mclarensx favour in the race.

[raymondu999]

@beelsebob - actually they have 256 RAM and 256 VRAM I believe; but then I think that's because they can run most of the code immediately off the DVDs (or is it BluRay that PS3 uses?)

I'm calling BS on that. I don't think the simulator can run on only 60MB. Considering that even F1 2010 needs 2GB minimum

thank you. Someone actually understood what I wrote. I think the Mclaren and RB7 are now in the same neighborhood of aero efficiency, but I still belive the RB7 has more DF and the 26 has less drag.

but ...topspeed and drag have a relationship or are there cars hitting the limiter in top gear with DRS enabled?

I think RedBulls philosophy is giving them a considerable drag advantage in Qualy as they use the full rear downforce only for short period of time at lower speeds.
the efficiency with /out DRS enabled swings into Ferraris and Mclarensx favour in the race.[/quote]At the risk of going hideously off-topic, I think that Red Bull is slightly overdoing their setups. In Silverstone qualy, the pole lap (Mark) was done with DRS activated through the first left, and the first right, of the Maggots corners. Meaning that they were drag, rather than grip limited for those corners. Mark even had DRS on through the Abbey corner!

I'm thinking that if they back off their rear wing a bit, they can go through those corners at the same speed (albeit with the wing down) but have less drag on the straights. That or Red Bull has reached the holy grail of downforce/drag compromise, where decreasing the wing would decrease their cornering speed, and increasing the wing would decrease it as well (as the car simply has too much drag through those corners.

But I digress. Back to the F150.

[beelsebob]

@beelsebob - actually they have 256 RAM and 256 VRAM I believe; but then I think that's because they can run most of the code immediately off the DVDs (or is it BluRay that PS3 uses?)

I'm calling BS on that. I don't think the simulator can run on only 60MB. Considering that even F1 2010 needs 2GB minimum

And yet runs happily on a PS3

[Javert]

If you were asking, I wasn't joking of you The interview to Massa is real and he said that.

I'm asking a confirm about the 60mb ram to the journalist who made the interview.

[Giblet]

Please deflect all this talk that is completely unrelated to the car elsewhere.

[wesley123]

In an interview to Italian newspaper Autosprint, according to Massa, Ferrari simulator "has only 60 mb ram", "can't simulate Pirelli degradation" and "not all races in the WC are inserted in it".

Massa adds "a solution that here has a 7 tenths gain, has a 2 tenths gain on the track" and "we can't fully simulate G-Forces, here there's much less effort".

I thought their simulation package was much better than McL's one, but I must amend me

Ferrari should really improve their simulator

The "only 60MB of RAM" comment is easily shrugged off – single purpose machines can often get away with tiny amounts of RAM like this, a PS3 for example has only 256MB of RAM shared between CPU and GPU, and that's much more general purpose than an F1 sim.

The lack of pirelli degradation and all tracks is pretty awful though.

I doubt an simulator like this gets away with 60mb ram. Sure it is single purpose, but a lot of things need to be loaded into memory and if they do this with 60mb of memory then that shows they have or really quick SSD's in there or their simulator is ages behind.

If a single purpose computer doesnt need much ram, then I cannot really understand why supercomputers run a lot, really a lot of RAM.

[Pierce89]

If you were asking, I wasn't joking of you The interview to Massa is real and he said that.

I'm asking a confirm about the 60mb ram to the journalist who made the interview.

It's 60 gigs people. not 60mb
http://www.gizmag.com/ferraris-f1-simulator/13666/

From the article:The simulator uses ten linked computers, 60 GB of RAM, five giant 3D video screens, a 3500 watt Dolby sound system, and weighs more than 200 tonnes. Even the 130 kW electrical power supply for the machine is a beast.

[Mr Alcatraz]

If you were asking, I wasn't joking of you The interview to Massa is real and he said that.

I'm asking a confirm about the 60mb ram to the journalist who made the interview.

It's 60 gigs people. not 60mb
http://www.gizmag.com/ferraris-f1-simulator/13666/

From the article:The simulator uses ten linked computers, 60 GB of RAM, five giant 3D video screens, a 3500 watt Dolby sound system, and weighs more than 200 tonnes. Even the 130 kW electrical power supply for the machine is a beast.

Javert please produce a link to substantiate (or help us discredit) this contention as we seem to have a conflict of information.
"Link Please"!!! Thanks