A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
It could be that both teams converged independently on the same solution, which is a logical path to follow (evolution of what is already on cars in 2011).
It is logical to try to exploit the sidepods and in particular the crash area in front of them. It will be a major trend in 2012 I think, especilly if it is confirmed, as rumored, that new cooling technologies have stepped in (and are available to more than one team at the seame time)
Well, maybe McLaren does something else and maybe it's just the evolution of the cars, but if only Ferrari and McLaren come with the "jump jet" than I would say Pat Fry used his knowledge or his connections to help Ferrari with this.
Or maybe Ferrari read this forum and developed ultra-quick haha.......
There have been more recent additions to Ferrari since Pat came over, it could have very well been them that brought the idea up if that's what even happened and it's not just an evolution. That's the most logical idea, that is if you want to be objective & fair..
Last edited by Crucial_Xtreme on 23 Jan 2012, 15:42, edited 1 time in total.
The front bulkhead would need to be a lot lower to fit a pullrod in the front. You could fit a pullrod in some sort of single keel and have links up to the dampers in the bulkhead, but I don't see much benefit in that.
I do not know if hydraulic suspension give more freedom or more constraints to ferrari in mounting a front pullrod scheme.
I do not even know if the suspension arms will be standard or very diffent form waht we are used to, with the lower wishbone being lower towards the ground and maybe the chassis sporting side extensions.
In 2006, Ferrari front lower arm was one piece for left and right side, with flexible composite meterial allowing for movement - maybe we will seen something like that again - or maybe two separate arms for the two sides, but with an unusual conectio to the tub.
This was my pick for visual impact novelty of the rb8 - low nose, pull rod and faired suspension members, whereas I expected mc to use side crash tubes as wings, but both of these ideas (especially the first) are maybe too much scifi.
I can't see how an efficient front pull rod can work with a high A-A bulkhead (625mm). With a pushrod its installation angle is near 45-degrees. With a pull rod I can't draw it to get anywhere near as much as 10-degrees.
What is interesting is not so much the winged side impact spars, but the way the floor is split between the sidepod and the lower side impact spar.
I initially thought this wouldnt be legal, due to the continuous surface regulated in 2011 to ban the double diffuser. But the 2011 rules sneaked in a revision in that the floor can feature openings forward of a line 450mm ahead of the rear face of the cockpit opening. This sits roughly inline with where the cockpit padding lowers down to chassis height, currently the sidepod fronts and side impact spars sit forward of this point.
A split in the floor will effectively move the floors leading edge backwards. This will have two effects:
Firstly, the centre of pressure will move backwards, as the suction peak at the floors leading edge will be further back. This will create more downfroce at the rear axle & less at the front, which will compensate for the loss of EBD, but the front wing will have to make up the deficit to keep the car balanced.
Secondly, there'll be shorter floor, which should be less sensitive, something Mercedes worked out last year when they designed the SWB & hence short floor for the what they thought would be a lack of EBD effect on the W02.
Losing this front 15cm of sidepods will reduce the volume left for radiator ducting and the coolers themselves. This does tie in with the belief that Ferrari have some sort of 'surface cooling' idea up their sleeves.
