Ferrari F2012

[hardingfv32]

[

[An obsessive attention to detail -- every detail -- is a hallmark of a guy named Newey.

1) Why isn't Newey using it?

2) Why was it not done last year? 'Everything thing' mattered last year too. Nothing particularly challenging in the change.

Brian

[bhall]

A thin nose accomplishes the same goal. No, there is something very odd about putting a flat ramp in your top nose surface. If this upper nose ramp had aero benefit we would have seen it years ago.

I don't think there's any aero benefit at all to having that ramp, as you call it. In fact, I'm quite sure they'd get rid of it somehow if they could. But, it is what it is in the quest for the highest nose possible.

Don't forget that this car allegedly failed its first crash test. So, we may very well be seeing a nose that's both an aerodynamic compromise as well as a structural compromise.

2) What are the risks to reliability [with front pull rods]? Are they different than a push rod system?

I'm personally not convinced the potential benefit is worth the risk. I can just see the whole thing shattering the first time it hits a curb.

[hardingfv32]

it is what it is in the quest for the highest nose possible.

To be very precise shouldn't you be saying the highest nose floor or underside? Isn't that where everyone is claiming the action is?

Doesn't McLaren have the highest nose floor or underside possible? Do they have a slot or ramp on the top surface of their nose? No

Brian

[yace]

The exhaust is in the bit of the engine cover that points down. I asked Craig what he thought about the Ferrari potentially doing what I described above, and he agreed 100%.

ok thank you reymondu

[jordangp]

it is what it is in the quest for the highest nose possible.

To be very precise shouldn't you be saying the highest nose floor or underside? Isn't that where everyone is claiming the action is?

Doesn't McLaren have the highest nose floor or underside possible? Do they have a slot or ramp on the top surface of their nose? No

Brian

McLaren's underside isn't the highest, no. People still dont seem to understand why we have these bumps this year. The bulkhead dimensions are mandated. Everyone has gone for as high as possible, apart from McLaren, who's front bulkhead is lower, if not by much. Therefore the underside is lower also, because all teams have the same bulkhead dimensions. The higher on top, the higher on bottom. Overall, you would want the highest nose possible, as bhallg2k said.

[hardingfv32]

Got it.

Then that is very odd on McLaren's part with the importance we on this form put to the flow under the nose.

Brian

[Mr Alcatraz]

A thin nose accomplishes the same goal. No, there is something very odd about putting a flat ramp in your top nose surface. If this upper nose ramp had aero benefit we would have seen it years ago.

I don't think there's any aero benefit at all to having that ramp, as you call it. In fact, I'm quite sure they'd get rid of it somehow if they could. But, it is what it is in the quest for the highest nose possible.

Don't forget that this car allegedly failed its first crash test. So, we may very well be seeing a nose that's both an aerodynamic compromise as well as a structural compromise.

2) What are the risks to reliability [with front pull rods]? Are they different than a push rod system?

I think this front pull rod suspension was designed with consideration of Fred's somewhat unorthodox style of throwing and catching a car with power down and not having to use too much of the road ,(with the absolute knowledge of where it is going in Space-Time)
Could be wrong though

[Froggolo]

Don't forget that this car allegedly failed its first crash test. So, we may very well be seeing a nose that's both an aerodynamic compromise as well as a structural compromise.


I'm personally not convinced the potential benefit is worth the risk. I can just see the whole thing shattering the first time it hits a curb.

Hi,
they failed side impact crash test, not frontal crash test.

my advice, wait Melbourne to see the first "real" look of all the cars

[bhall]

Good to know. Thanks. I stand corrected on the nose potentially being a structural compromise.

[Froggolo]

i partly agree with you,

obviously they didn't exploit the radius of the cross section of the front bulkhead as other teams with platypus nose have done.
My supposition is that the nose has such squared shape because it has to house the front suspension pull-rod system,
what i think is one of the biggest innovations F2012 has,
and probably to make it work with such geometry, they had to use all the space inside the front bulkhead,
what is defined by the FIA in 275mm high & 300mm wide.

[Lorenzo_Bandini]

[bonjon1979]

Don't forget that this car allegedly failed its first crash test. So, we may very well be seeing a nose that's both an aerodynamic compromise as well as a structural compromise.


I'm personally not convinced the potential benefit is worth the risk. I can just see the whole thing shattering the first time it hits a curb.

Hi,
they failed side impact crash test, not frontal crash test.

my advice, wait Melbourne to see the first "real" look of all the cars

The crash test is all about the tub surviving - the carbon fibre bodywork has absolutely no structural function what so ever so I doubt that the shape of the car would cause it to fail the crash test.

[Raptor22]

Ah I see now why Ferrari opted for the ugly bump...


So they can see tehnumber of the car better. Much easier to dish out team orders I guess

[shelly]

@bonjon: you are partly wrong and partly right.

Right when you say that bodywork has no structural role, wrong when you say the nose cone has no structural role: it is the key element for front crash

[i70q7m7ghw]

It does look like that the hot air exit at the rear of the engine cover is being used to blow the diffuser.

Some other things on this car look quite interesting too. The pull-rod front suspension is a surprise (though i expect it on the RB8 as well). It has a bit of a "U" to the sidepods too. The turning vanes on the outside of the sidepods look to be split too.

The RB8 doesn't have pull-rod. Do you have any insights in to why you feel pull-rod is the way to go?