Ferrari F2012

[donskar]

@Crucial_Xtreme

From a McLaren fans point of view on what was said--> The Sky Sports bit from Brundle in the post-quali Sky coverage. He said that he had spoken to some Ferrari mechanics and insiders and they had pretty much confirmed that their problems still lie with fact that that their computer systems are not aligning with the on-track data and telemetry. This has meant that their issues lie squarely with the aero on the car. the suspension is just a red herring and isn't the cause or solution to their problems.

Assuming this is true, I would think there is little sense in the team making significant design revisions on the current car, much less undertake a new design, until they can trust their design tools. Why would a new car NOT suffer the same lack of alignment between "computer systems" and "on-track data and telemetry"?

[bhall]

Yes, I'm new [...]

Here is a list of every post I've ever made here. Consider yourself cordially invited to browse it at your leisure. (Some are funny; some are insightful; most don't mean much of anything.)

I'm afraid your fanatical devotion to science will likely be superfluous when it comes to any discussion of the F2012. This car was DOA, and I declared it as such when it became obvious that the team was completely taken by surprise that its original exhaust didn't work. So convinced were they that it would work, their plan-B consisted of a hacksaw and little else.

Such an outcome leaves three possible explanations: continued correlation issues, a sudden onset of dementia within the team's design department, or flat-out negligence.

I think Ferrari's much-vaunted "bold" approach during the off-season wasn't so much the car's design, it was the fact that they went balls-out designing it. There's a Ferrari-shaped hole somewhere in a factory wall in Maranello from when this team took off with the F2012 and never looked back.

If that works, Ferrari dominates 2012. If not....

I've never thought the F2012's issues are suspension-related. From what I gather, most folks don't. (There's one xception, of course, but I do tend to carefully consider his thoughts.) No, I think it's all aero-related and mostly concerns the exhaust and it's knock-on effects. The team's research is somehow badly compromised. I'm sure Ferrari knows it, too. I think they've said as much.

(Consider the above statements the "Ben's Notes" of things I've already posted.)

My problem with, "since when did a suspension cause a lack of downforce," is that it betrays a mindset at Ferrari that allows these problems to happen again and again and again. There are many ways that a vehicle's suspension can adversely effect downforce. Even if none of them are present in the F2012, I feel a competent engineer wouldn't allow those words to escape his mouth in that order.

I think the team needs abandon this season and use the remaining races as testing sessions while they do some major housecleaning back home. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure this will all happen again next year.

(I hate it when I end up writing that much. No one reads them; they're an insomnia pill. In fact, I'm not quite sure that such long statements are even consciously typed on my part.)

EDIT: I almost forgot. Welcome to THE forum.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

@Crucial_Xtreme



Assuming this is true, I would think there is little sense in the team making significant design revisions on the current car, much less undertake a new design, until they can trust their design tools. Why would a new car NOT suffer the same lack of alignment between "computer systems" and "on-track data and telemetry"?

Depending on where exactly the problems are, they can fairly easily get around them. For instance, if they are still having tunnel issues, they could use the Toyota facility. I think they probably have already just to compare to their tunnel data. If it was CFD I would assume they could get ANSYS reps there to help. I'm not real sure. I don't remember that part of the statement from Brundle. I am waiting on Sky to re-air the show and I will get the full accurate quote.

[f300v10]

"It was better. I think we did a step forward in this race - there is no doubt," Alonso said. "The car was feeling a little bit better and again we did some checks Friday, some aero parts that we used in Australia and we wanted a confirmation.

"So we tested here again and some of them were quite positive. We introduced to the car and I think it's a step in the right direction. We were one second off pole position in Q2 when we went out in Australia in Q2 and today we were six tenths and a half.

"This three tenths is quite encouraging for us, a positive sign that we are moving in the right direction.

"We need obviously a triple step of what we did as soon as possible."

can someone explain to me what did he want to say???

They didn't race the 'new' front wing in Australia, but it would appear it is working well in Sepang as both Alonso and Massa used it in qualifying.

As far as the 'triple step', I assume he means that as they are 3 tenths closer to the front this weekend, if they can triple that gain soon, they can be equal or ahead of the fastest car.

[radosav]

well his math is strange, but maybe he wanted to say they have gained 3,5 tenths because in australia during qualy his best lap was 1,51 sec off pole, and in sepang his best qualy lap was 1,16 sec off pole, and both of those were in Q2. in Q3 in sepang he had Kers problems, thats why he was slower. so they made few updates and gained 3,5 tenths, and sepang circuit is longer.if they conzinue ti gain 3,5 tenths in every race by the end of the season they will be 4 sec per lap ahead of rest of the teams.

[banibhusan]

Well he may have simply meant that, they took one step in the right direction and gained 3 tenths. But since they are still around 6 to 7 tenths slower in terms of Q2 pace, they needed 3 times the similar improvement to get close to the leaders. But they made just one step and got 3 tenths closer. As simple as it can get.

Hence "TRIPLE STEP" my friend.

[Neno]

well his math is strange, but maybe he wanted to say they have gained 3,5 tenths because in australia during qualy his best lap was 1,51 sec off pole, and in sepang his best qualy lap was 1,16 sec off pole, and both of those were in Q2. in Q3 in sepang he had Kers problems, thats why he was slower. so they made few updates and gained 3,5 tenths, and sepang circuit is longer.if they conzinue ti gain 3,5 tenths in every race by the end of the season they will be 4 sec per lap ahead of rest of the teams.

lmao, that sound like Ferrari's dream season

[xpensive]

I agree, the only thing the driver can detect is the amount of grip, or lack of it, which comes from downforce but also from several other parameters, such as an unstable front suspension for xample.

The car does not seem to have much understeer.

If you lack front end grip due to an unstable front suspension, perhaps you sometimes balance that with less rear downforce?

...
Agreed 110%. Fernando just confirmed in the press conference they would not be bringing a new car to Barcelona.

He would say just that, wouldn't he?

[bhall]

"We need obviously a triple step of what we did as soon as possible."

can someone explain to me what did he want to say???

Alonso was misquoted.

"We need obviously a triple sec for what we did as soon as possible."



The man just needs a drink. And can you really blame him?

[Jersey Tom]

Martin Brundle confirms from Ferrari mechanics/engineers that the pull rod suspension isn't the problem. I believe the exact words from Ferrari were "since when did a suspension cause a lack of downforce?"

I hope someone from Ferrari really didn't say that.

I can think of two ways - ride height and porpoising - and I'm not all that smart.

Eh, I'd tend to agree with the 'Ferrari' quote on this one. I don't see how their suspension geometry would inherently be demolishing their aero.

The force elements (springs, dampers, etc) ultimately control things like quasi-steady ride height from aero loading, and porpoising from ride inputs. Granted, control arm geometry will give rise to jacking forces but the effect of these is still "regulated" by the main springs.

With this type of suspension topology I would say that getting a good prediction of your dynamic ride heights / pitch angle / etc is relatively straightforward - though there are some curve balls which can be thrown in there. What may be relatively less obvious is ensuring your predicted aero maps consistently match reality. If they don't, then you may be hitting your target attitude control quite well - but be in a region of the aero map that's doing something other than what you expect.

[xpensive]

What I react to is that there is no way for a Ferrari mechanic/engineer or even driver to know if the car's grip, or lack of it,
is from "aerodynamic" or "mechanical" such, where the suspension of course is of paramount importance in the latter.

Or so I believe in all of my desk-engineer ignorance.

[WhiteBlue]

is it me or does anyone else also think that sooner or later they will do a new crash test..and not just ferrari..every team... to make way for the FWFD tubing...as we saw today it can be a very good weapon in qualy..

EDIT: actual sooner than later

You can forget a new chassis. It is against the RRA and the other team could protest it at the FiA if Ferrari designed a B-version of the 2012. I doubt that they would get an exceptional clearance for a B-chassis if they even ask for it.

So we can safely assume that the changes will apply to the exhaust system, the venting of the radiators, the rear wing and DRS and other associated parts mainly at the back of the car.

[Jersey Tom]

What I react to is that there is no way for a Ferrari mechanic/engineer or even driver to know if the car's grip, or lack of it,
is from "aerodynamic" or "mechanical" such, where the suspension of course is of paramount importance in the latter.

Or so I believe in all of my desk-engineer ignorance.

Not sure I'd agree with that statement.

If you get to the track and make adjustments that should be positive for mechanical grip - and they work - you can have confidence in that aspect of things.

If you get to the track and make a change that should be a positive for downforce or balance and things go to crap, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that the aero predictive work is lacking.

[xpensive]

...
You can forget a new chassis. It is against the RRA and the other team could protest it at the FiA if Ferrari designed a B-version of the 2012. I doubt that they would get an exceptional clearance for a B-chassis if they even ask for it.
...

I very much disagree, the FIA has nothing to do with the RRA, while Ferrari is no part of FOTA anymore, besides, Montezuma is used to get what he wants and I'm certain that he will not spend every second weekend this year looking at that abomination.

[Lca1443]

What I react to is that there is no way for a Ferrari mechanic/engineer or even driver to know if the car's grip, or lack of it,
is from "aerodynamic" or "mechanical" such, where the suspension of course is of paramount importance in the latter.

Or so I believe in all of my desk-engineer ignorance.

You know that they can (and do) measure the amount of downforce produced.