Ferrari F2012

[Lycoming]

certainly focus #1 right now should be in getting a stable package that they can build on in the future; trying to integrate that sort of system does not fall under that.

In that sense I agree that they should move forward with the current design... there is no one single thing that seems to be glaringly wrong on it, I think it can be a frontrunner with aero and bodywork type updates. A clean sheet design would set them back further, and its not like this car has renault's forward exit exhausts, which they had to live with for the rest of the season. Basically I think the car can find a lot of pace without drastic changes, ie new tub, suspension, etc.

And no, there is nothing wrong with the front suspension. Don't even start on that.

[xpensive]

This is a forum about the car, I believe? Anyone care to stop name calling and conspiracy debunking and hazard a guess at what changes can be effected in the three weeks until China? I should think intense work in the tunnel could lead to SOME improvements (?)

Again, on a drying track, Alonso lost a second per lap to a Sauber, this discloses the situation crystal clear me thinks?
The problem is a little more fundamental than position of xhaust and the need for some aerodynamic tweaks I'm afraid.

Who knows, pussyfooting around in those monsoon-conditions might have hit some sweetspot of that front suspension?

[captainmorgan]

pussyfooting-strategy didnt help massa

[captainmorgan]

...
The car has an excellent front air feeding to the diffusor (thanks to the high chassis teatrail design and front pull rod) and INFACT the car performs very well in fast corners.

the car has a poor exhaust gas feed to the diffusor (that presently is active only when you exit a corner) and INFACT the car has poor traction out of the slow corners (the contribution gas/air to the total downforce is of course higher at lower speed)

Due to the aborted original exhaust layout the car has a sidepods design that give excessive aerodrag and INFACT the car has low top speed.

I think that is remarkably easy to individuate the problems of F2012 the hard will be to fix them.

In order for Ferrari to change exhaust to Sauber,RB,Merc way they need to redesign radiators in side the sidepods from vertical to horizontal right?

Can that be done whitout crashtest?

Both of these yet-unanswered posts seem more interesting and topical than team-flaming, so I'll bump them.

[imightbewrong]

...
The car has an excellent front air feeding to the diffusor (thanks to the high chassis teatrail design and front pull rod) and INFACT the car performs very well in fast corners.

the car has a poor exhaust gas feed to the diffusor (that presently is active only when you exit a corner) and INFACT the car has poor traction out of the slow corners (the contribution gas/air to the total downforce is of course higher at lower speed)

Due to the aborted original exhaust layout the car has a sidepods design that give excessive aerodrag and INFACT the car has low top speed.

I think that is remarkably easy to individuate the problems of F2012 the hard will be to fix them.

In order for Ferrari to change exhaust to Sauber,RB,Merc way they need to redesign radiators in side the sidepods from vertical to horizontal right?

Can that be done whitout crashtest?

Both of these yet-unanswered posts seem more interesting and topical than team-flaming, so I'll bump them.

Sauber also has vertical radiators, so I don't see why everyone is so hung up on that part?

[myurr]

This is a forum about the car, I believe? Anyone care to stop name calling and conspiracy debunking and hazard a guess at what changes can be effected in the three weeks until China? I should think intense work in the tunnel could lead to SOME improvements (?)

Again, on a drying track, Alonso lost a second per lap to a Sauber, this discloses the situation crystal clear me thinks?
The problem is a little more fundamental than position of xhaust and the need for some aerodynamic tweaks I'm afraid.

Who knows, pussyfooting around in those monsoon-conditions might have hit some sweetspot of that front suspension?

FFS it's not the front suspension!

Driving on the wet / drying track would have been cancelling out a lot of the exhaust blowing as the cars are off throttle for so much longer. The car was also really good during the early stages of the inters during that penultimate stint.

You know what that points to? Aero.

The inters and wets are larger tyres than the drys to lift the cars to a greater ride height. This does affect the aero performance of the car quite significantly. The 2008 Torro Rosso was one car that benefitted hugely from the change in aero from the larger tyres, causing it to work very very well in wet conditions. I forget who said it (think it was Brundle commentating) but it was quoted a while ago that the team never managed to work out why their aero worked so well with those tyres, but there was a subtle change in the interactions between the various components.

Ferrari seems to benefit (or loses less than the competition) from that increase in ride height and / or change in tyre profile.

Where Sauber started to reel the Ferrari back in was as the tread on those tyres started to wear bring the profile of the tyre back towards that of the slick tyres. When they changed on to slicks the Sauber was instantly quicker. That's not down to the front suspension, that's an aero issue.

[myurr]

Sauber also has vertical radiators, so I don't see why everyone is so hung up on that part?

Same reason people are so attached to the front suspension - it looks a bit different to what the other front runners are doing. There are only two problems with the Ferrari. The exhausts aren't working as well as the other cars, and they don't have enough downforce particularly at the rear of the car. They may also have a subtle aero problem like pitch sensitivity but that can't be conclusively shown by us here on this board.

[bhall]

I was asked why the Ferrari seems to struggle more and more as it becomes lighter during a race. I responded as follows:

The team appears to be running the car with considerably less rake than they intended, and that's likely because they're trying to gain some measure of the downforce promised by the original exhaust configuration. The lower ride height of the rear then means they have to run a stiffer rear suspension to keep the car from bottoming out. A stiffer suspension being less compliant, the car has a tendency to become unstable because the rear end is essentially bouncing around the track. The weight of the fuel stabilizes this effect to a degree - like a mass damper. But, as the car gets lighter and lighter, the problem becomes more and more pronounced. This trait significantly compromises the car's performance under braking and with getting traction out of slow corners. The latter then hinders the car's speed at the end of a straight.

Does that seem right?

[xpensive]

I have this theory why "aero" is such a popular subject for the pub-analyst, with catchy xpressions like vortex, delaminanation, stalling and what not, it becomes uncertain enough for anyone in to easily get a gloss of quasi-knowledge on the subject.

This was of course not directed at any poster on this fine forum.

[myurr]

I have this theory why "aero" is such a popular subject for the pub-analyst, with catchy xpressions like vortex, delaminanation, stalling and what not, it becomes uncertain enough for anyone in to easily get a gloss of quasi-knowledge on the subject.

This was of course not directed at any poster on this fine forum.

And yet you cling to a funny feeling about a front suspension that just doesn't look right to you...

[xpensive]

I have this theory why "aero" is such a popular subject for the pub-analyst, with catchy xpressions like vortex, delaminanation, stalling and what not, it becomes uncertain enough for anyone in to easily get a gloss of quasi-knowledge on the subject.

This was of course not directed at any poster on this fine forum.

And yet you cling to a funny feeling about a front suspension that just doesn't look right to you...

Au contraire, I have tried to xplain my aversions in an engineerish fashion several times, but very few seems to bother?

[myurr]

I have this theory why "aero" is such a popular subject for the pub-analyst, with catchy xpressions like vortex, delaminanation, stalling and what not, it becomes uncertain enough for anyone in to easily get a gloss of quasi-knowledge on the subject.

This was of course not directed at any poster on this fine forum.

And yet you cling to a funny feeling about a front suspension that just doesn't look right to you...

Au contraire, I have tried to xplain my aversions in an engineerish fashion several times, but very few seems to bother?

Completely apologise if I've missed an insightful post, I don't get to read the board constantly so it often happens.

But I've not yet seen any evidence based explanation of something being wrong with the front suspension. I've seen some theories, some vague explanations about angles that were later shown to be false, but nothing that says "you see that behaviour in the car, that's down to the front suspension because of this...'.

If the front suspension is such an issue what do you think we should be looking out for in the performance of the car to prove your point? Understeer, front tyre warmup issues or overheating, excessive stiffness at the front, excessive pitching under braking? What exactly is it that you're seeing in the car that proves to you that it's the front suspension that cannot be explained by other effects or factors?

[Mazdaboy]

Watch the apex speed in turn 5 and 6! Alonso used shorter gears and more downforce...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkMmlvBQEPw[/youtube]

[Postmoe]

Seems to me that the mechanical consistency showed by the F2012, even Massa's (he did not got a Silverstone, didn't he?) was very interesting in terms of car analysing.

The mechanical area of this car seems fine, following the trend of the last three seasons. The mechanical handling issues Ferrari had earlier in the season look to being receeding. Alonso is such a phenomenon that he can win 3 of 5 races like yesterday's, but he will struggle if the car is not consistent, as we've also seen so many times.

An undrivable car is always undrivable. I think it's one of the big eternal laws of cosmos with relativity and other major discoveries.

The last part of the race, with Alonso being comparatively slower than Pérez, is more about drying conditions and tyre compounds than aero or mechanical. Aero is compromised by set up and cornering/traction by tyre temperature fitness. In which sectors Pérez was cutting harder the gap? I bet it was where options were having lack of temperature. I don't remember the race, but the same problem occured with softer compounds experiencing difficulties with drying conditions in 2011 or 2010.

The car seems to have clearly a problem with traction in very specific turns and conditions (slow ones, simplifying it) and a certain lack of DF equilibrium (that don't fits perfectly with CoD) that forces the team to regain it with drag-related solutions.

In other words, they need to put their diffuser to work.

[f1316]

It seems logical to me that since the acer ducts are extending out further than other teams' as part of Ferrari's exhaust solution, if this is not working they are doubly hit - i.e. not only do they not have an effective exhaust solution, but the car's aero is also negatively impacted.

Therefore, if this is in some way rectified - whether by cutting the ducts shorter and adopting, for example, a Sauber type solution, or by making the initial solution work to the extent it was supposed to (and they must have seen a big benefit from it, as they would surely have been aware of the aero/drag downside) - they can solve their two big problems in one fell swoop.