Ferrari F2012

[Lycoming]

If they neglected the increased loading in the upper wishbone from the pullrod suspension, the front wheels would have ripped off by now.

Besides they've designed pullrods before on the back of their car. I think they knew what they were doing as evidenced by the ridiculously fat upper arm.

[munudeges]

This article on the BBC from Gary Anderson--> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/17506004

It could be me, but I'm not finding the words 'de-wedging' or 'tire footprints' in there. Nevertheless, it is a bit confusing and not the best prose. One wonders how he got his message across at Jordan........

I don't think the increased loads here can be underestimated nor the variables they could introduce. What he seems to be saying in a roundabout way is that the loads the suspension are sustaining are causing unexpected lateral movement, especially when the car goes over any bumps.

The point being that it cannot be assumed that Ferrari's problems can be solved simply by adding downforce - which it is probably lacking as well. Whatever they might say I still bet we will see a new chassis at Barcelona and a new, known, front suspension layout. It's really the only way Ferrari can move forwards from a known point.

[myurr]

The point being that it cannot be assumed that Ferrari's problems can be solved simply by adding downforce - which it is probably lacking as well. Whatever they might say I still bet we will see a new chassis at Barcelona and a new, known, front suspension layout. It's really the only way Ferrari can move forwards from a known point.

Okay, we have a testable prediction. I agree that we cannot assume anything but don't think we've seen any evidence of a problem with the front suspension. So I predict that come the Barcelona upgrade of the car they will have focussed on the exhaust solution, reprofiled the side pods, and updated the rear of the car but left the front suspension intact.

Let's see who is right

[Jersey Tom]

Gary Anderson in BBC:

"It backs up my theory that there is a problem with the front end of the Ferrari, that it cannot cope with lateral forces in corners because the front-tyre contact patch is moving around."

Not that I hold much admiration for the man, but I think he's basically saying the same thing as I tried to convey a few pages back, that the F2012 pull-rod geometry induces xcessive loads on all of the suspension's components, wishbones, joints and rockers alike, something which causes load-dependent deflections and as a result camber changes.

That at least is a plausible scenario, that a different geometry can introduce higher compliance. That would be the proper way of describing it, rather than talking about footprint movement which is a bit of a stretch. All that said, at first guess I wouldn't suspect the force magnitudes and compliances to be that different, just proportioned in some different directions. There's still plenty of angle between the control arms and pull rod to allow for an appropriate resolution of tire forces. Doesn't matter if the pull rod is horizontal to the ground, only its angular relation to the other members.

It could be me, but I'm not finding the words 'de-wedging' or 'tire footprints' in there.

Different nomenclature. Footprint = contact patch. I hate the latter phrase. Carry over from my previous employment.

De-wedging is, sadly, terminology I've picked up from working in NASCAR. At some point in there is the talk of using different amount of road wheel steer to jack loads around and affect balance - a change in cross weight (or "wedge") with steer angle. Ordinarily this is attributable to caster and getting camber change with steer which then results in different loading. Ordinarily also you have a push/pull rod connected to one of the control arms rather than the upright itself. I suppose if you connected the link right to the upright you could do something with it, but I don't see any relevance of push vs pull rod on a fundamental level.

[donskar]

...
If their engineers know what they are doing, (and I'm going to assume that at least on that level they do) they could easily have compensated for it in the design of the wishbones. You can end up with the same stiffness and the same deflection measured at the uprights, at the expense of slightly heavier upper wishbones.
...

You'd be surprised, even engineers makes mistakes at times, in particular those working on a new mousetrap.

Brother X, methinks thou art pissing up a drainpipe

[xpensive]

...
If their engineers know what they are doing, (and I'm going to assume that at least on that level they do) they could easily have compensated for it in the design of the wishbones. You can end up with the same stiffness and the same deflection measured at the uprights, at the expense of slightly heavier upper wishbones.
...

You'd be surprised, even engineers makes mistakes at times, in particular those working on a new mousetrap.

Brother X, methinks thou art pissing up a drainpipe

Selling Toyotas, was it Don?

...
I don't think the increased loads here can be underestimated nor the variables they could introduce. What he seems to be saying in a roundabout way is that the loads the suspension are sustaining are causing unexpected lateral movement, especially when the car goes over any bumps.

First of all, I'm afraid that the danger of being misquoted on a web-site like BBC.uk.com/sport is rather present. Anderson might also refer to the steep wishbone angle will obviously increase the track-width with suspension movement, hence "contact-patch moving around", but that would of course be the same with a push-rod, even if the F2012 wishbones are indeed steep.

[bhall]

[...] we pretty much agree that they have problems with pitch sensitivity... Australia showed how unstable the car was.

Could the car's pitch sensitivity also be a result of a compromised setup?

The car's rake went from this...


...to this at about the same time reports emerged regarding its ineffective exhaust.


It seems they lowered the rear end to make the diffuser work, because it wasn't getting the benefit of the exhaust as intended. Does it hold that such a change could be the culprit behind the F2012's handling woes?

If the car's high speed performance is as advertised, the diffuser must be working. But, it's only working without the exhaust, because it's lower to the ground. That means ostensibly that the rear suspension is likely stiffer so the car won't bottom out. If the car wasn't designed for such a setting, it makes sense - to me at least - that the car would then struggle with problems like instability, reduced low-speed traction, excessive tire wear and high pitch sensitivity, and that each would become more pronounced as the damping effect of the fuel is lessened during the race.

Does this make sense, or is my logic off?

Basically, I guess I'm just wondering if the F2012's problems are all related, in one way or another, to the bad original exhaust layout.

[timbo]

I find strange that exhaust configuration had such an effect on diffuser efficiency.
The original config focused on brake-duct blowing for all we know, and I had impression that the problems connected to it were mostly material behavior due to overheating (note additional layers of bodywork on the rear wing).

[myurr]

@bhallg2k - to the best of our knowledge on this board then yes that is a possibility. The car has definitely been running with less rake and, to the naked eye at least, without the other major aerodynamic surfaces being updated to accommodate this. This could explain the rumours of pitch sensitivity as well if the components are all running closer to the edge of their operating window due to the reduced angle of attack.

[bhall]

I find strange that exhaust configuration had such an effect on diffuser efficiency.
The original config focused on brake-duct blowing for all we know, and I had impression that the problems connected to it were mostly material behavior due to overheating (note additional layers of bodywork on the rear wing).

I think McLaren, Red Bull and Sauber are each demonstrating the concept of using the air flow over the car to push the exhaust plume down and to the diffuser. Where Ferrari has gone wrong - obviously a guess on my part - is that the rounded Acer ducts allow too much air flow to spill over the sides before it can interact with the exhaust, which significantly hampers the ability to use it effectively.

I base this assumption in part because McLaren's solution - said to be very effective - uses its exhaust housings almost like tables to prevent such spillage.

[...] running with less rake and, to the naked eye at least, without the other major aerodynamic surfaces being updated to accommodate this. This could explain the rumours of pitch sensitivity as well if the components are all running closer to the edge of their operating window due to the reduced angle of attack.

Is the aerodynamic impact really that big? I tend to think lowered rake would cause setup problems more than anything else.

[f1316]

I don't tend to subscribe to this opinion, but check out the article in AutoSprint:

http://www.auto.it/autosprint/formula_1 ... l+pull+rod

Translate it with Bing if necessary

[Goran2812]

i believe when they sort the sidepods and get the exhaust flow going as it should all will be in the right place...
the car will be able to have more rake, making it more flexible to various setup options, it won't be so stiff and it will perform as it should have in the first place...

[Crucial_Xtreme]

I don't tend to subscribe to this opinion, but check out the article in AutoSprint:

http://www.auto.it/autosprint/formula_1 ... l+pull+rod

Translate it with Bing if necessary

There is an article about it on page 9 of this weeks edition. When the iPad version is released I will post the translated version of what is said here.

[bhall]

I don't tend to subscribe to this opinion, but check out the article in AutoSprint:

http://www.auto.it/autosprint/formula_1 ... l+pull+rod

Translate it with Bing if necessary

It would not surprise me at all to discover that the writer is simply repeating what he's read in this very thread.

[elFranZ]

I don't tend to subscribe to this opinion, but check out the article in AutoSprint:

http://www.auto.it/autosprint/formula_1 ... l+pull+rod

Translate it with Bing if necessary

Hi everyone, first post ever on f1technical!
A little presentation: I'm Francesco, a telecom engineer living in Italy, and obviously I'm a real Tifoso (avatar coming soon will explain better ). I've been around your forum for about 2 years, and I felt it was time to tell something by myself.

First of all, I'd like to say something about AutoSprint: believe me, this year something appened between them and Ferrari's PR. Every single article about Ferrari is full of hanger. In that (stupid, technically speaking) article, director is trying to say that last Sunday we saw "for the first time" that all F2012's problems are in the front suspension (AHAH! sorry, can't stop...)
To me sounds a little stupid, because I've been told since I was a child that if you have the fastest car on wet conditions, mechanical grip is right in place and working well, very well. SO, I really can't see a problem with pull rod, but that is just my opinion.

Scuderia needs a reaction ASAP. And the first two races told me that sidepods and exhaust layout have to be changed, probably with part of the cooling system.
If a problem exists on the front suspension, it could be just one: too much air flowing through suspension's arms. The flow then bounces on sidepods, not the way they wanted. It drags the car back. And you get the slowest Ferrari EVER on straights.

If they find the way to put the back of the car well down, WDC is still possible, given the fact that Alonso is proving himself far superior than the car itself.
WCC is already gone to me.

p.s. if someone needs translations from Italian, here I am