Ferrari F2012

[shelly]

Agree with raymond. sponton just rewrites info already available, form autosprint or other forums.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Agree with raymond. sponton just rewrites info already available, form autosprint or other forums.

Yes just like when you posted the Radiator thread on 3-20 and mentioned the Ferrari radiators, he talked about them in a blog post the very same day... Before your thread, the Ferrari radiators were never mentioned as being a problem for Ferrari. He only uses information he see's elsewhere.

[raymondu999]

This is not a knock on csponton - but he's basically a Ferrari F1 technical news aggregator for Italian fans. Not much else.

[Froggolo]

This is not a knock on csponton - but he's basically a Ferrari F1 technical news aggregator for Italian fans. Not much else.

absolutely right

he is just making patchworks of whatever news he finds around

[shelly]

Agree with raymond. sponton just rewrites info already available, form autosprint or other forums.

Yes just like when you posted the Radiator thread on 3-20 and mentioned the Ferrari radiators, he talked about them in a blog post the very same day... Before your thread, the Ferrari radiators were never mentioned as being a problem for Ferrari. He only uses information he see's elsewhere.

ferrari radiator angle as possible cause of a problem were first mentioned by omnicorse.it, where it was fathomed having a bad influence on drag. I myself took the hint from that and made a comparison to the very unusual mclaren arrangement, but my point was about aero balance and not drag.

I think sometimes omnicorse and autosprint get some hint form insiders, but develop them the wrong way, like Piola sometimes has done (see recently the picture he posted about rear wing slots on redbull: there were no slot as depicted in his article, but he got the buzz in the paddock)

[Crucial_Xtreme]

ferrari radiator angle as possible cause of a problem were first mentioned by omnicorse.it, where it was fathomed having a bad influence on drag. I myself took the hint from that and made a comparison to the very unusual mclaren arrangement, but my point was about aero balance and not drag.

I think sometimes omnicorse and autosprint get some hint form insiders, but develop them the wrong way, like Piola sometimes has done (see recently the picture he posted about rear wing slots on redbull: there were no slot as depicted in his article, but he got the buzz in the paddock)

Yeah I forgot about This article, but I think it's mostly speculation. I also am not so sure the radiators are causing the problem of drag. For instance Sauber has the same radiators and I don't believe it's by coincidence that both teams have vertical rads. They have no problems with drag like we do, and their radiator cooling has a longer distance to go to exit. But that's just my opinion.
I have no problem with csponton's blog, but it's hardly his own information he posts, I was just trying to be clear on that in my earlier post.

[bhall]

When did Ferrari develop drag problems? For that matter, when did Ferrari develop chassis stiffness issues?

With regard to performance matters, Ferrari's zero-to-crisis times are astonishingly fast.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

When did Ferrari develop drag problems? For that matter, when did Ferrari develop chassis stiffness issues?

With regard to performance matters, Ferrari's zero-to-crisis times are astonishingly fast.

We spoke about the chassis yesterday. And with the technical report on the Official F1 site about the stiffening bar(rear I know) some sites are running with it. As far as drag, most are relating it to the low top speed of the car. And I think there's some merit to it. Of course being slower out of a corner is going to hurt top end speed, but it seems there may be some drag problems. I think it's attributed mostly to cranking up the FW for increased downforce considering the car lacks DF in a pretty bad way.

Edit: as Shelly mentioned OmniCorse & Shelly posted about drag on March 20th

[elFranZ]

I remember seeing here a clear photo of the right sidepod, the lower part completely free of aerovis paint. To me the problem sits there, but I'm just speculating.
My idea is strenghtened by Sauber: they have the same radiator layout, but completely different inlets, much more curved (and aero-friendly I believe).
In particular, I noticed the angle between nose and sidepods: on C31 it's much wider.

[bhall]

When I ask about the issues at Ferrari of late, I guess, more than anything, I'm just befuddled at how something can be a non-issue one day and then "the end of the world" the next.

I still have no idea where/how chassis rigidity became a problem. Yet, it was reported to have existed and then been fixed. To me, that just smacks of someone inventing something for the sake of having a story to tell. After all, what's the net change?

As far as drag goes, I don't see anything in the following speed trap figures that seem to indicate that the F2012 is especially draggy. Look closely at the Malaysian numbers. The F2012, likely on a full-wet setup, was about 5 MPH slower than the Mercedes W03, a car now infamous for its ability to shed drag at will during qualifying.

Australia qualifying speed trap

Code: Select all

1 	Sergio Perez         316.7
2 	Lewis Hamilton       314.0
3 	Michael Schumacher   313.4
4 	Nico Rosberg         313.2
5 	Kamui Kobayashi      312.5
6 	Jenson Button        310.7
7 	Romain Grosjean      310.2
8 	Kimi Räikkönen       310.2
9 	Jean-Eric Vergne     309.2
10 	Daniel Ricciardo     308.6
11 	Pastor Maldonado     308.1
12 	Paul di Resta        308.1
13 	Bruno Senna          308.0
14    Nico Hulkenberg      308.0
15 	Vitaly Petrov        307.3
16 	Heikki Kovalainen    307.1
17 	Felipe Massa         305.5
18 	Fernando Alonso      305.0
19 	Sebastian Vettel     303.7
20 	Mark Webber          302.6
21 	Narain Karthikeyan   302.4
22 	Charles Pic          301.0
23 	Timo Glock           300.7
24 	Pedro de la Rosa     297.7

Malaysia qualifying speed trap

Code: Select all

1 	Michael Schumacher      312.7
2 	Romain Grosjean         310.8
3 	Nico Rosberg            309.9
4 	Kimi Räikkönen          309.8
5 	Daniel Ricciardo        309.8
6 	Nico Hulkenberg         309.4
7 	Lewis Hamilton          309.1
8 	Jenson Button           308.9
9 	Paul di Resta           308.7
10    Heikki Kovalainen       308.3
11    Jean-Eric Vergne        308.1
12    Vitaly Petrov           307.6
13    Kamui Kobayashi         306.8
14 	Pastor Maldonado        305.1
15 	Bruno Senna             305.0
16 	Sergio Perez            304.0
17 	Fernando Alonso         302.6
18 	Felipe Massa            302.0
19 	Narain Karthikeyan      301.2
20 	Pedro de la Rosa        300.0
21 	Mark Webber             299.0
22 	Sebastian Vettel        298.7
23 	Charles Pic             296.6
24 	Timo Glock              296.6

I think the issues for the F2012 are what they've always been: ineffective exhaust and the spider web of issues that creates. It's an issue so substantial that it blows my mind to see it cast aside by the "media" in favor of a chase for what I think are more superfluous problems. Are they just making stuff up because the public at-large doesn't understand exhaust issues?

And if that's the case, why is no one talking about the very, very, very real possibility that the F2012 sidepods are creating lift? Look at the undercuts underneath the inlets. That's a veritable garden for low pressure, otherwise known as lift. Certainly we can all understand that.

[Lycoming]

most sidepod designs inherently produce some lift... Mclaren's design with the steep slope down will do so by momentum transfer from the coanda effect. It's about feeding better airflow to the diffuser and gaining downforce overall.

[bhall]

Indeed, but it's also possible for that lift to negate the gains made elsewhere, and this wouldn't be the first time that the F2012 somehow displayed an unintended characteristic.

[alogoc]

why in the hell is Ferrari taking so long to copy Sauber exhaust solution,and how did Redbull menage to do it by preseason test3

[HIEQS]

Guys, this article came from autosport forum. Could this be true. My analysis of this article conclude that there might be some truth in it. Ferrari might have gone all out based everything on a clever suspension system that would have adjusted the ride height of the car at any given time for optimum aero. The high rake of the car at the first few tests suggests that the car aero was calculated to work at an angle of incidence to the airflow. The exhaust maybe works but not all the time i.e why f2012 has window within which it performs really well on certain part of the circuit and then since angle keep on changing all the time round corner without it being readjusted by the suspension, therefore the car aero is unbalanced and makes the car's performance inconsistent.

The long twitter above by @Paliyoes and retwitted by joseluis gives a fantastic explanation... fantastic in the sense that it offers an explanation for almost everything, it saves face for Ferrari and it may not have a lot to do with reality... Read it, it won't take you long..

OK, I'll make a rough translation with the help of Bing.

The real problem with the F2012, a problem Ferrari cannot openly admit, is the ban of reactive suspensions (Lotus style). Ferrari's were even more radical than the Lotus, as they inter-connected also the front and the rear wheels and the left and right sides. This explains why the car behaves well with heavy loads and why it ceases to be effective under light loads; such a system would allow to maintain a stable height, and even more important, would improve the balance under braking, in pure traction exits and in slow curves. As Ferrari was not allowed to put it on the car, the rest of the car suffers, as everything was designed for that device.

The starting point of the exhaust system, pointing towards the wings of the rear brakes (that never had been so complex in a Ferrari car) would work with that device, but when the system was stripped from the car, all the original exhaust system did was to increase the instability that the device would have prevented. When it is said that there is a team in Maranello that is working on the initial exhaust solution, I think that what they are trying to do is develop such suspension device, but in a way that the FIA may not ban; meanwhile there is another team that is working on a new location for the exahusts (as the McLaren one, etc), and for that alternative location, it will be necessary to modify the sidepods and the engine cap, removing the "Acer Duct". If the first team is successful, the car will be a blast; if it is not, and the second alternative is used, the car may only be abreast of rivals, but not above them.

The ban of reactive suspensions by the FIA has resulted in a bigger loss for Ferrari than for Renault or for any of the other teams in the championship. This explanation is twofold; on the one hand that of Ferrari went beyond, as it interconnected the front and the rear wheels and the left and right sides, while the Lotus Renault solution was limited to prevent the pitch (or change in pitch) under braking and acceleration.

On the other hand the Ferrari is much more "pitch sensitive" than the Renault or any rivals who had plans to use such devices, because of its wide and very fine nose, that does not have an overhung, almost like a horizontal spoiler, different to any other nose used by the teams on the Championship, which are narrower, thicker and extending ahead of the pillars. The Ferrari is thereby subject to pressures from the nose, as when you get your hand out of the window of a car and put it horizontally: a little tilting is all it takes to displace it. When the Ferrari slows down, the nose tends to fall, and that gives more downforce in the front, but at the same time, it removes downforce from the rear and it, therefore, makes the car less stable under braking than the engineers had hoped when they designed it with the reactive suspension that initially the FIA did not declare illegal (which was why it was initially developed by several teams); later, coming out from a slow curve, the nose rises and reduces the downforce in the front, increasing it in the rear; that should be good for traction, but the traction lost at the front means that the improved traction may not be fully used, as the car would oversteer, forcing drivers to get out of slow corners with more restraint than necessary.

The woes of Ferrari begun due to the absence of a device designed to improve the balance, and due to the flawed aerodynamics of the car, that were planned for being used with that device.

But make no mistake, they will solve it

[amouzouris]

hmmm...i believe that the FIA, Mr. Whiting and Mr. Ecclestone know what is good for the sport...and a Ferrari fighting in the midfield is not good for the sport...so if Ferrari said that it would help them win a championship or be more competitive i don't think they would have banned it...

just saying....