Ferrari F2012

[bhall]

What are the gains, though? What are the benefits that offset the change in dynamics, i.e., CoG, wheelbase, suspension geometry, power application, aerodynamic efficiency, etc?

Tilting the engine/transmission is an adjustment of many fundamental parameters of a car's design. So, why do it mid-season?

[alogoc]

What are the gains, though? What are the benefits that offset the change in dynamics, i.e., CoG, wheelbase, suspension geometry, power application, aerodynamic efficiency, etc?

Tilting the engine/transmission is an adjustment of many fundamental parameters of a car's design. So, why do it mid-season?

and what else!? remeber Tom.& Fry said that whit current rules is getting harder and harder to develop?
i think it's the right thing to risk it otherwise they will loose the development game!

[superdread]

What are the gains, though? What are the benefits that offset the change in dynamics, i.e., CoG, wheelbase, suspension geometry, power application, aerodynamic efficiency, etc?

Tilting the engine/transmission is an adjustment of many fundamental parameters of a car's design. So, why do it mid-season?

Well it could allow a higher diffuser middle section, unless that would be forbidden by the rules or could be achieved more easily by setting the gearbox higher. This also applies to improving the flow over the middle of the diffuser (which RB does with one of their tunnels, but that does only pay off because they blow the starter hole, for everyone else flow over the sides of the diffuser should be more important).

and what else!? remeber Tom.& Fry said that whit current rules is getting harder and harder to develop?
i think it's the right thing to risk it otherwise they will loose the development game!

Just because it's complicated doesn't mean that it will pay off.

[bhall]

That is, in fact, forbidden by the rules.

EDIT:

and what else!? remeber Tom.& Fry said that whit current rules is getting harder and harder to develop?
i think it's the right thing to risk it otherwise they will loose the development game!

Just because it's complicated doesn't mean that it will pay off.

I'd go so far as to say that complexity makes such changes less likely to pay off, because you're throwing all relevant data completely out the window and starting from scratch.

Don't get me wrong. That's not to say it can't work. I'm just struggling to find a benefit in this case.

[superdread]

That is, in fact, forbidden by the rules.

I know, that was irony. Everything about the diffusers is tightly regulated, that's why they look so stupid (but so did the comically large ones of the past) and why the teams go to so much lengths to extend their effective diameter (aerofoil guerny flaps, exhaust plume skirting...).

[.poz]

What are the gains, though? What are the benefits that offset the change in dynamics, i.e., CoG, wheelbase, suspension geometry, power application, aerodynamic efficiency, etc?

Tilting the engine/transmission is an adjustment of many fundamental parameters of a car's design. So, why do it mid-season?

I was asking to myself the same things, why do it with a car that is working well ?
if the rumor is true, my hypothesis are:

they want to improve rear suspension for better traction and less tryres wear
they want more space in the zone above the diffuser may be to accommodate a solution similar to RB tunnel/blowing diffuser

[superdread]

I was asking to myself the same things, why do it with a car that is working well ?
if the rumor is true, my hypothesis are:

they want to improve rear suspension for better traction and less tryres wear
they want more space in the zone above the diffuser may be to accommodate a solution similar to RB tunnel/blowing diffuser

Suspension wouldn't be served by this, the higher cog would make stronger anti-roll bars necessary, actually reducing tire life. Granted they would get more space under the gearbox (where the rockers, dampers... are) but so far they seem to have no problem with getting these components small enough.

The zone directly above the end of diffuser isn't occupied by the gearbox but by the rear crash structure, that they could simply redesign (a higher one would upset the middle of the beam wing).

I see no advantage that could not be achieved by changing the crash structure or the gearbox (things they would have to change anyway if they tilt the engine).

[hardingfv32]

If they do change the tilt will we ever know? How are we to measure it?

Brian

[bhall]

Does this look like a development or is it just a "thing," for lack of a better term?


Here's a wing from Valencia for comparison (a more recent image would be appreciated).

[superdread]

Does this look like a development or is it just a "thing," for lack of a better term?

The length of the middle section and its mounting seems to be the same. Maybe the "thing" is just a change in weave for strengthening the short section where the wing is mounted to the pylons?

[bhall]

I'm wondering if it's a DDRS-type vent to stall the inherent lift created by the neutral center section. That would allow the removal of the camera housings, which currently fit that bill, to another area and allow for more air flow under the nose and to the back and all that jazz.

[Holm86]

Ferrari did tilt the engine in 2010 (i believe it was 2010) back when we had double diffusers. This allowed for a raised floor on the diffuser. I believe it was tilted about 5°.

[superdread]

I'm wondering if it's a DDRS-type vent to stall the inherent lift created by the neutral center section. That would allow the removal of the camera housings, which currently fit that bill, to another area and allow for more air flow under the nose and to the back and all that jazz.

I think it would be quite hard to detach the flow from a neutral aerofoil, but it's a possiblity (legality could be an issue here as well).

[Owen.C93]

I'm wondering if it's a DDRS-type vent to stall the inherent lift created by the neutral center section. That would allow the removal of the camera housings, which currently fit that bill, to another area and allow for more air flow under the nose and to the back and all that jazz.

I think it would be quite hard to detach the flow from a neutral aerofoil, but it's a possiblity (legality could be an issue here as well).

And it seems it would be pointless considering it has to be aero neutral.

[bhall]

And it seems it would be pointless considering it has to be aero neutral.

Aero-neutrality is only the intent of the regulation, which actually demands:

Forward of a point lying 450mm ahead of the front wheel centre line and less than 250mm from the car centre line and less than 125mm above the reference plane, only one single section may be contained within any longitudinal vertical cross section parallel to the car centre line. Furthermore, with the exception of local changes of section where the bodywork defined in Article 3.7.2 attaches to this section, the profile, incidence and position of this section must conform to drawing 7.

That said, it remains to be seen if there's even anything advantageous about a vent on the underside of the center section. I can't make my brain wrap around that concept combined with the Venturi effect of the wing pylons.