http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/toro- ... 11-665784/wuzak wrote:I think the final tokens used by Ferrari this season, but not raced, rearranged the position of the MGUK, which shoudl allow the narrower rear end.
Yeah they'll have the Austin-spec.Sevach wrote:http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/toro- ... 11-665784/wuzak wrote:I think the final tokens used by Ferrari this season, but not raced, rearranged the position of the MGUK, which shoudl allow the narrower rear end.
This article suggests otherwise, the car will need a longer wheelbase due to the awkward MGU-K positioning at the back of the engine.
We have to wait and see how much harm this will do the chassis.
On other news, the team is getting the Red Bull simulator(RBR gets a new one).
Blackout wrote:No good news if you ask Sauber which uses the same Ferrari PU. According to them, many cars suffer chronic understeer because they're too long for the circuits they use and hey can't move the rear wheels where they want in order to shorten the wheelbase, wihout messing up the whishbones, because of the PU dimensions/the gearbox length and position...
It didn't seem to hurt Ferrari?Blackout wrote:No good news if you ask Sauber which uses the same Ferrari PU. According to them, many cars suffer chronic understeer because they're too long for the circuits they use and hey can't move the rear wheels where they want in order to shorten the wheelbase, wihout messing up the whishbones, because of the PU dimensions/the gearbox length and position...
Seems Toro Rosso also impressed rival teams. Should be fun to watch.Looking ahead to its prospects for 2016, Force India COO Otmar Szafnauer told Motorsport.com: "Toro Rosso with a new power train and their two good drivers with twice the experience, they are going to be good.
I agree, especially early in the season. We just might see a podium in the first few races as teams start to sort their packages out.ME4ME wrote:From motorsport.comSeems Toro Rosso also impressed rival teams. Should be fun to watch.Looking ahead to its prospects for 2016, Force India COO Otmar Szafnauer told Motorsport.com: "Toro Rosso with a new power train and their two good drivers with twice the experience, they are going to be good.
It did hurt Ferrari, so much that they are changing this design.dren wrote: It didn't seem to hurt Ferrari?
Hurt, hurt.. I would rather say that it was they best solution for them up until that moment.Sevach wrote:It did hurt Ferrari, so much that they are changing this design.dren wrote: It didn't seem to hurt Ferrari?
Ferrari are changing the design according to most news sources to enable them to run a slimmer engine cover which provides more air to charge the diffuser with little or no drag penalty(free downforce)....wheelbase was never mentioned as an issue but who knowsSevach wrote:It did hurt Ferrari, so much that they are changing this design.dren wrote: It didn't seem to hurt Ferrari?
It hurt Ferrari so much that they must have accidentally won those three races. The under steer must have been so awful in that dominant tight circuit victory.Sevach wrote:It did hurt Ferrari, so much that they are changing this design.dren wrote: It didn't seem to hurt Ferrari?
How do you know that didnt hurt Ferrari? What if in a parralel universe, the Ferrari had a shorter wheelbase due to a shorter rear end? maybe that car is a bit faster than the actual F2015 mrgreen:dren wrote:It hurt Ferrari so much that they must have accidentally won those three races. The under steer must have been so awful in that dominant tight circuit victory.Sevach wrote:It did hurt Ferrari, so much that they are changing this design.dren wrote: It didn't seem to hurt Ferrari?
Everything points to Ferrari moving the MGUK for more space under the transmission and rear crash structure for aero gains, similar to other teams; like Mercedes.
The Sauber car just looked like a handful. I would not attribute that to the Ferrari PU. I'd take a wild guess and say the chassis wasn't the best. The Ferrari cars looked quite stable.
The fact is that the car understeers, too. I think you will find it is common to the paddock; these cars are just too long for the tracks we use.
One of the frustrations we have is the understeer and there is not much we can do about that,’ Dall’Ara says. ‘It’s the wheelbase you want to change but ultimately that is constrained by the amount of stuff we have to put in the car, so you can only be so short. So that is annoying as an engineer, but you just can’t do it. You’d like to do your own thing but
we are not in the position to do that. I’m glad we can have the current specification parts from Ferrari, they are very good parts, so that’s good and we try to do the best we can. The only constraint really is the inboard suspension pick up point but, if we want a shorter wheelbase we move the wheels where we want and you end up with the suspension sweeping forward and you can’t really do it.
Toro Rosso make their own gearboxes. Have since they were Minardi.FW17 wrote:May be Toro rosso may have already committed to a narrow fuel tank which would have made it a long.
So if the Ferrari gearbox is longer than the RedBull Gear box then it would be making a longer wheelbase than what anticipated. Great for aero and high speed cornering stability but understeer into slower tight corners.
